[Goose]

I get that each country is first and foremost defending itself first and NATO countries second.  It seems to me that the only enemy that any European country is preparing to defend itself against is Russia.  I think the probability of a Russian encroachment into a NATO country is far more likely a conflict that say France vs Germany. 

I think these countries agree the probability of a Russian encroachment into a NATO country is far more likely a conflict with any other European state. However, unlike your evaluation, many of these countries emphatically do NOT believe that the probability of conflict with other European states is essentially zero. Therefore, they have contingency plans to react accordingly. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that was true in the 70s and 80s and I am virtually certain (although not first hand) they do so today. Have you noticed how closely French military personnel strength tracks the German strength? IMO that is not an accident. It is also true that European nations do not have a mostly "joint" defense and have separate intelligence organizations. For good reasons they do not fully trust each other.

Considering these probabilities it would seem to make sense to have common NATO standards in terms of arms and munitions.

I know they aren't agreeing with my logic, but it seems rather idiotic not to put yourself in the best position you can for any potential conflict with an enemy as strong as Russia. But how often does common sense the guiding light?

Their "common sense" != your "common sense". For one thing, each nation may disagree on what the "best" weapons for a particular task are. It can be a real, honest disagreement on military grounds. It can be a "political" one based on "other" considerations. It can be based on affordability. A given country may just be unable to afford "the best" and chooses to do something else (as opposed to doing nothing at all). It can (and most often is) a combination of these factors.

The arguably "common sense" thing to do would be to buy everything from the USA because we have a volume advantage the Europeans can never match :-). To some extent, they in fact do so, although "offsets" are often (almost always) required. Yet a consortium built the Typhoon. Is the Leopard better than the Abrams? Many allegedly unbiased people say so. It was lots cheaper. Was the US ever going to choose the Leopard over their own tank (even though we did very quietly choose their main gun) ? These consideration apply here in the USA too. This evaluation leaves out individual companies IP issues, which is also an elephant in the room.

Russia during the cold war had several different aircraft design bureaus that built competing "products". Some "common sense" would declare that wasteful, another version of "common sense" would declare it a necessary insurance against a single point of failure. I think NATO is in that same boat. Of course, political reasons within both the party and the military made choosing a "winner" problematic. This was true in an absolute dictatorship. What democracy can pull off what a command economy could not?

[Goose]

I get that each country is first and foremost defending itself first and NATO countries second.  It seems to me that the only enemy that any European country is preparing to defend itself against is Russia.  I think the probability of a Russian encroachment into a NATO country is far more likely a conflict that say France vs Germany. 

I think these countries agree the probability of a Russian encroachment into a NATO country is far more likely a conflict with any other European state. However, unlike your evaluation, many of these countries emphatically do NOT believe that the probability of conflict with other European states is essentially zero. Therefore, they have contingency plans to react accordingly. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that was true in the 70s and 80s and I am virtually certain (although not first hand) they do so today. Have you noticed how closely French military personnel strength tracks the German strength? IMO that is not an accident. It is also true that European nations do not have a mostly "joint" defense and have separate intelligence organizations. For good reasons they do not fully trust each other.

Considering these probabilities it would seem to make sense to have common NATO standards in terms of arms and munitions.

I know they aren't agreeing with my logic, but it seems rather idiotic not to put yourself in the best position you can for any potential conflict with an enemy as strong as Russia. But how often does common sense the guiding light?

Their "common sense" != your "common sense". For one thing, each nation may disagree on what the "best" weapons for a particular task are. It can be a real, honest disagreement on military grounds. It can be a "political" one based on "other" considerations. It can be based on affordability. A given country may just be unable to afford "the best" and chooses to do something else (as opposed to doing nothing at all). It can (and most often is) a combination of these factors.

The arguably "common sense" thing to do would be to buy everything from the USA because we have a volume advantage the Europeans can never match :-). To some extent, they in fact do so, although "offsets" are often (almost always) required. Yet a consortium built the Typhoon. Is the Leopard better than the Abrams? Many allegedly unbiased people say so. It was lots cheaper. Was the US ever going to choose the Leopard over their own tank (even though we did very quietly choose their main gun) ? These consideration apply here in the USA too. This evaluation leaves out individual companies IP issues, which is also an elephant in the room.

Russia during the cold war had several different aircraft design bureaus that built competing "products". Some "common sense" would declare that wasteful, another version of "common sense" would declare it a necessary insurance against a single point of failure. I think NATO is in that same boat. Of course, political reasons within both the party and the military made choosing a "winner" problematic. This was true in an absolute dictatorship. What democracy can pull off what a command economy could not?