Admiral Beez
Major
Ukraine rocks social.
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
manta22
Banned
Very well done appeal.
I think this is actually a huge reason why modern western tanks have not been provided. That includes Leopard IIs, Abrams, Challenger 2's, etc.
As nice as it would be to simply snap our fingers and these tanks will magically appear in Ukraine, it ain't happening.
Now, when Canada decides to up their game, do their part, and send the Mounties to crew the tanks, then it might happen. Come on Canada! Why are you stalling???
Are they less available? Lets look at some facts.
Production numbers:
M1 Abrams: 10,400
Leopard 2: 3,600
M1A1 Abrams: 6,109
M1A2 Abrams: 2,855
M1A2 Abrams SEP: 3,273
Challenger 1: 420
Challenger 2: 447
Leclerc: 862
Mercava: approx: 2,000
Seems to me there is a lot of Abram's to go around.
Now, while I personally would love to see some Leopard 2's shipped off to Ukraine, I don't think its as easy as you want to keep pushing. If it was, then all sorts of MBT's would already be fighting the Russians including Leopards and Abrams, as it does not matter what Ukraine is asking for.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I am becoming convinced that LEO now stands for Late and Ever Overdue
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I think now when the combat area is in winter slowdown the best that can happen in tank terms is for the US in warm southern states, and Australia, to train the Ukrainians on some readily available semi modern tanks. Early Abrams and Leopards are plentiful - lets get them moving
I strongly discount the intelligence value of any 40 year old tank (or other weapon as old as the Abrams and Leo2) as the Russians will already have a well stocked archive of information on them and find nothing they do not already know. As far as I can see the big downsides of the Abrams are the maintenance workload and the fuel burn. The Leopards seem to have a history of dying of old age (due lack of factory support) quite early - the first Leo2's are only a couple of years older than the Abrams but it seems like many of the users have decided theirs are beyond salvage as the spares are no longer available.
Admiral Beez
Major
Existence in quantity does not necessarily equal availability. The Leopard 2 is operated by several NATO and European countries, becoming one of the most widely distributed MBTs. For example, Spain offered their Leopard 2s, until they were suddenly deemed worthy of nothing more than a scrap heap. With German support and enough money from NATO I'm sure those tanks could have been reactivated, even if it takes a year, if started six months ago Ukraine could get them in spring 2023.
But put aside the Leo. Ukraine is going to need more tanks in the spring, and there aren't a lot of T-72s etc. left to send. So, what does the West do for Ukraine?
Last edited:
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
The US could easily send 100x or 200x M1s if they thought it was a good idea, in the same way they have sent ~250x M113 based vehicles (so far - my understanding there are another 50+ in the pipeline).
The difference is the M113 is dirt simple to operate and maintain. The same diesel mechanics that support the farmers in Ukraine can keep the M113 running without any problem (assuming spares are available).
Yes, the Ukrainians can learn to operate and maintain the M1, but the time it would take to do so is much longer, and the supply chain would be problematic.
Yes, the Leopard 2 is simpler than the M1 in the area of its engine - but that is the only area that it can be said to be easier to maintain. The rest of the modernized Leopard 2 systems are on a ~par with the M1 and Challenger. And there is no point in giving 20 year old unmodernized Leopards to Ukraine as they will not be much(any?) more effective than the modernized T-72s already being supplied.
Also, although lighter than the M1, the Leopard 2 is still heavier than the latest T-72 variants in the Ukraine by around 15-20 tons depending on the variant.
The difference is the M113 is dirt simple to operate and maintain. The same diesel mechanics that support the farmers in Ukraine can keep the M113 running without any problem (assuming spares are available).
Yes, the Ukrainians can learn to operate and maintain the M1, but the time it would take to do so is much longer, and the supply chain would be problematic.
Yes, the Leopard 2 is simpler than the M1 in the area of its engine - but that is the only area that it can be said to be easier to maintain. The rest of the modernized Leopard 2 systems are on a ~par with the M1 and Challenger. And there is no point in giving 20 year old unmodernized Leopards to Ukraine as they will not be much(any?) more effective than the modernized T-72s already being supplied.
