Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Ukraine Won’t Get Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams Tanks: Does It Matter?

M1 Abrams Tanks for Ukraine?
An M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, fires its main gun at Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany, Dec. 2, 2020.

Note: This is Part I of a Three-Part Series. You Can Read Part II here and Part III here.  – In the past few days, the United States announced the largest-ever tranche of armored vehicles and other lethal aid for Ukraine. But at the meeting of the 50-nation Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein Airbase in Germany on Friday, the U.S. and Germany refused to commit to providing Ukraine with either the M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 tanks.

(Check out the author of this article, Daniel L. Davis, talking to LBC.) 

Even without the main battle tanks, however, the list of modern armored vehicles given to Ukraine was significant.

But will these high-tech tanks – if Ukraine eventually gets them – transform the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) into a modern force that can drive Russia out later this spring?

The chances aren’t as great as many believe.

Only time will tell, but Western supporters and Ukrainian leaders need to understand the scale of the challenge Zelensky’s troops face in trying to convert the sum total of all military gear into sufficient combat power necessary to drive Putin’s army back to Russia. As it has been since antiquity, wars are waged – and won or lost – by men, not the machines and tools of war.

What Ukraine Got & What They Have Now

The latest package of equipment promised to Ukraine by the U.S. alone is substantial.

It features 59 U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicles (or BFVs, now for a total of 109 vehicles), 90 Stryker armored combat vehicles, and 350 Humvees.

Since the invasion, the U.S. has given or committed to Ukraine over 60,000 anti-armor systems/missiles, 160 155mm and 72 105mm howitzers (along with nearly 1.5 million artillery shells of every caliber), 38 HIMARS rocket launchers, 300 M113 armored personnel carriers, 250 M1117 armored security vehicles, 580 MRAP armored trucks, 111 million rounds of small arms ammunition, and literally hundreds of additional weapons and tools of war.

By any accounting, this is a massive list. Last month, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny told the Economist that he need a total of about 300 tanks, 500 armored personnel carriers, and 500 howitzers. Though the Ramstein Defense Group didn’t promise the tanks Zaluzhny wanted, the sum total of Soviet-era tanks, personnel carriers, and artillery systems provided by all nations combined has reached a stunning number.

According to a Bloomberg accounting prior to Friday’s Ramstein meeting, Western and other nations have given Zelensky’s forces 410 Soviet-era tanks, 300 Soviet-era infantry fighting vehicles, 550 non-U.S. armored personnel carriers, about 500 non-U.S. MRAPs, 1,500 infantry wheeled vehicles (including 1,250 Humvees), more than 50 non-U.S. multiple rocket launchers, and almost 500 towed and self-propelled artillery systems.  This comes on top of the equipment Ukraine still has of its own.

According to some sources, Ukraine had approximately 2,000 tanks of all models prior to the war, and at least as of last October (most current information available at time of writing), Ukraine had allegedly lost 320 tanks. Even if one assumes the number of losses was double that, combined with what the West has delivered, Kyiv still has somewhere in the range of 1,700 tanks in their army. The belief that the possession of some number of modern NATO tanks is going to be a difference-maker is not based on a deep understanding of how modern combat works.

M1 Abrams v. Soviet-era T-72

In Desert Storm, U.S. M1A1 Abrams tanks wiped out Saddam Hussein’s fleets of Soviet-made T-72s, and again the American Abrams-led invasion in 2003 revealed the T-72 was no match for U.S. tanks. And truly the American tanks were witheringly successful. During Desert Storm, for example, the U.S. and its coalition partners destroyed more than 3,000 Iraqi tanks.  Saddam’s armored force, however, did not destroy even a single Abrams tank. It’s understandable, then, why anyone would want to have an Abrams or equivalent tank, especially when it has proven so effective against exactly the type of tanks Russia has.

The problem, though, is in understanding why the Abrams were so successful and the T-72s so poor. The tank is only as good as the individuals operating it, and as good as the units that employ it. I fought with Eagle Troop of the 2nd Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment at the Battle of 73 Easting, in which we destroyed scores of Soviet-era tanks and other armored vehicles, while not losing a single tank or Bradley Fighting Vehicle on our side. The reasons, as was broadly true throughout that war, were two-fold.

