Transfer of MBT from US, UK, Germany etc to Ukraine

bennett123 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:13 am

If these countries (and others) send MBT to Ukraine, how do they backfill in their own armies?.

Can they build new Abrams, Challenger and Leopard or do they introduce a model, if so what?.

Tugger · Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:28 am

Well... yeah, "they" can both build new of current and/or build planned updated iterations/new models. But the issue is, will the nations that build theses systems be willing to do this for the countries that send them to the Ukraine?

Germany will be PISSED if Poland and other nations send Leopards to Ukraine without their "approval", and will no way sell new to those nations after without a lot of drama (if ever).

The US will certainly backfill or sell new as the US defense industry would expect nothing less.

And the UK would LOVE to add more foreign sales to their economic base.

Tugg

bikerthai · Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:01 am

There is already plans in all three of these countries to replace these tanks with new and improved versions.

As for replacement, I like to look at it from an algebraic term.

Consider the original quantity of Western tanks were built and stored to defeat the original quantity of Russian tanks.

Now that the number of Russian tanks are greatly reduced, the number of NATO held tanks can also be reduced to ballance that equation.

And if you pay it forward, the number of "active" Russian tanks can be reduced even more by reducing the Western "reserve/stored" stock thus further un-balancing the equation.

bt

LTEN11 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 12:30 pm

MBT - Main Battle Tank, if anyone like me had no idea what it meant.

Not sure what it has to do with aviation though.

art · Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:43 pm

The only MBT's definitely going to Ukraine are Challengers. What have we (UK) used these for? Overseas adventures eg Iraq, Syria. If we were to up the number sent to 50 or more, we would not be able to use any/so many in overseas campaigns. I do not see them being needed to defend British soil so why not send them to meet an immediate need in Ukraine? To me 14 is a very token force and does not make much sense to me logistically. How much more equipment is needed to support 50 compare with 14?

PS If agreement is made to supply dozens of Leo 2's, what would be the point of a parallel infrastructure for Challenger? Would it be worth the trouble to supply any at all?

Nomadd · Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:19 pm

I don't know if Germany is being intentionally dense regarding no Leopard 2s if no Abrams, bit M1s aren't real practical because of turbine engines while Leopards have more maintainable diesels.

johns624 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 3:48 pm

art wrote:
The only MBT's definitely going to Ukraine are Challengers. What have we (UK) used these for? Overseas adventures eg Iraq, Syria. If we were to up the number sent to 50 or more, we would not be able to use any/so many in overseas campaigns. I do not see them being needed to defend British soil so why not send them to meet an immediate need in Ukraine? To me 14 is a very token force and does not make much sense to me logistically. How much more equipment is needed to support 50 compare with 14?

PS If agreement is made to supply dozens of Leo 2's, what would be the point of a parallel infrastructure for Challenger? Would it be worth the trouble to supply any at all?

If the Challengers are used to defend actual British soil, the battle is already lost. Although I wish they were sending more, there aren't that many more to send. The MoD is rethinking their decision to go from 3 to 2 armoured regiments.

GDB · Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:08 pm

johns624 wrote:
art wrote:
The only MBT's definitely going to Ukraine are Challengers. What have we (UK) used these for? Overseas adventures eg Iraq, Syria. If we were to up the number sent to 50 or more, we would not be able to use any/so many in overseas campaigns. I do not see them being needed to defend British soil so why not send them to meet an immediate need in Ukraine? To me 14 is a very token force and does not make much sense to me logistically. How much more equipment is needed to support 50 compare with 14?

PS If agreement is made to supply dozens of Leo 2's, what would be the point of a parallel infrastructure for Challenger? Would it be worth the trouble to supply any at all?
If the Challengers are used to defend actual British soil, the battle is already lost. Although I wish they were sending more, there aren't that many more to send. The MoD is rethinking their decision to go from 3 to 2 armoured regiments.

Over 300 were built, the Army now has some 227 on their books. There is even one as a gate guard outside the National Army Museum in Chelsea, London, FFS!
I agree that 148 upgraded to Challenger 3 is too few, though given the choice between doing more of them and restarting the cancelled Warrior upgrade for say 6 Battalions worth and not dumping the recently upgraded C-130J’s, I would be happier with 148 CH3’s.
Another regiment of them, which to my mind is further justification for some upgraded Warriors, would take that to around 200 vehicles.
Not leaving many more for Ukraine.

Issues with ground forces equipment aside, our main defence effort is air and naval, with the ability to project force worldwide to some extent.
Germany is a land power, not that I expect them to provide their own MBT’s, keep them and let others who are willing supply their examples.

To answer the thread question, heavy vehicles tend to go through Antwerp via sea lift.

