Good points, but with a bit M1 experience myself, I would differ on a few points. I do not believe that a light logistical tail can support the M1, or effectively support multiple modern tank platforms in a high intensity combat theater. Northern Australia is no doubt tough, but no one was using drones to find and destroy your fuel trucks. With the complex and kinetic reality of Ukraine right now, fuel convoys - necessary for high tempo M1 operations - would not be long survivable. In contrast, I watched many times as Leo II crews refueled their more efficient tanks from jerry cans. My M1 battalion needed brigade level support of fuel trucks daily on exercises such as REFORGER. You simply cannot support an M1 fleet with fuel cans and continue high tempo operations. Second, the maintenance and spare parts challenges of fielding a mixed tank force in a high intensity environment is potentially overwhelming. You blithely talk of moving power packs to third nations for repair... what? That would sideline a precious combat power potentially for months and take significant transport capability and extensive logistical bureaucracy to manage. Add to that the confusion of multiple MBT platforms and I think the whole thing grinds to a halt in a month or two.
The best solution is for the US to perhaps provide a company sized M1 offering to placate German political concerns, and then push Leo IIs as the major platform. As many as can be found. This will significantly aid in training, battlefield sustainment, and simplify logistical support - particularly at the depot level. Give them one great tank to focus on and support.
US to provide M1s, but at a slow pace that holds back that logistical challenge while enabling fast Leo II transfer. The fact that UKR is getting new production US tanks is a sad statement about domestic politics and the Mil/Ind complex. We have thousands sitting in depots but we’re gonna make more? #ikewasright
So how much more fuel does M1 use? I read about the double amount? So that's the double amount of fuel cans? ;-)
And even if all this is not feasible, what is against using M1 in areas with not so active or currently no fighting, say northern Ukraine for example, to free up other tanks there? Doesn't Ukraine have tanks there?
You’re over thinking. Tanks don’t use gas like cars. It’s not gas mileage so much as terrain, activity, and the driver. They churn through fuel just sitting still as you have yo keep systems running - and be ready to go. Startup is also noisy so beat to limit them. M1s are best running JP8 jet fuel, but will run on diesel. Overall the Leo II is more efficient - particularly on diesel. And what unit goes where is combat power necessitated, rather than a what fits best.
As a German it is painful for me to follow the debate. Still, it is somewhat narrow. If you see the German perspective, we have moved our position from ‚no weapons into crisis regions‘ to ‚heavy artillery to crisis regions is fine‘. Also, you can see here https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/krieg-in-der-ukraine/lieferungen-ukraine-2054514 what material was delivered.
So to me it is a mix of bad communication, hesitancy and fear of escalation. I remember the Cold War when it was clear that any - even conventional - war meant the full destruction of Germany.
Those memories resonate - but we need to overcome those.
I sincerely hope that our Chancellor greenlights deliveries from allied forces.
Thank you sir for the excellent analysis. As a former commander of an Austrian tank battalion with Leopard 2A4 I can only underline the explanations and conclusions. I myself was responsible for the implementation of the Leopard 2A4 as the successor tank of the M60 and underline that with appropriate general knowledge in tank weaponry a quick and successful application is given. Much more difficult is the logistics and repair/maintenance as well as the supply of spare parts. Here it will not work without support from the donor countries.
Here's a question I hope to see addressed by some of those who know a lot about the Ukraine war.
Imagine that Ukraine succeeds in pushing Russian forces out of Ukraine. What's to stop the Russians from continuing the war by firing missiles and artillery on to Ukraine from Russian soil? Neither Ukraine or NATO or anybody else is in a position to invade Russia, right?
My guess, this war doesn't end until Putin is dead, or Russia's economy is so destroyed that they can no longer produce munitions.
Air defence, HIMARS/missiles to destroy launchers on Russia’s territory, forcing them to move outside of available range, eventually negotiations — they will not be able to just pointlessly strike another country forever without repercussions.
Yes, missiles can go both ways. The point I was trying to make is this...
