At the end of January, the announcement that Germany and the United States would provide Ukraine with the world’s most advanced main battle tanks (MBTs) brought weeks of speculation over the issue to an end. Germany’s hesitation over sending Kyiv some of its Leopard 2 tanks – and allowing other nations who had bought the German tank to do so – faded once Washington confirmed it would be sending M1 Abrams.[1]

The initial pledges include the aforementioned German-made Leopard 2 tanks from perhaps a dozen nations, most notably Germany and Poland; M1 Abrams from the US; and a small number of Challenger 2 tanks from the UK.[2] Less politically symbolic but welcome additions to the battlefield, armored personnel carriers have been promised by the French. The US will send Bradley fighting vehicles and the eight-wheeled high-speed armored Stryker fighting vehicles. Other European nations are promising additional armored vehicles.

New reports in the days leading up to the above announcement have said that Russia had just received a shipment of Soviet-designed T-34 tanks to be sent to the battlefield in Ukraine. Moscow appears to be dispatching support to its troops in Ukraine and supplementing armor lost during the operation.  

Importance of tanks to Ukraine  

Heavy tank losses on both sides heralded for many analysts the supremacy of anti-tank weapons and the demise of the tank. Some argue that the advent of new technologies such as guided missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and air power have made tanks obsolete on the battlefield. Vulnerable to a range of threats – including armed drones – tanks are also, some claim, too slow and heavy to keep pace with modern, fast-moving warfare. 

Defenders of tanks argue, however, that they will continue to play a crucial role in ground operations and provide essential firepower, mobility, and protection for ground troops. The thickness of the armor on a tank provides a level of protection that other armored vehicles cannot match. For this reason, they provide indispensable armored protection for infantry units, allowing them to advance through enemy lines. They can traverse rugged terrains such as mud, snow, and rough terrain, supporting ground operations even in the most challenging environments. 

Another key advantage of tanks is their psychological impact on enemy forces. The mere presence of tanks on the battlefield can have a demoralizing effect on the enemy, causing them to retreat or surrender.

Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov has dismissed the transfer of NATO tanks, stating that they “will burn like all the others.” But the fact that the Kremlin has warned that the decision could lead to escalation indicates that they are cautious about these modern tanks being in Ukrainian hands. But should they be? How does a limited supply of advanced MBTs benefit Ukraine?

At a political level, the joint decision by Berlin and Washington was a powerful signal of transatlantic solidarity and continued support to Ukraine. The Kremlin has built its strategy on the prospects of disunity in NATO and diminishing appetite among its members for supporting Ukraine in a prolonged war. Yet the tank decision has posed a fundamental challenge to the Russian strategy. If anything, it might open the door further to other sophisticated arms reaching Kyiv, including fighter jets.[3] Indeed, the arrival of the tanks will immediately beg for more combat aircraft overhead. “I can’t imagine operating that armored force without sufficient air cover,” James Stavridis, former supreme allied commander of NATO, cautioned in recent commentary after the Leopard 2 and M1-A1 Abrams decision.[4]

But what of battlefield fortunes? The Kremlin does not think NATO tanks will change the course of events, but other military analysts argue that the lack of armor was one of the main reasons why Kyiv’s end-of-summer offenses stalled last year. Rather than aiding Ukraine to launch offensive attacks, however, the tanks’ real contribution in the immediate term will more likely be to help absorb a renewed Russian advance with its mobilized conscripts. Tanks used by Ukrainians in a defensive capacity will also reduce – though far from eliminating – some of the daunting challenges of absorbing these complex machines.   

More pain than gain? 

The M-1 Abrams and Leopard 2s are the most sophisticated tanks of their kind. The M-1 Abrams, particularly, will be a massive pain for Ukrainian crews, maintainers, and logisticians.[5] Training is critical. The M-1—its turret and engine—is intolerant of crew error. “The M-1 requires the most turret training” of any modern Western tank, tweeted Mark Hertling, a retired US Army general with extensive armor experience.[6] The turbine-powered engine can also fail. The engine pack can ‘blow’ if crew are not adequately trained to drive and operate the tank. 

Field-repairs are not always possible with a machine as sophisticated and complex as the Abrams. Much of MBTs’ effectiveness on the battlefield comes down to sophisticated electronic and computer systems. Maintaining M1-Abrams and Leopard 2s, repairing them, and supplying spare parts require enormous infrastructure and skilled crews.[7]

Moreover, front-line battalions will not be skilled enough to fix an M-1. Entire subsystems need to be pulled out of the tank and sent to a specialized depot for repairs. In the meantime, replacement subsystems would need to be delivered. US defense officials are alive to these challenges but believe the tanks are still worth it. “We [...] pushed hard on how to synchronize those donations and turn them into fully-operational capabilities,” argued Lloyd Austin, the US defense secretary. “And that means every step, from donation, to training, to maintenance and then to sustainment.”[8]

Comparative to the Abrams, the Leopard 2s provide less of a burden. The German-made tanks, like Ukraine's, were designed to be maintained by conscript armies and use accessible fuels and standard ammunition types. For one thing, the Leopard 2 has a less temperamental diesel engine. Its armor is not such a closely guarded secret. Therefore current stocks can be sent rather than producing a new variant for transfer.[9] What is more, there are a dozen places across Europe where armies maintain Leopard 2s, which means more spare parts. 

Like with M1-Abrams, Leopard 2s will be demanding weapon systems to master, utilize efficaciously and sustain. Firstly, Ukrainian forces will receive a mixture of different variants (ex-German Leopard 2A6s plus ex-Polish and ex-Norwegian Leopard 2A4s). Each variant has unique logistical requirements. However, the Ukrainians have shown they can operate mismatched types of weapons. 

Another issue, as one defense analyst notes, is weight. “All Leopard 2 models are heavy – 70 tons or so – and that’s a problem in rural Ukraine where roads and bridges might be too flimsy for the hulking vehicles,” David Axe writes.[10]

Anticipation 

Given these realities, it is more likely that these tanks will be used in a defensive role in the first instance. Tanks used in an offensive role require a much more demanding secure supply line to maintain their operational capability. This includes fuel, ammunition, maintenance support, and the ability to evacuate damaged or broken-down tanks. Such requirements will probably stretch Ukrainian forces beyond what they can accomplish. A secure supply line is essential to sustain an offensive and ensure that tanks remain operational and provide continuous support to other units. 

Although the perception of tanks in the common imagination is of these tracked machines speeding across the European plains in a blitzkrieg attack, tanks are highly useful in a defensive role due to several key factors. Firstly, the thickness of the armor on an MBT provides a level of protection that other vehicles cannot match. This protection allows tanks to absorb a large amount of enemy fire, making them ideal for holding ground and creating defensive positions. MBTs are also equipped with various weapons, such as machine guns and cannons, that defend against enemy infantry and vehicles. This combination of armor and firepower makes MBTs an ideal platform for defending strategic points.

Conclusion 

In light of the previously mentioned considerations, it is evident that while Western MBTs could provide Ukraine with a significant military advantage on the battlefield, they are not a guarantee of success in the face of a Russian operation. At any rate, it could take months for Leopard 2s to enter service with Ukrainian forces in the numbers to make any meaningful difference.[11] As for M1-Abrams, these could be more than a year away from seeing the battlefield.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of these tanks – when they arrive – will depend on how they are used. While Western MBTs may provide Ukraine with a powerful tool in its defense against Russian activity with armor and infantry, they are not a “game changer.”