It is curious that the Leopard 2, which was designed to combat Russian tanks during the Cold War, will now be finally fielded to do exactly that, but three decades after the Cold War ended.
I’m certain that lessons will be learned from these engagements which will inform the construction of the future Leopard 3 (already in development as the Main Combat Ground System together with France).
I for one do not buy the claim that tanks are obsolete for one second. This has been claimed repeatedly for decades but the current war already shows that was wrong.
The father of one of my daughter’s friends recently returned from training tank drivers in western Ukraine. It sounds like there’s general training first from volunteers like him, then type specific training later from personnel from various armies. I desperately want to know more, but he’s reluctant to talk about and we really don’t know each other that well. He’s an ex soldier and believe it or not has 2 or 3 ‘small’ tanks at home which he maintains and drives around on his land for fun.
MedEwok wrote:
three decades after the Cold War ended.
As far as I can tell that was an illusion and it’s on again worse than ever.
MedEwok wrote:
I for one do not buy the claim that tanks are obsolete for one second. This has been claimed repeatedly for decades but the current war already shows that was wrong.
Me neither.
I recall someone from the US Army telling the moniker that after a great war and battle between two countries dies down, two colonels of opposing tank troops are sitting exhausted at some armistice point and one asks the other, “oh, by the way, do you know who won the air-war?” At least that is how tankers understand their importance and most probably rightly so.
MedEwok wrote:
I for one do not buy the claim that tanks are obsolete for one second. This has been claimed repeatedly for decades but the current war already shows that was wrong.
I think what has happened in Ukraine is that the air forces haven’t been able to operate to any satisfactory degree (hardly at all). What we see is very much the reason why stealth technology is a game changer. A few squadrons of F-35s would have mopped up the Russians in no time. This has very much been a 70-90s war with 70-90s technology with a few exceptions. No one can fly high due to SAM, and no one can fly low due to more SAMs (IR) and also hand launched stuff. It has become more like WWI actually in many ways. If anything, this war shows the effectiveness of surface to air technology against a non stealth air force. It also shows that artillery and cruise missiles will destroy lots of stuff, but not win any battles, or the war for that matter.
Finally, everyone is sending tanks. Ukraine may very well end up with 300 Leopard 2s. Given the circumstance, this may very well be the start of the end of the war. Putin has nothing left he can answer with. In that respect tanks are certainly not obsolete. And, no, I have not forgotten the big red button 
We are all military experts now but I think the lesson with tanks, which Russia obviously knew and ignored, is that a tank needs infantry running all around it and cleaning up the enemy hiding in the bushes. This was the case in WW2 when an RPG would kill any tank, and the modern ATGMs just kill the modern tanks, and the old tanks really easily.
So if you take a tank for a drive on a sunny Sunday in some nice field, it’s gonna get an NLAW or a Javelin in no time at all. Ukraine was cleaning up Russian armour with groups of ~5 blokes carrying a few of these and hiding in the trees. The problem is that you have to get close – 1-2km, and only the Ukranian Stugna-P does 5km which is a huge advantage.
This infantry support requirement has not changed. Maybe if you have helis with IR vision you can do it from the air, but you still have to do it. AFAIK, an Abrams is not protected from an NLAW or Javelin. Russia doesn’t seem to have these (apart from the ones they captured) but they have loads of other RPG type weapons. And a 155mm round will kill any tank. It will kill any other armoured vehicle if it goes off within say 10m. And you can kill any tank if you can sneak up behind it with a big RPG.
So if Ukraine goes on the offensive they will need to sort this, but they obviously know it. For some reason Russia decided to not bother.
Peter wrote:
We are all military experts now but I think the lesson with tanks, which Russia obviously knew and ignored, is that a tank needs infantry running all around it and cleaning up the enemy hiding in the bushes.
Indeed true. And that is why it’s good that Ukraine gets not only Leopards but also Marder IFVs. The latter are, in German doctrine, designed for ferrying around and protecting the Infantry that is meant to protect the tanks from other Infantry, the Panzergrenadiere. The Marder and the Leopard were designed to be used simultaneously and doing so should yield optimal results, as the Marder and its complement cam engage enemy AT-infantry while the Leopards can focus on enemy tanks.
In addition, the IFVs – and the American Bradley is also great at this – can fight armoured vehicles themselves not only with their chain guns but especially ATGMs.
So Ukraine would do well to focus their MBTs and IFVs on joint missions were they can act as spearhead for lighter armoured or unarmoured motorised Infantry and smash through static defense lines this way. All the while watching out for enemy air support and counter-artillery fire.
But as @LeSving observed, the Russians are unlikely to use their air force en masses against the new threats, as they would incur heavy casualties.
Likewise, I don’t think supplying Ukraine with fast jets will do much help in their ground war, as these jets are similarly vulnerable to Russian air defenses.
LeSving wrote:
Finally, everyone is sending tanks. Ukraine may very well end up with 300 Leopard 2s. Given the circumstance, this may very well be the start of the end of the war. Putin has nothing left he can answer with. In that respect tanks are certainly not obsolete.
I think this is wishful thinking. Russia will respond and throw more people and whatever they have at the new threat. And tactical nukes or similar conventional high explosives can reduce the number of tanks rather quickly, if they decide to go that way. While not the big red button, it is the next thing.
It is also darn clear that Russia sees this development as interference by NATO, more than before. In one way, NATO is calling his bluff that if NATO entered the war, which it has done in all but boots on the ground (which clearly makes the difference), Russia would de facto be at war with all of NATO. And while that may not turn nuclear, it would also mean that Russia would start thinking of attacking outside Ukraine, to try to split NATO.
All in all, Russia has totally misjudged the situation in Ukraine from the get go, thinking they would be welcome there. Otherwise, a full scale attack would have had to be very different and so would the outcome have been.
I think NATO forces know how to use tanks In a month or two, bunches of Ukrainians will come to my region to learn/practice long range shooting/sniping, first aid/medics, and leading small independent teams of typically 5-10 men. Basic training is done in the UK, while this is specialist training in these fields.
It’s a bit funny. When this is over. Ukraine will be much more “NATO” than any other NATO nation. All thanks to Putin
LeSving wrote:
When this is over. Ukraine will be much more “NATO” than any other NATO nation.
Either that or we will find out how long it really takes to decontaminate a country the size of Ukraine after an all out war.
Russia can’t afford to stop now and they won’t. My expectation is that either we will be writing “when this is over” in 10 years from now or there will be a massive escalation over the next months which will either force NATO to enter the war to save Ukraine or Ukraine being turned into burnt earth. The only way I could imagine this could end earlier would be to create a DMZ like in Korea along the whole border under UN protection. But I don’t see this happening.
Not really; Russia was always resource limited. They went in with what they had ready to go at the time. And in the year since, they have been scratching around for anything and anybody they can send to their death but with the key requirement that the body bags are not coming back to the “Russian middle class” areas. If Russia had some amazing assets to throw into this, they would have done so 9 months ago. So they are recruiting from Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Chechnya, and long term prisoners, which is also handy if you want “soldiers” who are willing to do some dirty work with civilians which was always a Russian speciality.
Russia is currently losing approx 3500 per day. 1000 dead and 2500 who will never fight again.
If Russia goes nuclear, we won’t be debating this anyway. But that is highly unlikely because there would very quickly be no Russia. What the US told Putin would happen if even 1 nuke was used is not public, but suggestions from people who might know is that a chunk of their navy would be immediately sunk, etc. Putin is a standard playground bully, a fairly skilful risk-evaluator, and not a risk-taker when it comes to betting on known risks.
UN protection? That’s a good joke. Yugoslavia?