LightningZ71 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:09 pm

Over the long run, Poland won't really care if Germany won't sell them more Leopards (or the new Panthers). They are getting VERY close with the South Korean arms industry. I will not be surprised to see Poland be the first customer for the KF-21 in Europe as a result of this relationship. In addition, I expect that Poland will be very happy to sell domestically produced Korean designed tanks to other European countries to back-fill the tanks that are being sent.

As for the actual tanks being sent, understand that these are 20+ year old tanks that have, largely, been sitting in storage or active but unused. The designs are somewhat dated and they just aren't as relevant in what are viewed to be more modern battlefields, even if they are still better than the T-6x and T-72 tanks that they will be mostly facing in Ukraine. This gives those countries the opportunity to modernize their equipment while also getting the PR of helping Ukraine (we're sending our military equipment that's available NOW to Ukraine, but we need to replace it in our own inventories, so we HAVE to buy this new, modern MBT and SPG as replacements). There's nothing that frees up a politician's pocket book like a "good cause."

bluecrew · Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:20 pm

bennett123 wrote:
If these countries (and others) send MBT to Ukraine, how do they backfill in their own armies?.

Can they build new Abrams, Challenger and Leopard or do they introduce a model, if so what?.

The US would have virtually no need. We can sell them thousands of M1A1s and M1A1HCs - estimates are over 2300 in storage, I can't imagine we have plans for them when we're actively developing the replacement tank.

The US recently started transferring M2A2s to Ukraine, apparently they started using the forward reserve stocks, and there's video of Bradleys being trucked up from Bulgaria. The optics on those will be a game changer, unlike anything deployed there today. You can see a bumblebee fart from a mile away.

Just like Russia, we too have massive facilities filled with mothballed Cold War tech, but we actually take care of it. There are still probably thousands of straight-M1 Abrams with the 105mm gun in there, we still have tons of M60s in storage, even if we threw open the doors to Zelensky and told him he could have anything he wanted on credit, we could probably supply the Ukrainians with armored vehicles for a decade of conflict. I think the only limiting factor would be the capacity to get them out of mothballs and on ships.

Even the second tier, older M60A3 Pattons are historically still superior to a T-72. They were used extensively in 1991 and again in 2003, and while not as fast, flashy, or capable as an M1A1/2, they're totally fine. Smoked plenty of Iraqi T-72s and T-64s. We built eight thousand of them for the US Army and Marines, and they're all out of service. Presumably there are plenty in storage as well.

bennett123 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:36 pm

LTEN11 wrote:
MBT - Main Battle Tank, if anyone like me had no idea what it meant.

Not sure what it has to do with aviation though.

Sorry meant to put it Military and Space.

bennett123 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:51 pm

The Challenger 3 is an upgraded Challenger 2 rather than a new build.

Is there the capacity to build new Challenger 2's, as the Challenger 3 is not yet available.

Noray · Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:12 pm

It has been suggested that the main reason why Poland is buying US and Korean tanks is Germany's inability to deliver the quantities of Leopard 2s Poland demands. Much of the industry that once built more than 2000 Leopard 2s during the Cold War has been dismantled.

Hungary ordered 44 newly built Leopard 2s in 2018; five years later, none of these have been delivered yet. First deliveries were planned for this year, and the new hulls aren't even built in Germany.

In 2019, Germany decided to upgrade 101 of their Leopard 2A6 to the A7V standard. Seven years are scheduled for this conversion measure, it will take until 2026 until the 101 tanks are ready. That's about one tank company a year.

When the German armaments industry receives major orders for the export of armored vehicles (Boxer, Fuchs), a new production facility is usually built in the recipient country.

It will probably take more than a dozen years before the Leopard 2's planned successor, the joint German-French MGCS, is operational.

Aesma · Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:06 pm

Germany is blocking everything.

I don't see any country willing to buy anything German in the future, they might as well shut down their industry.

And France will probably reconsider doing anything with Germany. Such considerations (export sales) were already a major thorn in all the shared programs.

GDB · Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:34 pm

bennett123 wrote:
The Challenger 3 is an upgraded Challenger 2 rather than a new build.

Is there the capacity to build new Challenger 2's, as the Challenger 3 is not yet available.

Sadly no, not without major new investment.
For a small British Army requirement. Previously the British Army of the Rhine sustained it for decades.

johns624 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:36 pm

Aesma wrote:
Germany is blocking everything.

I don't see any country willing to buy anything German in the future, they might as well shut down their industry.

And France will probably reconsider doing anything with Germany. Such considerations (export sales) were already a major thorn in all the shared programs.

Exactly. France knows that smaller countries need export sales to make products affordable. That's why they offer the Rafales to so many other countries.

johns624 · Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:37 pm

GDB wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
The Challenger 3 is an upgraded Challenger 2 rather than a new build.

