Stephen. Yes, the original webpage is wrong. FYI, I am a retired US Army Colonel. I speak, read, and can write pretty well, nearly fluently, in Russian. My wife is Ukrainian. All of her family has left and gone either to Europe or the US. We have 2 homes in Ukraine, one in Kyiv, the other on the Black Sea. Neither has been damaged by various attacks, but we have not been back since the war began. We are in frequent contact with many friends who are still in country. My perspective is that almost every Ukrainian we speak with is ready to die before being subjugated by Putin and Russia. Although it may be possible for Russia to capture large pieces of Ukraine, mostly in the eastern part, the partisan resistance will make it nearly impossible for Russia to occupy without continuous and serious losses in both people and equipment. Russians trying to live in Ukraine will be shot, blown up or poisoned on a regular basis, and will never be able to feel secure. All of Ukraine will look like Mariupol before Russians can safely live in Ukraine.
I suspect that your observations are accurate for many regions of Ukraine, and especially west of the Dniepr, but the country has been in a civil war since 2014 for a reason. I anticipate partition, but remain unsure as to the eventual location of the DMZ.
I wouldn't have any problem with Russia driving every Bandera Nazi back into Europe.
The Nazis have forfeited any but the most basic human rights due to their racist ideology and genocidal war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, crimes against the planet.
Winston Churchill (1944): ”I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the [Nazi] army."
It's on comment by alleged "Robert" from ukraine, whose all friends will rather die, allegedly, than live "under russia". They were living "under russia", more or less, from the creation of ukraine till the Putsch 2014. How come they did not kill themselves then, if it's true, or died in combat by now..? Anyway, it's just a retorical question that points how empty that whole comment is. So, if you don't already see why it is a "bandera narrative", it's because You don't wanna see it.
Reference your reference to the Russian anti-tank weapon Kornet 9M133. Корнет does NOT translate to Comet. It translates to Cornet, a musical instrument like a trumpet. Comet in Russian is - Комета, not - Корнет.
If NATO countries fulfilled their obligation to spend 2% of their GDP to up keep of their armed forces, we wouldnt be in a such sad state of affairs. Once again Trump was right and our left wingers are wrong.
Only thing saving us is the corrupt and ineptness of Russian army.
It is not clear to me that NATO countries spending 2% of GDP on highly overpriced Western weapons will accomplish the goal supposedly in question.
Have you not noticed that Western systems like the Patriot are shooting down $100K drones with 2x $2M to $4M missiles? With that type of economic tradeoff - 2% is probably nowhere remotely sufficient.
Bad language is not only bad, it is useless as a descriptor and inappropriate as well. I don't like the use of bad language. I find it offensive on the one hand and a poor shorthand for a reasonable explanation of your point of view.
Would you say that in finding out that our equipment is chintzy that the war has been useful? The American public needs to demand some scalps, and also pull in their horns. Also, I think those Leopards were actually sent to Lithuania, not Estonia, not that it really matters.
I think under the current transparent ISR conditions, armour (like large naval vessels and complex airframes) is increasingly little more than an expensive target for large numbers of relatively cheap missiles and drones.
The primary NATO tanks are qualitatively perfectly fine. Russian mil in fact respects them, gives them the honor of sending out valuable resources like helicopters and firing the best anti-tank missiles at them.
It is to be understood that tanks, like everything else at the front line, have a short life expectancy. Their role is to take out things that would threaten infantry by direct fire, namely, positions in trenches or buildings, and lesser vehicles, and (interestingly) mines. The latter role arguably better served by adapted agricultural vehicles, but the rest of it, a tank has proven indispensable. Despite vulnerability.
Alas, the drones kill everything now. No amount of armor will fix it either, since the latest generation of the lightest "semi-smart flying RPG's" now home in on the track or rear-track-drive sprocket (with the very latest having basic machine vision to keep the targeted spot on the vehicle, even if jammed in the final approach), and this immobilizes the vehicle with relative ease. Once at rest, the vehicle is finished off at the opponent's leisure.