First, the U.S. crewmen were highly trained as individuals. In my unit, tank drivers, loaders, gunners, and vehicle commanders had all mastered their individual jobs, then for more than a year before battle, had conducted considerable time training as platoons, then at company-level, and later we trained in squadron and eventually regimental levels. No one could have been more ready to fight than we were.

Second, Iraq had done virtually none of those things, we later discovered. Their crewmembers had minimal training, had rarely if ever, fired their main guns in training, did very little unit-level training, and their maintenance programs – far more important in tank operations than commonly understood – was virtually non-existent. In short, the T-72 operators were poorly trained while our side was highly trained.

In tank fights, the side that accurately fires first almost always wins. In Desert Storm, we almost always fired first, and because of our training, almost never missed. But even when the Iraqi gunners got off a shot, it was rarely on target. The results were fatal for them.

Man or Machine?

Here is a little-known truth: if the Iraqis had had the same M1A1s that we had, or if we had been outfitted with the same T72s Iraq had, we still would have won, because ultimately, it is the man operating the tools of war that wins, not the tools themselves. Without question, the Abrams is superior in every way to any Soviet-era tank. But without proper training and maintenance, even an M1 can be defeated.

The Abrams or Leopards are not ‘wonder weapons’ whose possession will result in major successes on the Ukrainian battlefield. They can help. They will provide improved capability over the current Ukrainian fleet. But the nature of this war is such that there have been few tank-on-tank engagements, and to date, virtually no tank battles. But to demonstrate why adding M1s isn’t going to meaningfully alter battlefield dynamics, I will provide a realistic scenario:

Hypothetical Battle with Abrams and Leopards

Let’s say that last August when Ukrainian units were pressing in on Russian frontlines in the Kherson region, there was a section of the lines where Ukrainians had a mix of T-72, T-64s, and M-55s going against the Russian side that had T-72s, T-80s, and a few T-90s. As it turned out, battles in that area featured mostly artillery and rockets and a few infantry rushes but few tank-on-tank engagements. But let’s now say that the Russian side had the same mix of tanks but the UAF had Abrams and Leopards. What would have changed?

The Western tanks have more accurate cannons, more frontal armor protection, and longer range than the Soviet models. But the T-72s still have decent armor protection and lethal cannons at shorter ranges. Yet the NATO tanks are not impervious to T-72 tank shots. A flank or rear shot by a T-72, T-80, or T-90 can still disable or destroy an M1 Abrams tank – and can easily destroy every other tracked or wheeled vehicle in Ukraine’s inventory. Tanks cannot fight alone or they die (often to anti-tank missiles). Thus even if Ukraine had had the M1 Abrams tanks opposite Kherson, the battle would not have materially changed.

What Next for Ukraine? 

Zelensky’s troops already have a significant number of tanks equivalent to their opposition. Their battles will be won or lost based on how well they train on what they have, how much unit-level capacity they develop, and how well they maintain their tanks.

MORE: Donald Trump Just Destroyed His 2024 Changes

MORE: The F-15EX Is No F-35

MORE: The One GOP Candidate Worse Than Donald Trump

Flatly stated, Zelensky’s war against Russia will not turn on whether or not he gets Abrams and Leopards.

A 1945 Contributing Editor, Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis. 

Written By

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.



  1. 404NotFound

    January 20, 2023 at 5:49 pm

    What the ukro foot soldiers of US-NATO force in eastern ukraine or DONBASS neef are a couple of B61 tacticals.

    They don’t need fuel guzzling monster tanks that burst into flames during combat in the middle east, they need sonething to destroy wholesale the recalcitrant russian-speakibng natives of the eastern region.

    Once those natives are gone, or kaput, russia needn’t bother itself fighting US-NATO might in eastern ukraine.