Is there the capacity to build new Challenger 2's, as the Challenger 3 is not yet available.

Sadly no, not without major new investment.
For a small British Army requirement. Previously the British Army of the Rhine sustained it for decades.

Even the US got rid of the main production facility for the Abrams in Warren , MI. They just kept the smaller one in Lima, Ohio.

MohawkWeekend · Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:25 am

How about the US transfer 150 of the latest M1A2 to Britain in exchange for their entire complement of Challengers?

We should then JV with the Brits on the next generation tank and set up 2 assembly lines - one in Lima, Ohio and the other at the facility making Challengers in the UK.

johns624 · Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:36 am

There isn't a facility making Challengers. They haven't built any in 20 years. I don't think the UK wants Abrams. They are used to the Challenger and like it.

Tugger · Sat Jan 21, 2023 5:47 am

What about the Leclerc?

Tugg

GDB · Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:35 am

Tugger wrote:
What about the Leclerc?

Tugg

Just looked at it, lots to commend, same 120mm ammo as Leo 2 and M1, designed for protection on its frontal arc from 125mm AP rounds, unlike Challenger 2 though the last of them was delivered in 2007, Nexter still have the ability to put them back into production.
The French are unlike the UK, sensible like this, with aircraft there were many years between the last original C-160’s and Atlantique deliveries and starting up with the new generation versions of these aircraft made much easier by the production equipment being retained.

However, France only has 222 of them, which surprised me, the two export customers Saudi and the UAE won’t be helping.

If France wants to pressure Germany to do what it spent weeks intimidating it would do, only to put new excuses down and move the goalposts, then considering German reliability on defence projects out loud might concentrate minds.
Today the BBC reports a demonstration in Berlin, in favour of supplying Leopard tanks.
As Noel Coward once sang ‘don’t be beastly to the Germans’ but the Chancellor, he needs to know this delaying on such a fundamental issue of security, the greatest in Europe since WW2, will have political and industrial consequences.

Redd · Sat Jan 21, 2023 9:58 am

Aesma wrote:
Germany is blocking everything.

I don't see any country willing to buy anything German in the future, they might as well shut down their industry.

And France will probably reconsider doing anything with Germany. Such considerations (export sales) were already a major thorn in all the shared programs.

It looks like Poland will go over the German's head with the Leopard 2, and send 14 to Ukraine, regardless of what Germany has to say. 14 Leopard 2's may not be much, but it might set a precedent. Poland has already supplied more than 240 T-72's to Ukraine. They could use some more modern tanks for sure, Poland has around 250 Leopard 2's in it's arsenal at the moment.

https://www.politico.eu/article/poland- ... af-scholz/

GDB · Sat Jan 21, 2023 10:18 am

Redd wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Germany is blocking everything.

I don't see any country willing to buy anything German in the future, they might as well shut down their industry.

And France will probably reconsider doing anything with Germany. Such considerations (export sales) were already a major thorn in all the shared programs.

It looks like Poland will go over the German's head with the Leopard 2, and send 14 to Ukraine, regardless of what Germany has to say. 14 Leopard 2's may not be much, but it might set a precedent. Poland has already supplied more than 240 T-72's to Ukraine. They could use some more modern tanks for sure, Poland has around 250 Leopard 2's in it's arsenal at the moment.

https://www.politico.eu/article/poland- ... af-scholz/

Yes, Poland might not make MBT’s, at least unlike the line for the South Korean ones is established, though they do they have an armored fighting vehicles industry, an example being the Krab SPG in use with Ukraine and many more coming, though this has a South Korean designed chassis and British designed AS-90 turret, though using the same 155mm as the French CAESAR, it still shows they likely can provide technical support for Leopard 2, at least until it becomes a fait accompli for Germany to step up.

They've started training Ukrainian tankers on them anyway;
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/36 ... oland.html

This former NATO Assistant Deputy Secretary is more optimistic, pointing the 'Germans get there in the end', this being not the first time in this war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1QNhZEpnPE

The latest batch of 90 T-72’s have been upgraded, presumably and hopefully, with reasonably modern optics and fire control systems.
These being one of the main weaknesses of Russian MBTs.

astuteman · Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:09 am

GDB wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
The Challenger 3 is an upgraded Challenger 2 rather than a new build.

Is there the capacity to build new Challenger 2's, as the Challenger 3 is not yet available.

Sadly no, not without major new investment.
For a small British Army requirement. Previously the British Army of the Rhine sustained it for decades.

ROF Leeds, which built the Chieftans and Challengers is now a housing estate according to Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROF_Leeds

To my knowledge, the capability to build MBT's in the UK no longer exists. I don't think we would even be able to produce the guns now ....