There's a BIG difference between 1) NATO supplied weapons being used against Russia in Ukraine, and 2) NATO supplied weapons being used to destroy targets WITHIN Russia.
So for example, is Biden going to give Ukraine permission to fire American supplied weapons in to Russian territory? How about Moscow? Isn't that where the problem really resides?
When the West starts killing Russian citizens on Russian territory that would be a good time to bend over and kiss our butts goodbye. Russians would view such a development exactly the same way NATO would view Russian missiles falling on Poland.
Russia can attack Ukraine without attacking NATO. NATO supplied weapons can not be used against Russian territory without starting WWIII.
This is what it looks like to me anyway, counter arguments are welcome here.
I agree that scenario is possible. The Abrams are doing little,good in America; ship them to the countries most likely to face the Russians. I personally like the heterogenous nature of the equipment being supplied Ukraine. Gives us a chance to decide which weapon systems have the best effects.
The main argument against sending tanks is how the Russians would react. But the Russians will only react with rhetoric to whatever the west does. The Russians are clearly only driven by their own delusions. So sending tanks will not escalate anything. So send the tanks now.
Thank you sir. I think the argument is very strong for supplying Ukraine with a large force of main battle tanks and support infrastructure. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on longer range artillery and combat aircraft (F-16?). Should these be part of a combined arms force?
If the Ukrainians continue to prove competent at absorbing new system- and integrating them- I have no reservation to supply them with qualitatively improved systems.
Ukraine's allies have no strategy to allow Ukraine to win. Everything they have provided Ukraine is after the fact and the excuses are nonsense. It takes time to learn how to operate them. Well, you have had 11 months to train the AFU, but no, always wait to the last minute.
Mick, it appears that the US and now Germany have gotten your message! Finally! As of Jan 24 evening in the US, we have committed to sending M1 Abrams. And it sounds like Germany will get out of its own way and supply Leo 2 (though the damage has been done to Germany as being a trusted partner now).
The logistic footprint already exists in Ukraine. This should be a quick crash course for them. And who knows...how many Ukrainian troops have been trained on M1, Bradley IFV already?? Major turning point of all these announcements do come to fruition
I note with concern the discussion about sending the Leopards to Ukraine. This needs to be clarified, because it has decisive implications. We sometimes wonder how the war in Ukraine could spread to Central Europe and thus to the EU, bringing us into a military clash with Russia. How could this happen? Well, Chancellor Scholz's position in Germany is one of active caution: military support is provided, but essential weapons, i.e. aircraft and tanks, are not delivered. This means that Germany is already thinking in terms of war. The Germans, by refusing to send the Leopards and declining to let others, such as Poland, do so, do not have a secret pact with the Russians to leave Ukraine at a calculated disadvantage. Quite simply, Germany believes that the Leopards, one of the decisive strategic weapons once nuclear conflict is ruled out, should be retained as a deterrent in the EU's second line of defence. This means that for the Germans the Polish border and their own border are already the second line of defence in the war. In other words, they are already acting with this decision not to give up the Leopards in anticipation of a real possibility of a Russian penetration of the Central European glacis. Secondly, this is not a case of just sending in some equipment and leaving it to the Ukrainians to figure it out. Leopards are very sophisticated weapons. Not only do they require several years of special training to produce tankers capable of driving them in battle, but they also carry a whole team of technical personnel and high-tech tools and spare parts for their maintenance, without which they cannot function and are easily decommissioned. Other countries' agreements to receive Leopards are multi-year and include all these extras, without which these tanks would not be effective. When Russia and Iran signed the suicide drone deal, it included the presence of Iranian technicians and instructors in Ukraine, most of whom were killed in a Ukrainian attack on the training base. Leopards cannot be sent to Ukraine without the physical presence on the battlefield of German technicians and instructors. It cannot be ignored that this would have serious implications and risks for Germany and the EU because their personnel, as with the Iranians, would be a legitimate target of hostilities. The sophisticated weapons that the EU, UK and US possess would of course be decisive on the battlefield if Ukraine is to contain and roll back Russian neo-imperialism, which would be a triumph of Western democracies over oligarchic autocracies that would guarantee us, perhaps, another 80 years of peace in Europe. But handing them over and weakening the self-defence of the democracies themselves, while giving grounds to be considered an aggressor for sending personnel to keep tanks operational in Ukraine, may become a direct risk of extending the war, if in the end the EU loses the Leopards on the Ukrainian fronts. My conclusion is: support Ukraine with other kinds of offensive and transport vehicles, and preserve first-strike weapons in European arsenals. The uncomfortable and unfriendly stance of the German Social Democracy and the Greens may make sense as a deterrent and preventive measure. And another conclusion: if Poland overrides Germany's refusal and sends its Leopards, it will be a clear sign that it will enter the war, it will be drawn into it, triggering the risk of an extension of the conflict into the EU. Poland has ambitions to become a European power, but it cannot be at the cost of drawing us into the war, no matter how much solidarity we feel with the Ukrainian cause, even if we feel it to be our own democratic cause. Prudence, or we will engage.
