Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why the Abrams Tanks Are Problematic
There has been much Sturm und Drang about the US giving Abrams tanks to Ukraine, but I think most of the reasons discussed in public are baloney. Let’s start with two reasons that I don’t think carry much weight.
First, there is the fear that Russia will see it as an escalation. Yes, it is an escalation; and the Russians rightly see it as such. However, that should not be a major obstacle. The Russians have already committed their entire conventional might to the war against Ukraine, so they can’t escalate the conventional war in response. The real fear is that Russia might use nuclear weapons, but they have threatened nuclear war periodically and have not followed through because they realize that we could also respond with nuclear weapons and because we could demolish their military with conventional strikes in response to their use of nuclear weapons. Russia’s potential use of nuclear weapons is a concern, but they would only use them if they perceived an existential threat to Russia. Losing in Ukraine is not an existential threat, at least not yet.
Second, some argue that Ukrainians are not capable of learning to use the Abrams tank. But Ukrainians were part of a sophisticated Soviet military for decades, and they have already successfully incorporated other sophisticated Western weapons systems. Some say that the Abrams’ gas turbine engine is difficult to maintain, but Ukrainians already operate the T-80 and T-90 tanks, which use gas turbines. Plus, Ukrainian soldiers are motivated learners since they are fighting for national survival. It’s hard to believe that Ukrainians can’t learn to operate the Abrams.
But there are real reasons why the Abrams is not ideal for Ukraine:
German Leopards and even British Challengers are geographically much nearer Ukraine. Ammo and spare parts and trainers are located closer to the theater, so the logistics for the Leopards and Challengers is simpler. Yes, the US does have three armored brigades with 90 Abrams in Europe now, but they are a deterrent force against Russia, so we would be foolish to give them to Ukraine. We will have to fly heavy Abrams tanks from the US mainland to Europe.
The M1 Abrams is probably the most expensive tank in the world to operate. It is called the “rich man’s tank” for good reason. I’ve seen figures that it consumes 2-3X more fuel than the Leopard. It uses the most expensive and most capable ammunition. Its spare parts are more expensive because the US made fewer compromises in designing the tank. If you operate a military that has nearly unlimited resources, it is a great tank. But it’s not a great tank if you have limited resources. Leopards and Challengers from second-tier militaries are more appropriate for Ukraine. So we will wind up paying a lot more for Ukraine to operate Abrams than if we paid for them to operate Leopards.
There is a lead time to provide the tanks to Ukraine. We have to manufacture export variants of the tank for Ukraine with scaled-down armor and electronics because we don’t keep them in inventory. Even though countries like Poland, Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, and others do operate the Abrams, they did not get the most sophisticated version. It would be faster to give them the same number of Leopards because European countries are prepared to give them to Ukraine out of inventory.
Finally, it would simplify logistics and training if Ukraine only received one type of Western tank. Ukraine would only need one type of spares and ammo. There would be only one logistics tail. All Ukrainian soldiers would be trained on one tank, instead of two or three. While the Leopard, Challenger, and Abrams are interoperable thanks to decades of NATO effort in that direction, they are still distinct machines.
In the end, NATO alliance politics trumped military considerations. The US has agreed to provide 31 Abrams to arm a Ukrainian battalion so that Germany would release the Leopards. As we learned during World War II, victory will come quicker and at a lower cost if we keep the alliance together. And thus Ukraine will get 31 M1 Abrams for geopolitical reasons, even though militarily it is not the optimal decision.
Published in Foreign Policy
I think we have seen that the Russian Bear is a koala, so why do we need a further “deterrent force against Russia” – they are already all in on Ukraine.
The main argument against sending Abrams isn’t escalation nor Ukrainian inability to learn (neither is true). It needlessly complicates logistics when there are plenty of Leopards available. The US should offer to replace every Leopard Poland sends with an Abrams-that simplifies logistics for both countries (I would extend the offer for the polish PT-81s as well). The Polish get a unitary tank force of 650-700 Abrams (they have already order ~366) and Ukraine gets 300+ tanks w/o further complicating logistics.
addendum-it is PT-91 not 81
Ukraine has been a war of logistics from the beginning. It doesn’t make much sense to complicate the Ukrainian logistics problem by giving them a bunch of different platforms. The Abrams is a logistics problem all by its lonesome. It makes sense for the US to operate them, but we have no illusions about logistics being their Achilles heel. I am not sure that Ukraine has the logistics capability to make good use of the Abrams. That having been said maybe they can use them as a short range force either for quick counter attacks or to exploit a breakthrough. It still isn’t clear to me if the Russians have solved their logistics problems, and they may have solved short term issues only to have longer term issues that they will be facing soon.
Not knowing anything about tanks myself, this sounds like a practical idea.
The logic of your argument only holds if you expect the war to end by the spring. I don’t, nor should anyone plan on that. M1 tanks are expected to arrive by the spring from what I’ve read. The infusion of M1s in the spring will have a beneficial effect as the Leopards and Challengers hold the line now.
By the way, I say M1s because I’ve seen they may be sending both M1A1s and M1A2s.
I believe the ammunition between the NATO tanks are interchangeable between the various tanks. I don’t think it will be as much a logistical issue as you think.
See my comment above. If you’re envisioning the ammo as being the logistical hang up, I don’t think you need to.
The deterrence is now. Not using them now is a waste of what they were intended to do. After this war, we will have plenty of time to make new or even next generation tanks to reposition. Russia will be in no position to threaten any NATO country for quite a while. Use them now or you will never use them again.
It is more a question of fuel than ammo. M1’s burn fuel like crazy to a point where you need long unarmored fuel convoy’s to support them. Not an issue when the USAF has air supremacy, but a weakness in a battlefield where you have limited capabilities against Russian aviation. It isn’t insurmountable but it is a major logistics issue that the Ukrainians have to figure out.
It is true that at the moment we have committed significantly to an outcome in Ukraine that at a minimum neutralizes the Russian threat for a while. Otherwise if they can win the rearmament race we might be at a disadvantage. While I broadly support Ukraine I am not sure what we are doing at the moment is the wisest course of action.
They can use ammo interchangeably, but from what I understand they usually fire different shells. For example, the Leopard fires a tungsten sabot round DM43 while the Abrams fires a depleted uranium sabot M829A3. The Challenger has a rifled barrel because Brits prefer squash rounds that need a rifled barrel. Sabots wear out a rifled barrel quickly, although they can fire sabots. But the Leopard and Abrams have a smoothbore cannon because they fire many sabots. So you’re right that ammo is not a big issue, maybe more of a preference.
But spare parts is where the real problem comes.
To defend NATO. What if Ukraine were to collapse suddenly? What if Putin decided that attacking the Baltic republics would relieve pressure on his Ukrainian invasion force? What if Putin decided to take a whack at Poland for its support of Ukraine? All those scenarios are unlikely, but having three armored brigades in Europe makes them much less likely.
Actually you’re right about the Challenger. Its canon is rifled. I thought the had a smooth bore variant but they don’t. Smooth bore ammo and rifled gun ammo are not interchangeable. And you’re also right about tank parts driving logistics. But heck, Ukraine’s fighting has been mostly ad hoc. Add this to ad hoc “doctrine”. If they are not worried about logistics then there has to be a net gain. If their brain trust isn’t worried, why should we?
The logistics isn’t just ammo-it is maintenance & repair-tanks take a lot. Simplifying both for Poland & Ukraine is a win-win.
Your reluctance is probably driving your questioning logistics. My certainty is probably driving my minimizing logistics. Ultimately we’re just kibitzers. The generals actually involved have to be objective concerning their interests. If they don’t bring up the concerns, then they should know.
Yes. Understood.
I’m curious about this. Could you say more?
From what I’ve read they will get M1A2s, similar to the tanks purchased by the Saudis. The only significant difference is they will not have armor with depleted uranium.
Yes. The US uses a licensed built version of the German 120mm gun used on the Leo II. Tank gun ammo will not be a problem.
Tanks and AFVs in general consume large quantities of fuel. Modern M1s have an auxiliary power unit (APU) to run the electronics and keep the batteries charged. Is it a challenge? Yes, but one that can be managed.
Rifled guns do wear out faster than smoothbore guns. It is not related to Sabot rounds. It is simply a function of friction creating wear of the lands and grooves. An M68 rifled tank gun (105mm) has an effective life of 1,000 rounds. I imagine the L256 on the M1 is good for at least that many. Likely much more.
Does everyone understand the reason Ukraine is getting M1s?
Because we had to shame the Germans.
Legally, any nation transferring Leo IIs to Ukraine has to have approval from the Germans. That they are donating some of their own tanks is lagniappe.
Even if Ukraine collapsed tomorrow. It would take weeks if not months for Russia to organize and attack into NATO territory. Putin, as has been previously said is already all in on Ukraine. He does not have capacity to attack the Baltic republics and he certainly has no incentive to bring allies into the fight for Ukraine. Poland same thing you seem to give no credence to the notion that members of Eastern Europe have zero desire to return to the Soviet empire. They already knew what that was like and it only ended 30 years ago. They don’t need tanks to defend Western Europe and all honesty space and air power to do that for them just as well.
Please allow me to introduce you to the sensor fused weapon.
YouTube was wrong, that was the CBU105.
Here try this one.
I think this is the actual plan. We park Abrams tanks in Poland and all the Leopards gather in Ukraine. All the American tank support people stay on NATO soil and Ukraine gets a coherent set of tanks.
Some think the concern would be not an existential threat to Russia, but an existential threat to Putin.
Hopeful this report is correct & we will soon supply GLSDB to Ukraine:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-readies-2-bln-plus-ukraine-aid-package-with-longer-range-weapons-sources-2023-01-31/
The way I understand it (not being a tanker), the penetrator in a sabot round has had to become longer and thus relatively thinner to penetrate thicker armor. A round with a higher length to diameter ratio has to spin faster to be stabilized, so the chamber pressure has to be higher, which wears rifling faster. Therefore, the Abrams and Leopard switched to a smoothbore gun to fire sabots at higher velocities. They use fins to stabilize the round instead of spin. And the higher velocity of a smoothbore gun imparts more kinetic energy to the penetrator, which gives it more destructive power at impact.
The British use squash-head rounds which don’t require high velocity but benefit greatly from the increased accuracy of a rifled barrel. They form a plastic explosive pancake on the tank armor when the head squashes against the target tank. Challengers have made the longest recorded tank kills as a result. But the new Challenger 3 will use a smoothbore barrel as squash-head rounds are not as effective against the newest tanks with spall liners.
HEAT rounds form a plasma jet at impact, and a spinning jet is distorted, so it doesn’t have the destructive power of a non-spinning jet. Thus HEAT rounds are more effective from a smoothbore gun that doesn’t impart spin.
While all NATO tanks use 120mm guns and can fire all NATO rounds, there are good reasons to fire British squash-head rounds (HESH) from a Challenger and good reasons to fire sabot and HEAT rounds from the smoothbore on an Abrams and a Leopard.
The other alternative most often used to fin stabilized rounds are HEAT rounds. Heat rounds do not use velocity (kinetic energy) to penetrate- so you can use short barrels to shoot them. That is why man portable anti-tank devices use heat rounds- the barrel can be short & light & carried by one man. It is primarily the diameter of the round that determines effectiveness. Spinning degrades effectiveness. The problem with early heat rounds was they are less accurate than high velocity rounds (a more looping flight profile is more difficult to aim than the almost flat profile of a high velocity round). Modern guidance systems overcomes that problem- like with the javelin.
all rounds have counter measures- but the hardest to counter are sabots b/c of the tremendous kinetic energy.
This is an important unknown. We do know that Volgograd (Stalingrad), which is just a 6 hour drive east of Ukraine border, was the deadliest battleground in WWII (the Great Patriotic War), because both the Russians and Germans thought it an existential point. In a world of hypersonic missiles, what is the radius of “existential” threat? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? I personally think that “distance” is not the only way to mitigate a threat. Satellites and inspections allow for peace between neighbors.
If you look what Russia was able to do. It was able to quickly take ground in the east and south along the coast. This is where they had the logistical capability to project force either because it bordered Russia or because it could be supplied by sea or the Crimea. Where they fell apart was during their thunder run on Kyiv. Actually that too met with a bit of initial success but they couldn’t keep their paratroops (VDV) forces supplied and their decapitation strike fell apart.
Additionally the strike down from Belarus was largely foiled by striking at the fuel and logistics convoys. The Russian’s had not prepositioned much fuel, equipment, ammunition, etc. That is why initial western reports and even some Ukrainian reports downplayed the possibility of invasion, I suspect. It didn’t seem that the Russian’s were stockpiling for a long campaign. I think we now know they foolishly expected a short campaign.
Russia hasn’t proven it has solved its logistics problems yet. Ukraine on the other hand has logistics support from the west and has been steadily building capability. If you look at how Ukraine has structured its offensive operations it tends to favor artillery and Himars attacks on ground lines of communication, i.e. logistics corridors prior to advancing, which makes sense it kind of text book. The Russian’s do the same btw. They are trying to encircle the Ukrainians to cut off their logistics in territory they are trying to take. I think you would have to conclude that so far Ukraine is winning the logistics war and Russia is losing it.
That having been said structurally on paper Russia has the advantages, Larger population, larger GDP, larger Defense industry, more resources etc. It remains to be seen if they can harness that given the level of corruption in the Russian system. Ukraine can match many of these because of the western allies; however, that has its own questions and implications.
In the end Russia has failed to achieve its war aims because it has not been able to resolve its logistical challenges and bring its overwhelming might to bear. This gave Ukraine long enough to get enough equipment from the west to change the situation and reverse some Russian gains. Modern mechanized warfare is a game of logistics. He who wins the logistics war wins the war. Of course take this all with a grain of salt, I have no specialized military training at all. I am just an avid student of history and lover of war games.