    Russia would then be free to consider directing attacking or mounting a special operation against the fascist lair of euro fascism – Berlin, Oslo, Warsaw employing RS-28 rockets.

  2. Gary Jacobs

    January 20, 2023 at 6:01 pm

    Speaking of training, Germany has announced that countries with Leopards can begin training Ukrainians. And Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov has announced that nations which are considering donations of Leopard 2 tanks have agreed to begin training courses on operation and maintenance of the tanks.

    Since this is a necessary step anyway, it could very well mean that no time actually ends up being lost in eventually getting these tanks in the field.

    As well, Poland has stated that they may give Leopards to Ukraine even without German permission.

    Davis mentions the Bradley in passing, but fails to note the TOW anti tank missile is already provide quite deadly to Russian tanks. I counted about 10 TOWs being given for each Bradley.

    As for artillery, there appear to be at least 100 more 155mm self propelled howitzers on the way, with at least 1000 Precision Excalibur rounds, and about 500,000 155mm standard rounds.

    The 155mm outclasses the Russian 152mm by far. It isnt just the extra 3mm wide, many 155 rounds are 300mm longer and are far more devastating.

    As well, There are videos of Wagner Mercs using 152mm D1s developed in 1943.

    Which reminds me, In one of Daniel Davis’ previous desperate attempts to pretend Russia is doing so well, he made a huge deal of Russia dipping into its storage closet for 600 T62s. And yet no mention in this article of how well those might hold up against Leopards, Abrams or Challengers. I’d like to hear his thoughts on how their armor would do against Bradleys Bushmaster or the Swedish CV 90’s 40mm.

    One other thing Davis fails to mention, the GLSDB. It appears to have been included in one of the US announcements, but it is not a currently used weapon so wouldnt be included in a PDA announcement.

    Boeing already has a history of expediting delivery of other weapons to Ukraine. And having this weapon by the thousands will make a big difference for Ukraine with its 150km range, and programmable fuse to use as airburst round against trenches and soft armor or delayed fuse to penetrate targets.

    Now word comes out that the Dutch will consider transferring F16s.

    As well, multiple reports are circulating that the U.S. has advised Ukraine to hold off on significant counter offensives until new equipment has been integrated into their armed forces. No one should be taking this as a signal that Ukraine will be on the complete defensive until spring.

    And to that point, among the sites where the Ukrainian MOD reported Russian shelling today was Holykove. This is a village north of Kreminna and east of the P66 highway. Russia had the place fortified as an artillery position to act as fire control over the highway south of Ploshchanka. Ukrainian forces were reported moving on Holykove several times, but this is the first time it’s appeared in the lists of places attacked/shelled by Russian forces.

    IF IF Ukraine now holds this location, it solidifies their control north of Kreminna.

    It would also give them another location besides Chervonopopivka to cross the Krasna River and come in behind Kreminna.

    Bottom line: Davis leaves out a lot of information, as usual, in order to undercut support for Ukraine. He has been wrong about basically everything he has ever posted, and he appears to retain that level of consistency.

  3. Johnny Ray

    January 20, 2023 at 6:08 pm

    Personally, I would trade in ALL the tanks for a very generous supply of LONG range, high tech, guided munitions, drones, anti-tank and anti-air defenses. And I would shift the battle to Crimea, but I guess I’ve mentioned that before.
    Right now Moscow and St. Petersburg would be sleeping in a very dark and cold bed, btw.

  4. Jim

    January 20, 2023 at 7:07 pm

    Well, there was an announcement… no main battle tanks beyond the 14 Challenger 2 tanks from Britain… for now…

    I suspect this is a trial balloon… depending on the roar… of the crowd… this is not the end of it.

    All the usual suspects will go into overdrive trying to change the decision?

    Or is this a serious sign Washington D. C. has realized the limits of their power to force events… jam a square peg in a round hole.

    Is this decisive? No… no, because it’s possibly not the last word… and no because even if the “Group” did send these weapons, it wouldn’t change the outcome.

    I think Ukraine is on a tightrope… Europe is balking behind the scenes… especially Germany… their people are rejecting war against Russia.

