Ukraine is on the verge of receiving 31 American
M1A2 Abrams tanks, and their impact on the battlefield will be significant.
There's a lot of hype surrounding the Abrams and its pending combat debut in Ukraine, tempered by
losses of German Leopards and the first loss of a British Challenger tank. Ukraine is keeping vital
intelligence close to its chest, as giving up any figures would tip off the Russians
to their capabilities. However, it's believed that out of 71 Leopards that Ukraine received,
5 have been completely destroyed and 10 are currently undergoing repairs. With 13 out of
14 Challengers still in service, it's absolutely astonishing how over the entire summer fighting
season Russia has only managed to destroy or disable 16 total western tanks. Meanwhile,
Russia is estimated to be losing 150 tanks a month, while producing between 60 to 90 a month.
But Russian figures should be taken with a huge grain of salt,
because they are counting the repair of disabled tanks and refurbishment of tanks in deep storage
amongst actual production figures. This should make Russia's problem obvious- its stock of old
Soviet equipment are only so deep, and some estimates say that it's already drawn down
as much as 50% of its inventory. What's left is basically the oldest and in least repair,
which is not going to fare very well against Ukraine's much newer western equipment. A
T-54/55 for example is simply not going to be anything for an Abrams but a speed bump.
31 Abrams tanks are not going to win the war for Ukraine, and the US should and can do much
more than this. With an estimated 3500 Abrams in deep storage, the United States alone could easily
equip Ukraine with the 300 main battle tanks that Ukrainian commanders estimate they need
to deliver a death blow to the Russian military. And this is American storage we're talking about,
not Russian, so you can be confident no E-1 has plundered the tanks for their copper
wiring and they receive regular attention to keep them operational. It may take time
to bring them to active status, but unlike Russia’s mostly scrap metal in deep storage,
there's someone making sure the tanks aren't just disintegrating or being scavenged.
So why isn't the US giving Ukraine the tools it needs?
The first argument is that the US must not diminish its own stockpiles so it too can be ready
for a major conflict. This is nonsense- the only likely conflict the US currently faces is against
either China or Russia. In the Chinese scenario, US strategic thinking is evident in the fact that
the Marines have divested themselves of their own Abrams tanks, in favor of a lighter, more mobile
footprint for Pacific fighting. A war against China will take place on the sea and in the skies,
there will be no grueling slugfests between opposing armies. So if the Marines don't need
their tanks anymore, then the US doesn't need 3500 Abrams in storage to counter a Chinese threat.
The next likely conflict is a war against Russia, in which case it's pretty obvious
that American Abrams are much better served operating in Ukrainian hands today than
American ones later. Ukraine is basically bringing one of America, and the west's,
greatest rivals to its knees all on its own- supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia has
been called the greatest investment of national defense spending in western history by a plethora
of analysts. The teeth of the Russian bear have been broken, and after it emerges from this war
it'll never be able to antagonize the west again- unless the west allows Russia to win in Ukraine.
There are other possible conflicts, such as North Korea or Iran- but in both scenarios
the US is already perfectly equipped for victory with current active inventory and
reserves. Also in both scenarios, the US will be fighting alongside partners and allies, and
with North Korea's antiquated tank fleet, there's no realistic need for a stockpile of 3500 Abrams
doing nothing but collecting dust and costing taxpayers money to keep ready for operation.
And it's a lot of money, with tens of millions of dollars spent keeping deep reserves capable
of being reactivated, because unlike Russia, the US doesn’t just put equipment behind a fence and
then peaces out for sixty years- only to return later and be shocked that Major Corruptavich and
Private Conscriptavich stole the thermal sights and every inch of copper wire for vodka money.
The only remaining argument for not adequately supplying Ukraine with enough tanks to bring
Russian forces to their knees is the typical narrative of “escalation”. In case you're new
here, Russia has warned with every new weapons shipment that the west was crossing a red line
that could lead to escalation, whether that's bringing NATO into the war itself or triggering
a nuclear exchange, Putin has never really said and instead left it to the west's imagination. And
what an imagination the west has, with Europeans and Americans alike apparently terrified of
Russian troops teleporting across time and space to invade Paris and Washington D.C.,
or deciding that it's time to pull the plug on the human race by launching a global nuclear war.
As we've highlighted before, the last thing Putin or the Russians want is an escalation
with NATO. First, a conventional war with NATO would be the most hilariously one-sided fight
since Randy Couture literally spanked Tito Ortiz in the octagon. Russia has yet to deal
with the approximately two dozen HIMARS that the US has sent to Ukraine- how exactly does
it expect to answer a challenge from the four hundred and fifty still in US inventory? And
if it can't handle operations against an opponent it outnumbers nearly ten to one,
who is only capable of very limited combined arms operations,
how does Russia expect to defeat a joint force of US cutting-edge Abrams supported
by French and British fighter-bombers and German long-range precision artillery?
