top of page
  • Joss Moore

What Does the Tank Mean in Ukraine

A lot has been made in the past few days of the German government’s decision to grant export licences to Poland for the Leopard 2 tanks bound for Ukraine, the roadblock stopping the Polish from supplying the Ukrainian army with this main battle tank. On top of this, the German government has itself promised to send 14 of their own Leopard 2 tanks to bolster the stock supplied by the Polish. This drastic change in policy has come after months of international pressure spearheaded by the American and British governments, following the pattern seen throughout the war of the Germans setting a red line for their support of the Ukrainian army, only to then be pushed over by international and domestic pressure. Germany was mocked and criticised at the outset of war due to their decision not to provide weapon systems they classified as “offensive”. Instead, the largest economy in Europe sent helmets. Soon, however, that red line was first crossed with light weaponry, followed by armoured support systems and now with their main battle tanks.

For months, the call of the Ukrainians for international support in building a significant armoured wing of their ground forces has gone unanswered by Western partners. The Germans, so desperately reliant on Russian energy reserves, refused to be the international partner to make the first move, despite the Leopard 2 being the perfect tool for the job. Its reliable design and construction, alongside its popularity among Eastern European arsenals, with 3,600 units having been produced and sold to 13 European countries, makes the Leopard the most transferable modern main battle tank to the Ukrainian theatre.

The American government suggested that their main battle tank, the M1 Abrams, would be rendered inept without the vast array of support infrastructure it takes to effectively operate such an advanced weapon system. On top of this, no European partners have long term experience operating the Abrams. This means that Ukrainian crews would have to be trained from scratch by American contractors or direct military support personnel, extending the potential readiness time frame by months, as well as limiting their overall potency.

Although I’m not one to pat the current British government on the back often, the ball for international support on this front seems to have gotten rolling thanks to London’s decision on Tuesday the 17th of January to send 14 of its Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition. Despite facing many of the same challenges as the Abrams with complex operations and months of specialised training ahead, London seems to believe it is worth the effort, with 4 being delivered early for training purposes, and another 10 over the coming weeks to be delivered, completing the Squadron. This contribution in the overall scale of the conflict may seem insignificant, with confirmed Russian armoured losses numbering around only 1,450 destroyed or captured, an average of 10 per day according to GRID News. However, the effect on the international community was drastic. The announcement was followed by announcements from Washington and Berlin days later announcing their shift in policy respectively. The shift in the U.S. position follows a Jan. 17 call between President Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in which the president agreed to look into providing the Abrams tanks against the judgement of the Pentagon.


How much effect will these tanks have?

Many people, including myself, extolled the early months of the war as proof that the tank was an antiquated weapon platform, a relic of the cold war. Handheld British Nlaws supplied to Ukraine military were eliminating hundreds of Russian tanks. Operated by a team of only 2 men the urban environments of the early stages of the war played perfectly into the hands of lightly armoured Ukrainian troops supplied with these cheap easily used weapons, easily able to pick off Russian convoys leading to massive casualties of Russian armour. With the advent of even more effective anti-tank systems in the arsenals of most major western militaries and the era of drone warfare on the horizon, the tank looked to be facing its downfall.

Over a year later there can be no question, tanks are crucial to victory for Ukraine. This conflict, instead of showing the death of the tank, has proven that they will continue to play a vital role in national security and modern war. As the conflict shifted out of urban areas with defensive victories for the Ukrainian military and the fighting was pushed into the Donbas region, the effectiveness of the Ukrainian anti-armour weapons decreased dramatically. Exchanging city streets with hundreds of kilometres of open farmland, with Russian artillery raining shells down on the Ukrainian troops, the conflict stagnated into stubborn trench warfare. Russian armour has once again come into its own. With the tanks speed and manoeuvrability on top of its defensive and offensive capabilities, the Ukrainians have chosen to put their faith in the western world to provide them with an effective countermeasure. Finally we have risen to the challenge.


Comments


bottom of page