Aside from Royal Ordnance Leeds, the gun shop in the ex Vickers yard in Barrow, that produced all the naval weapons, as well as the AS90 SPH and the M777 is now given over to heavy machining for the SSBN's as far as I'm aware. M777 production was moved to the USA, and it thus became an "American" gun (a travesty IMO - with no ill will to the US in this statement)

Rgds

Aesma · Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:56 pm

GDB wrote:
Tugger wrote:
What about the Leclerc?

Tugg

Just looked at it, lots to commend, same 120mm ammo as Leo 2 and M1, designed for protection on its frontal arc from 125mm AP rounds, unlike Challenger 2 though the last of them was delivered in 2007, Nexter still have the ability to put them back into production.
The French are unlike the UK, sensible like this, with aircraft there were many years between the last original C-160’s and Atlantique deliveries and starting up with the new generation versions of these aircraft made much easier by the production equipment being retained.

However, France only has 222 of them, which surprised me, the two export customers Saudi and the UAE won’t be helping.

If France wants to pressure Germany to do what it spent weeks intimidating it would do, only to put new excuses down and move the goalposts, then considering German reliability on defence projects out loud might concentrate minds.
Today the BBC reports a demonstration in Berlin, in favour of supplying Leopard tanks.
As Noel Coward once sang ‘don’t be beastly to the Germans’ but the Chancellor, he needs to know this delaying on such a fundamental issue of security, the greatest in Europe since WW2, will have political and industrial consequences.

Yeah we don't have many Leclerc. And there was no plan to build more since the idea was to make a French-German next gen one.

Incidentally Macron just announced a further increase in the French defense budget, well above 2% of GDP, about 2.8%. 400 billion euros over the next 7 years.

art · Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:43 pm

If the UK plans to retire 79 of its 227 Challengers, how many could be sent to Ukraine now? Ukraine running a force of 14 does not seem practical to me.

If UK is planning to cut back on Challengers, the backfill problem is temporary..

readytotaxi · Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:50 pm

Also a good way to get rid of all those spare parts

oldJoe · Sat Jan 21, 2023 10:41 pm

GDB wrote :
However, France only has 222 of them, which surprised me, the two export customers Saudi and the UAE won’t be helping.

The German Army currently only has 212 Leopard 2s in active service available. Surprised ???

GDB · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:29 am

[threeid]
[/threeid]

oldJoe wrote:
GDB wrote :
However, France only has 222 of them, which surprised me, the two export customers Saudi and the UAE won’t be helping.

The German Army currently only has 212 Leopard 2s in active service available. Surprised ???

France has to devote a lot of development, production and procurement of AFV’s that are for out of area deployments, the AMX vehicles going to Ukraine being an example.
Not that they don’t work in a European context but as designs they tend to start with this consideration.
So like the post Cold War British Army, heavy armour has moved from being a core capability, that much of the rest was built around, though France especially post 1966, this was there but less so, no 55,000 troops in West Germany like the British Army Of The Rhine, post this era this capability was retained but much reduced in size, the first and last time this force went into action, was in Desert Storm. After that the big reductions began.

It was still fairly substantial through the 2000’s, despite the Iraq and Afghanistan commitments, where limited use was made of heavy equipment, the legacy procurement wise though was so directed at these campaigns, it naturally affected programs for conventional armour and mechanized forces in general.
Post 2010, well you had senior US Army officers expressing concerns at the shrinking British Army by 2015, not that this has stopped it.
All of this has affected what we can supply to Ukraine in terms of heavy equipment directly from our sources, Challenger 2 being just the most notable example.

mxaxai · Sun Jan 22, 2023 12:24 pm

An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states: https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfp ... ld.1722377 [German]

The reasons for this [not permitting the delivery of Leopard 2] have less to do with Ukraine and more to do with Lloyd Austin, the US and their national interests: The Americans are just waiting for the Europeans to give their Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Because then they can offer their own tanks as a replacement. The war in Ukraine offers the US a unique opportunity to gain a foothold in the European armaments market with armored vehicles, following on from helicopters, fighter jets and missiles, and to displace the German competition. They do not want to miss this opportunity.
[...]
In the background, to any country that might supply Leopard 2s to Ukraine, they [the US] offer used tanks from their own stock as a replacement and a long-term industrial partnership. This is how it is reported in German industrial circles. Any country that takes up the American offer is lost to the German tank industry. And with every country lost by the German industry, Berlin's political influence on its allies in NATO and the EU dwindles.
[...]
There was hardly any money left for new weapons in the past 30 yeats. The defense companies were no longer receiving orders and had to reduce capacities. Tanks like the Leopard 2 were no longer mass-produced industrially, but in small numbers by hand. This takes longer and is more expensive. It sometimes took two years from the production of the tank steel to the handover of the vehicle to the customer. But customers were in no hurry, there was peace. And tanks seemed to be a military discontinued model anyway.

