Ukrainian Tank Options

[Flyaway]

Specifically named in the text are Leopard tanks, third-generation main battle tanks developed in the 1970s for the West German military.

The Leopard 2 sports a 120mm main gun and is in service with 14 European nations, Canada, and others.

Gustav Gressel, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank, says at least 268 Leopard tanks could be transferred to Ukrainian service quickly.

Ukraine Situation Report: European Vote Calls For Providing Leopard Tanks

 

[Flyaway]

Germany cannot rule out the delivery of Leopard tanks, heavier fighting vehicles than the Marders, to support Ukrainian militry forces in the future, the country's economy minister told German broadcaster ARD.

"Of course it can't be ruled out," Robert Habeck said.

German won't rule out deliveries of Leopard tanks to Ukraine, economy minister says

Germany cannot rule out the delivery of Leopard tanks, heavier fighting vehicles than the Marders, to support Ukrainian militry forces in the future, the country's economy minister told German broadcaster ARD.

www.reuters.com

 

[Flyaway]

It is hoped in Ukraine and elsewhere this will pave the way for Germany to follow. There are more than 2,000 Leopard 2s in Europe, held by armies in 13 countries, but Berlin’s consent is required before any of the German-made kit can be re-exported to Ukraine.

German sources said Leopard 2 decision was fraught in governmental circles because of the legacy of the second world war, but what would help the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is “other allied countries making similar decisions” to supply tanks.

Ukraine confident UK will send Challenger 2 tanks to help war effort

Kyiv hopes decision on heavy armour will pave way for Germany to allow re-export of Leopard 2s

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pioneer]

German tank manufacturer’s warning puts pressure on Ukraine’s allies

Defence firm dampens Kyiv hopes other European allies will follow UK’s lead in supplying heavy armour

www.theguardian.com

Regards
Pioneer

 

[riggerrob]

From a training, logistics and maintenance perspective, it makes more sense to re-equip the Ukrainian Army with a single type of new tank ... say Leopard 2.
The worst folly would send a few Leopard 2s, a few Challenger 2s, a few Abrams and a few French-built tanks. The shear size of 4 piles of spare parts required would drive a supply sargent to drink!

 

[stealthflanker]

Yeah, single type would be great from maintenance perspective.

The bigger question however, what happened to Ukraine tank industry. Soviet invested massive amount of resources and big names such as Kharkiv-Morozov exist. AFAIK there are two major tank plants in Ukraine Kharkiv and then Lviv tank plant. Where are they now ?

 

[TomS]

Yeah, single type would be great from maintenance perspective.

The bigger question however, what happened to Ukraine tank industry. Soviet invested massive amount of resources and big names such as Kharkiv-Morozov exist. AFAIK there are two major tank plants in Ukraine Kharkiv and then Lviv tank plant. Where are they now ?

Kharkiv was the focus of pretty intense fighting over the past year, and we know the Russians did specifically target the tank factory. It was reported as totally destroyed at one point, though that can't be confirmed.

The Lviv plant is generally described as a tank repair facility now, and it was also targeted, with the extent of damage unknown.

I would not count on either to be able to produce significant numbers of new tanks for the foreseeable future, though. .

 

[stealthflanker]

Even before Russian invasion those plants seems to be in trouble. Their T-84 should be a new standard yet it doesnt seem to occur.

 

[Topi]

Even before Russian invasion those plants seems to be in trouble. Their T-84 should be a new standard yet it doesnt seem to occur.

The reason why T-84 never became widespread in the Ukrainian army was primarily a lack of funds of the Ukrainian state, not the capabilities of the Xarkiv plants.

 

[totoro]

Abrams is the best choice for ukraine. Simply because there are so many more avaialble than any other type. Their numbers trump any shortcomings, like for example fuel consumption. Or even IR signature.

Even leo 2 are a distand second choice when it comes to availability. Sure, there may be some 1800 leos in Nato countries. (+Nordics/-turkey) But out of those, maybe just a few hundred are mothballed, and would be truly avaialble. Compare that to 6000 abrams tanks within Nato, of which some 3400 are mothballed. There might be literally ten times more abramses (abramsii) available. With just leo 2, there will never be enough tanks using those only. So a single type leo 2 fleet is not possible as Ukraine will likely need hundreds of tanks more

 

[GTX]

Folks, this thread is about Leopard 2 usage. It is not about potential Ukrainian usage or discussions re which tank is best for Ukraine.

 

[Nigelhg]

Folks, this thread is about Leopard 2 usage. It is not about potential Ukrainian usage or discussions re which tank is best for Ukraine.

Cool story bro

 

[Flyaway]

Folks, this thread is about Leopard 2 usage. It is not about potential Ukrainian usage or discussions re which tank is best for Ukraine.

See below.

It seems Ukraine will get neither Abrams or Leopard 2 tanks anytime soon as the US has decided not to supply the tanks at this time and Germany has tied its supply of tanks to the U.S. The US is likely to supply Stryker armed vehicles next.

Pentagon looks to shift dynamic in Ukraine war, without Abrams tanks

The United States aims to break the dynamic of grinding warfare and near-frozen front lines in Ukraine with newly announced military capabilities that it hopes will breath fresh momentum into Kyiv's battle against Russian forces, a senior Pentagon official said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

 

[LVisingr]

Poland seems to be willing to send its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine - with or without Germany's approval:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/poland...o-ukraine-without-berlins-consent-11674123217

 

[GTX]

Folks, this thread is about Leopard 2 usage. It is not about potential Ukrainian usage or discussions re which tank is best for Ukraine.

Cool story bro

It is not a"story". It is moderator direction lest posts will be moderated.

 

[Flyaway]

Poland seems to be willing to send its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine - with or without Germany's approval:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/poland...o-ukraine-without-berlins-consent-11674123217

Poland could send Leopard tanks to Ukraine without German OK, PM suggests

Poland's prime minister signalled that it could send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine as part of a wider coalition even without Germany's re-export approval, raising pressure on Berlin ahead of a crunch meeting of allies on more military aid for Kyiv.

www.reuters.com

 

[Archibald]

To think all that talk about Leopards and Abrams and Challengers had France quietly discussing Leclercs... over the last few days the tide was slowly but surely turning in my country. Only a few days ago it was - nah, Leclercs are too few and too expensive. More recently it had morphed into "well, if Challengers and Leopards and Abrams, then why not Leclers after all ?"
Seems all four options are now out of the window.
Unless of course Poland manages to turn the tables.
In passing, I checked the numbers on Wikipedia just for the sake of curiosity. Don't count on AMX-30s: 3600 build, one-third of that in service with the French Army only 30 years ago... well, NOTHING is left. They all have been melted into razor blades or tin cans.

But I digress...

 

[uk 75]

After the loss of Leopard 2 tanks in Turkey maybe the Germans are worried that the tanks will suffer a similar fate at the hands of the Russians.
It would be pretty humiliating if RT could show brewed up Leopards in Ukraine. Compared with Challenger and Abrams they are not that well armoured.

 

[Ainen]

After the loss of Leopard 2 tanks in Turkey maybe the Germans are worried that the tanks will suffer a similar fate at the hands of the Russians.
It would be pretty humiliating if RT could show brewed up Leopards in Ukraine. Compared with Challenger and Abrams they are not that well armoured.

Armor matters nothing for whether we'll see brewed-up tanks. We'll.

The moment either challenger or abrams (or t-14, or whatever) enters combat en masse - you'll see charred-out turretless hulls.
It's tank, not a dreadnought.
Mobility kill, 152mm fire mission (or even a drone grenade through an open hatch after the crew left) - boom.

Or Kh-series missile strike. Or Tornado strike catching squadron on the march. Or airstrike. Or...

It's a big war. Tank is a consumable. Tough, resistant, but consumable.

 

[riggerrob]

After the loss of Leopard 2 tanks in Turkey maybe the Germans are worried that the tanks will suffer a similar fate at the hands of the Russians.
It would be pretty humiliating if RT could show brewed up Leopards in Ukraine. Compared with Challenger and Abrams they are not that well armoured.

Armor matters nothing for whether we'll see brewed-up tanks. We'll.

The moment either challenger or abrams (or t-14, or whatever) enters combat en masse - you'll see charred-out turretless hulls.
It's tank, not a dreadnought.
Mobility kill, 152mm fire mission (or even a drone grenade through an open hatch after the crew left) - boom.

Or Kh-series missile strike. Or Tornado strike catching squadron on the march. Or airstrike. Or...

It's a big war. Tank is a consumable. Tough, resistant, but consumable.

You are forgetting that the latest Leopard 2 version has blow-out panels on the turret bustle. Those blow-out panels cover ammo storage ... ergo ... blow-off turrets are far less likely on late-model Leopard 2s.

 

[TomS]

You are forgetting that the latest Leopard 2 version has blow-out panels on the turret bustle. Those blow-out panels cover ammo storage ... ergo ... blow-off turrets are far less likely on late-model Leopard 2s.

