Moreover, new pages provided information about the supply of tanks to Ukraine, but this topic may have come up again. What is the reason for this, so that Ukraine can win the war without the closing “armor”, – UNIAN investigated.
Recently, the American media reported that the main battle tanks (MBT) Challenger 2, which Ukraine took from Britain, are not relevant to the realities of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Among the reasons, the journalist named the lack of mobility of the tank, the lack of additional dynamic protection and the rifled L30, which will require ammunition of a similar type, which will not vikorist other approaching MBTs (they are equipped with and smooth-bore harmati).
It was said that the British car has an engine of 1200 horsepower, which is not powerful enough for the 71-ton “monster”. Through this, Challenger 2 was often downloaded from the ground. All this was confirmed by information from Ukrainian tankers, who said that the Challenger 2 was difficult to repair and that spare parts for the tank were quickly worn out.
Tank “zoo”, or what Ukraine was taking away from Sunset
There are actually a lot more problems, and the difficulties with Challenger 2, described by recent journalists, are just the tip of the iceberg. To better understand the situation, let’s remember what kind of tanks our country was taking away.
Today they told us:
- Challenger 2 – 14 units;
- M1 Abrams – 31 units;
- Leopard 2A6 – 21 units;
- Stridsvagn 122 (licensed Swedish version of Leopard 2) – 10 units;
- Leopard 2A4 – close to 50 ods.
Zagalom, there are about 120 apparently current MBTs. For the malpractices of those already spent, Ukraine is immediately guilty of a mother’s child less than 100 of this number.
Kiev also rejected dozens of obsolete Leopard 1s from the 60s, which have “cardboard” armor and de facto cannot compete with the role of full-fledged tanks in the current war.
It is worthwhile to pay attention to the teachings of the old Radian technology, but at the same time we will not emphasize the new respect. First of all, through the availability of reliable data, it is important to contact. In another way (and most importantly) through those that similar European partners may have exhausted the reserves of hours of the SRSR, and it would be even less likely to rely on a new large-scale production of the same T-72s.
Let’s return to the approaching technique. In addition to the obvious advantages (good defense, great fire protection, better cleaning for the crew), European and American tanks also have disadvantages.
“The approaching tanks, such as the Challenger 2, were trained to fight Radian tanks, and we need tanks with functions like the tanks of the USSR. So that the stinks would be universal. So that the stinks could, however, be effectively fought and against lust, and against tanks enemy,” according to UNIAN, Lieutenant General of the Representation Igor Romanenko.
The problem lies not only in the lack of attention to the exact military realities. On the right, the combat vehicles seized by Ukraine are similar to each other: in fact, they are completely different MBTs, which may not be unified with each other.
Leopard 2A6, Leopard 2A4, Challenger 2, Abrams – all the stinks (besides the first two) do not smell practically anything bad. Because Ukraine has to service such a “zoo”, repairing tanks has been a problem for a long time: spare parts and service providers are simply not available.
“It’s a pity that Ukraine can only lose even a small number of the combat tanks that were transferred,” Sebastian Schäfer, a member of the Bundestag from the Green Party, said not so long ago.
“Spit on the tanks” or “from the outbreak of yesterday’s war”
Why did this situation arise? Why did Ukraine take so little, and why was the reserve not unified at all? Perhaps tanks are simply not needed in a current war, and they would rather be forgotten?
There is clearly such a point of view, and there are people out there who don’t even know what war is.
“At Zakhoda you can get so many things: “Oh, well, they donate this car, and this car, and this car.” Otherwise, they spit on the cars. Give me coolies, give me mortars, give me artillery, give I can’t say that we will allow the hardened soldiers to fight and kill the Russians,” said the American sniper Jonathan Pockett, who took part in the war in Ukraine.
In my opinion, Ukraine now needs more “ammunition, grenades, mini-missiles, various missile systems.” Such a position has the right to be grounded, even if Ukraine is on the defensive, and the tank is the first to attack.
However, criticism of MBT is often taken too literally. Since it’s more important to marvel at the food, we are impressed that the tanks have already been in service for more than a hundred years. Even from the moment of the combat debut of the first tank in history (the British Mark I), which appeared in 1916, the shortcomings of such an armor became obvious: great strength, technical flexibility, resistance to enemy artillery. The activists respected this point blank, but Druga Svitova with her tank blitzkriegs demonstrated the absurdity of such a view.
It’s cool that already in 1943 the Germans had a remarkably attractive cheap and lightweight Faust cartridge, which from a distance of 30 meters could easily destroy any coalition tank.
The Cold War could have put an end to the history of tanks, if it seemed that in the face of a nuclear war, such equipment would not make any sense (and it’s probably a waste, and even drains the resources of the defense industry!). However, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Socialist Republic ended, and the tanks were nowhere to be found (in fact, the nuclear explosion itself often occurred, but the food supply was different).
Obviously, no anti-tank missiles, helicopters or UAVs will prevent the tank from leaving the battlefield. There are no real alternatives to this instrument of war, even though the most protected and powerful ground combat vehicle can handle a wide range of previously unbuilt, say, armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles: through insufficient defense or insufficient fire fire (or those and otherwise, as a result of the Radian symbols).