For the first time in decades, demand for weapons is booming in the West. But German producers cannot deliver because they lack the capacity. A few days ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz complained that, given the small numbers produced by German defense companies, it was impossible to speak of "a real industry."

bikerthai · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:04 pm

mxaxai wrote:
An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states:

If the American wants to sell America tanks to Europe or the rest of the world, why did they make them so hard to maintain?

If Germany tank making companies are looking over their shoulders, they won't be seeing Americans tanks, they will see Koreans tanks.

bt

par13del · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:18 pm

bikerthai wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states:

If the American wants to sell America tanks to Europe or the rest of the world, why did they make them so hard to maintain?

If Germany tank making companies are looking over their shoulders, they won't be seeing Americans tanks, they will see Koreans tanks.

bt

In that case they will say it is all about the USA proxy, the big picture is that the Great Satan has to be at fault.

GDB · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:21 pm

bikerthai wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states:

If the American wants to sell America tanks to Europe or the rest of the world, why did they make them so hard to maintain?

If Germany tank making companies are looking over their shoulders, they won't be seeing Americans tanks, they will see Koreans tanks.

bt

Quite, as a Perun video on the rapidly accelerating procurement and co production agreements with South Korea shows.
Besides, isn’t German industry developing a new, post Leopard MBT? The KF-51 ‘Panther’ (Hope its better than its overrated WW2 namesake).
There is an agreement with France to develop one, this could be useful leverage with Germany right now, besides we in the UK need to look beyond Challenger 3 given the long development times for a new MBT.

Post Cold War, even with a newly very aggressive Russia, they ain’t the USSR and no Warsaw Pact either, cannot even really rely on the puppet Belarus regime. So the required numbers for any new MBT will be for the UK and France, each be say 200-250 vehicles each, including support versions for recovery and bridging.
It we in the UK want to regenerate MBT development and production capability I see this as a program to join, maybe France will see us as a better partner.
Though not a primary concern, with advancing technology and a new design, out of area deployment though not a major design driver could be a factor, unlike with Germany, plus of course to make it a more viable economic prospect, exports, again an issue with Germany here?

Btblue · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:32 pm

Aesma wrote:
Germany is blocking everything.

I don't see any country willing to buy anything German in the future, they might as well shut down their industry.

And France will probably reconsider doing anything with Germany. Such considerations (export sales) were already a major thorn in all the shared programs.

I was listening to Matt Frei on LBC radio (UK) yesterday. He had a guest on (German, political can't recall the name) and when posed the question as to why Germany were being less forthcoming compared to other countries, the guest speaker said that it wouldn't be a surprise if the Russians had something on them (the government) hence why they are being very guarded in terms of support because many are left scratching their heads as to just what the government are doing...

Not sure how far in his radio programme it is, you need to subscribe but he discusses it here: https://www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/b8FPiFx/

I don't share the view on countries not willing to buy anything German in the future but if things really get bad, that of course could change. Germans for a fact make some brillaint cars, and are great people having lived there, I've bought German since my first car and I've had about 5, the current one is still going strong... despite the VWFixFail fiasco and Dieselgate emissions scandal... but that's another topic.

bennett123 · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:33 pm

mxaxai wrote:
An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states: https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfp ... ld.1722377 [German]

The reasons for this [not permitting the delivery of Leopard 2] have less to do with Ukraine and more to do with Lloyd Austin, the US and their national interests: The Americans are just waiting for the Europeans to give their Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Because then they can offer their own tanks as a replacement. The war in Ukraine offers the US a unique opportunity to gain a foothold in the European armaments market with armored vehicles, following on from helicopters, fighter jets and missiles, and to displace the German competition. They do not want to miss this opportunity.
[...]
In the background, to any country that might supply Leopard 2s to Ukraine, they [the US] offer used tanks from their own stock as a replacement and a long-term industrial partnership. This is how it is reported in German industrial circles. Any country that takes up the American offer is lost to the German tank industry. And with every country lost by the German industry, Berlin's political influence on its allies in NATO and the EU dwindles.
[...]
There was hardly any money left for new weapons in the past 30 yeats. The defense companies were no longer receiving orders and had to reduce capacities. Tanks like the Leopard 2 were no longer mass-produced industrially, but in small numbers by hand. This takes longer and is more expensive. It sometimes took two years from the production of the tank steel to the handover of the vehicle to the customer. But customers were in no hurry, there was peace. And tanks seemed to be a military discontinued model anyway.