    A lot of people are starting to pay attention and they don’t want a General European War.

    Does that make them traitors?

    Tell me why a General European War is in the United States’ best interest.

    Tell me why regular Germans respecting their own national interest… Germany first… if you will… is a bad idea?

    Frankly, I’m not sure it wasn’t the Americans… who put cold water on the deal…

    Why?… because a Russo-American War of the 21st Century isn’t far behind… and it’s not in the U. S. Vital National Security Interest.

    It’s a bad idea.

    Sanity in the Pentagon… and hopefully in the White House as well… let’s hope Congress goes along.

    Let’s walk away from the ledge…

    Of disaster.

  5. Walker

    January 20, 2023 at 10:23 pm

    Daniel Davis writes pointless articles. This is no exception. While this article really says nothing. He has a point that he is driving at that will come out in his third article. That point he is going at is that since tanks won’t make any difference, we shouldn’t give Ukraine anything. We should just leave them to be gobbled up by Russia.

    But really, Daniel is completely wrong AGAIN! If it is the soldiers and not the equipment that is important, why do we upgrade our equipment? Because good equipment does give an advantage, but training is required to make use of it.

    In other words, we can’t just give Ukraine good equipment and expect them to make proper use of it. We have to train them to make full advantage. To say Ukrainians are too dumb to make use of it is very patronizing. Davis should really be ashamed of himself.

    Even more important is a larger point that Davis alludes to that no matter what Ukraine can’t militarily kick Russia completely out of the country. And once again Davis misses the obvious. Ukraine doesn’t need to kick Russia out of every inch of Ukraine. They just need to win back enough that Russia realizes that not only can’t they win, but they will look worse if Ukraine does kick them totally out. The longer it takes Russia to realize this, the less advantage they have in the negotiation process.

    To make this point clearer. Russia could have sued for peace and gotten more earlier if they had simply followed the normal rules of war. By targeting civilians and committing terrible war crimes, they have turned the world more against them, giving Ukraine advantages on the world stage and weapons to continue fighting.

    I just wonder why Davis never reevaluates his positions after always being wrong all the time. I can only assume it is because he is narcissist and totally separated from reality.

    • JMF

      January 23, 2023 at 10:52 am

      … we shouldn’t give Ukraine anything. We should just leave them to be gobbled up by Russia.

      Certainly sounds like a PLAN to me!

  6. Roger colman

    January 20, 2023 at 10:53 pm

    I think Daniel has written and developed a very good tome. His aggregation of numbers is logical. The outcomes he hypoesthisises indicates a greater than 50% chance that spring onwards battles will favour ukraine.
    Good work Daniel

  7. John

    January 21, 2023 at 1:17 am

    If the West does not mobilize and match Russias munitions output through defense production act, it is game over for the West and Ukraine, tanks or no tanks.
    Cannot believe that the majority of Western leaders including Biden and his foes, the GOP radicals, try to outdo each other in incompetence. The West’s complete defeat, financial, military, may be around the corner.

  8. GhostTomahawk

    January 21, 2023 at 2:09 am

    No more military aid for Ukraine. Time to let this come to an end.

  9. H.R. Holm

    January 21, 2023 at 2:12 am

    The West just keeps trying to up the ante more and more with no conclusive results, it seems. First we gave the Ukrainians Javelin anti-tank missiles and light arms/ammo. Did that stop the conflict? Nope. Then we gave them artillery. Did that stop the conflict? Nope. Then we gave them ‘HIMARS’. Did that stop the conflict? Nope. Now we plan to give them Patriot missiles and Bradley armored fighting vehicles and Strykers. Will they stop the conflict? Doubtful. Ditto for a limited number of tanks. Each time the Russians have said and will continue to say, in effect. “We’re still hhheeeeeeeee-eeeeere”. $100 billion in committed aid has neither brought nor bought peace. And the U.S. & NATO keep deluding themselves by telling themselves with each new up-notch of weaponry: “By golly, *this* time we will make Putin cry ‘uncle’.” No, they won’t. What may well rather bring a halt to the fighting is Speaker of the House McCarthy and his applicable committee chairpersons standing up and firmly *telling* ‘Lord V’: no more aid (including cash) until after you and Mr. Putin have had some serious and demonstrably productive discussions at the peace table.

