German, British and American main battle tanks either already have arrived in Ukraine or will soon be on their way. But these tanks have some well known weaknesses and the Russians are likely ready for them. Worse still, none of them have active defense systems, a critically important way of protecting tanks and tank crews from modern antitank weapons.
Russian tanks also have stabilized guns going all the way back to the T-34. Their gun aiming systems are, however, not as good as on the top western tanks. While I don't have any precise information, it looks like tank on tank battles in the Ukraine war are not (so far) very common. Most of the tanks I have seen on video on both sides are firing from fixed positions. I agree with your assessment about tank use in Ukraine.
I once owned an MG-TD (1953) where the bolts either were metric or had Whitworth threads. A real pain. Typical of how the UK does things. (My Austin Healy 3000 wasn't any better.)
There is a person under the banner of Simple Horn who keeps sending countless comments to this blog. If Simple Horn really has something to say, he or she should get a blog. I won't reply to any of them any longer.
you answered your own argument when you said the US would use reactive armor when the threat required it. That is since 2017 so it isn't related to Ukraine but instead to Iraq and Syria.
I am a former tank commander and US field artillery officer. I disagree with most of this article. Yes, Western tanks have vulnerabilities. All tanks do. Fact is that most tank kills are done by IFVs and infantry using ATGMs, not tank-on-tank confrontations. Bradleys killed more tanks in Desert Storm than did Abrams. Western tanks, however, are more reliable, have infinitely better sighting and fire control systems, and are far less vulnerable to first-hit kills than are Russian tanks, most of which will go jack-in-the-box upon the first hit. If the Ukrainians properly use combined arms tactics, i.e. MBTs (Leopards other Western tanks), IFVs (Bradleys, Marders, others) and ATGMs, combined with good artillery including precision munitions (which the Ukrainians appear to be husbanding at the moment) they will be able to knife through Russian defensive positions, get in their rear, create havoc, and win battles. Contrary to this article, Western armored vehicles are designed for precisely the conditions in Ukraine, which are similar to conditions in Germany in many respects.
For the last six months everyone has been focused on Bakhmut, which is a stupid battle in which Russia/Wagner uses stupid, wasteful tactics, i.e. blast away with artillery until the ammo is gone and the tubes are worn out, combined with idiotic human wave tactics (until they run out of bodies). This is about all anyone can do during the non-campaign season in a war in which neither side has an effective air force. But Spring is here and we will shortly see decisive battles using Western equipment and Western combined arms tactics. It is going to be exciting. And it will not be like Bakhmut.
Anyone who would suggest modern western MBT’s will perform poorly versus Russian equipment in Ukraine most likely has zero or next to zero real world experience on a battlefield or in a tank.
This is a "tell me you know nothing about combined arms maneuver, without telling me you know nothing about combined arms maneuver" article.
There is no such thing as a super weapon. The reason why Turkish Leapord 2 and Iraqi Abrams tanks got killed by ISIS (and Houthi's targeting Saudi Abrams) with Kornet AT missiles and RPG-29s is because they did stupid things, like push armor forward alone, the same way the Russians have been doing. It doesn't matter how big or bad any tank is, enough "boom" will kill it. What matters is sensors, communications, and system accuracy that allow a tank to be part of a bigger team.
And the reason why the Ukrainians are throwing ERA on tanks isn't because they are bad tanks, but because the Ukranians throw ERA on EVERYTHING they can. It's a TTP they've used since at least 2015 that I've been tracking. They know that now is not the time to hold back anything for later, so they use everything they can to keep it in the fight as long as possible. Claiming that this is somehow proof of insufficiency is stupid.
And quite frankly, "Leopard 2s and Abrams get stuck in the mud" is hardly the case in Poland, where the Polish military and US Army have gained plenty of experience operating heavy tanks in eastern Europe's mud. Yes everything will get stuck in the mud eventually, but that applies equally to the Russians....
In the defense or a planned offensive when you only launch one or two a year, and only have one heavy battalion to plan for, you can plan around the weight of the Abrams/Leo. Its a constraint…..it doesn’t make them that much less useful (seasonally for mud thats another issue)
He mentions the absence of active protection systems on the Western tanks being sent to Ukraine early on, as a strong example to support his subject title but fails to mention until much later, buried in a different point that Russian tanks also have no active protection systems. In fact, most tanks in the world do not have modern effective active protection systems like Trophy. Really only Israel fields them in any real capacity. Thus, this isn't a point at all. It's like pointing out that Western tanks don't have laser beams(going with something over-the-top) and thus, this is a good reason they will fail despite Russian not having laser beams either.
The entire blog is composed like this and thus, discredit itself as it does not state all the facts. For example, ignoring all Russian/Soviet tank's glaring weakness like their tendency to explode and inferior fire control and optics.
Also, the tanks being sent to Ukraine were quite literally, DESIGNED to fight against Soviet tanks, in Eastern Europe at that.
This comment is for everyone else, not the author but now he can use this "second comment" as an excuse to ignore everything and live in his fantasy land. Your welcome.
Okay, perhaps the REAL, non-speculative, question to answer is which MBT would you personally rather go to war in? Looking at the casualty rates in Ukraine and the crew survival rate the answer is, decidedly, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams. Optics and outranging your enemy in COMBINED ARMS combat is THE determining factor. My money's on the Ukrainians precise fires as opposed to Russia's T-55, 62, 64, 72, 80, 90.
Russian tanks also have stabilized guns going all the way back to the T-34. Their gun aiming systems are, however, not as good as on the top western tanks. While I don't have any precise information, it looks like tank on tank battles in the Ukraine war are not (so far) very common. Most of the tanks I have seen on video on both sides are firing from fixed positions. I agree with your assessment about tank use in Ukraine.
