Abrams M-1A1 Kfamppanzer in Europe Now

More:  The US administration has reversed itself on providing the unsuitable Abrams M1A1 tank, in a conspicuous bit of transatlantic arm-twisting.  Chancellor Scholtz has been demanding that the US also send in its main battle before his government would agree to release fourteen of his Leopards for battle in Ukraine.  Joe Biden complied by agreeing to send 31 of the seventy ton US tanks to Ukraine. Poland and Finland presumably will send their own Leopard contingents now that Germany has agreed to participate.  How how soon and how effective the Abrams will appear on the battlefield are open questions since significant training time will be required for the complex piece of equipment.  One US official said it will take "many months" for the its battle tank to arrive in the field, and that the Leopard would arrive before then.  US Person thinks the Ukrainian tank crews will find the Leopard II much more to their liking.  If the Abrams was required to break up indefensible political blithering, so be it--even if the Abrams just sit in Kyiv's town square on static display.

{23.02.2023}  Update: There are signs of movement on the question of Germany authorizing other users of the Leopard II to send them to Ukraine.  Poland is organizing a coalition of the willing, notably Finland and Denmark, to ask Germany for permission under their licensing agreements to send the main battle tank to Ukraine.  The German Foreign Minister told interviewers her country would not stand in the way of such a request. Media reports that Poland has agreed to begin training crews, and would send their tanks eventually should Germany refuse its request.  

Right now Poland is only considering sending a company, which is about 14 tanks.  To make a difference on the battlefield, Ukraine needs a brigade-size donation, which is about 90 main battle tanks.  The immediate strategic goal for a Ukrainian counter-offensive operation should be the liberation and capture of the important port city of Mariupol, already destroyed by Russia after a prolonged siege.  An armored thrust, led by combined arms manouver and superior firepower, would cut the southeastern land corridor to Crimea that Putin prizes. When successful, Ukraine would then be a in advantageous position to negotiate an acceptable peace.

Latest: NATO defense ministers meeting at Ramstein AFB in Germany failed to agree to release Leopard II tanks to Ukraine despite pleas by President Zelensky for advanced weaponry.

The reasons offered by the Pentagon for not supplying Abrams M-1 main battle tanks range from "too complex", not "suited to Ukraine's battlefield conditions" to "logistical difficulties" delivering the heavy tanks. While the first two may be legitimate--US Person thinks the Abrams requires too much maintenance to be reliably useful in Ukraine--the latter reason is NOT. Abrams are already stored on the Continent in numbers at pre-positioned storage sites such as the one at Coleman Barracks, Mannheim, Germany. [photo below] The equipment includes various types of armored vehicles, including the M1 Abrams tank and the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. When the war on Ukraine started, the US Army moved to issue some 600 units from the stockpile to the 3rd Armored Division, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team. This unit was sent from Georgia to the European theatre to reinforce NATO countries in Eastern Europe.

So the M1 is on-site, so to speak. Moving them into Ukraine would not be that difficult for the Army's 405th Field Support Brigade.  Of course giving them to Ukrainian armed forces would require training and replenishment of United States armored units serving in Eastern Europe.  Germany's Leopard II main battle tank is preferred by the Ukrainians for several reasons.  It is twemty tons lighter, more agile, and therefore less likely to sink into the mire of springtime fields. In addition it can wade water bodies up to 4m deep. Since thirteen European countries use the Leopard II, ammunition for its more accurate 120mm main gun (55 versus 44 calibre of the Abrams) is relatively plentiful. NATO rounds are also compatible. (contrast Challenger II that has a rifled barrel) Reputedly it is easier to operate than Abrams, requiring less training time. Its engine is a metric turbo-diesel as opposed to the Abrams' jet fueled-turbine, which would be more familiar to Ukrainian heavy equipment mechanics as well as requiring less maintenance. Abrams burns jet fuel at a high rate, consuming two gallons per mile, requiring a constant fuel convoy just to keep it moving.

The Leopard was specifically designed to operate successfully against Soviet armor. Germans estimate that the Leopard's armor-piercing rounds can penetrate the frontal armor of the T-72 at 2000 yards, and the older T-64 at 4000 yards. How it would far against the newest Russian Armata tank remains to be seen, but it is available in mass quantities. Leopard II has outperformed the Abrams M1A2, Challenger II, and France's LeClerc in intramural tank competitions. Leopard II makes sense from both a logistical and tactical viewpoint.

German reluctance to allow re-export of their main battle tank remains despite the willingness of Poland and Finland to give Ukraine some of their Leopards. Its hesitancy is understandable, but self-defeating.  No one in the NATO alliance wants to start an all-out war with Russia.  Injecting superior armor into the conflict would be seen by Putin as a direct NATO escalation.  As the only European power to confront Russia in modern war, Germany fears Russian retaliation. It relies on US nuclear capability.  Yet Ukraine is on the front line between two opposing military powers in which hundreds of people are dying every day the war continues as a tactical stalemate.  Without superior, offensive military equipment to spearhead counterattacks, Ukraine is not capable of ejecting the aggressor from its territory by force.  Therein lies the dilemma for Europe. [AP photo: Leopard 2A7A1, the latest operational version]