For the first time in decades, demand for weapons is booming in the West. But German producers cannot deliver because they lack the capacity. A few days ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz complained that, given the small numbers produced by German defense companies, it was impossible to speak of "a real industry."

Does Germany have the capability to build more Leopard 2 tanks.

Apparently the UK cannot build more Challenger 2.

GDB · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:45 pm

bennett123 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states: https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfp ... ld.1722377 [German]

The reasons for this [not permitting the delivery of Leopard 2] have less to do with Ukraine and more to do with Lloyd Austin, the US and their national interests: The Americans are just waiting for the Europeans to give their Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Because then they can offer their own tanks as a replacement. The war in Ukraine offers the US a unique opportunity to gain a foothold in the European armaments market with armored vehicles, following on from helicopters, fighter jets and missiles, and to displace the German competition. They do not want to miss this opportunity.
[...]
In the background, to any country that might supply Leopard 2s to Ukraine, they [the US] offer used tanks from their own stock as a replacement and a long-term industrial partnership. This is how it is reported in German industrial circles. Any country that takes up the American offer is lost to the German tank industry. And with every country lost by the German industry, Berlin's political influence on its allies in NATO and the EU dwindles.
[...]
There was hardly any money left for new weapons in the past 30 yeats. The defense companies were no longer receiving orders and had to reduce capacities. Tanks like the Leopard 2 were no longer mass-produced industrially, but in small numbers by hand. This takes longer and is more expensive. It sometimes took two years from the production of the tank steel to the handover of the vehicle to the customer. But customers were in no hurry, there was peace. And tanks seemed to be a military discontinued model anyway.

For the first time in decades, demand for weapons is booming in the West. But German producers cannot deliver because they lack the capacity. A few days ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz complained that, given the small numbers produced by German defense companies, it was impossible to speak of "a real industry."

Does Germany have the capability to build more Leopard 2 tanks.

Apparently the UK cannot build more Challenger 2.

Unsure on that, currently German industry, as a private venture so far, is developing a new one, the KF-51 Panther.
Where this fits in with the proposed Franco-German plan to develop and produce a new MBT is uncertain, that whole joint program could be uncertain now, not just with Ukraine but also with disagreements and delays on the FCAS, to replace Rafale and Typhoon as recent experience though that seems to be, at last, starting to move ahead now.

bikerthai · Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:47 pm

Btblue wrote:
I don't share the view on countries not willing to buy anything German in the future but if things really get bad, that of course could change. Germans for a fact make some brillaint cars, and are great people having lived there, I've bought German since my first car and I've had about 5, the current one is still going strong...

Do not disagree. However let this be a warning.

In the past, luxury and performance cars in the US was dominated by the European brands. Now it is dominated by Japanese models. The Koreans have over taken the Japanese in the lower end cars. They are challenging the Japanese and may have surpassed them in the mid range cars. It would not surprise me if they will replace the Japanese brands in the higher end cars in the future US market.

bt

mxaxai · Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:06 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Does Germany have the capability to build more Leopard 2 tanks.

Yes, but only at relatively low rates and with long lead times. Hungary has ordered 44 new Leopard 2A7 five years ago, the first ones are expected to arrive this year. The Germany army is currently getting their order of 2A7 delivered at a rate of about 15 to 30 per year.

The Abrams' available production lines can easily ramp up to 150+ tanks per year, which does not seem to be as easy for the Leopard. In addition, the US have vast stockpiles of used and stored M1, which they could supply at short notice.

JJJ · Sun Jan 22, 2023 2:09 pm

bennett123 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
An article in the Swiss newspaper NZZ yesterday, regarding the role of US industrial dominance and geopolitical considerations on tank deliveries from European states: https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfp ... ld.1722377 [German]

The reasons for this [not permitting the delivery of Leopard 2] have less to do with Ukraine and more to do with Lloyd Austin, the US and their national interests: The Americans are just waiting for the Europeans to give their Leopard 2s to Ukraine. Because then they can offer their own tanks as a replacement. The war in Ukraine offers the US a unique opportunity to gain a foothold in the European armaments market with armored vehicles, following on from helicopters, fighter jets and missiles, and to displace the German competition. They do not want to miss this opportunity.
[...]
In the background, to any country that might supply Leopard 2s to Ukraine, they [the US] offer used tanks from their own stock as a replacement and a long-term industrial partnership. This is how it is reported in German industrial circles. Any country that takes up the American offer is lost to the German tank industry. And with every country lost by the German industry, Berlin's political influence on its allies in NATO and the EU dwindles.
[...]
There was hardly any money left for new weapons in the past 30 yeats. The defense companies were no longer receiving orders and had to reduce capacities. Tanks like the Leopard 2 were no longer mass-produced industrially, but in small numbers by hand. This takes longer and is more expensive. It sometimes took two years from the production of the tank steel to the handover of the vehicle to the customer. But customers were in no hurry, there was peace. And tanks seemed to be a military discontinued model anyway.