The only threat left is the nuclear one, and let's be serious- even if Putin was insane
enough to order a nuclear war, there's plenty of people in between him and the launching of
nuclear weapons that aren't, and who know they will face immediate and far more ensured nuclear
annihilation. Because if the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it's that Russian equipment
is more neglected than that game you got on sale and never played. There's every
likelihood that a significant portion of the Russian nuclear arsenal simply doesn't work,
and exists only for show. Given that the US has admitted to not being able to properly maintain
its own vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, there's little chance that Russia with its
systemic budgetary woes and deep corruption has been able to. We already know that corruption
in Russia has struck deepest in the places that those executing said corruption believed would
never be truly necessary- consider the amount of equipment in storage that was simply left to rot,
maintenance funds siphoned off. Nuclear weapons are the least likely tool to ever
be necessary for any nation- we're not saying that corrupt Russians stole everything from
their nukes but the exterior casings, but we are saying that the chance that most
Russian nukes are filled with nothing more but discarded vodka bottles is definitely not zero.
There's no good reason the US and the west at large couldn't
and shouldn't immediately provide Ukraine with everything it needs to decisively win,
and every hesitation costs the lives of brave Ukrainian soldiers and innocent civilians alike.
But Ukraine will receive at least 31 Abrams, with future replenishment still unconfirmed.
These 31 tanks won't win the war, but they can prove decisive in local conflicts.
When Ukraine received its Leopard tanks, there was fierce debate about how best to
use these formidable weapons. Pound for pound, Leopards outweigh anything the
Russians can field- but as we have seen, they are not invulnerable. Would the Ukrainians opt
to concentrate their western tanks together, or disperse them across wider parts of the front?
Ukraine opted for the latter, and it was likely the right move. Concentrating Leopard tanks in
a very short part of the front would have created a sledgehammer force that would
be difficult to counter- under normal circumstances. But Ukraine isn't facing
normal circumstances under which these tanks would usually operate. And that
has proven a significant challenge as we have seen in recent months.
First, there's little to no air support for Ukrainian vehicles. This leaves tanks
vulnerable to their greatest enemy: air power. Russia took advantage of this vulnerability and
in a surprising move, threw its attack helicopter fleet into the thick of the fighting. Soon we were
getting news of Leopards being seriously damaged or outright destroyed by Russian aviation- though
the move did cost Russia a significant amount with the loss of numerous Ka-52 attack helicopters,
and the fleet now being at less than half of its starting strength. It was this willingness
to sacrifice its attack helicopters though that prevented major Ukrainian breakthroughs,
and highlighted Ukraine's need for western fighter jets- a deficiency that has
finally been rectified with Ukrainian pilots training on F-16s as we speak.
Second, Ukraine faces the unenviable task of attacking very well defended Russian
positions. Russia had all of last winter to entrench itself, and knowing that a
counter-attack would be inevitable, created the greatest fortifications in Europe since
the Second World War. It learned from the stunning counter-punch the Ukrainians threw last fall, and
created multiple lines of defense all supported by vast mine fields and layers of artillery.
Normally this is the type of defense that western armies would deal with using combined
arms warfare. Aviation would secure air superiority while delivering precision
strikes on key defensive features and command and control nodes. Artillery would suppress
enemy artillery and deliver counter-battery fire to destroy it. Attack helicopters would
pin defenders down inside their trenches and destroy any responding enemy vehicles,
while assault forces would utilize engineering vehicles to clear lanes through mine fields.
Finally, armor would lead the attack and push past the trench system, while infantry
fighting vehicles disgorged their infantry beside or on the backside of enemy trenches,
then directly support their infantry. All these assets working together and at the same time
is what makes western forces so deadly on the battlefield, each tool doing its job and directly
supported by the others to methodically dismantle an enemy's ability to resist.
Ukraine does not have the capabilities to do this. Which means it has to take on Russian
fortifications the old fashioned way- with tanks up front, some artillery support,
and a whole lot of soldier with backbones made of adamantium. As we've seen in the
penetration of multiple lines of defense on the southern front, this strategy can
work- but at great cost to friendly forces, especially armor and infantry fighting vehicles.
Western tanks like the Abrams would probably be best suited to take on these extremely
difficult challenges, but here Ukraine has to fight a two-front war: one against Russia,
and the other a public relations campaign with the west. Ukraine may more easily break
Russian defenses by concentrating western tanks, but nobody really cares when Russia
brags about destroying yet another old Soviet tank in Ukrainian hands. The moment a Leopard
is destroyed though it's front-page news, and Russia works very hard to stoke the fires of
propaganda. The last thing that Ukraine can afford is news that it has punched through Russian lines,
but lost a dozen western tanks in one attempt. These types of news can deter many westerners
from wanting to send more equipment to Ukraine, as they might think it's just a futile waste.
