There was a well spoken military analyst on one of the news networks a couple of days ago, who during a long dedicated segment said none of the NATO countries were going to send their major tank platforms into Ukraine, by themselves. Either they send them as unified force, or they don’t send them at all.
He said the main reason they aren’t willing to send them together, as was done most notably in Iraq, is because the major tank platforms can only be manned, operated, and maintained, by the NATO tank programs that own them, and their personnel. You can’t just hand the keys over to the Ukrainians, especially the maintenance part.
He also said that the major tank platforms require not only a large manpower contingent, but they are very diesel fuel hungry, and the Russians have pretty much already destroyed the diesel fuel lines and substations anywhere near the front lines, and they are aggressively targeting them with precision missiles, something else that wasn’t happening in Iraq.
Who knows if he was, or is, correct. But he made a very strong case that NO major NATO tank platforms, whether the Leopard qualifies as a major tank program or not, are going to be heading into Ukraine anytime soon, if ever.
The logistics, maintenance, fuel, ammo, training etc. for mechanized units is massive. I've personally seen, on numerous occasions, foreign forces try to run our gear. It's always a nightmare, even with lots of direct support.
These equipment gifts are for show and profit.
Correct.
And, without the capacity to shoot down the variety of (anti-personnel, anti-materiel, and anti-vehicle, in addition to recon) hovering drones . . . the tanks plus the tanks’ maintenance systems and trains, would be short-lived.
Probably have better performance by using (for example) Roshel “Senator” armored vehicles that are modified for launching TOW and other MAN type missiles.
That, in addition to anti-air-hovering-drone vehicles.