Admittedly, we still have certain problems with the middle ground between "We lay waste to half of Europe with our tanks" and "Our tanks do no unnecessary damage when stored".
Isn't that just the big thing. I never 'served', but did spend a fair while in an ROC bunker plotting their theoretical nuclear strikes. When the wall came down we quickly learnt their ICBM fleet was a rusted gutted mess and we'd been working for years on somewhat puffed-up info, but this is another level. The question my cynical self asks next is just how much of a game those puffing up the 'enemy' capability were playing, then and now... well, up to February last year. Can't have the opposition painted as too weak/broken by kleptocracy. There's a political/sales advantage in allowing their hype to pass somewhat. We all thought Russia had a potential 'First tier' military. It plainly hasn't, evidenced by meeting a motivated opposition in a theatre we were all told they'd dominate. Funny old world. Maybe Third Shock Army wouldn't have rolled over the BAOR and friends like mere speed bumps before the nukes went in...
Mike Ryan's latest column 'The Great Tank Debate' is a short read and ends with: From: The Great Tank Debate Then a long article, from REFL, based on one Russian reservist unit's complaints and a useful, short video on the Ukrainian frontline. See: Russian Soldiers Ask: 'We Have Nothing To Fight With. Why Should We Go Up Against Tanks With Only Machine Guns?' And now Bulgaria, well not today, but at the outbreak of the war: Oh yes, who paid for the ammunition and fuel / oil? Link: Bulgaria to the rescue: How the EU’s poorest country secretly saved Ukraine
There was a tongue-in-cheek theory in BAOR in the early 80s that if the forces of the Warsaw Pact invaded they would be so gob-smacked by the opulence of West Germany the advance would have ground to a halt as they emptied the shops. Having seen how Russian forces have behaved in Ukraine I now suspect that there might have been a smidge of truth in the theory.
I was actually told this as a joke by a Czech academic in Prague when I visited back in the early 1980s! Went something like: "Why will the Soviet Union never successfully invade Western Europe?" "Answer: West German Supermarkets".
With 'Readiness' being in the air, and nothing being guaranteed on war and potential war, this article is quite interesting. Local NATO Cupboards quite likely not brimming over anywhere. (Except maybe Greece and Turkey? ISTR their armoured forces are surprisingly large) Spiegel International - The Bad News Bundeswehr: An Examination of the Truly Dire State of Germany's Military
The content of the report was formulated by an officer in a short, very concise manner: "We are used to making gold out of shit. But in the meantime, we're running out of shit..."
Circulated on Twitter on 13/1/23 by Franz-Stefan Gady @HoansSolo, from IISS. His tweet ignited a "ding-dong" about the numbers, status and who was not shown, e.g. Netherlands. There is a long Wiki too and that has a list of users, including the Netherlands: Leopard 2 - Wikipedia
Well Netherlands does not own any Leo 2, 18 tanks they are operating are actually leased from Germany. Also list does not include countries outside Europe, as it is not likely that any of them would send Leo 2 tanks to Ukraine, like Chile or Qatar. Wonder if 316 listed for Turkey accounted for those lost in Syria.
Poland sending Leopard 2 to Ukraine/allowing Ukrainians to use theirs for training, regardless of German objection. German foreign minister says they would not stand in the way. Shortly contradicted by German govt spokesman saying it would have to be discussed and decided by their security council. Cracks forming at assorted levels... Saw someone saying older gen Leopard 2 isn't some sort of wunderwaffen, given recent-ish demonstrations of vulnerability. I agree it gets hyped as an armoured panacea, but think the point is that there's so many of them in assorted marks and levels of readiness in local-ish arsenals. Mostly a train journey away. Estonia handing over all its 155mm towed howitzers. Sweden sending 50 CV90s and more artillery. Anyone seen if any of these donations are linked to lend-lease agreements, or if all straight donations? Not being cynical for once, just interested in the legalities and paperwork of giving away squillions worth of military gear.
These cracks are typical phenomena in coalitions whose members also pursue their own particular interests. The monolithic bloc, whose members are motivated by an iron will for unconditional cooperation, is something I know only from the former Warsaw Pact - or from fantasy novels. As far as arms deliveries are concerned, there will also be very different interests at play. I suspect that most of it will be seen as an investment in the future, whether political or economic. Given the current state of Ukraine, nothing major can be expected in monetary terms: Foreign debts have been deferred for the time being, and there is plenty of financial aid to enable Ukraine to meet certain obligations (pensions, etc.). And the cynic in me claims that - in contrast to Syria for example - there are certainly some advantages to sitting on considerable mineral resources...cough...
The decision to supply Leopard 2 tanks to the Ukraine has led to many commentaries, amidst them on 23/1/23 is this Australian professor of military history, which gives an excellent overview IMHO. It starts with: Link: Why Russia's war in Ukraine today is so different from a year ago
A RUSI expert and ex-diplomat starts with: Link: https://rusi.org/explore-our-resear...ld-russian-military-collapse-lead-nuclear-war