Well John, it is indeed a tightrope upon which we all now tip toe. The proxy war by the West is now full bottle. Years of incompetent US Foreign Policy has us all now at the precipice. It is surreal to see the relative calm of the international politic about the outcome of the Ukraine/ Russian war and in particular, the supply of Leopards and the expose of the US sabotage of Nordstream pipelines ( yep not proven but Seymour Hersch was on the money - my area of military expertise, and it was absolutely accurate). So agree tanks wont end it but as you have pointed out, maybe “change the nature” and the nature maybe .....catastrophe!
If it's true that this war will continue by some means or another so long as Putin is alive, the real battlefield would seem to be convincing Russian elites that it would be in their interest to get rid of Putin. Tanks can help push the Russians out of Ukraine, but that victory won't end the war, just change it's nature.
Not a tanker myself, so only can draw on experience in mixed forces environments. But I do have some familiarity with the combat theaters. One only needs a good operational level history of WWII Eastern Front operations (I recommend the Manstein, available in English) and a copy to Tim Snyder’s Bloodlands to start mapping locales despite name changes.. These areas have had sustained, complex operations before, 80 years ago
Ukraine has significant strategic depth and several river lines of defence. It has a decent rail system which- with some modifications- should be able to transport repairable units back to intermediate repair facilities in Ukraine and reconstruction facilities in NATO countries like Poland and Rumania.
In my time in Eastern Europe I came to see the Ukrainians not as the yokels of Russian jokes, but as a competent country.
Let’s face it; Putin may survive another decade and the Russian threat is existential not only personal. NATO, including I hope Ukraine sooner than later. Will need Kat least 2000 additional MBTs along the Eastern Flank. We have thousand s of various Abrams models sitting in America. They won’t be used win the pacific islands nor will they stop Mexican immigrants. Send then to the that’s backing Ukraine and bolster collective security.
I just wish the Maj General would apply more of his experience and knowledge more in his analysis. I know his background at 1 Bge and his experience with M1 A1s. Can we get away from the doctrine which absolutely consumes his epistles. What I would like to hear from him is a more nuanced dissertation re the use of armour in Ukraine rather than an essay that might get him through the course at ADF staff college. But perhaps, I ask too much. I like RPM’s post above, that was good. C’mon Mad Mick, lets have some real nuance.
Good points, but with a bit M1 experience myself, I would differ on a few points. I do not believe that a light logistical tail can support the M1, or effectively support multiple modern tank platforms in a high intensity combat theater. Northern Australia is no doubt tough, but no one was using drones to find and destroy your fuel trucks. With the complex and kinetic reality of Ukraine right now, fuel convoys - necessary for high tempo M1 operations - would not be long survivable. In contrast, I watched many times as Leo II crews refueled their more efficient tanks from jerry cans. My M1 battalion needed brigade level support of fuel trucks daily on exercises such as REFORGER. You simply cannot support an M1 fleet with fuel cans and continue high tempo operations. Second, the maintenance and spare parts challenges of fielding a mixed tank force in a high intensity environment is potentially overwhelming. You blithely talk of moving power packs to third nations for repair... what? That would sideline a precious combat power potentially for months and take significant transport capability and extensive logistical bureaucracy to manage. Add to that the confusion of multiple MBT platforms and I think the whole thing grinds to a halt in a month or two.