Talk about generals always fighting the last war...
Maybe 'tanks' are obsolete, over a century after their introduction in WW1?
Ukraine has been using fancy modern NATO models almost exclusively as mobile artillery, after the few that ventured into combat were quickly destroyed.
Ukraine is using old Soviet tanks (T72s, T80's) and Western tanks ( Pt-91 from Poland, Leopard 1A's (old model, largely obsolete) and Leopard 2s plus Abrams M1). None of them have performed really well. The Ukrainians found out that the Leopards were ineffective and easily destroyed and tried instead of rely on mostly infantry fighting vehicles and APCs to move troops around, and for some assaults (especially in the Bradley Square area in Zaphorize). This has driven them into small scale assaults and vehicles spaced apart as much as possible.
FWIW, UA just spent a third of this past year repeatedly attempting classic mechanized assault, with tanks and IFV's deployed at scale in the leading role, many hundreds of vehicles in total
Not worth much to me, or maybe we're watching a different war?
I didn't see a single 'classic mechanized assault' in 2023.
Renaming the Orikhiv salient the 'Bradley Square' reflects almost exclusive use there and elsewhere of light armour to sneak a small squad quickly along some track to a new trench or treeline, before hurrying away to avoid artillery, rockets and drones.
I'm reminded of academic debates about chariots in the late Bronze Age. Many think that their main use was that described in the Iliad, for rapid transport of infantry into battle, rather than some game-changing new fighting platform, like heavy cavalry or Hannibal's elephants, precursors of now perhaps obsolete heavily armoured mobile guns - which are I think now mainlly used by both sides in Ukraine far behind lines of contact as highly mobile artillery for ballistic rather than direct fire.
As I recall the Bradley square op started with large armor attacks and when the Russians destroyed a lot of tanks and armor, the Ukrainians changed tactics, with smaller clusters and ultimately without any armor. Especially effective were Russian helicopters and air launched mines.
The two sides presented a different picture, for obvious reasons.
In the the first weeks of the offensive, as I recall, there were company and battalion sized attempts, but these were, whenever possible, met by Russia on the march, with higher value ranged fire. I.e. RF would risk losing a battery of Tornado-S to GMLRS in exchange for blunting the breaching power of a UA armored battalion before they came within range of the frontline equipment.
So as the story is told, Ukraine was compelled to proceeded in dispersed form after that pattern became clear. The Ukraine battle plan, as reported, depended on concentration of force to overwhelm Russian manpower and punch thru the lines. So denying the possibility to safely move dozens of vehicles in a single field square was decisive. The offensive resources then act more like bait to force defenders to fight, in an endless a frontal artillery (and now drone) exchange.
It would be ironic if a new secret weapon codenamed 'tank', developed to break the attritional stalemate on the Western Front of WW1, became obsolete by failing to break the 'WW1-style' stalemate in Ukraine a century later.
Maybe, maybe not. But the Russians are concerned enough to send 35,000 Rosgvardia to the occupied territories because of it... https://www.kyivpost.com/post/26460
If you start your conversation (in Russian) with "I am an American, and I don't speak Ukrainian..." people will smile and be happy to speak with you in Russian. At the same time, they may respond in English. English is becoming the second language of Ukraine. I think maybe 25% of the population, at least in cities can speak English now. English is a language very much in demand in Ukraine
Just more reason Ike was right with MR (CFR, Dulles, 1954). Conventional warfare is too easy to engage in, too wasteful of men, materiel and budgets, and completely indecisive; we took 15 yrs in Vietnam and 20 yrs in S Asia ... to fail. As Robt E Lee: we have made war too un-horrible and so grown to love it too much. MR fixes all of these issues.
I have heard this argument advanced by US and NATO experts, but I also think it is an excuse to cover up the operational failure of the great counter-offensive which was planed, gamed, and fully supported by NATO. In other words, I am far from convinced that the Ukrainians didn't do as they were told and instructed.
“If NATO keeps shoveling arms into Ukraine, it will further weaken RUSSIA’s war-fighting capability.” Fixed it for you.
