A Standard European Tank? Procurement Politics, Technology Transfer and the Challenges of Collaborative MBT Projects in the NATO Alliance since 1945 Mike Cubbin School of Arts and Media Salford University Submitted to the University of Salford in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 Abstract International cooperation in weapons technology projects has long been a feature of alliance politics; and, there are many advantages to both international technology transfer and standardisation within military alliances. International collaboration between national defence industries has produced successful weapon systems from technologically advanced fighter aircraft to anti-tank missiles. Given the success of many joint defence projects, one unresolved question is why there have been no successful collaborative international main battle tank (MBT) projects since 1945. This thesis seeks to answer this question by considering four case studies of failed attempts to produce an MBT through an international collaborative tank project: first and second, the Franco-German efforts to produce a standard European tank, or Euro-Panzer (represented by two separate projects in 1957-63 and 1977- 83); third, the US-German MBT-70 project (1963-70); and, fourth, the Anglo-German Future Main Battle Tank, or KPz3 (1971-77). In order to provide an explanation of the causes of failure on four separate occasions, the analysis includes reference to other high-technology civilian and military joint projects which either succeeded, or which cannot be classified as international MBT collaborative projects (such as the KNDS demonstration tank and the MBT-2000 developed by China and Pakistan). In addition to identifying the multiple causes of failure and providing an analysis of the most significant factor(s) in each case, it will be argued that the pattern which emerged during the Cold War does not necessarily provide an ‘absolute principle’ for future collaborative MBT projects: financial and other pressures may yet create conditions conducive to the completion of a successful collaborative MBT high- technology project. Future projects ought, however, to take note of the lessons from previous experience. i CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................. v Assumptions and Definition of Terms ...................................................vii Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1: Technology, Main Battle Tanks and Collaboration: Concepts and Theories ........................................................................ 32 Chapter 2: The Search for a ‘NATO Tank’: The FINABEL ‘NATO Standard Tank’ (1957-1963) and ‘Tank 90’ (1977-1983) ....... 88 Chapter 3: ‘How Not to Design a Tank’: The US-German MBT- 70 (1963-1970) ................................................................................. 136 Chapter 4: Unconventional Solutions: The Anglo-German Future Main Battle Tank, FMBT/KPz3 (1971-1977) .................................... 192 Chapter 5: Placing MBT Collaboration in Context: Other Defence and Technology Projects since 1945 .................................................. 249 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 299 Appendices ........................................................................................ 332 Appendix 1: Tank Ammunition ...................................................................... 333 Appendix 2: Armour ...................................................................................... 335 Appendix 3: MBT-70 Project Hierarchy ......................................................... 337 Appendix 4: FMBT Anglo-German Steering Committee ................................ 338 Appendix 5: FMBT Design Concepts for 1975 Assessment ........................... 339 Appendix 6: Major MBTs used by UK, USA, FRG and France, 1950-1990 ..... 340 Appendix 6: Britain’s Future Options for a New MBT in 1980 ....................... 342 Appendix 7: NATO European Members Defence Organisations .................... 344 Bibliography ...................................................................................... 345 ii Acknowledgements The idea for this study came about after examining the newly donated Ogorkiewicz Papers at the Tank Museum archives and library, Bovington, and reading about the abortive MBT-70 collaboration between the USA and the FRG. It became apparent that no in-depth study had been made into international collaboration in MBT development, and Professor Alaric Searle encouraged me to tackle this subject. It has been his advice, encouragement and badgering, alongside that of my co-supervisor, Dr. Brian Hall, that have ensured that this thesis emerged without the errors and oversights that it originally contained. I could not have begun delving into the subject of armour development without the outstanding help of Stuart Wheeler and the rest of the archive staff at the Tank Museum, Bovington, where I spent many enjoyable weeks. It was also Stuart who arranged an interview with Professor Richard Ogorkiewicz, whose papers originally sparked the whole study, and whose unparalleled knowledge and experience in the field of tank development gave my future research direction and structure. The National Archives at Kew and the Bundesarchiv -Militärarchiv in Freiburg im Breisgau provided the bulk of the remaining archival material, and the efficiency of the staff there ensured that my days in those archives were as productive as they could have been. None of the research would have been possible without the generous help of The Lady Monica Cockfield Memorial Trust, whose sponsorship made it financially possible for me to undertake a full-time doctoral degree in the first place. I hope that the Trust’s aim to further educational opportunities for those who would otherwise miss out, particularly in the field of European studies, has been met to their satisfaction. It most certainly has in my opinion and the completion of this thesis stands testament to the Trust’s impact and success. iii Finally, I must acknowledge the support that my family have given to me over the years of this PhD study and the preceding years of University education as a mature student. The support and pride expressed by both of my parents has encouraged me to keep going through some dark times. My brothers, in their own ways as only brothers can, have also made it clear that they are proud of my achievements. I also like to believe that my sons, although being teenagers they would never dream of saying so, are proud of their old dad. That my eldest son wants to be a military historian suggests that at least a little of my enthusiasm for the subject has rubbed off on him. My younger son wants a more technical job so will likely end up in a career that can support the poverty-stricken historians of the family. Most importantly, my wife, Janet, has stood by me through the high and low times, supporting me financially, emotionally and practically through illness, injury and those times when I felt like giving up. Without her, I doubt that I would have returned to university and begun this academic journey later in life than most. I hope that she appreciates just how much her love and support have contributed to this study. iv COMMON ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABCT Armoured Brigade Combat Team AFV Armoured Fighting Vehicle APC Armoured Personnel Carrier APDS Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot APFSDS Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot APDSFS Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot Fin-Stabilised, an alternative name for APFSDS ammunition ARCOV US Army’s Armament for Future Tanks and Similar Combat Vehicles Committee ATGM Anti-Tank Guided Missile. See also ATGW (below). ATGW Anti-Tank Guided Weapon, often an alternative usage to ATGM AUS(IP) Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Intellectual Property) AUS(Ord) Assistant Under-Secretary of State (Ordnance) BAOR British Army on the Rhine BEF British Expeditionary Force CE Chemical Energy CENTAG (NATO) Central Army Group CGS Chief of the General Staff CSA Chief Scientific Advisor CTR Casemate Test Rig DCA(PN) Deputy Chief Advisor (Projects and Nuclear) DCGS Deputy Chief of the General Staff DEPC Defence Equipment Procurement Committee DMGO Deputy Master General of the Ordnance DRAC Director of the Royal Armoured Corps DRDS Defence Research and Development Staff (UK) Dstl Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (UK) DUS(P) Deputy Under-Secretary of State (Policy and Programmes) EDA European Defence Agency EDC European Defence Community EEC European Economic Community ERA Explosive Reactive Armour FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office FINABEL A European group set up to promote greater intra-European military cooperation FMBT Future Main Battle Tank v FRG Federal Republic of Germany FVRDE Fighting Vehicle Research and Development Establishment GSR General Service Requirement GST General Staff Target HDS Head of Defence Sales HEAT High Explosive Anti-tank HESH High Explosive Squash Head HEP High Explosive Plastic, the US term for HESH IED Improvised Explosive Device IEPG Independent European Programme Group ISD In-Service Date KE Kinetic Energy LP Liquid Propellant MBT Main Battle Tank MC Military Characteristics MG Machine-gun MGO Master General of the Ordnance MICV Mechanised Infantry Combat Vehicle MLC Military Load Classification MOD Ministry of Defence MOU