The best solution is for the US to perhaps provide a company sized M1 offering to placate German political concerns, and then push Leo IIs as the major platform. As many as can be found. This will significantly aid in training, battlefield sustainment, and simplify logistical support - particularly at the depot level. Give them one great tank to focus on and support.
Looks like I nailed the final decision. 🤣🤣🤣
US to provide M1s, but at a slow pace that holds back that logistical challenge while enabling fast Leo II transfer. The fact that UKR is getting new production US tanks is a sad statement about domestic politics and the Mil/Ind complex. We have thousands sitting in depots but we’re gonna make more? #ikewasright
So how much more fuel does M1 use? I read about the double amount? So that's the double amount of fuel cans? ;-)
And even if all this is not feasible, what is against using M1 in areas with not so active or currently no fighting, say northern Ukraine for example, to free up other tanks there? Doesn't Ukraine have tanks there?
You’re over thinking. Tanks don’t use gas like cars. It’s not gas mileage so much as terrain, activity, and the driver. They churn through fuel just sitting still as you have yo keep systems running - and be ready to go. Startup is also noisy so beat to limit them. M1s are best running JP8 jet fuel, but will run on diesel. Overall the Leo II is more efficient - particularly on diesel. And what unit goes where is combat power necessitated, rather than a what fits best.
Concur - with 3 years of fielding and supporting a 2+2 Bde in Europe,
Excellent post RPM. That’s the nuance I was expecting from “M.. mick” But we got a doctrinal lecture again. Good insight.
Thanks for this analysis.
As a German it is painful for me to follow the debate. Still, it is somewhat narrow. If you see the German perspective, we have moved our position from ‚no weapons into crisis regions‘ to ‚heavy artillery to crisis regions is fine‘. Also, you can see here https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/krieg-in-der-ukraine/lieferungen-ukraine-2054514 what material was delivered.
So to me it is a mix of bad communication, hesitancy and fear of escalation. I remember the Cold War when it was clear that any - even conventional - war meant the full destruction of Germany.
Those memories resonate - but we need to overcome those.
I sincerely hope that our Chancellor greenlights deliveries from allied forces.
Thank you sir for the excellent analysis. As a former commander of an Austrian tank battalion with Leopard 2A4 I can only underline the explanations and conclusions. I myself was responsible for the implementation of the Leopard 2A4 as the successor tank of the M60 and underline that with appropriate general knowledge in tank weaponry a quick and successful application is given. Much more difficult is the logistics and repair/maintenance as well as the supply of spare parts. Here it will not work without support from the donor countries.
With best regards
Johann Hehenberger, COL ret.
Austria
Thanks again for clarifying this can-tank-erous matter, Mick.
Perhaps there are a few typos?
debates have raged Europe and the US. The main battle tank issue is just the latest in a
insert 'in' after 'have'
Intelligence), why similar capabilities being denied to Ukraine?
insert 'are' after 'why'
quantities? The reality is that only the US M1 and the German Leopard 2 fit this
for 'this' read 'these'
to use them and have proven I. This war that they can do so better than almost any
omit 'I. This war'
really is only two solutions: the US M1 tank and the German Leo 2. Both have huge
for 'is' read 'are'.
Cheers.
Thanks!
Here's a question I hope to see addressed by some of those who know a lot about the Ukraine war.
Imagine that Ukraine succeeds in pushing Russian forces out of Ukraine. What's to stop the Russians from continuing the war by firing missiles and artillery on to Ukraine from Russian soil? Neither Ukraine or NATO or anybody else is in a position to invade Russia, right?
My guess, this war doesn't end until Putin is dead, or Russia's economy is so destroyed that they can no longer produce munitions.