OSINT verified Russian tank losses have been epic in scale, proving that the tank -- be it Western or Russian-- is a very vulnerable platform on a modern battlefield.
“Classic” armoured assaults don’t yield results for either side thus far, so new tactics are required.
BUT as long as Ukraine is using its NATO supplied armour to hold its line and attrit Russian reserves it’s a “win” for NATO as whatever Ukraine destroys cannot be used in the future.
The Russians are proving they can make new tanks rapidly while the west cannot (and generally isn't trying). There is no evidence Russia is short on armor, so NATO ought to be worried about any future conflict or conflict that spreads to Europe. Ukraine is using both Western and Russian-origin equipment in the war.
Where is this evidence Russia is making “new” tanks? They seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with respect to refurbished stored tanks, but new production is low according to everything I’ve read.
That said, the paradox at the heart of your article remains: tanks are very vulnerable so we must produce more of them / keep those we have.
Seems to me we need different platforms to support different tactics.
But even if I am wring about that, cutting off Ukraine is NOT the answer, for every Russian tank they destroy today is one that cannot be used tomorrow.
Sure, and all of those articles say that Russia is producing very few “new” tanks and rapidly depleting its reserves of T64s and even dipping into the T50 series. Not many T90s are being destroyed now in Ukraine which — given their past performance — indicates not many are being made.
Moreover, while I agree more Western production is needed, it is not all bad news! For example, South Korea and Poland are producing tanks, with 182 K2s already being delivered from SK to Poland and 820 K2PLs to be produced under licence in Poland from 2026.
Again, if the tank remains relevant, giving Ukraine what it needs to destroy as many Russian ones as possible now is no bad thing.
The production in Korea and Poland is not a game changer and I think the Russians are producing new tank models (although the rate of production is a closely held secret). Refurbishing old tanks is something we also do.
Too much BBC or Kiev Post? They have an obligation to uphold motivation for their side.
Primary sources (i.e. Rostec, RF MoD) reports the bulk of the touted Russian figure of 1500/year are modernized T-90 and deeply refurbished T-72. With the latter being the workhorse "sensible-cost" model intended for warfighting, as envisioned from its inception. Those two models share compatibility in many components (engine, outer armor, gun, compatible autoloader, good portion of electronics). Then similarly deep-modernizations of the T-80's in smaller but still significant numbers, which in today's generation differ only in the fancier engine, which makes them more suited to particular roles and ultra cold climates.
Some T-90 chassis are built from scratch, but nowhere near numbers consumed by the war. No T-72 or T-80 are built from scratch. Refurbishments on the other hand draw on a supply of more than 10k "third generation" tank chassis, i.e. contemporaries of the Leo2 and Abrams, which are then outfitted with new subsystems - engine, armor, gun, loader, electronics - from the T-90-M generation.
There is slowdown in investing in the next generation "T-14" Armata tank, for the reasons discussed in this article, and same reasons USMC ditched the Abrams and so on. On the other hand, the conceptual role of "tank" lives on, and will likely involve unmanned variations after the third generation is depleted or made obsolete by upcoming developments.
OSINT as in Oryx is craptastic to the extreme. When even the Ukrainian military is saying Russian armor losses are lower than Oryx, you know that said outfit is garbage.
Why is the US sending tanks over if they're telling them not to use them on the battlefield because they'll be smashed up? They're not a threat to the Russians if they're tucked away in storage.
The reason is political. The US pressured Germany to send Leopards. The Germans asked how come the US was not sending Abrams. The political solution was to send some Abrams (but only after they were pulled from old inventory and some of the classified stuff was removed).
This was true for the Merkava I fielded in the 1980s but since then Plasan, an Israeli company, has become a world leader in armor. Its armor is used for the new UK Type 26 frigate, a new Australian IFV and is likely the source of the Merkava IV composite armor:
In the last 20 years, 6 Israeli scientists working at universities in Israel have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, so this development is not surprising.