  10. Roger

    January 21, 2023 at 2:24 am

    Well argued. Best analysis from Daniel so far. It sounds like Daniel is envisioning a better than even chance of ukraine offensive success.

  11. Edd

    January 21, 2023 at 2:47 am

    Th English would say bollocks Mr Davis, look at the Canadian army trophy (CAT) a contest between NATO countries MBT in the past. Material matters as much as the crew. A poor crew with splendid material will overclass a splendid crew with poor material.

  12. TheDon

    January 21, 2023 at 5:11 am

    Why dont you analyze the upcoming russian force from 3 places?

  13. CM of Berlin

    January 21, 2023 at 8:00 am

    Haves and have nots.

    Aside from training, what Ukraine is missing – as opposed to US troops in e.g. Iraq – is air superiority or dominance. That falls to the allies (DPR, LPR, Russia, Wagner), so they can and do bring anti-tank drones and helicopters into the fray, at least on a higher scale than Ukraine. Likewise, one should note the anti-tank capabilities of the allied forces as such, who are of a far better quality and training than those of Iraq and any later M1/Leo2 battlefield experiences. Turkish Leo 2s suffered badly in Syria, BTW.
    Ukraine needs to build mixed battalions of tanks, APCs and infantry, working in cohesion and with very different types of provided vehicles, not least compared to those they knew before. Most people they conscript now will have no military experience either. Maybe more “volunteers” of non-Ukrainian origin will man these weapons …
    Do remember that the open lands of Ukraine, the territory that will soon be the fighting area, is not tailor-made for these heavy tanks, ranging from 60 to 70 tons, which is 20 tons more than your average Russian battle tank.
    As for artillery support, it has been reported that most more modern western systems can’t sustain the industrial scale use for long, as they weren’t designed for this, be it the M777 or Panzerhaubitze 2000. Likewise, Russian counter-battery fire is these last few weeks been done with “Penicillin” / “1B75 Penicillin” acoustic-thermal artillery-reconnaissance systems, which can pinpoint fire sources within 5 seconds up to 25 km / 16 miles away. It has an effective range for communication with other military assets of up to 40 km (25 miles) and is capable to operate even in a fully automatic mode, without any crew. One system can reportedly cover an entire division against enemy fire. Besides that, it co-ordinates and corrects a friendly artillery fire. Hence, the daily reports have an increased number of destroyed Ukrainian artillery.

    Many things come into the fray when talking help for Ukraine, it is far more complex than talking certain tanks or howitzers, rockets and whatnot. There is no reason to believe that Ukraine will be able to train enough crews for those delivered tanks, APCs, rocket systems et al anytime soon. Unless they want to send these chaps and their equipment to certain doom. The only thing that would accelerate this would be trained NATO/US/volunteer crews, but that might bring the conflict to a far more serious level.

  14. Gary Jacobs

    January 21, 2023 at 10:17 am


    As usual, the most opposite of correct take of all the comments. The idea that the US is the one who told Germany not to supply Leopards is patently absurd.

    Meanwhile the US is supplying 109 Bradleys, 90 Strykers, 300,000 artillery rounds from the US stockpile in Israel, GLSDB, giving the ok for the Dutch to transfer F16s…F16s, you know, as in US made fighter planes… and so very very very much much more.

    With all of that information as a frame of reference…How you actually think your statement was anywhere in the ballpark of accurate is a complete mystery.

    Just when I think you cant possibly surprise me with one of your many wildly inaccurate statements, you come up with a doozy like this.

  15. Jim

    January 21, 2023 at 12:03 pm

    Gary, I’m not in the room, my comment was a possibility… if the Americans were smart and they wanted to avoid a General European War.

    It could be that Sec. of Def. Austin leaned all over the Germans, put heavy pressure on them… which shows how we treat allies… to be bullied.

