Just as in every other conflict in which the U.S. has considered deploying M1A1 Abrams tanks, the problem is that getting them where they need to be is challenging because they are so heavy. They are the heaviest tanks still in use in the entire world.
Like most tracked vehicles it is also slow (under 45 mph on a road) and hard on roads, which means that most of its deployment is usually handled by rail. A C-17 transport plane can carry just one at a time, a C-5 (which is less suited to austere airstrips) can carry two at a time, and otherwise, one has to resort to moving it by ship and rail.
The new tanks are all more modern than the main battle tanks Kyiv has been using since the war began, including the Soviet-era T-72. Ukraine had previously received T-72s from several countries and in November, the White House committed to financing the refurbishing of 45 T-72B tanks with advanced capabilities via the Czech Republic.But the T-72, which is the most widely used main battle tank in the world, weighs in at about 45 tons, as does the later model T-80. An M1A1 can weigh between 67 and nearly 74 tons, according to the U.S. Army."This affects what bridges a vehicle can safely use, which in turn affects where it be deployed and how easily it can maneuver on the battlefield," military and defense expert Michael Peck told Newsweek."Many Ukrainian bridges may not be suitable" for the far heavier Western main battle tanks now destined for Ukraine's front lines, he said.Bridging equipment used by the Ukrainian military will also be designed with Soviet-era tanks in mind, not Abrams, Challengers or Leopards, he added.Corresponding bridging equipment will be provided by Western allies, Ledwidge suggested, but Russian military intelligence may nonetheless benefit from Ukrainian logistical decisions that eliminate unsuitable bridges.These considerations will "confine" the Ukrainian military, Ledwidge argued, but Ukraine's military commanders "will be very aware of this, and will find ways of deploying the tanks to take advantage of their capabilities."Back in February 2020, the military outlet Breaking Defense wrote that while Western European infrastructure "was often reinforced during the Cold War to handle the weight of 60-plus-ton NATO tanks, Eastern Europe couldn't afford to build as robustly and, in any case, only had to accommodate much lighter Soviet tanks, like the 45-ton T-72."
From Newsweek in a story dated February 5, 2023.
Even the Army's new new "light" tank (38 tons) with a 105mm main gun, which is the product of its "Mobile Protected Firepower" (MPF) program, is almost as heavy the mainstay "main battle tanks" made by Russia.
Ukraine has claimed to have destroyed 25 Russian tanks in the last two days (and has video evidence to support its claims). It also claims to have killed 1,900 Russian soldiers in the last two days. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-loses-25-tanks-two-days-video-deadly-strike-ukraine-general-staff-new-offensive-1779400
ReplyDeleteUkraine's claims about destroyed equipment have historically been fairly close to the mark and only slightly exaggerated, while its claims of Russian soldiers killed in action have tended to be significantly inflated (although more accurate than the Russian claims about its own casualties).
"Washington will only provide 31 Abrams tanks—just 10 percent of what Ukraine has apparently indicated it needs—and they won’t arrive in any case for several months, meaning they probably won’t play any role in an expected Ukrainian counteroffensive this spring." https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2023/02/what-tanks-ukraine-tell-us-about-america-pacific/382682/
ReplyDelete