Thanks. Of course I was talking about the first Merkava. I met with General Tal and visited the tank factory with him and got a full briefing on the Merkava when the first model was being put together.
" I met with General Tal and visited the tank factory with him and got a full briefing on the Merkava when the first model was being put together"
That would make a fascinating article describing the design choices for the Merkava.
The front engine placement allows rearming and refueling from the rear without leaving its position, something learned from the Yom Kippur war on the Golan. A very gutsy snd fundamental design decision for one's first tank.
I regard Tal as a genius when it came to tanks. The design featured a rear door to be able to carry troops, pick up wounded etc. With the engine in the front there was additional crew protection. The design featured a mirror for the tank commander rather than having to stick his head out of a hatch. The gun had the first thermal shroud of any army, a design the US finally adopted. The list goes on and on. Tal explained to me all the reasons and priorities, #1 was crew protection. The original Merkava had a 105mm rifled gun, now (like others) it is 120mm smooth bore. Attention was paid to quick repair capabilities. The original engine was MTU and the transmission was Allison. The suspension was German. Tal served as a consultant for the Abrams tank. He was a student of Rommel and the use of tanks in warfare.
Stephen. Yes, the original webpage is wrong. FYI, I am a retired US Army Colonel. I speak, read, and can write pretty well, nearly fluently, in Russian. My wife is Ukrainian. All of her family has left and gone either to Europe or the US. We have 2 homes in Ukraine, one in Kyiv, the other on the Black Sea. Neither has been damaged by various attacks, but we have not been back since the war began. We are in frequent contact with many friends who are still in country. My perspective is that almost every Ukrainian we speak with is ready to die before being subjugated by Putin and Russia. Although it may be possible for Russia to capture large pieces of Ukraine, mostly in the eastern part, the partisan resistance will make it nearly impossible for Russia to occupy without continuous and serious losses in both people and equipment. Russians trying to live in Ukraine will be shot, blown up or poisoned on a regular basis, and will never be able to feel secure. All of Ukraine will look like Mariupol before Russians can safely live in Ukraine.
Thanks for your view on this mess.
I suspect that your observations are accurate for many regions of Ukraine, and especially west of the Dniepr, but the country has been in a civil war since 2014 for a reason. I anticipate partition, but remain unsure as to the eventual location of the DMZ.
I wouldn't have any problem with Russia driving every Bandera Nazi back into Europe.
The Nazis have forfeited any but the most basic human rights due to their racist ideology and genocidal war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, crimes against the planet.
Winston Churchill (1944): ”I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the [Nazi] army."
Sadly, it appears all your Ukrainian friends will get their opportunity to demonstrate this - without changing the outcome one iota.
Cheap bandera-propaganda. Russia will fix it, just watch.
???? Why would you make a remark like that?
It's on comment by alleged "Robert" from ukraine, whose all friends will rather die, allegedly, than live "under russia". They were living "under russia", more or less, from the creation of ukraine till the Putsch 2014. How come they did not kill themselves then, if it's true, or died in combat by now..? Anyway, it's just a retorical question that points how empty that whole comment is. So, if you don't already see why it is a "bandera narrative", it's because You don't wanna see it.
I am curious though: do that anti-Russian language and culture laws in Ukraine apply to you?
It seems it is improper to speak Russian there, as opposed to Ukrainian.
Reference your reference to the Russian anti-tank weapon Kornet 9M133. Корнет does NOT translate to Comet. It translates to Cornet, a musical instrument like a trumpet. Comet in Russian is - Комета, not - Корнет.
Thanks. It is shown on the web as meaning Comet. I accept your correction.
If NATO countries fulfilled their obligation to spend 2% of their GDP to up keep of their armed forces, we wouldnt be in a such sad state of affairs. Once again Trump was right and our left wingers are wrong.
Only thing saving us is the corrupt and ineptness of Russian army.
aside from that, we blow tens of billions on stuff we don't need and have completely neglected upgrading our defense industrial base.
It is not clear to me that NATO countries spending 2% of GDP on highly overpriced Western weapons will accomplish the goal supposedly in question.