    Gary, seems you’re down with bullying our allies.
    (Bullying our allies is a recipe to alienate our allies.)

    But the Germans say, “Send Abrams and we’ll release the Leopards.” So, Gary… the Americans could send a symbolic number of Abrams… which would release the Leopards… but they didn’t… will they… depends on Germans citizens… what a novel concept… the little people saying, “No!” to the fevered dreams of warmongers like you.

    So, what were the Americans doing?

    What worries you, Gary, is the possibility the U. S. could start slowly pulling back from your maximalist dreams.

    One can hope… but as I’ve stated before… time will tell.

    Gary, you call out any of my statements you can, but I noticed… crickets… on this one:

    “A lot of people are starting to pay attention and they don’t want a General European War.

    Does that make them traitors?

    Tell me why a General European War is in the United States’ best interest.”

    That’s where the rubber meets the road… and you don’t a have a response to that reality… Europe doesn’t want your stupid war, Gary.

    Your preferred Ukraine policy is a failure.

  16. Whodunnit

    January 21, 2023 at 12:41 pm

    Jim, in addition: There have been demonstrations in Germany demanding that their Govt. give the go ahead for the re- export AND supply of Leopard 2’s. To say that Germans do not want this is patently absurd.

  17. Partner

    January 21, 2023 at 12:46 pm

    The author in the article put the professionalism of Ukrainian soldiers on the same level as Iraqi soldiers. And this is his main mistake, because of which the whole article has lost all meaning.

  18. Uri

    January 21, 2023 at 1:56 pm

    All countries world wide are calling Russia terrorists so its about time NATO designates the russian regime officially sponsors of terrorism, the terrorist leader of wagner has even opened a wagner building in St petersburg to recruit terrorists in essence full stop.Give Ukraine all the long range weapons they need to drive these barbarian russians from their land fast and give them russians a massive dose of their own medicine.

    • JMF

      January 23, 2023 at 11:02 am

      All countries world wide are calling Russia terrorists …

      Not even close, Bucky! Where did you get that ridiculous notion from??

      You want to talk about “terrorists”? Check out NATO’s despicable history, particularly Operation Gladio and its associated programs’ atrocities.

  19. Enfield

    January 21, 2023 at 2:07 pm

    Endless speculation what gear is needed to win the Red giant. Where does all this come from? Most likely, the Germans know from their own experience what it is like to wage war against the Red giant. There is probably not much public interest in Germany to start a kamikaze mission against a country that is a superpower today. The West will likely expand their support but even they will over time realize better opportunities to win against any external galaxy force than the superpower that possesses the world’s largest Holocaust arsenal.

  20. abraham lincoln

    January 21, 2023 at 2:08 pm

    Based on the comments of Lloyd Austin yesterday, tanks are simply one part of an overall package the Ukrainians are getting. The overall package is what is important. Not any one part of the package. He sounded as if Leopard tanks will be arriving at some point in the future. But the overall package, even without Leopards, might be enough to defeat Russia. Bradleys can probably see and kill any Russian tanks all by themselves, all at ranges before Russian tanks can even see them. Bradleys can lase any Russian target, and that target’s coordinates are instantly sent back to headquarters, which can then instantly drop artillery on that target. So tanks, all by themselves may not be all that needed. They might come in handy in some situations. But in this instance Daniel Davis is sort of right – it is not the tanks that matter, it is the overall use of a combined set of technologies that we are assembling and giving to Ukraine that matters. And that will be arriving and will be trained up by about spring-summer of 2023. So the summer should be interesting.

  21. GhostTomahawk

    January 21, 2023 at 6:28 pm

    Won’t matter. Ukraine would need hundreds of these vehicles to be able make a difference. All the equipment they manage to get to the battle field gets destroyed within a few weeks…. what Ukraine needs is real soldiers.

  22. Jim

    January 21, 2023 at 8:51 pm

    Mr. Lincoln, your assessment is fair… couching what will happen with “might be enough” & “can probably” is what has to be stated…

    Your description of “instantly” is a best case scenario.

