We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
Inevitably the non-expert media has lumped all of these under the heading of “tanks”, a classic example of lazy journalism, because if they’d bothered to ask anyone with a modicum of military knowledge they’d have been told that they’re not; they’re IFVs, a different kettle of fish altogether.
The Americans are going to send fifty Bradley vehicles, so we’re told. These come in both cavalry (reconnaissance) and IFV versions, and I think it’s the latter that Ukraine is getting.
With a three man crew and up to six “dismounts” in the back, they offer a better way to deliver infantry to the point of contact than by truck or foot.
They have a handy 25 mm cannon which can, at a pinch and from the right angle, take out older Soviet/Russian main battle tanks. It also carries two TOW anti-tank missiles which overmatch all but the most recent Russian designs.
Similar but older is the German Marder IFV which is being provided. It has been around since the 1970s, and I worked with them in German hands back in the day.
Their speed and reliability was impressive, and it is armed in a similar manner to the Bradley. Finally, the French have promised some of their AMX-10 RC wheeled reconnaissance/tank destroyer vehicles which, although they do not carry infantry, mount an 105 mm gun which will sort out most Russian tanks, although it is thinly armoured by comparison itself.
The west needs to support Ukraine to finish with Putin (Image: GETTY)
This is all a step in the right direction, but it’s not quite what the Ukrainians have asked for nor are they what, in my opinion, they really need.
As they continue to make the transition from a defensive to an offensive posture on the battlefield, they really need more modern, NATO-standard, proper main battle tanks (MBTs).
In a combined arms setting, no other weapons system offers the combination of firepower, mobility, and protection required to sustain an attack in the face of determined and well-armed opposition.
So, what might be on offer from the west? There are four contenders; the British Challenger 2, the American M1A2 Abrams, the French Leclerc, and the German Leopard 2.
We can discount the Challenger 2 straight away; the UK can barely manage to field two regiments’ worth of these – roughly 100 tanks – itself, and anyway it uses a rifled 120 mm rifled gun with ammunition that is incompatible with other NATO nations, which all use the German-designed 120 mm smoothbore cannon.
The American Abrams is a formidable tank and there are plenty of them around, but its gas turbine engine is a fuel-guzzler and uses aviation fuel rather than diesel which would be overly burdensome for the Ukrainian logistics system. The French Leclerc could be a contender and there may be nearly 200 of them currently in storage in France in addition to those equipping the French army. It utilises NATO standard ammunition and has a diesel engine.
However, the smart money is on the Leopard 2, which I suspect is the tank Ukraine really wants.
It’s fast, reliable, adequately armoured, and has been continuously upgraded over the years since its introduction into the Bundeswehr in 1979. It’s also popular. You can usually gauge how good a tank design is by its export sales; Leopard 2 is operated by some 20 plus armies around the world and more than 3,600 have been manufactured to date. By comparison, Challenger 2 is operated by two countries, Britain and Oman, with some 450 having been built.
Naysayers will point out the logistics and training burden of introducing yet another item of equipment into the large and burgeoning hotch-potch of kit now fielded by Ukraine. This is a valid point, but with Leopard 2 I reckon it would be worth the effort.
Plus, at a pinch, you can probably train a competent tank crewman from scratch in about ten weeks. All in time for the spring/summer offensives.
But it’s not just tanks that Ukraine needs to eject the Russians from their territory.
It needs more modern artillery systems, more precision missile equipment, air defence and anti-drone missiles and guns, and sustained and reliable supplies of ammunition and other materiel.
And that’s just for the land war. In the air it requires more and better drones and modern attack aircraft, ideally the ubiquitous American F-16 fast jet. Previous comments on logistics and training apply here too.
Like many other observers, I am increasingly mystified and frustrated at the west’s timidity when it comes to supplying such weaponry.
Russia started this, and the west needs to support Ukraine to finish it. Time to take the gloves off and stop pussyfooting around.
See today’s front and back pages, download the newspaper, order back issues and use the historic Daily Express newspaper archive.