For the first time in decades, demand for weapons is booming in the West. But German producers cannot deliver because they lack the capacity. A few days ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz complained that, given the small numbers produced by German defense companies, it was impossible to speak of "a real industry."

Does Germany have the capability to build more Leopard 2 tanks.

Apparently the UK cannot build more Challenger 2.

KMW was just upgrading old tanks to new standards because there were so many old A4s around, but with the Hungary order Rheinmetall is now also making new hulls so the capacity is there.

At a pinch even General Dynamics could make new hulls, since they bought the Spanish company SBS that made the ones for Spain (a local standard roughly equivalent to the A6) and the tooling was kept. Even Greece at some point was making hulls to be mated to German made turrets.

Aesma · Sun Jan 22, 2023 3:58 pm

I think the article about Germany worrying about US arms sales is valid. WIth that said, Germany is also part of the problem, ordering F-35s for example. And not pressuring Poland into buying at least some stuff from EU makers. Instead they buy US, with our money.

Now isn't really the time to worry about this, though.

Noray · Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:55 pm

Aesma wrote:
Germany is blocking everything.

[...], they might as well shut down their industry.

Which would also make many Germans happy.

Aesma wrote:
I think the article about Germany worrying about US arms sales is valid. WIth that said, Germany is also part of the problem, ordering F-35s for example. And not pressuring Poland into buying at least some stuff from EU makers. Instead they buy US, with our money.

How can we pressure Poland into ordering something we can't even deliver on time?

And being pressured by Germany is the last thing Poland is going to accept.

30989 · Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:22 pm

The NZZ has im recent years often posted articles on a far right wing narrative regarding Germany so I would take the article with a Grain of salt. I believe the contrary is true.

Today in German TV at the Anne Will TV Show the New German Defence Minister hinted that there is movement in the Diskussion.

Also German foreign Minister stated Germany does not Block other countries from Training Crews and exporting Leopards. So far no country has officially applied. Not even Poland.

So much of the public talk from Poland is just the typical Germany bashing their far right Party needs for the elections. Germany is only good enough if they send money or Technology secrets to Poland.

Nevertheless the way Scholz is communicating is a huge Desaster. And some SPD left wing people like Mützenich are still living in the peace movement Dream World of the 1980s. Those people were idiots then and are idiots now but have Influence.

30989 · Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:26 pm

But just to say it again: Germany is the number 3 weapons donor to Ukraine. Ahead of Poland, ahead of France, ahead of the Baltic States. Only UK (Almosen equal) and US (huge margin) are ahead. Not even talking about finanziell aid.

Unfortunately this is not communicated.

bikerthai · Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:29 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
But just to say it again: Germany is the number 3 weapons donor to Ukraine. Ahead of Poland, ahead of France, ahead of the Baltic States. Only UK (Almosen equal) and US (huge margin) are ahead. Not even talking about finanziell aid.

Unfortunately this is not communicated.

That is why the MBT reluctance is so perplexing.

bt

fessor · Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:33 pm

mxaxai wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Does Germany have the capability to build more Leopard 2 tanks.

Yes, but only at relatively low rates and with long lead times. Hungary has ordered 44 new Leopard 2A7 five years ago, the first ones are expected to arrive this year. The Germany army is currently getting their order of 2A7 delivered at a rate of about 15 to 30 per year.

The Abrams' available production lines can easily ramp up to 150+ tanks per year, which does not seem to be as easy for the Leopard. In addition, the US have vast stockpiles of used and stored M1, which they could supply at short notice.

They have 2 lines for build the leopard 2 but 1 line is used for upgrades as we speak,then they 1line that can be reopened according to an interview i saw a week ago.
Before there Even was a line for final assambly in Denmark

bluecrew · Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:02 am

Aesma wrote:
I think the article about Germany worrying about US arms sales is valid. WIth that said, Germany is also part of the problem, ordering F-35s for example. And not pressuring Poland into buying at least some stuff from EU makers. Instead they buy US, with our money.

Now isn't really the time to worry about this, though.

Can't blame Germany for the purchase - by the time they take delivery, they'll have a mature fifth generation platform which has been adopted by many friendly countries. To me, that's an important step before the Euro 6th gen platform which won't see a demonstrator flight until 2027. They were always going to buy US - it was between the F/A-18E and the F-35. Easy choice if you have the money.