A tank can be replaced during assault operations with a BMPT (Tank Support Combat Vehicle) – a quasi-tank without a main armament. However, neither “Guardian”, nor “Terminator”, nor any other BMPT did not add up to any significant expansion, as long as there were no real advantages over the MBT, and at the same time they put down the insoles, as if no more.
We can put it simply: Ukraine needs tanks. The smell needs to be raised because there will be no new counter-offensive of the Ukrainian army anytime soon. And if it turns out to be true, then it is already clear that it will require not dozens (as was the case before the summer counter-offensive), but hundreds of current MBTs.
Not just modern ones, but equipped with the most advanced systems, including active defense complexes (KAZ), such as the Israeli Trophy. How can we shoot down enemy missiles even close to the tank?
Let’s start everything from the beginning: where to take the MBT
In any sense, Ukraine has again stumbled into the situation of 2022-2023, since Kiev has decidedly decided to defend itself, stopping the current tanks. However, for Ukraine’s allies the situation has changed: some of them do not want to actively help with political negligence, and others simply do not carry a lot of spoils, and everything that they could transfer has already been transferred today.
Let’s marvel at Europe. By 2024, Germany is planning to have approximately 300 Leopard 2A6 and Leopard 2A7 tanks. Great Britain and even less – less than 200 Challenger 2 (and honestly, who needs tanks on the island?). It’s about as old as it is in France today: the language about the famous “Leclercs”, which, until now, the French have not told us.
But if the Europeans supplied Ukraine with a third of their MBTs (which, of course, is unrealistic, and would critically damage their defense capabilities), it could not change the situation radically, even though our enemy has great strength both the tanks themselves and anti-tank units, such either the Kornet ATGM or the Lancet drone.
In reality, there is only one country in the West that could supply Ukraine with enough tanks. And this, as it’s hard to guess, is the USA. Only the US Ground Forces currently have a little less than 3 thousand M1 Abrams, and over the years the Americans have produced more than 10 thousand (!) of these MBTs. The received States, as before, have about 6 thousand in reserve. Abrams copies: a small number of them are stored in hangars and small warehouses in the United States.
Why didn’t the Americans supply Ukraine with a couple of hundred M1 tanks?
“This (delivery of tanks, – ed.) entails a lot of logistical provision for spare parts, repairs, and so on. However, the main reason is that the Americans respect the importance of the production and, in fact, disdain the processes from the point of view of inadmissibility escalation,” – like UNIAN Igor Romanenko.
Let’s be clear: in real military minds, the maximum “mileage” for a tank is close to 200 kilometers, after which it requires more expensive and complex technical service (MOT) like a car. Such an operation requires a large number of spare parts and a large group of trained facists.
Varto also adds that the posture of the great party “Abramsiv” could encourage US allies to provide more active assistance to Ukraine. However, as has already been stated, there will be no illusions, especially if we talk about current MBTs: a few dozen tanks from Spain and Norway may not be affected by the situation at the front.
Reliance on power: new Ukrainian tank
What is the alternative to supplying tanks from behind the border? How can Ukraine itself create a powerful MBT? In fact, you can say that she already did it. The language, of course, is about the most thorough Ukrainian tank – BM “Oplot”.
It is a complete modernization of the Ukrainian T-84U tank and, in terms of characteristics, equals the Russian T-72B3M, or the T-90M “Proriv”. In yakomus sensei, this is the pinnacle of Radyansky/postradyansky tank production.
So, formally, this is a nasty fighting machine for our realities. However, there seems to be a nuance. And the one on the right will develop everything, and the other thing will be to improve serial production. Ukraine still had problems before the war: since 2009, more than a hundred such tanks have been destroyed. And then all the stench went to the fighting forces of Thailand.
“Before the active phase of the war in Ukraine, there was a modernization of Radian tanks and the production of a number of new units, which would include the Oplot tank,” the head of information and consulting tells UNIAN of the new company “Defense Express” Sergiy Zgurets. – The infection is at the stage of preparation. new tanks are complicated by problems with manufactured serial engines, problems with optics, etc. At the production stage, the best option for Ukraine is to spark cooperation with the foreign powers. Europeans and Americans, out of obsession with our power, our industry, will become victorious at this moment “.
And it is for the minds of cooperation with Sunset that the production of MBT from scratch is the food of rich rocks, as it is not ten, just as we need tanks “for yesterday”. Therefore, de facto, all the hope, as before, is only on the United States and its MBTs: every other country in the world cannot supply us with even a reasonably average batch of current tanks, without seeming too great.
However, the decision is being made by the White House, and its administration has made it clear that it is not concerned with new developments of important technology. There could be a lot of reasons for this, the main one, most likely, being the fear of possible risks ahead of the elections. It is possible that the situation will change after the US presidential election, but perhaps not. Already nezabarom mi tse bolachimo.
Illya Vedmedenko