In that scenario Ukraine won the battle, but Russia might end up winning the war.
It's almost certain then that Ukraine will utilize the 31 Abrams its receiving in the
same way it's chosen to utilize its Leopard tanks. They will likely be broken down into
small troops of 3-4 tanks a piece so they can mutually support each other. Then they will
be dispersed across the front, where they will act as an immediate force multiplier.
This strategy also makes sense because in preparation for the arrival of western tanks,
Russia created dedicated hunter-killer units specifically for the job of destroying western
tanks when they showed up. Rather than present an obvious target to Russian forces, Ukraine's
dispersal of its Leopards and Challengers ended up frustrating Russia's anti-western tank forces,
and wasting their firepower as they sat around waiting to respond to a
verified attack. It's unknown if Russia is still operating these specialized units,
which are made up of some of its best forces, or if it's even able to given the incredible
pressure Russian forces are currently under. But just in case, it's best to continue wasting
Russian time and troops and deny it the propaganda victory it so desperately needs.
Wherever they show up though, Abrams are going to without question dominate the battlefield.
Their capabilities have been degraded somewhat, as the US announced it was stripping the tanks of
select classified systems and some of their highly secretive armor- but even the export
variant of the Abrams is a formidable beast that has proven itself in combat
multiple times. To make matters even worse for Russia, the Abrams has already faced off
against the equipment Russia is currently fielding- during Operation Desert Storm.
Nobody needs a reminder of the Abram's performance in Desert Storm, where the
US lost 2 Abrams to intentional destruction to avoid their capture, seven to friendly fire,
and 14 were damaged but not destroyed. Meanwhile Iraq lost over 3,000 tanks- not
all in tank-on-tank engagements, but the Abrams did win every single fight against Iraqi tanks.
The quality of tanks operated by Iraq in Desert Storm currently match the type of equipment
Russia is fielding today. This is terrifying news for any Russian tanker, as Ukraine has already
launched a psyops campaign against the Russians by reminding them of the Abrams' dominance in Iraq.
Those Abrams may have been better supported and feature better armor than what Ukraine is getting,
but with the average age of active Russian tanks creeping ever closer to manufacturing runs in the
1960s and 50s, there's little doubt about what side is going to win a tank-on-tank exchange.
The most likely losses of Abrams tanks will be to Russian aviation and artillery,
where it still enjoys superiority- but here it's important to make a distinction about the loss
of a western tank versus a Russian one. The losses of Leopards in Ukraine has been widely publicized,
but the story that hasn't been as widely told is that Ukrainian crews are overwhelmingly
surviving the destruction of their Leopard tanks and Bradley IFVs- while the Russians
are continuing to re-train their tank crews as astronauts every time one of their tanks
takes a hit and its turret briefly joins the Russian aerospace forces.
The real power of the Abram will be in its ability to defend friendly forces from Russian tanks. With
far greater reach and a bigger punch thanks to an agreement to send depleted uranium ammunition,
an Abrams will be able to spot an enemy first with its advanced sensors and put steel on
target first. This inclement weather and nightime capability is something
that Ukraine has used to great advantage already with its Leopards and Bradley IFVs,
taking Russian troops who increasingly have less and less access to night vision and
thermal imaging by surprise in the dead of night. With news that newly produced
T-80 tanks are being shipped off with nothing more than gunner's sights, Russia's ability
to counter western equipment at night is becoming increasingly compromised.
Ultimately, the Abrams that Ukraine will receive will be used as a testbed to garner more political
support for even further deliveries of western equipment. Not only are 31 Abrams
simply insufficient to win the war, but Ukraine must keep up with ongoing production of Russian
armor and the refurbishment of old tanks being drawn down from storage. Further, the Abrams will
inevitably suffer losses and need replacing, though the invaluable advantage is in their
incredible survivability, allowing Ukraine to return veteran tank crews to the fight quickly,
instead of having to trains brand new conscripts up from scratch like Russia so often has to do.
This places Ukraine in an excellent position to win the long-term war, but only if the flow
of western arms continues arriving. Main battle tanks are a big commitment, but it's time for the
west to collectively ask itself just how many more Ukrainian lives should be lost to Russian
aggression. With countries like China, Iran, and North Korea keeping a close eye on how the west
handles this war, there's a lot more on the line than even just general eastern European security.
Many say it's time to fully unleash the Abrams and Leopard to do the job they were built to do:
annihilate Russian forces and secure lasting peace in Europe.
Now go check out Why Russian T-90 Tank Absolutely Sucks, or click this other video instead!