Air defence, HIMARS/missiles to destroy launchers on Russia’s territory, forcing them to move outside of available range, eventually negotiations — they will not be able to just pointlessly strike another country forever without repercussions.
Yes, missiles can go both ways. The point I was trying to make is this...
There's a BIG difference between 1) NATO supplied weapons being used against Russia in Ukraine, and 2) NATO supplied weapons being used to destroy targets WITHIN Russia.
So for example, is Biden going to give Ukraine permission to fire American supplied weapons in to Russian territory? How about Moscow? Isn't that where the problem really resides?
When the West starts killing Russian citizens on Russian territory that would be a good time to bend over and kiss our butts goodbye. Russians would view such a development exactly the same way NATO would view Russian missiles falling on Poland.
Russia can attack Ukraine without attacking NATO. NATO supplied weapons can not be used against Russian territory without starting WWIII.
This is what it looks like to me anyway, counter arguments are welcome here.
Good luck with that, they fire their damn missiles from 1000s of kilometers away.
I agree that scenario is possible. The Abrams are doing little,good in America; ship them to the countries most likely to face the Russians. I personally like the heterogenous nature of the equipment being supplied Ukraine. Gives us a chance to decide which weapon systems have the best effects.
Superb argument. Spot on. I only wish AM Ryan’s piece would be translated into German and read by German policy community.
Chrome Browser - Auto translate English to German Should handle that - Post the link https://mickryan.substack.com/p/the-great-tank-debate everywhere you can
The main argument against sending tanks is how the Russians would react. But the Russians will only react with rhetoric to whatever the west does. The Russians are clearly only driven by their own delusions. So sending tanks will not escalate anything. So send the tanks now.
Thank you sir. I think the argument is very strong for supplying Ukraine with a large force of main battle tanks and support infrastructure. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on longer range artillery and combat aircraft (F-16?). Should these be part of a combined arms force?
If the Ukrainians continue to prove competent at absorbing new system- and integrating them- I have no reservation to supply them with qualitatively improved systems.
Ukraine's allies have no strategy to allow Ukraine to win. Everything they have provided Ukraine is after the fact and the excuses are nonsense. It takes time to learn how to operate them. Well, you have had 11 months to train the AFU, but no, always wait to the last minute.
Olaf should be forced to watch McMasters report on 73 Easting!
Mick, it appears that the US and now Germany have gotten your message! Finally! As of Jan 24 evening in the US, we have committed to sending M1 Abrams. And it sounds like Germany will get out of its own way and supply Leo 2 (though the damage has been done to Germany as being a trusted partner now).
The logistic footprint already exists in Ukraine. This should be a quick crash course for them. And who knows...how many Ukrainian troops have been trained on M1, Bradley IFV already?? Major turning point of all these announcements do come to fruition
I note with concern the discussion about sending the Leopards to Ukraine. This needs to be clarified, because it has decisive implications. We sometimes wonder how the war in Ukraine could spread to Central Europe and thus to the EU, bringing us into a military clash with Russia. How could this happen? Well, Chancellor Scholz's position in Germany is one of active caution: military support is provided, but essential weapons, i.e. aircraft and tanks, are not delivered. This means that Germany is already thinking in terms of war. The Germans, by refusing to send the Leopards and declining to let others, such as Poland, do so, do not have a secret pact with the Russians to leave Ukraine at a calculated disadvantage. Quite simply, Germany believes that the Leopards, one of the decisive strategic weapons once nuclear conflict is ruled out, should be retained as a deterrent in the EU's second line of defence. This means that for the Germans the Polish border and their own border are already the second line of defence in the war. In other words, they are already acting with this decision not to give up the Leopards in anticipation of a real possibility of a Russian penetration of the Central European glacis. Secondly, this is not a case of just sending in some equipment and leaving it to the Ukrainians to figure it out. Leopards are very sophisticated weapons. Not only do they require several years of special training to produce tankers capable of driving them in battle, but they also carry a whole team of technical personnel