Have you not noticed that Western systems like the Patriot are shooting down $100K drones with 2x $2M to $4M missiles? With that type of economic tradeoff - 2% is probably nowhere remotely sufficient.
Don't agree. Moreover, I don't like your use of language, which is inappropriate.
Bad language is not only bad, it is useless as a descriptor and inappropriate as well. I don't like the use of bad language. I find it offensive on the one hand and a poor shorthand for a reasonable explanation of your point of view.
I warned you.
Would you say that in finding out that our equipment is chintzy that the war has been useful? The American public needs to demand some scalps, and also pull in their horns. Also, I think those Leopards were actually sent to Lithuania, not Estonia, not that it really matters.
The American public should, but will we? Heck, we've got Israel/Hamas to figure out and maybe a "pivot" to Asia.
It ain't working and the US needs to pursue a neutralist foreign policy and a neutralist ethos.
Unfortunately, we shall probably stumble along until the big one.
Tandem-warhead rounds were developed to defeat ERA. First warhead detonates the ERA, second penetrates the armor.
I think under the current transparent ISR conditions, armour (like large naval vessels and complex airframes) is increasingly little more than an expensive target for large numbers of relatively cheap missiles and drones.
The primary NATO tanks are qualitatively perfectly fine. Russian mil in fact respects them, gives them the honor of sending out valuable resources like helicopters and firing the best anti-tank missiles at them.
It is to be understood that tanks, like everything else at the front line, have a short life expectancy. Their role is to take out things that would threaten infantry by direct fire, namely, positions in trenches or buildings, and lesser vehicles, and (interestingly) mines. The latter role arguably better served by adapted agricultural vehicles, but the rest of it, a tank has proven indispensable. Despite vulnerability.
Alas, the drones kill everything now. No amount of armor will fix it either, since the latest generation of the lightest "semi-smart flying RPG's" now home in on the track or rear-track-drive sprocket (with the very latest having basic machine vision to keep the targeted spot on the vehicle, even if jammed in the final approach), and this immobilizes the vehicle with relative ease. Once at rest, the vehicle is finished off at the opponent's leisure.
Talk about generals always fighting the last war...
Maybe 'tanks' are obsolete, over a century after their introduction in WW1?
Ukraine has been using fancy modern NATO models almost exclusively as mobile artillery, after the few that ventured into combat were quickly destroyed.
Ukraine is using old Soviet tanks (T72s, T80's) and Western tanks ( Pt-91 from Poland, Leopard 1A's (old model, largely obsolete) and Leopard 2s plus Abrams M1). None of them have performed really well. The Ukrainians found out that the Leopards were ineffective and easily destroyed and tried instead of rely on mostly infantry fighting vehicles and APCs to move troops around, and for some assaults (especially in the Bradley Square area in Zaphorize). This has driven them into small scale assaults and vehicles spaced apart as much as possible.
FWIW, UA just spent a third of this past year repeatedly attempting classic mechanized assault, with tanks and IFV's deployed at scale in the leading role, many hundreds of vehicles in total
Not worth much to me, or maybe we're watching a different war?
I didn't see a single 'classic mechanized assault' in 2023.
Renaming the Orikhiv salient the 'Bradley Square' reflects almost exclusive use there and elsewhere of light armour to sneak a small squad quickly along some track to a new trench or treeline, before hurrying away to avoid artillery, rockets and drones.
I'm reminded of academic debates about chariots in the late Bronze Age. Many think that their main use was that described in the Iliad, for rapid transport of infantry into battle, rather than some game-changing new fighting platform, like heavy cavalry or Hannibal's elephants, precursors of now perhaps obsolete heavily armoured mobile guns - which are I think now mainlly used by both sides in Ukraine far behind lines of contact as highly mobile artillery for ballistic rather than direct fire.
As I recall the Bradley square op started with large armor attacks and when the Russians destroyed a lot of tanks and armor, the Ukrainians changed tactics, with smaller clusters and ultimately without any armor. Especially effective were Russian helicopters and air launched mines.
