How can Brazil, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal have better armies, navies, air forces and information technology AFTER 1946?

TheRejectionist

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
101
Reaction score
19
I am feeling a bit better now. After the first days, it’s a bit better and I can have a bit of vague leisure for a few minutes a day.

So I decided to ask a What If from a different point of view.

What if the armies of these following nations were better armed and had better information technology ?

The question started with the Stackpoole book by Bradford Cold War Armored Fighting Vehicles.

I have a connection with all of the countries except a feeble one (a cousin no longer alive now) to Greece.

@Kat Tsun @GTX @riggerrob @Foo Fighter @uk 75 @drejr @Desertfox @shin_getter @Fluff @Orionblamblam @martinbayer @zen @CV12Hornet @starviking @T. A. Gardner @Dilandu

I hope you guys don’t mind me tagging you all, but you are the ones who partecipated in my previous thread or were in the first tank thread I found here.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
149
Reaction score
173
Italy was constrained by the peace treaty it signed. It was also constrained by having a land war fought on its territory by an army notorious for massive looting and generally killing any civilians it thought were inconvenient, that is it's industrial heartland was largely wrecked.

Greece also suffered under German (and Italian) occupation; it was also not heavily industrialized. Post-ww2, it did have problems with political instability (communist insurrection, military dictatorship), with the resulting economic problems (and, as a side effect of a military coup, distrust of the military).

Spain, because of Franco, needed to spend a lot on internal security (I don't have the numbers of people killed at Franco's behest after the end of the Civil War, but it probably exceeded 50,000) probably couldn't do better than it did (and probably got more US support than it should have).

Portugal's overseas empire was a money sink. Freeing its colonies would probably have a) saved it a lot of money and blood and b) weakened communist movements in its erstwhile colonies. This would have permitted modernization of its armed forces. Given its position in NATO (Salazar was, like Franco, a dictator, strongly contradicting any comments about NATO "defending democracy.")

I don't know enough about Brazil, but given the likely threats against Brazil, how much of a military do they need, especially when a major hobby of many armies in South and Central America is overthrowing civilian governments?
 

TheRejectionist

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
101
Reaction score
19
Italy was constrained by the peace treaty it signed. It was also constrained by having a land war fought on its territory by an army notorious for massive looting and generally killing any civilians it thought were inconvenient, that is it's industrial heartland was largely wrecked.
Greece also suffered under German (and Italian) occupation; it was also not heavily industrialized. Post-ww2, it did have problems with political instability (communist insurrection, military dictatorship), with the resulting economic problems (and, as a side effect of a military coup, distrust of the military).
Spain, because of Franco, needed to spend a lot on internal security (I don't have the numbers of people killed at Franco's behest after the end of the Civil War, but it probably exceeded 50,000) probably couldn't do better than it did (and probably got more US support than it should have).

Portugal's overseas empire was a money sink. Freeing its colonies would probably have a) saved it a lot of money and blood and b) weakened communist movements in its erstwhile colonies. This would have permitted modernization of its armed forces. Given its position in NATO (Salazar was, like Franco, a dictator, strongly contradicting any comments about NATO "defending democracy.")
Ok so how would solve this issues ? Portugal could federalize and stop making the overseas being a money sink.
I don't know enough about Brazil, but given the likely threats against Brazil, how much of a military do they need, especially when a major hobby of many armies in South and Central America is overthrowing civilian governments?
There was the Osorio.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
4,182
Reaction score
3,439
Your question is one often asked about individual British and French projects too.
Without going into the specific politics of your chosen countries the factors are usually the same:
Economic performance of the country.
Willingness to invest in domestic industry.
Relationship with outside suppliers.
Presence of a dynamic arms manufacturer, eg Dassault.
Threats identified as needing that solution.

Turning the the individual countries:

Italy develops a formidable naval construction industry with imaginative designs notably the Lupo/Maestrale class frigates. Its aircraft industry wins a NATO competition (G91) and equips a major member (Germany) and then is the only European country to upgrade its F104s. Army gets full range of Italian made combat vehicles.
Spain, Greece and Portugal are all hampered by their domestic politics until the 1970s. They then start to show some strong national programmes in shipbuilding (Spain) and armoured vehicles (all three).
Brazil does embark on a naval build up competing with Argentina and brcause of its long Atlantic coastline. By the 80s it is building its own frigates and the AMX light fighter with Italy.

Doing better than real life would need changes to the politics and economics of all the countries and the emergence of Dassault style industry leaders.
 

Lascaris

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
187
Reaction score
190
Greece up to about 1969 was getting arms solely through US military aid. To improve on that you need to remove from the picture the 4 years of the civil war, which inflicted quite a bit of an additional cost on the country. Post 1970 it has tended to punch relatively above its weight, particularly when it comes to the air force, at the moment it has the second largest fighter force in EU for example. It lags severely behind in the industrial part which can be pointed to decisions in the 1980s.