    And, you final characterization of a near-perfect integration of an overall battlefield command & control with real time overhead target identification & fire coordinates is… quite optimistic.

    Why didn’t the Ukrainians already have this level of command & control… they had eight years to prepare.

    Well, those questions won’t be answered, here.

    A sober assessment nevertheless, Mr. Lincoln.

    It would be an up hill journey… but I can’t say it’s beyond the realm of possibility… anything can happen at the craps table…

    And in war…

  23. Johnny Ray

    January 22, 2023 at 7:21 am

    I think a point that’s missing here is, the Russians have their own anti-tank systems which at least on paper seem pretty good. The general theory is now, with the new man carried anti-tank technology, tank warfare is…dead.

    A key question then becomes, …is it so? I certainly do not have a definitive answer on that. Regardless,

    Certainly Ukraine needs troop transport vehicles, armored if possible. Also, there may be special circumstances for a tank assault.

    However, for MY army over there, I would want all the precision guided munitions and related high tech drones, hyper-range ammo, radars and electronics to go with it.

    In short, there is way too much fussing over tanks, in my view. Tanks won’t turn the outcome for either side.

    Precision guided munitions is the route to victory.

  24. Neil Ross

    January 22, 2023 at 7:30 am

    “As long as it takes” has become “as long as necessary”.

    A subtle but important change, words are important. I suspect there was intense debate at Ramstein as to whether Western aid was intended to drive out all Russian troops or whether it was just intended to stop the fall of the government in Kyiv.

  25. Wilko

    January 22, 2023 at 12:34 pm

    Has anybody checked Mr. Davis’s service record?
    We might have another George Santos on our hands.
    He describes a tank battle without, even once, mentioning air support.
    Mr. Davis is either making up his service record or he has Alzheimer’s.

  26. Serhio

    January 22, 2023 at 9:06 pm

    The bickering between the USA and Germany about the Abrams and Leopards is a trade about whose crews should burn first in these tanks – American or German. And, accordingly, whose country will be the first to be recognized as “de facto” at war with Russia.

    This is an extremely important issue. He answers the next one after him – whose “Reichstag” will be stormed as a result? And the fact that ANY war with the Russians ends precisely with the capture of someone’s “Reichstag”, the West is aware. Therefore, they push their neighbor-colleague forward. According to the principle – you go first, and then we will avenge you!

  27. Yrral

    January 22, 2023 at 9:22 pm

    Jacobs,You still have hope in a corrupt government in Ukraine ,you are naive as I thought and others who think Ukraine this map will be ring you back to reality Google Ukraine Control Map

  28. dave

    January 23, 2023 at 1:38 am

    Makes zero difference.

  29. Mario

    January 23, 2023 at 5:33 am

    “wars are waged – and won or lost – by men, not the machines and tools of war” You sure Daniel?
    Have you tried to fight an Arleigh Burke destroyer from an age of sail ship of the line?

  30. Sir Winston the Nazi Slayer

    January 24, 2023 at 10:36 am

    “wars are waged – and won or lost – by men, not the machines and tools of war”
    I think Mr. Davis got a bit too excited by watching the latest Top Gun movie.

  31. Jeff

    January 25, 2023 at 3:57 pm

    I wonder what this guy would have said about the United States supplying allied forces with weapons during World War II!

  32. Eric

    January 25, 2023 at 6:58 pm

    Published 5 days ago. This article aged worse than milk.

  33. Serhio

    January 29, 2023 at 8:32 pm

    Gary Jacobs

    “Meanwhile the US is supplying 109 Bradleys, 90 Strykers, 300,000 artillery rounds from the US stockpile in Israel”

    Have you explained to me for a long time what a shame it is that Russia buys drones from Iran and painted about how great the United States is in the production of weapons? And suddenly it turns out that the United States is forced to shovel shells from the warehouses of its strategic allies Israel and South Korea, which the United States is not able to produce in the right quantity. Where has the US military potential evaporated in a month?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *