How much of a game changer are the Leopard and Abrams tanks for Ukraine?

[edhopper]

I have read that Ukraine can go on the offensive and push Russia back.
Don't know how much this is hype or overly optimistic.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

1. They will be especially valuable in the south of Ukraine, where they will be used to cut the

so-called "land bridge" that links the territories in eastern Ukraine (that have been held by "insurgents" since 2014 and that are now "claimed" by Russia outright) with Crimea.

The whole territory from east of Mariupol to south of Kherson. This area will be the scene of an epic battle and modern NATO main-battle tanks will be decisive.

Same if UKR forces push on into Crimea.

It is a huge deal. Putin knows it.

He miscalculated.

[Alpeduez21]

9. His biggest miscalculation was showing the world

How weak the Russian army actually is.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

10. A great miscalculation, among many.

Russia still has nuclear weapons, so we do need to be mindful of not touching off a nuclear conflict as we assist Ukraine in freeing their nation from Putin's agression.

[mitch96]

20. Russia kept on drawing a red line that we could not cross or they would use nukes.

Stingers, Javelins and NLAWS? This is a Red line or you'll get nuked? no nukes,
M777 artillery? this is a Red line or you'll get nuked? no nukes,
HIMARS rocket artillery? this is a Red line or you'll get nuked? no nukes,
Patriot air defense for Ukraine? This is a Red line or you'll get nuked? no nukes,
Bradly fighting vehicles French and UK IFV's? This is a Red line or you'll get nuked? no nukes,
So now it's M1 Abrams and German Leopard tanks. This is a Red line or you'll get nuked?
What happens when Ukraine gets F-16's?
Yes we have to be wary but word has it that unless Moscow or St Petersburg are threatened
is when they might use nukes. Things would be worse for Russia if they use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Their buddy China said they would pull all support if they used any nuclear weapons. Probably others would follow suit..
That's my take on it..
m

[Irish_Dem]

2. They need air power and missiles too, tanks are not enough.

Unless we help Ukraine take Crimea, Putin wins.

[Brother Buzz]

3. There's a boatload of other stuff being sent, but the tanks are the shiny things everyone is talking

[Irish_Dem]

12. Good point. Maybe Zelensky doesn't want publicity on the other things.

In wartime, information is power. Better to keep things quiet.
Let everyone focus on the tanks.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

13. Air power hasn't been much of a factor in this conflict.

The Russians can't fly jets and helicopters over Ukraine without taking serious risks of being shot down.

Likewise, the Russians have the capacity to down Ukrainian aircraft. While the majority of their armaments are second-rate the S-300 (and S-400) Russian anti-aircraft systems (which Ukraine also employs) are outstanding.

There is an effective "no-fly zone" over Ukraine as a result.

Anti-aircraft/missile systems do remain an important need, but not aircraft.

[Irish_Dem]

15. I am repeating what I am hearing some of the retired US generals say.

Three things: tanks, air power, missiles.

I agree, I didn't think air power was an issue.
But perhaps it is in some way we don't know about yet.

I don't even know how we would get air power there.

But I recently read that civilian volunteer pilots are forming a group.
Like the Flying Tigers in WWII.
Like the Polish pilots who helped Great Britain in the Battle of Britain.

If Ukraine wants to win the war it has to take Crimea.
And it is going to be all hands on deck and throw everything at it they can.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

16. Missiles, of both the offensive and defensive (anti-aircraft and anti-missile) types are critical.

The HIMARs that we have sent are game changers. As are NATO artillery pieces.

Tanks will be critical in the south and for any push on Crimea.

Air power isn't the critical need of UKR forces. Not with their current ability to dissuade Russian pilots from flying near Ukrainian territory (for the most part) over legitimate fears of being shot down, and also from reciprocal concerns about UKR planes being vulnerable to Russian air defenses.

As I mentioned earlier, the standout weapons that the Russians possess are their S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems. Even NATO's best planes are vulnerable to these anti-aircraft missiles.

Biden (and his generals and our allies) were correct when they declined to impose a NATO-enforced "no-fly zone" over Ukraine as traditional air power has not been a key factor in this war.

I'd like to see more Patriots and similar NATO anti-aircraft systems to protect civilian (and military) centers from Russian missile attacks, and more offensive missile batteries and artillery, in addition to main-battle tanks.

But fighter jets and the like are a low priority given the cost and lack of utility in this conflict.

[Irish_Dem]

21. Maybe they don't mean fighter jets when they say Air Power?

I know traditionally that is what is usually meant, but if that's not needed as you say,
maybe it is something else?

The Air Force has all kinds of aircraft which do a variety of things.

Cargo planes drop off supplies.
Transport moves people.
Helicopters do extractions and evacuations.
Electronic warfare planes jam radar and do psy/ops.
Tankers do air refueling for long flights to enemy areas.
Reconnaissance does surveillance, high altitude stuff, SIGINT

[Just A Box Of Rain]

24. All these types of aircraft are highly vulnerable to Russian anti-aircraft.

Between the huge expense, complexity, difficulties of maintenance, and operational vulnerabilities, traditional air power ranks pretty low in Ukraine's hierarchy of needs.

The US and our allies has actually been peerless in ascertaining what UKR forces have needed in the moment--from the very beginning of this conflict, when they streamed in highly distributable, easy-to-use, and deadly effective shoulder fired weapons, until now, as ever heavier weapons go in--and matching the needs of UKR with just the right solutions.

It is often said that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. Well, not this time.

Too few anti-aircraft systems has been one of the few credible dings when it comes to western weapons supplies, and even there the resources have been impressive.

Aircraft are not where its at.

[Irish_Dem]

27. I watch a lot of Ukraine videos, I like the ones done by US generals.

I wish someone would ask them about the points you raise.
Why do they think air power is one of the three things needed in light of your comments.

Thanks as I listen to further videos I will listen for some answers to this question.

Many thanks for the info.
You should do a video!

[mitch96]

22. I just read that Ukraine has allocated money for Pilot training on "NATO" fighter jets..

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-kyiv-claims-new-combat-aircraft-has-been-determined.
F-16?
I know the USAF would love to unload all of their A-10 attack aircraft and buy something new and shiny
m

[Irish_Dem]

25. That is great. Yes the Air Force contractors and aircraft manufacturers are drooling as we speak.

[mitch96]

30. I think the whole military industrial complex is wringing their hands and drooling..$$$$$$

The production of 155mm shells is going up 500%. The shelf life is about 30 years so ship them old shells to UKR and buy new ones.. The M.I.Complex also now has a proving ground to test the new toys that they want to sell.. See what works and what doesn't
Remember the switchblade Kamikaze drone?
Did not do to well. Probably other systems are being tried out on the battle field.
Follow the money..
m

[Irish_Dem]

44. This is exactly why the GOP is not going to drags its feet on Ukraine.

Many people get very rich off of war.

Yes exactly, get rid of our mothball stuff.
And field test the new stuff.
And the MIC gets very rich.

[Caliman73]

4. They would be extremely valuable.

Nothing that the Russian military can field, would be able to match the Leopard, Abrams, or Challenger for that matter. Given the failure of supply lines, parts, and mechanics, it would be difficult for Russia to maintain their defensive posture if Ukrainian forces had those MBTs in sufficient numbers.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

23. They would be as vulnerable as the 1000 Russian tanks destroyed in Ukraine, they are juicy targets

[Wounded Bear]

5. Depends on how many and how fast they get there...

Just one armored unit will make a difference in a small sector of the front, but we're talking several hundred miles of front here.

Right now, from what I've heard, it's about 20 or so Leopards in a couple of months and that will help a lot in one area. As for the Abrams, I've heard 30 or so in "many" months. If they don't get there by the summer campaign season, they will probably be too late.

There are Leopards all over Europe, as Germany has sold them to most of our NATO allies, so more could come from other countries. Poland seems to be up front on that one, and they're direct neighbors, so they could get there fast, perhaps in a few weeks. Mud season is coming, and even tanks get confined to roads in Ukrainian rainy seasons.

If spread out in infantry support, they could be useful but if Russia rolls a WWII type tank offensive, they'll need lots of tanks to counter. The Abrams is touted as the "best" tank in the world and can kill enemy tanks at several thousand yards range, but if they are badly outnumbered they could get swarmed and overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Russians are notoriously profligate about casualties, and since they outnumber Ukraine by about 3 times in just raw population, they have the advantage if they fully mobilise. Will their population accept that? Good question.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

7. The Russians can't lay out a WWII type tank attack, unless they can literally revive WWII tanks

and similar from their tank graveyards.

Besides, UKR forces have vast supplies of Javelins, NLAWs, Carl Gustav M4s, and other extremely effective shoulder fired anti-tank missiles, plus Starstreak system from the UK, and guided munitions of all sorts.

Even improvised drone bomblets.

The Russian tanks are death traps in such circumstances.

We saw that in the first stage of this war of agression. Russian stocks are more depleted now than then, and UKR forces are strengthening.

[WarGamer]

41. I disagree about Russian weapons stocks.

Reading the non-Ukrainian news...

Russian factories are working 3 shifts, around the clock, probably getting materials from China and India.

They were caught flat footed in the summer of 22... they'll be ready for the summer of 23.

It's going to get MUCH MUCH worse.

Oh and Google Russian Kornet man portable AT weapon.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

47. Any new Russian tanks that they might manage to produce will be of the same highly-flawed

designs as the ones that have easily been blown to smithereens by NLAWs and Javelins.

They can't even survive a well-aimed Carl Gustav M4.

That's not going to change.

Those poor Russian tankers. Sitting on top of their ammunition. Knowing that at any moment...

[d_r]

11. other countries too

Poland sends Leopard tanks they bought from Germany, then Spain, Portugal, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Czech Republic, also UK sends challengers, and hopefully France sends leclerc tanks. I don't think the Abrams are the best for the mission, but the US sending them gives cover for Gernany to send Leopards which opens it up to the countries that have bought them from Germany.

[mitch96]

26. Even little Morocco is sending 20 modernized T-72 to Ukraine...

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/ukraine-conflict/1674409784-morocco-gives-tanks-to-ukraine-report

m

[Just A Box Of Rain]

48. Exactly.

[Aristus]

17. When we think of shipping M1 tanks to Ukraine, it's natural to think of sending them

across the Atlantic.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but the U.S. Army may still maintain some tank storage depots in Europe as part of POMCUS, Pre-positioning Of Materiel Configured to Unit Sets. This was a Cold War initiative that enable the U.S. military to keep large amounts of war vehicles and equipment close to staging areas for a potential hot war. It required much less manpower than stationing active duty units in the area, and made for quick replacement of weaponry in case of large battlefield losses.

When I was deployed to the Gulf in 1991, my unit didn't take our tanks with us. We just hopped on a plane at Rhein-Main, flew to Saudi Arabia, and were issued tanks out of the Central Command's POMCUS depots. The tank we got was brand new, with just twelve hours of engine use.

If there are any POMCUS tanks left in Europe, it shouldn't be too hard to put the allotted number onto a train bound for Ukraine via Poland. Sure would save time over shipping them across the Pond.

[mitch96]

19. From what I've read/heard that the tanks going to UKR are going to be built. They will not have

the fancy reactive armor and electronic gizmos incase of capture by the ruskies. Can't give them our "special" stuff.. So it's gonna take a while.
m

[MarineCombatEngineer]

40. You're talking about the Reforger exercises in Germany

during the Cold War?
I participated in a couple of them, it was pretty intense.

Seems we walked the same sand during Desert Storm.

Ooh Rah.

[Aristus]

52. I don't know if they used POMCUS tanks for REFORGER.

I have a book about the REFORGER exercises that has a whole chapter about shipping tanks etc from the US to Europe. The intent was to train logistical units for the demands of a wartime deployment and buildup.

As it happens, they stopped the full-up, large scale field exercises of REFORGER the year I arrived in Germany. In 1990, they turned it into largely a CPX, with command vehicles, TOC’s etc maneuvering out in the field, but the tank battles taking place mainly on paper and in computers.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

53. My experience with REFORGER was long before yours,

I participated in '72 and, if I remember correctly, '81, we were tasked with providing engineering support to Army units advancing on Warsaw Pact positions.

It was pretty realistic and intense.

[GP6971]

54. Here's a intersting and fairly

recent link. It's long, but it does somewhat addresses the current POMCUS status.

After a brief stint in Armor, the Army transferred me to the Transportation Corps. Moved a lot of Abrams and Bradleys in my time.

[womanofthehills]

6. Zelenskyy: When Russia has thousand tanks, 10-50 transferred to us will not solve proble

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the transfer of dozens of tanks to Ukraine by various countries "will not solve the problem", because Russia has about a thousand tanks, but it will motivate the Ukrainian military.

Source: Zelenskyy in an interview with the German TV channel ARD

Quote from Zelenskyy: "You should clearly understand: when the Russian army, which has a thousand tanks, is against us... There is simply no one to fight there; they are afraid; they are unmotivated, and this is a plus for us. But when they have a thousand tanks, any country’s decision to give us 10, 20 or 50 tanks can solve the problem.

They do only one very important thing – they motivate our soldiers to fight for their own values.Because they show that the whole world is with you. I have 10 tanks, so take them all; I have 100 tanks, so take them all; and I have one tank, and I'll give it to you."


https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-russia-thousand-tanks-10-222707260.html

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. The birthday-boy can be excused a bit of exaggeration in the name of a good cause.

[jcgoldie]

28. "the birthday boy"

Very arrogant and patronizing.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

31. On his birthday???

Good grief. Find some other outrage for god's sake.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. No, it's not. nt

[Raine]

56. Oh come on, geesh! 👎🙄nt

[msongs]

14. they are just targets...with hi PR value for the ruskies. nt

[edhopper]

18. Then what should be used

To drive back the Russian tanks?

[msongs]

36. haave read we have thousands of mothballed tanks of other models nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

43. What?

The Shermans?
The Pattons?
The M-60's?
Those tanks are obsolete and would fare poorly against Russian armor.

Also, the MBT's are a small part of the equation, Western order of battle and Command and Control are far superior to the Russian central control training, so those Ukr. MBT's would fare better in a head to head tank battle.

[WarGamer]

39. I don't think it's a "tank war"...

Russians have used tanks basically as armored personnel carriers, they're stupid.

Mentality stuck in 1945.

I don't think we'll EVER see large scale tank vs tank battles again.

[pecosbob]

29. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war. They will likely use the tanks in an anti-armor role.

By sending the tanks our government is sending a message to our allies in this informal coalition that we will stand behind them if Russia escalates the conflict. Germany was hesitant to commit it's front line tanks or to authorize Poland to send it's German-manufactured tanks without a similar commitment from us.

A couple of thousand artillery pieces would probably be more useful all in all.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

34. I agree on "the message that's being sent to Putin,

however, I disagree on the point of these tanks merely being used defensively.

I'm positively convinced they will be used offensively in the south to break the "land bridge" and that that will cause a logistical nightmare for Russian supply-lines.

[WarGamer]

33. The MBT (Main Battle Tank) is a relic of a lost age...

For the last 300ish years, maybe up until WW2... battleships stalked the high seas looking for other battleships and the tougher ship won the shootout... until submarines and aircraft carriers brought them to their knees.

Same in the 20th Century with tanks. During WW2, the race was on to make the toughest tank with the biggest gun and thickest armor to slug it out with other tanks.

Then along came Man Portable anti-Tank systems... the Germans stacked Russian tanks by the dozen with Panzerfaust weapons which cost less than a good watch.

So today...

The MBT is still useful to SOME extent but it's not the game changer it was in 1941.

Here's why:

1) All MBT are susceptible to Man Portable weapons like the Javelin or the Russian Kornet.

2) The few Abrams tanks lost in Iraq were damaged or destroyed by IED's

3) All MBT are vulnerable on top. Air to Surface Missiles, Bombs, Drones, rockets and missiles will all defeat a MBT.

4) Artillery. Simple old artillery will take out an MBT with a direct hit.

5) Logistics. Maintenance and Fueling.

