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
The problem is that the M1 is designed to work in an environment where the fuel convoys are protected by layered defenses. It doesn’t appear that Ukraine will have that. That having been said the Russian’s don’t appear to have anything resembling air supremacy either, so maybe it will be okay. It is just that the M1 has some logistics challenges in the Ukrainian environment and I am not sure that it was wise to put it in the mix strategically. The fact is this is probably more a political than a military decision.
Steve Bannon always says about war: “Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” I think this has been true for all of recorded history.
It seems that all our standard weapons, starting with the standard U.S. infantry rifle, the M16, requires more maintenance and more training to operate effectively.
The AK-47 has been called, “pray and spray”, because it’s less accurate than the M16, but also simpler to operate. Just fire more bullets (which often means more civilian casualties).
This is the case with almost all our standard weapons, from fighter jets to, yes, tanks. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s also the case with our artillery pieces, including the basic mortar.
To support this level of advanced weaponry requires a logistics pipeline, including a training pipeline.
We’re best in the world at that. And it’s not something we can imbue in other nation’s armies with a few training videos.
It is true. I was listening to VDH remarking about how the Russian’s have never been a successful expeditionary force army, but have often been a very successful defensive force. The US on the other hand has always been a very effective expeditionary force. At least until the American people get bored, or decide to give up.
Logistics has been a Russian handicap since 1914.
Except in World War 2 where they outsourced it to the U.K. and U.S.