But the tanks folks are talking about sending to Ukraine are mostly 2A4s or 2A5s. And even the 2A7 stows most of its ammo in the hull next to the driver. It's not like the Abrams, which has only a couple of ready service rounds not in the bustle.

Plus, blow out panels are good for the crew but they look like hell on video. There are vids of brewed up Abrams in northern Iraq and they look really bad even though the crew probably came out of it just fine.

 

[uk 75]

If Egypt and Iraq are able to operate M1 tanks I would imagine Ukraine can do so.
Assuming the Poles acquire them and the US builds up facilities in that country for Abrams and Bradleys then it ought to be possible to support them in Ukraine.
The Korean made tanks might offer an alternative.
In some ways the Russians may be right to dismiss the impact of Western tanks on the battlefield. They can be destroyed with enough weapons and the Russians have no shortage of modern ATGW and vehicles/helicopters equipped with them.

 

[Ainen]

After the loss of Leopard 2 tanks in Turkey maybe the Germans are worried that the tanks will suffer a similar fate at the hands of the Russians.
It would be pretty humiliating if RT could show brewed up Leopards in Ukraine. Compared with Challenger and Abrams they are not that well armoured.

Armor matters nothing for whether we'll see brewed-up tanks. We'll.

The moment either challenger or abrams (or t-14, or whatever) enters combat en masse - you'll see charred-out turretless hulls.
It's tank, not a dreadnought.
Mobility kill, 152mm fire mission (or even a drone grenade through an open hatch after the crew left) - boom.

Or Kh-series missile strike. Or Tornado strike catching squadron on the march. Or airstrike. Or...

It's a big war. Tank is a consumable. Tough, resistant, but consumable.

You are forgetting that the latest Leopard 2 version has blow-out panels on the turret bustle. Those blow-out panels cover ammo storage ... ergo ... blow-off turrets are far less likely on late-model Leopard 2s.

All leopard 2s have them.
It doesn't matter, to burn down a vehicle internal ammo isn't really a precondition.
And if vehicle burns - it won't be just a charge cook-off, at some point shells go boom. When it happens - panels don't matter anymore, the vehicle gets annihilated.

If you operate tanks in a big war - assume that they'll be destroyed, burned down...and sometimes captured intact.

 

[zen]

From a personnel and training view, Challenger 2 is not so different from a Leopard 2 or Abrams. As they are all 4 person crewed tanks.
So while Cr2 seems odd and small numbers. It gives Ukraine a means to train up and grapple with the different philosophy the encompasses the switch of Soviet era 3 person crewed T72, to Western 4 person crew.

 

[_Del_]

What's all the fuss about? Very smart people here told me recently that the Ukraine had more tanks than they started with because they captured so many, and the Russians are surely out of tanks and missiles and everything else by now.

 

[jeffb]

Send Abrams but don't forget the snow chains XD. Love how the driver applies the brake at the top and 65 tonnes just goes: nope!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1616508293022683147

View: https://twitter.com/ArthurM40330824/status/1616508293022683147?s=20&t=ofGHnsU3w9L81JpujAJ75g

 

[kaiserd]

After the loss of Leopard 2 tanks in Turkey maybe the Germans are worried that the tanks will suffer a similar fate at the hands of the Russians.
It would be pretty humiliating if RT could show brewed up Leopards in Ukraine. Compared with Challenger and Abrams they are not that well armoured.

And yet all the US briefings and resulting news papers are about the unsuitability (and unsustainability) of the M-1, with US officials effectively bad-mouthing their own tank and indicating it’s not really worth the effort required to operate it when compared with the Leopard 2. The same conjecture as per the quoted comments above could, with equal (extremely limited) validity, be projected on to the US and their potential concerns re: the M-1.

And it’s not unreasonable for the Germans to ask the US to also provide tanks if they are seeking the Germans to do the same (especially given the US has far far larger stocks of stored M-1s then Germany or the rest of NATO have Leopard 2’s that are actually available for theoretical transfer).

The Challenger 2’s promised appear to be largely a token effort - likely of little real value beyond the politics of trying to get other NATO nations to provide truly modern MBTs, hyped up for international and domestic consumption.

And given likely timescales for re-fit, actual transfers, training etc. the reality is that any western modern MBTs transferred are likely to not really be much of a factor until much later in the year than is being commonly acknowledged and this whole topic (in diplomatic, media etc. contexts) is potentially a bit of a side-show re: what aid is being provided that could actually help to significantly shape the post-winter fighting.

 

[Foo Fighter]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly. It is past time the rest of europe get their collective tushes off their chairs and encourage Germany to0 do what has to be done.
The Challenger 2's, unless in larger numbers will have to be used somewhere nearer rear area's to be viable. The additional stress on logistic makes them non viable at the moment.

 

[Ainen]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly.

Sending 14 tanks to make someone send hundreds is indeed a cheap trick.
If UK's own ground force is again down to the arrestable level - it's ultimately UK's fault.

 

[GTX]

Relevant analysis:

The Great Tank Debate

Providing advanced western main battle tanks to Ukraine

mickryan.substack.com

 

[Flyaway]

According to Ben Wallace one country, likely Poland, has now asked Berlin for permission to transfer Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

Berlin asked for permission to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Ben Wallace reveals

The unnamed country that sent the request, likely to be Poland, has to get approval from Berlin to send the German-made tanks to Ukraine because it holds the export licence.

news.sky.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly.

Sending 14 tanks to make someone send hundreds is indeed a cheap trick.
If UK's own ground force is again down to the arrestable level - it's ultimately UK's fault.

It is indeed but then, there are a shed load of Leo's where the number of Challenger and 2 is minimal. Why are the Germans so loathe to deal with the issue now? Are they wanting Ukraine to fail? When they have something that could prevent this? Why?

 

[flateric]

 

[TMA1]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly. It is past time the rest of europe get their collective tushes off their chairs and encourage Germany to0 do what has to be done.
The Challenger 2's, unless in larger numbers will have to be used somewhere nearer rear area's to be viable. The additional stress on logistic makes them non viable at the moment.

*to do what has to be done*

Look. War and military equipment IS politics. There is no getting around it. That said, I just want to make clear that there are others here (a minority) that think parts of natosphere instigated this conflict and are in the wrong. So when people like me see posts cheering on this conflict from the neocon/neolib foreign politics angle we might feel it is necessary to make a comment in principle.

I try to take breaks in between posts. I'm aware that some of my posts are soon accompanied by the dreaded red letters of doom. Feels bad tbqh. I know it is annoying. Still though I think it is right to make a retort to those who may not realize that they are talking as if everyone agrees with what they are saying. Some of us very much disagree. Sorry mods and fellow members (even those I disagree with) if this causes drama. Not trying to instigate anything or shut down good discussion.

 

[TMA1]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly.

Sending 14 tanks to make someone send hundreds is indeed a cheap trick.
If UK's own ground force is again down to the arrestable level - it's ultimately UK's fault.

It is indeed but then, there are a shed load of Leo's where the number of Challenger and 2 is minimal. Why are the Germans so loathe to deal with the issue now? Are they wanting Ukraine to fail? When they have something that could prevent this? Why?

The situation is highly complex. As you guys know we are living in very, very dangerous times. In some ways even more unpredictable than during the hottest days of the cold war era.

Germany is in a serious dilemma. There are many reasons why they dont want leopard 2 tanks in germany. Some germans in the military see those in charge as carried away by what ruskies call "atlanticist" ideals and geopolitics. They see this as a very dangerous escalation. Not all agree with this war.

And as others have said the germans do not want to send their tanks in without the combined arms systems that make a modern western military work. Sending in a few dozen tanks here or there will aid Ukraine in the short term, but at the cost of losing all of the tanks. Some fear the inevitable loss of these tanks will be a blemish on the record of large defense industries in the german MIC. Many here will realize that this is silly and that it would be foolish to judge the performance of any vehicle that is utilized in a way it was not intended to be used. Still though it is a reality that would be faced in this horrible conflict if the leopards are sent in.

 

[Dreamfighter]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly.

Sending 14 tanks to make someone send hundreds is indeed a cheap trick.
If UK's own ground force is again down to the arrestable level - it's ultimately UK's fault.

It is indeed but then, there are a shed load of Leo's where the number of Challenger and 2 is minimal. Why are the Germans so loathe to deal with the issue now? Are they wanting Ukraine to fail? When they have something that could prevent this? Why?