Also, although lighter than the M1, the Leopard 2 is still heavier than the latest T-72 variants in the Ukraine by around 15-20 tons depending on the variant.
Admiral Beez
Major
T
ThomasP
good points. So, what does Ukraine do for tanks as the war drags onto summer and autumn 2023? There must be a thousand T-72s rolling around Africa and the Middle East. Doesn't Iraq have a lot? Perhaps the local despots can be convinced to part with them.
I wonder if those Korean tanks ordered by Poland will end up in Ukraine, since the former has Abrams now.
I wonder if those Korean tanks ordered by Poland will end up in Ukraine, since the former has Abrams now.
Last edited:
The Abrams is distributed throughout the entire world. Many countries use it.
My point is this, there is much more to it than simply putting tanks on a boat or train and sending then to Ukraine. Something you repeatedly don't seem to care about or grasp (and not just about tanks). There are political, logistical, and supply chain (the last one probably more so) issues.
I don't disagree with any of this.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
The US Navy has been the backstop for decades regarding GIUK. I don't think we'd let that happen unchallenged, in which case there are now attack subs available.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the decline of the RN is not worrisome, but it's not relevant in this case. What it really does is tie UK foreign policy to America's.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Austerity is indeed on the cards.
RogerdeLluria
Staff Sergeant
- 1,325
- Jul 5, 2015
So, what does Ukraine do for tanks as the war drags onto summer and autumn 2023?
Russia is a reliable tank provider, so far has provided almost 500 captured tanks to Ukraine, even if not all are operative it's still its main tank provider.
Doesn't Iraq have a lot?
As far as I know main tank in Irak armed forces is M1A1. Irak also has a few dozen, relatively new, T90 and a couple hundred T72, but not sure if those are operative.
The other question is what does Russia do for tanks in 2023 ?
Russia had a program to decrease the literally thousands of items needed to produce their military gear of all types
that had to be sourced overseas, particularly from the very countries who now refuse to supply them.
The project was not successful and thousands of items are still unavailable to Russia for their weaponry but are of
course now available to Ukraine.
Russia had a program to decrease the literally thousands of items needed to produce their military gear of all types
that had to be sourced overseas, particularly from the very countries who now refuse to supply them.
The project was not successful and thousands of items are still unavailable to Russia for their weaponry but are of
course now available to Ukraine.
Admiral Beez
Major
Whatever the challenges they are not insurmountable. Had NATO decided six months ago that Leopard 2 tanks would be provided "eventually" to Ukraine, many of the challenges around operator and mechanic training, spares, logistics and support could have been worked on, with a goal to provide the tanks to Ukraine in spring 2023. Surely a year plus is long enough for the Ukrainians to effectively deploy, use and support modern Western MBTs? I'm hoping that behind the scenes, away from the media and war bloggers this very scenario is underway.
If on the other hand, things are as they seem and no plans to provide Leopard 2 or other western MBTs are well underway, then I'd agree with any who suggest providing such tanks to Ukraine is likely not possible. In this case, Ukraine will have to settle for captured Russian tanks and whatever T-55-T-90 tanks NATO can procure and/or donate.
Last edited:
Uh, yeah, you are. 2 weeks into the war (and every week thereafter) you have been:
"Where are the Leo2s? They should have them by now."
"Where are the A-10s? Where are the F-16s? It's been two months!"
And over and over, everyone has to remind you of the training, supply chain, logistical, snd political ramifications.
I get you are passionate about this. I get that your wife is Ukranian. I agree that more needs to be done. It just ain't that easy. That's why I keep bringing up the Mounties in jest.
If providing these tanks was possible, I am pretty sure it would have been done.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Tanks are great as long as you have infantry to support them and aircraft overhead to protect both.
The focus should be an increase of well trained and equipped boots as well as an increase of zoomies.
The focus should be an increase of well trained and equipped boots as well as an increase of zoomies.
