Posted on 01/27/2023 5:12:58 AM PST by FarCenter
The decision to provide heavy tanks to Ukraine in significant numbers constitutes a step change in western military support for Ukraine. For the first time, western countries are providing substantial offensive capabilities to support a major campaign to regain lost territory.
The decision has been long in coming. But for some months, the German chancellor Olaf Scholz resisted the decision to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Even the Nato meeting held at the Ramstein US air base in Germany on January 20 to discuss the issue ended without a decision, much to the frustration of Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky and some of Kiev’s other Western allies.
In addition to a general fear of escalation, there was much public discussion of Germany’s aversion to involvement in armed conflict (understandable given its 20th-century history) and Berlin’s hopes to rebuild relations with Moscow eventually.
But this is not the whole story. Scholz is keenly aware of Germany’s reliance on the US for its security. So he would only take such a major decision with clear US approval and – most importantly – with evidence that the US would participate in a similar deal to supply its own tanks. Until this week, the US was adamant it wouldn’t send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, saying they were unsuited to the conditions of warfare there.
Germany’s other problem is its relatively low stocks of Leopard 2 tanks (about 320 for all of Germany’s own defense needs down from 4,000 main battle tanks during the Cold War period). Readying its existing stock for battle will take some time.
But the underlying issue is that the Germans fear that if the various European states that have bought Leopard 2 tanks from Germany supply them to Ukraine, they may well opt to replace their own inventories with US equipment instead.
This would destroy a massive export market for Germany as the country exported 2,399 battle tanks between 1992 and 2010. This is already in progress in fact as Poland announced the purchase of 116 M1A1 Abrams tanks with associated equipment with delivery starting this year in a deal worth US$1.4 billion.
“If it doesn’t make sense, you can be sure it makes dollars.”
‘Scuze me, but just WHERE would it be “convenient” to operate a Main Battle Tank?
Where is the weather and countryside appropriate?
(Perhaps I’ve missed something...)
The German problem with respect to the Leopard II is that since the 1990s they have proven a lousy vendor. They have been slow or unable to fill orders for tanks or upgrade packages.
Not that $10 million is cheap, but isn’t it aggravating that an entire war’s worth of tanks can be bought for the price of an aid package?
I dunno... Maybe less-than-optimal previous experiences?
Regards,
Or buying up young voters to purchase an off-year election?
Well Panthers and Tigers did not do perhaps what a leopard can do?
No country is more experienced in sending tanks to Ukraine, than Germany.
KURSK!!!!
“he would only take such a major decision with clear US approval”
Behind every problem for Ukraine is the Biden regime pulling strings to prevent them getting the help they need.
How much did Putin need to pay Hunter for Joe to slow walk even basic supplies?
The krauts had been warriors for 2,000 years but the ass whipping they took in WW II {along with the shame of standing by while the nazi's cooked 6 millions Jews} have turned that country into the second biggest pussy country in Europe {the perfumed french remain #1}.
I was stationed in Germany in the early 60s and went back in the 90s, and the change was dramatic.
Seriously?
The real decision simply lies in balancing pissing off Putin and giving their L2s the sorely needed battle test they need to reinvigorate their lagging export market.
“Giving away” 31 tanks will pay handsomely in dividends ‘if’ they perform and are granted uke propaganda coverage.
I could be in left field, but why let the US be the sole beneficiary of battle tested hardware in a manufactured crisis? /s
I was stationed at Ramstein from 93-97. I lived off base in a small German village.
One of my German friends asked me that with the Cold War now over, and Germany reunited, why we Americans had to stay there.
I told him, “Well, somebody’s got to stick around and keep their knee on your neck, no? You don’t want the Russians or the French to be the ones doing that, do you?”
The original purpose of NATO was to keep the Russians out, the Yanks in, and Germans down. The U.S. provides non-nuclear NATO members with a nuclear umbrella. Absolutely no one, and most especially no one in Britain, ever, for at least the next 1000 years, wants there to be a nuclear armed Germany. Without the U.S. nuclear umbrella, all Russia has to do is say to Poland, Estonia, Finland, et alia, “Nice little non-nuclear country you got there, shame if something happened to it.”
When Putin invaded Ukraine he really stepped on it. Finland and Sweden jumped off the fence and under the NATO umbrella.
News a week or two ago was that Germany refused to send tanks unless the US agreed to do the same. The US did some arm twisting, but Germany maintained their position and the US caved.
Germany bit off more than they could chew...like taking on most of the world.. and WW2 went 6 years. People who lived through it will tell you it was no walk in the park and the outcome highly uncertain. The warrior blood runs deep in the people who felled the Roman Empire and best to let the sleeping bear alone.
Russia Su-25 Frogfoot is their equivalent to the US A-10 Warthog
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/russia-su-25-frogfoot-is-their.html
The Frogfoot (SU-25) is an armored beast of an aircraft with an armored cockpit and multiple redundant systems. The Russian air force has upgraded dozens of Su-25s to the latest SM standard, which includes a glass cockpit, a GLONASS satellite navigation system and modern avionics that would allow for the use of precision-guided munitions. Eventually, the Russian air force will likely upgrade its entire Su-25 fleet since the Frogfoot still plays an important role in the service’s order of battle—as demonstrated by the Syrian deployment.
There are some similarities between the Su-25 and the A-10. For example, the Su-25 also utilises a dual redundant hydraulic control system and its cockpit is also placed in a ‘tub’ of titanium armour. Both aircraft are very suitable for unprepared, rough airfields close to the combat area.
The 30 mm cannon on the Grach is considerably less impressive than the Avenger on the A-10, but it still packs a punch that would intimidate most tank crews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.