The Germans seriously pissed off Russia some 80 years ago, when The Third Reich sent it´s tanks into the Soviet-Union. The German generations of today (and/or those of yesterday) feel themselves responsible for the atrocities committed by their (grand)parents during the 1930s-1940s, and they´re somewhat scared to make the same/similar mistakes and get severely punished again (by Russia), even if this time the reason for rolling out the tanks wouldn´t be to start another war but to help a European sovereign nation to defend itself against severe aggression & attack. After WWII and up to the 'present' day, Germany has always carried the idea (and the politics) to never get involved in such a war again, even as West-Germany was member of NATO. This German view was very evident during the Cold War, with e.g. Bundeskanzler Willy Brandt and the 'Ostpolitik' (dialogue & rapprochement towards the Eastern Bloc & the Soviet-Union).
Not much in Germany´s politics has changed since the end of the Cold War, on the contrary, Germany´s economy - more so then most other European countries - has become heavily involved in trading with Russia, and is/was (until very recently) heavily dependent on Russian energy. So, all that leads to reluctance/hesitations with German politicians to supply Ukraine with the requested (offensive/heavy) weaponry.

 

[kaiserd]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly.

Sending 14 tanks to make someone send hundreds is indeed a cheap trick.
If UK's own ground force is again down to the arrestable level - it's ultimately UK's fault.

It is indeed but then, there are a shed load of Leo's where the number of Challenger and 2 is minimal. Why are the Germans so loathe to deal with the issue now? Are they wanting Ukraine to fail? When they have something that could prevent this? Why?

Replace “the Germans” with “the Americans” and the same thing could be said, with the same extremely limited accuracy/ validity/ rather misleading narrative given the real context.

Any agreement now for tanks to be provided (be they German/ European Leopard 2s or US M-1s, or even the promised UK Challenger 2s) are probably at least 6-12 months from actual battlefield deployment and potential impact.
Other equipment already promised and on its way is what going to impact the battlefield in the immediate future.
And Germany (and Europe) doesn’t have that many Leopard 2s it’s not already using/ hasn’t a need for themselves (or at least stocks that wouldn’t take even longer than the 6-12 month’s period referenced above to re-fit to the extent required to have them in fighting-shape for combat in Ukraine). “Spare” US M-1s are available in much larger numbers but probably in the same type of best-case-scenario timescales (with very similar requirements for re-fitting, re equipments, etc.).

That’s the context in which Germany is looking at this decision. And Germany and the EU, either via it’s institutions or directly from its member states, is providing vast amounts of critical financial aid to Ukraine (much more than the UK, for example, though there doesn’t appear to be the same domestic drivers to over-hype what they provide while appearing to try to minimise what others are providing).

 

[Dreamfighter]

IMOHO, the sole purpose for even offering to send Challenger 2 is to shame the Germans into sending Leo's. Not working, sadly.

Sending 14 tanks to make someone send hundreds is indeed a cheap trick.
If UK's own ground force is again down to the arrestable level - it's ultimately UK's fault.

It is indeed but then, there are a shed load of Leo's where the number of Challenger and 2 is minimal. Why are the Germans so loathe to deal with the issue now? Are they wanting Ukraine to fail? When they have something that could prevent this? Why?

Replace “the Germans” with “the Americans” and the same thing could be said, with the same extremely limited accuracy/ validity/ rather misleading narrative given the real context.

The excuse (for whatever reason) of the US not to provide Abrams may be somewhat lame, but so is Germany´s excuse to only provide Leopard 2´s if the US will send tanks. The US is already & by far the greatest supplier of (heavy) weaponry to help out Ukraine.
Imho we Europeans (except for Belgians, who can only send chocolate & French Fries) could/should do more, even if it´s only sending e.g. 10% of our total (Leopoard 2) tank inventory and even it would take time for those tanks to become meaningful.

 

[uk 75]

Ukraine has the basic problem that it is having to move from operating legacy Soviet equipment without a coherent source of supply.
It inherited a large number of effective weapon systems, notably anti aircraft and artillery from the Soviet era.
It now finds itself adopting a disparate array of Western equipment determined by the willingness of countries to donate their kit.
This is a bit like the Saudi forces in the 1970s when equipment poured in from different countries. It is not a good way to build a coherent military force.
Only the USA is in the position to remedy this by supplying full divisional sets of equipment from its stockpiles or the National Guard.

 

[Hood]

Rheinmetall doesn't seem optimistic about the small stocks it has in hand, so re-exporting from existing user stocks is the only realistic option. Of course Rheinmetall doesn't want to give away its trade-in stock away for free and foot the bill for refurbishment itself.
Spain has said its stored Leo2s are not in a fit condition to send without refurbishment and presumably much the same can be said for any stored stock in Europe.
But those Leo2s in good enough condition to send are a lot closer than shipping M-1s across the Atlantic.

German tank manufacturer’s warning puts pressure on Ukraine’s allies

Defence firm dampens Kyiv hopes other European allies will follow UK’s lead in supplying heavy armour

www.theguardian.com