The two sides presented a different picture, for obvious reasons.
In the the first weeks of the offensive, as I recall, there were company and battalion sized attempts, but these were, whenever possible, met by Russia on the march, with higher value ranged fire. I.e. RF would risk losing a battery of Tornado-S to GMLRS in exchange for blunting the breaching power of a UA armored battalion before they came within range of the frontline equipment.
So as the story is told, Ukraine was compelled to proceeded in dispersed form after that pattern became clear. The Ukraine battle plan, as reported, depended on concentration of force to overwhelm Russian manpower and punch thru the lines. So denying the possibility to safely move dozens of vehicles in a single field square was decisive. The offensive resources then act more like bait to force defenders to fight, in an endless a frontal artillery (and now drone) exchange.
Fair enough... you did indeed say 'attempting' classic mechanized assault (without air support, while Russia had lethal attack helicopters).
I just wonder whether classic mechanized assault has any future in the drone era?
It is an excellent question to ask
It would be ironic if a new secret weapon codenamed 'tank', developed to break the attritional stalemate on the Western Front of WW1, became obsolete by failing to break the 'WW1-style' stalemate in Ukraine a century later.
million dollar question!
Maybe, maybe not. But the Russians are concerned enough to send 35,000 Rosgvardia to the occupied territories because of it... https://www.kyivpost.com/post/26460
If you start your conversation (in Russian) with "I am an American, and I don't speak Ukrainian..." people will smile and be happy to speak with you in Russian. At the same time, they may respond in English. English is becoming the second language of Ukraine. I think maybe 25% of the population, at least in cities can speak English now. English is a language very much in demand in Ukraine
Just more reason Ike was right with MR (CFR, Dulles, 1954). Conventional warfare is too easy to engage in, too wasteful of men, materiel and budgets, and completely indecisive; we took 15 yrs in Vietnam and 20 yrs in S Asia ... to fail. As Robt E Lee: we have made war too un-horrible and so grown to love it too much. MR fixes all of these issues.
The readers of this substack are very knowledgable.
In Donbas and Zaph. the western tanks were not properly employed!
Failing to prepare the battlespace, and support the so called advances denied tanks at least one of their "critical assets".
NATO/US needs to fire its "planners" before spending money on tank appliques!
Logistics is not native among US/NATO militaries.
I have heard this argument advanced by US and NATO experts, but I also think it is an excuse to cover up the operational failure of the great counter-offensive which was planed, gamed, and fully supported by NATO. In other words, I am far from convinced that the Ukrainians didn't do as they were told and instructed.
“If NATO keeps shoveling arms into Ukraine, it will further weaken RUSSIA’s war-fighting capability.” Fixed it for you.
OSINT verified Russian tank losses have been epic in scale, proving that the tank -- be it Western or Russian-- is a very vulnerable platform on a modern battlefield.
“Classic” armoured assaults don’t yield results for either side thus far, so new tactics are required.
BUT as long as Ukraine is using its NATO supplied armour to hold its line and attrit Russian reserves it’s a “win” for NATO as whatever Ukraine destroys cannot be used in the future.
The Russians are proving they can make new tanks rapidly while the west cannot (and generally isn't trying). There is no evidence Russia is short on armor, so NATO ought to be worried about any future conflict or conflict that spreads to Europe. Ukraine is using both Western and Russian-origin equipment in the war.
Where is this evidence Russia is making “new” tanks? They seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel with respect to refurbished stored tanks, but new production is low according to everything I’ve read.
That said, the paradox at the heart of your article remains: tanks are very vulnerable so we must produce more of them / keep those we have.
Seems to me we need different platforms to support different tactics.
But even if I am wring about that, cutting off Ukraine is NOT the answer, for every Russian tank they destroy today is one that cannot be used tomorrow.
The Russians are refurbishing old tanks and manufacturing new ones. There have been numerous articles on the subject.
Sure, and all of those articles say that Russia is producing very few “new” tanks and rapidly depleting its reserves of T64s and even dipping into the T50 series. Not many T90s are being destroyed now in Ukraine which — given their past performance — indicates not many are being made.
Moreover, while I agree more Western production is needed, it is not all bad news! For example, South Korea and Poland are producing tanks, with 182 K2s already being delivered from SK to Poland and 820 K2PLs to be produced under licence in Poland from 2026.
Again, if the tank remains relevant, giving Ukraine what it needs to destroy as many Russian ones as possible now is no bad thing.
The production in Korea and Poland is not a game changer and I think the Russians are producing new tank models (although the rate of production is a closely held secret). Refurbishing old tanks is something we also do.
Too much BBC or Kiev Post? They have an obligation to uphold motivation for their side.
Primary sources (i.e. Rostec, RF MoD) reports the bulk of the touted Russian figure of 1500/year are modernized T-90 and deeply refurbished T-72. With the latter being the workhorse "sensible-cost" model intended for warfighting, as envisioned from its inception. Those two models share compatibility in many components (engine, outer armor, gun, compatible autoloader, good portion of electronics). Then similarly deep-modernizations of the T-80's in smaller but still significant numbers, which in today's generation differ only in the fancier engine, which makes them more suited to particular roles and ultra cold climates.
Some T-90 chassis are built from scratch, but nowhere near numbers consumed by the war. No T-72 or T-80 are built from scratch. Refurbishments on the other hand draw on a supply of more than 10k "third generation" tank chassis, i.e. contemporaries of the Leo2 and Abrams, which are then outfitted with new subsystems - engine, armor, gun, loader, electronics - from the T-90-M generation.
There is slowdown in investing in the next generation "T-14" Armata tank, for the reasons discussed in this article, and same reasons USMC ditched the Abrams and so on. On the other hand, the conceptual role of "tank" lives on, and will likely involve unmanned variations after the third generation is depleted or made obsolete by upcoming developments.
I am not sure you are right, nor is anyone else.
OSINT as in Oryx is craptastic to the extreme. When even the Ukrainian military is saying Russian armor losses are lower than Oryx, you know that said outfit is garbage.
Why is the US sending tanks over if they're telling them not to use them on the battlefield because they'll be smashed up? They're not a threat to the Russians if they're tucked away in storage.
The reason is political. The US pressured Germany to send Leopards. The Germans asked how come the US was not sending Abrams. The political solution was to send some Abrams (but only after they were pulled from old inventory and some of the classified stuff was removed).
"Israel was not allowed access to advanced armor"
This was true for the Merkava I fielded in the 1980s but since then Plasan, an Israeli company, has become a world leader in armor. Its armor is used for the new UK Type 26 frigate, a new Australian IFV and is likely the source of the Merkava IV composite armor:
https://plasan.com/balistic-protection/
In the last 20 years, 6 Israeli scientists working at universities in Israel have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, so this development is not surprising.
Thanks. Of course I was talking about the first Merkava. I met with General Tal and visited the tank factory with him and got a full briefing on the Merkava when the first model was being put together.
" I met with General Tal and visited the tank factory with him and got a full briefing on the Merkava when the first model was being put together"
That would make a fascinating article describing the design choices for the Merkava.
The front engine placement allows rearming and refueling from the rear without leaving its position, something learned from the Yom Kippur war on the Golan. A very gutsy snd fundamental design decision for one's first tank.
I regard Tal as a genius when it came to tanks. The design featured a rear door to be able to carry troops, pick up wounded etc. With the engine in the front there was additional crew protection. The design featured a mirror for the tank commander rather than having to stick his head out of a hatch. The gun had the first thermal shroud of any army, a design the US finally adopted. The list goes on and on. Tal explained to me all the reasons and priorities, #1 was crew protection. The original Merkava had a 105mm rifled gun, now (like others) it is 120mm smooth bore. Attention was paid to quick repair capabilities. The original engine was MTU and the transmission was Allison. The suspension was German. Tal served as a consultant for the Abrams tank. He was a student of Rommel and the use of tanks in warfare.