6) Transportation. Tanks can't really trek across the open ground. They're big and tremendously heavy. They need good roads or at least decent open ground.

7) Tanks make great targets. The Russians will seek to stop the tanks the moment they cross into Ukraine. Bridges, rail, highways will all be targets. BTW, it's not likely that a tank would drive under it's own power from Lviv to Donetsk. They'll be transported by rail or flatbed truck on highways.



So what DO MBT do well in 2023?

Useful on offensive operations. But MUST be accompanied by mobile infantry and air support and anti aircraft support. Shouldn't be within Russian artillery range.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

35. Main battle tanks will be exceedingly useful in breaking Russian lines in the south

where Russian defenses are spread thin.

And breaking those lines is a critical strategic goal.

[WarGamer]

37. Agreed...

But I think it'd be a MAJOR mistake to use them in the defensive positions the Ukrainians have been constructing north of Kyiv south of Belarus.

Me personally... if I were playing a war game giving me tokens to buy certain numbers of weapons... I'd invest in speed and mobility on the ground like Bradley's...Give me 3x Bradley for each Abrams and I'll take the Bradley's.

There's just no use for a 120mm smoothbore cannon breaking through lines of soldiers in trenches or in farm houses.

Lesson #1 from WW2, tanks must ALWAYS be accompanied in advance by mobile infantry. Because ONE dude with a Kornet hiding in a cellar can light up a Leopard 2.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

50. I agree on the utility of Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

We are sending those as well, in order to support mobile infantry, which--as you rightly suggest--are key to protecting tanks.

To my mind, breaking the Russian lines in the south seems like the next strategic imperative in this conflict and in this "battle" I would expect that modern NATO tanks will prove to be a highly useful component.

This will create a logistical nightmare for Russian forces to "the west" of this line, who will be reliant on very long supply lines via Crimea.

I do agree that the days of large WWII tank battles are over.

[Kaleva]

45. Your last statement was true in WWII

Your comment:

"Useful on offensive operations. But MUST be accompanied by mobile infantry and air support and anti aircraft support. Shouldn't be within Russian artillery range."

Control of the skies was critical in the success of armoured offensives. Armour that didn't have proper and aggressive infantry support got destroyed by anti-tank guns , self propelled guns or infantry armed with Molotov Cocktails, anti tank grenades, bazookas, or panzerfausts.

A British study found that close to 70% of tanks lost in NW Europe during WWII was from mines, anti-tank guns and self propelled guns.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-allied-tank-casualties-in-the-eto/#:~:text=Gunfire%20in%20all%20its%20forms,British%20tank%20casualties%20down%20further.

[former9thward]

38. Tanks do not do well in mud.

Eastern Ukraine is mud right now.

[Kaleva]

46. Reports I've seen is that the ground is frozen

[former9thward]

51. And the promised tanks are not there.

It will be mud when they arrive.

[Kaleva]

58. You said the ground is mud now which it isn't.

[former9thward]

59. Have you ever even seen a tank?

I didn't think so. Know how they operate? I didn't think so. Do you know how much they weigh? I didn't think so. The ground underneath is mud.

The top inch or two may be "frozen" (Although current temperatures in Ukraine range from 35 F to 28 F so I doubt that) but tanks sink right through that. Go to Ukraine and drive one of those tanks. I will walk right by you.

[NickB79]

49. The guns of the Leopard and M1 exceed the Russian T-series tanks by up to 1000 meters

In areas like Southern Ukraine, where it looks more like Kansas, an extra 1000 meters means you can smoke Russian tanks before they're within firing range.

[jmowreader]

55. The Ukrainians use the old 3-3-3 tank battalion formation the USSR used

We’re sending them one battalion of tanks. This is better than nothing, but a tank battalion fights in a clump so if two Russian units need their asses kicked at the same time, one will have to wait. I’d be a little more comfortable with sending them 94 tanks, which is a full regiment.

[electric_blue68]

57. The Germany tanks will be there I heard March but the Abrams may take up to a year which didn't seem

that useful. The retired General talking said for the long term.

There are getting more missles from at least one country.

[Maxheader]

60. They'll have to protect the tanks from russian

aircraft with air to ground armament...