and high-tech tools and spare parts for their maintenance, without which they cannot function and are easily decommissioned. Other countries' agreements to receive Leopards are multi-year and include all these extras, without which these tanks would not be effective. When Russia and Iran signed the suicide drone deal, it included the presence of Iranian technicians and instructors in Ukraine, most of whom were killed in a Ukrainian attack on the training base. Leopards cannot be sent to Ukraine without the physical presence on the battlefield of German technicians and instructors. It cannot be ignored that this would have serious implications and risks for Germany and the EU because their personnel, as with the Iranians, would be a legitimate target of hostilities. The sophisticated weapons that the EU, UK and US possess would of course be decisive on the battlefield if Ukraine is to contain and roll back Russian neo-imperialism, which would be a triumph of Western democracies over oligarchic autocracies that would guarantee us, perhaps, another 80 years of peace in Europe. But handing them over and weakening the self-defence of the democracies themselves, while giving grounds to be considered an aggressor for sending personnel to keep tanks operational in Ukraine, may become a direct risk of extending the war, if in the end the EU loses the Leopards on the Ukrainian fronts. My conclusion is: support Ukraine with other kinds of offensive and transport vehicles, and preserve first-strike weapons in European arsenals. The uncomfortable and unfriendly stance of the German Social Democracy and the Greens may make sense as a deterrent and preventive measure. And another conclusion: if Poland overrides Germany's refusal and sends its Leopards, it will be a clear sign that it will enter the war, it will be drawn into it, triggering the risk of an extension of the conflict into the EU. Poland has ambitions to become a European power, but it cannot be at the cost of drawing us into the war, no matter how much solidarity we feel with the Ukrainian cause, even if we feel it to be our own democratic cause. Prudence, or we will engage.
Well John, it is indeed a tightrope upon which we all now tip toe. The proxy war by the West is now full bottle. Years of incompetent US Foreign Policy has us all now at the precipice. It is surreal to see the relative calm of the international politic about the outcome of the Ukraine/ Russian war and in particular, the supply of Leopards and the expose of the US sabotage of Nordstream pipelines ( yep not proven but Seymour Hersch was on the money - my area of military expertise, and it was absolutely accurate). So agree tanks wont end it but as you have pointed out, maybe “change the nature” and the nature maybe .....catastrophe!
If it's true that this war will continue by some means or another so long as Putin is alive, the real battlefield would seem to be convincing Russian elites that it would be in their interest to get rid of Putin. Tanks can help push the Russians out of Ukraine, but that victory won't end the war, just change it's nature.
Fantastic, thanks!
Not a tanker myself, so only can draw on experience in mixed forces environments. But I do have some familiarity with the combat theaters. One only needs a good operational level history of WWII Eastern Front operations (I recommend the Manstein, available in English) and a copy to Tim Snyder’s Bloodlands to start mapping locales despite name changes.. These areas have had sustained, complex operations before, 80 years ago
Ukraine has significant strategic depth and several river lines of defence. It has a decent rail system which- with some modifications- should be able to transport repairable units back to intermediate repair facilities in Ukraine and reconstruction facilities in NATO countries like Poland and Rumania.
In my time in Eastern Europe I came to see the Ukrainians not as the yokels of Russian jokes, but as a competent country.
Let’s face it; Putin may survive another decade and the Russian threat is existential not only personal. NATO, including I hope Ukraine sooner than later. Will need Kat least 2000 additional MBTs along the Eastern Flank. We have thousand s of various Abrams models sitting in America. They won’t be used win the pacific islands nor will they stop Mexican immigrants. Send then to the that’s backing Ukraine and bolster collective security.
I just wish the Maj General would apply more of his experience and knowledge more in his analysis. I know his background at 1 Bge and his experience with M1 A1s. Can we get away from the doctrine which absolutely consumes his epistles. What I would like to hear from him is a more nuanced dissertation re the use of armour in Ukraine rather than an essay that might get him through the course at ADF staff college. But perhaps, I ask too much. I like RPM’s post above, that was good. C’mon Mad Mick, lets have some real nuance.