So how do you get better to the current day? Leaving out avoiding the most severe part of the post 2009 economic crisis which is entirely doable, you can disagree on specific industry related decisions. Frex the Greeks were offered a 20% industrial share by Dassault for the whole Mirage F1 production in 1971-72, it was turned down to buy Phantoms thus securing support of the Nixon administration only to also buy F1s 2 years later. It is not that difficult to slightly alter this. And a 20% industrial share on Mirage for a country the size of Greece would had likely transformed the whole defense sector and spill over to the rest of the economy...
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
2,201
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Well, I exploited an AU scenario, in which Mussolini, not the king, was the one who managed to make peace with Allies in 1943. Italian military therefore remained better organized, and -with allies help - managed to stop German invasion. In exchange, Regia Marina forces were sent to Indian Ocean, so allies were able to launch major push toward Singapore much earlier. After war, Italy emerged as "semi-victorious" power, losing its colonies, but having less military restrictions.
 

TheRejectionist

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
101
Reaction score
19
Italy was constrained by the peace treaty it signed. It was also constrained by having a land war fought on its territory by an army notorious for massive looting and generally killing any civilians it thought were inconvenient, that is it's industrial heartland was largely wrecked.

Greece also suffered under German (and Italian) occupation; it was also not heavily industrialized. Post-ww2, it did have problems with political instability (communist insurrection, military dictatorship), with the resulting economic problems (and, as a side effect of a military coup, distrust of the military).

Spain, because of Franco, needed to spend a lot on internal security (I don't have the numbers of people killed at Franco's behest after the end of the Civil War, but it probably exceeded 50,000) probably couldn't do better than it did (and probably got more US support than it should have).

Portugal's overseas empire was a money sink. Freeing its colonies would probably have a) saved it a lot of money and blood and b) weakened communist movements in its erstwhile colonies. This would have permitted modernization of its armed forces. Given its position in NATO (Salazar was, like Franco, a dictator, strongly contradicting any comments about NATO "defending democracy.")

I don't know enough about Brazil, but given the likely threats against Brazil, how much of a military do they need, especially when a major hobby of many armies in South and Central America is overthrowing civilian governments?
Your question is one often asked about individual British and French projects too.
Without going into the specific politics of your chosen countries the factors are usually the same:
Economic performance of the country.
Willingness to invest in domestic industry.
Relationship with outside suppliers.
Presence of a dynamic arms manufacturer, eg Dassault.
Threats identified as needing that solution.

Turning the the individual countries:

Italy develops a formidable naval construction industry with imaginative designs notably the Lupo/Maestrale class frigates. Its aircraft industry wins a NATO competition (G91) and equips a major member (Germany) and then is the only European country to upgrade its F104s. Army gets full range of Italian made combat vehicles.
Spain, Greece and Portugal are all hampered by their domestic politics until the 1970s. They then start to show some strong national programmes in shipbuilding (Spain) and armoured vehicles (all three).
Brazil does embark on a naval build up competing with Argentina and brcause of its long Atlantic coastline. By the 80s it is building its own frigates and the AMX light fighter with Italy.

Doing better than real life would need changes to the politics and economics of all the countries and the emergence of Dassault style industry leaders.
Greece up to about 1969 was getting arms solely through US military aid. To improve on that you need to remove from the picture the 4 years of the civil war, which inflicted quite a bit of an additional cost on the country. Post 1970 it has tended to punch relatively above its weight, particularly when it comes to the air force, at the moment it has the second largest fighter force in EU for example. It lags severely behind in the industrial part which can be pointed to decisions in the 1980s.

So how do you get better to the current day? Leaving out avoiding the most severe part of the post 2009 economic crisis which is entirely doable, you can disagree on specific industry related decisions. Frex the Greeks were offered a 20% industrial share by Dassault for the whole Mirage F1 production in 1971-72, it was turned down to buy Phantoms thus securing support of the Nixon administration only to also buy F1s 2 years later. It is not that difficult to slightly alter this. And a 20% industrial share on Mirage for a country the size of Greece would had likely transformed the whole defense sector and spill over to the rest of the economy...
To improve on that you need to remove from the picture the 4 years of the civil war, which inflicted quite a bit of an additional cost on the country
Well, if British weren't as hell-bent on destroying Greece communists, it may actually be possible.
I more meant on the technical side of things. For the motivations (political, social, economic and more) I can think more about later.

Like : "what were good weapons, vehicles, and more" that were put on paper but never were developed or didn't get out of prototype phase ?

@Lascaris I remember by an aunt that lives in Greece that were tons of Greeks joining the Air Force.

@Dilandu I would love to read your Mussolini story !
 

Lascaris

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
187
Reaction score
190
Italy was constrained by the peace treaty it signed. It was also constrained by having a land war fought on its territory by an army notorious for massive looting and generally killing any civilians it thought were inconvenient, that is it's industrial heartland was largely wrecked.