I once owned an MG-TD (1953) where the bolts either were metric or had Whitworth threads. A real pain. Typical of how the UK does things. (My Austin Healy 3000 wasn't any better.)
There is a person under the banner of Simple Horn who keeps sending countless comments to this blog. If Simple Horn really has something to say, he or she should get a blog. I won't reply to any of them any longer.
you answered your own argument when you said the US would use reactive armor when the threat required it. That is since 2017 so it isn't related to Ukraine but instead to Iraq and Syria.
it is brand new because the Russians have not yet put it on their tanks, except maybe the latest ones (if that)
Disagree. The US is doing the same thing.
I am a former tank commander and US field artillery officer. I disagree with most of this article. Yes, Western tanks have vulnerabilities. All tanks do. Fact is that most tank kills are done by IFVs and infantry using ATGMs, not tank-on-tank confrontations. Bradleys killed more tanks in Desert Storm than did Abrams. Western tanks, however, are more reliable, have infinitely better sighting and fire control systems, and are far less vulnerable to first-hit kills than are Russian tanks, most of which will go jack-in-the-box upon the first hit. If the Ukrainians properly use combined arms tactics, i.e. MBTs (Leopards other Western tanks), IFVs (Bradleys, Marders, others) and ATGMs, combined with good artillery including precision munitions (which the Ukrainians appear to be husbanding at the moment) they will be able to knife through Russian defensive positions, get in their rear, create havoc, and win battles. Contrary to this article, Western armored vehicles are designed for precisely the conditions in Ukraine, which are similar to conditions in Germany in many respects.
For the last six months everyone has been focused on Bakhmut, which is a stupid battle in which Russia/Wagner uses stupid, wasteful tactics, i.e. blast away with artillery until the ammo is gone and the tubes are worn out, combined with idiotic human wave tactics (until they run out of bodies). This is about all anyone can do during the non-campaign season in a war in which neither side has an effective air force. But Spring is here and we will shortly see decisive battles using Western equipment and Western combined arms tactics. It is going to be exciting. And it will not be like Bakhmut.
Anyone who would suggest modern western MBT’s will perform poorly versus Russian equipment in Ukraine most likely has zero or next to zero real world experience on a battlefield or in a tank.
This is a "tell me you know nothing about combined arms maneuver, without telling me you know nothing about combined arms maneuver" article.
There is no such thing as a super weapon. The reason why Turkish Leapord 2 and Iraqi Abrams tanks got killed by ISIS (and Houthi's targeting Saudi Abrams) with Kornet AT missiles and RPG-29s is because they did stupid things, like push armor forward alone, the same way the Russians have been doing. It doesn't matter how big or bad any tank is, enough "boom" will kill it. What matters is sensors, communications, and system accuracy that allow a tank to be part of a bigger team.
And the reason why the Ukrainians are throwing ERA on tanks isn't because they are bad tanks, but because the Ukranians throw ERA on EVERYTHING they can. It's a TTP they've used since at least 2015 that I've been tracking. They know that now is not the time to hold back anything for later, so they use everything they can to keep it in the fight as long as possible. Claiming that this is somehow proof of insufficiency is stupid.
And quite frankly, "Leopard 2s and Abrams get stuck in the mud" is hardly the case in Poland, where the Polish military and US Army have gained plenty of experience operating heavy tanks in eastern Europe's mud. Yes everything will get stuck in the mud eventually, but that applies equally to the Russians....
I’ve run out of motivation to correct this article. There is a lot. Suggest running this past an armor guy and an analyst to sand the edges.
Turkey lost 10 Leopard 2A4 tanks in a few months in Syria, mostly knocked out by old Russian antitank missiles like Konkurs.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/leopard-2-tank-has-some-big-flaws-it-got-smashed-syria-117856
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/arms-for-hostage-germany-explores-yuecel-deal-with-turkey-a-1189197.html
In the defense or a planned offensive when you only launch one or two a year, and only have one heavy battalion to plan for, you can plan around the weight of the Abrams/Leo. Its a constraint…..it doesn’t make them that much less useful (seasonally for mud thats another issue)
Test
After Bradley Square, this article appears prescient. It has certainly aged well.
Here is a good example of this article's bias.
He mentions the absence of active protection systems on the Western tanks being sent to Ukraine early on, as a strong example to support his subject title but fails to mention until much later, buried in a different point that Russian tanks also have no active protection systems. In fact, most tanks in the world do not have modern effective active protection systems like Trophy. Really only Israel fields them in any real capacity. Thus, this isn't a point at all. It's like pointing out that Western tanks don't have laser beams(going with something over-the-top) and thus, this is a good reason they will fail despite Russian not having laser beams either.
The entire blog is composed like this and thus, discredit itself as it does not state all the facts. For example, ignoring all Russian/Soviet tank's glaring weakness like their tendency to explode and inferior fire control and optics.
Also, the tanks being sent to Ukraine were quite literally, DESIGNED to fight against Soviet tanks, in Eastern Europe at that.
This comment is for everyone else, not the author but now he can use this "second comment" as an excuse to ignore everything and live in his fantasy land. Your welcome.
Okay, perhaps the REAL, non-speculative, question to answer is which MBT would you personally rather go to war in? Looking at the casualty rates in Ukraine and the crew survival rate the answer is, decidedly, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams. Optics and outranging your enemy in COMBINED ARMS combat is THE determining factor. My money's on the Ukrainians precise fires as opposed to Russia's T-55, 62, 64, 72, 80, 90.