Thread by @noclador

The reasons Italy's Army never received all the funds to modernize its heavy equipment are:

1) an army doesn't need main battle tanks, tracked IFVs, long range air defense systems, self-propelled artillery, armored bridgelayers, etc. if its adversary are the Taliban.

1/n

2) Italy focused heavily on modernizing its Navy and Air Force equipment, which costs muuuuuuuch more than army equipment.

Two F-35 (or two Eurofighter) cost the same as the yearly salaries for an entire army brigade. Italy bought 96 Eurofighter and 90 F-35.

2/n

A modern frigate costs the same as raising and equipping a tank battalion with brand new Leopard 2A7V. Since the war on terror startet Italy bought/is buying 17 frigates (and 2 aircraft carriers, 4 destroyers, 8 submarines, 3 amphibious ships, etc. etc.)

3/n

Staying with ships: Italy bought 500+ Aster-15/Aster-30 surface-to-air missiles for its Navy, which cost the same as three battalions worth of brand new PzH 2000.

Equipping two Eurofighters with a full air-to-air load of Meteor & IRIS-T missiles costs the same
4/n

as four M142 HIMARS with around 500 GMLRS missiles.

Italy's Army isn't the only one that suffered this lack of investment over the last decade. The British Army is in even worse shape... in some countries all branches of the armed forces suffered (i.e. Germany, Netherlands)
5/n

Now that more funds become available it is imperative to invest in land systems. Poland is charging ahead and buying more tanks than France, Italy, Germany and the UK posses now.
Italy's Army has the plans how to modernize and grow its capabilities ready since 2014.

6/n

And Europe doesn't need an increase in troops (European NATO members field 150+ brigades, vs. 31 active US Army brigades). What Europe needs is more and newer equipment, a lot more logistics to move troops and equipment, and especially more of this smiley fella:
7/end