Greece also suffered under German (and Italian) occupation; it was also not heavily industrialized. Post-ww2, it did have problems with political instability (communist insurrection, military dictatorship), with the resulting economic problems (and, as a side effect of a military coup, distrust of the military).

Spain, because of Franco, needed to spend a lot on internal security (I don't have the numbers of people killed at Franco's behest after the end of the Civil War, but it probably exceeded 50,000) probably couldn't do better than it did (and probably got more US support than it should have).

Portugal's overseas empire was a money sink. Freeing its colonies would probably have a) saved it a lot of money and blood and b) weakened communist movements in its erstwhile colonies. This would have permitted modernization of its armed forces. Given its position in NATO (Salazar was, like Franco, a dictator, strongly contradicting any comments about NATO "defending democracy.")

I don't know enough about Brazil, but given the likely threats against Brazil, how much of a military do they need, especially when a major hobby of many armies in South and Central America is overthrowing civilian governments?
Your question is one often asked about individual British and French projects too.
Without going into the specific politics of your chosen countries the factors are usually the same:
Economic performance of the country.
Willingness to invest in domestic industry.
Relationship with outside suppliers.
Presence of a dynamic arms manufacturer, eg Dassault.
Threats identified as needing that solution.

Turning the the individual countries:

Italy develops a formidable naval construction industry with imaginative designs notably the Lupo/Maestrale class frigates. Its aircraft industry wins a NATO competition (G91) and equips a major member (Germany) and then is the only European country to upgrade its F104s. Army gets full range of Italian made combat vehicles.
Spain, Greece and Portugal are all hampered by their domestic politics until the 1970s. They then start to show some strong national programmes in shipbuilding (Spain) and armoured vehicles (all three).
Brazil does embark on a naval build up competing with Argentina and brcause of its long Atlantic coastline. By the 80s it is building its own frigates and the AMX light fighter with Italy.

Doing better than real life would need changes to the politics and economics of all the countries and the emergence of Dassault style industry leaders.
Greece up to about 1969 was getting arms solely through US military aid. To improve on that you need to remove from the picture the 4 years of the civil war, which inflicted quite a bit of an additional cost on the country. Post 1970 it has tended to punch relatively above its weight, particularly when it comes to the air force, at the moment it has the second largest fighter force in EU for example. It lags severely behind in the industrial part which can be pointed to decisions in the 1980s.

So how do you get better to the current day? Leaving out avoiding the most severe part of the post 2009 economic crisis which is entirely doable, you can disagree on specific industry related decisions. Frex the Greeks were offered a 20% industrial share by Dassault for the whole Mirage F1 production in 1971-72, it was turned down to buy Phantoms thus securing support of the Nixon administration only to also buy F1s 2 years later. It is not that difficult to slightly alter this. And a 20% industrial share on Mirage for a country the size of Greece would had likely transformed the whole defense sector and spill over to the rest of the economy...
To improve on that you need to remove from the picture the 4 years of the civil war, which inflicted quite a bit of an additional cost on the country
Well, if British weren't as hell-bent on destroying Greece communists, it may actually be possible.
I more meant on the technical side of things. For the motivations (political, social, economic and more) I can think more about later.

Like : "what were good weapons, vehicles, and more" that were put on paper but never were developed or didn't get out of prototype phase ?

@Lascaris I remember by an aunt that lives in Greece that were tons of Greeks joining the Air Force.

@Dilandu I would love to read your Mussolini story !
Well the HAF was VERY keen on F-18L. Or after that ceased to be an option F/A-18. OTL it was again down to politics, in 1981 the conservatives refrained for making the aircraft order themselves before the election at the end of the year. Which is how it was delayed to 1984 and 100-120 aircraft of a single type became 80 of two types without local production. Not that difficult to tweak that decision. Bonus points the socialist government afterwards wants to strengthen ties with France but can't quite order Mirage 2000s any more... they instead join Rafale as a junior partner. .
 

Elan Vital

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
50
Reaction score
54
Regarding Brazil, they would be better off convincing Engesa that a battle tank is too risky and instead they move their interest to the Bernardini Tamoyo, specifically the 3rd version with composite armor and a 105mm gun. If purchased early enough it would cover the need for a modern MBT indigenously, and would allow the country to avoid the purchase of second-hand Leopard 1 and M60s.

Considering that M60s were pretty much left to rot because they couldn't be used in much of a country, the Tamoyo would be a better solution as it can be used in many more places with greater mobility and offers better armor than either foreign solution.

This, most importantly, saves one major AFV manufacturer (Engesa is doomed anyway, Osorio or not) for the future.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
2,925
Reaction score
1,785
I believe the comments above are succinct and doubt I could do more than repeat them in my own way. The same constraints that effect any nation effectively.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
1,539
As UK 75 suggested above .... for some silly reason ... Brazil does not get much US surplus equipment, so embarks on a naval building campaign.
When Brazil decides to expand deeper into the Amazon, they start building transport airplanes earlier than OTL, followed by idigenous fighter planes earlier.
 
Top