The more units sold of the F-35 reduce the program cost overall (and no doubt help the US recoup some of the development costs). The US has always engaged in a sort of arms industry mercantilism, that's only run afoul of France in the last few years, notably with Australia. It's a profitable industry.

bluecrew · Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:19 am

bikerthai wrote:
TheSonntag wrote:
But just to say it again: Germany is the number 3 weapons donor to Ukraine. Ahead of Poland, ahead of France, ahead of the Baltic States. Only UK (Almosen equal) and US (huge margin) are ahead. Not even talking about finanziell aid.

Unfortunately this is not communicated.

That is why the MBT reluctance is so perplexing.

bt

Seems to be an issue with hulls available. When you're cooking for one, you don't roast a turkey.

The US necessarily has many more hulls available of all kinds, because since the early Cold War, we've been the Arsenal of Democracy II, giving away MBTs, APCs, assault rifles, etc. to anyone who expresses a fond view of America. As a result, during the Cold War, we produced a truly disgusting number of armored vehicles, weapons, ammunition, etc. While the M1 wasn't widely exported outside the Middle East (Egypt, Saudi, others), it was produced at a dramatic rate for US armored forces which are significantly smaller than 1989. The same can't be said of the Leo2 or the Challenger, which were Cold War tank replacements, meant to 1-1 (or 2-1) replace tanks already in service.

Leo2 and Challenger are tremendously capable platforms, they just weren't envisioned as large-scale production lines. The US, seemingly, never planned on exporting the M1. It's expensive to operate, maintenance overhead is high, and it's expensive, but it was the best tank built during the Cold War, and the generational improvements have made it top-of-class, so it's enjoyed a long production run.

Simply, the US has an incredible amount of modern-enough tanks sitting in storage, France and Germany don't. The US military-industrial complex has been working overtime for 70 years to make sure you can put on a US-made helmet and uniform, pick up a US-made gun, and ride a US-made APC to take you to the front no matter what continent you're on. Let 'er rip. I'm of the opinion we should give them every tank, APC, missile, gun, and artillery system that they want.

FGITD · Mon Jan 23, 2023 12:41 am

bluecrew wrote:

Simply, the US has an incredible amount of modern-enough tanks sitting in storage, France and Germany don't. The US military-industrial complex has been working overtime for 70 years to make sure you can put on a US-made helmet and uniform, pick up a US-made gun, and ride a US-made APC to take you to the front no matter what continent you're on. Let 'er rip. I'm of the opinion we should give them every tank, APC, missile, gun, and artillery system that they want.

And for pretty much all those things, it’ll likely be called an M1. Be it a helmet, a tank, a gun or anything else.

The m1 abrams is an interesting supply chain issue. For years you’ve had the military saying they don’t want anymore, immediately followed by Congress budgeting more and more Abrams. Hell, the Marine Corp doesn’t even use them anymore. (Rightfully so, imo) And they’re all destined to be parked in storage as soon as they’re off the line. It’s all a bit funny when you consider that the US has historically been so good at ramping up production that massive stores shouldn’t be necessary.

bluecrew · Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:05 am

FGITD wrote:
bluecrew wrote:

Simply, the US has an incredible amount of modern-enough tanks sitting in storage, France and Germany don't. The US military-industrial complex has been working overtime for 70 years to make sure you can put on a US-made helmet and uniform, pick up a US-made gun, and ride a US-made APC to take you to the front no matter what continent you're on. Let 'er rip. I'm of the opinion we should give them every tank, APC, missile, gun, and artillery system that they want.

And for pretty much all those things, it’ll likely be called an M1. Be it a helmet, a tank, a gun or anything else.

The m1 abrams is an interesting supply chain issue. For years you’ve had the military saying they don’t want anymore, immediately followed by Congress budgeting more and more Abrams. Hell, the Marine Corp doesn’t even use them anymore. (Rightfully so, imo) And they’re all destined to be parked in storage as soon as they’re off the line. It’s all a bit funny when you consider that the US has historically been so good at ramping up production that massive stores shouldn’t be necessary.

M4 Shermans, sure. An M1A2 is way more complex than the aircraft and tanks we've pushed out by the thousand on a moment's notice. We could produce a B-29 in a day, but we'll never be able to produce an F-35 in a day.

The argument for producing those tanks was purely political, saving jobs in a district, but I guess they've been vindicated? The US is the only country with a large stockpile of medium-prep required modern MBTs and APCs roughly equivalent to the kit given to frontline forces. If the utility was there, and absent any political considerations, we could probably sink 1000 M1A1s and M1A1HCs into the Ukrainian Army without any effect on US readiness.

The problem is one of the velocity of escalation, though.

L410Turbolet · Tue Jan 24, 2023 8:20 am

Aesma wrote:
WIth that said, Germany is also part of the problem, ordering F-35s for example. And not pressuring Poland into buying at least some stuff from EU makers. Instead they buy US, with our money.

What "your" money? Is Poland French colony?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net