M1 Abrams Tanks Are Coming to Ukraine: Too Hard to Use?

Ukraine Is Getting America’s Powerful Abrams Tank—But Generals Tankers Disagree Over How Difficult It Is to Use – Berlin’s contorted Decision-making process regarding whether or not to allow delivery widely-operated Leopard 2 tanks To Ukraine Jan. was an important month for news as German Chancellor Scholz and his officials released contradictory messages about whether or not they would. “release the Leopards.”

Fearing Russian escalation Scholz apparently conditioned Washington authorization Also It can be donated M1 Abrams main battle tanks to diffuse responsibility.



Subscribe to our YouTube Channel Here. 19FortyFive publishes original videos every day.)

The M1 Abrams are now available for Ukraine

Last but not least, Berlin will open its doors on Tuesday, January 24, announced it would donate a company of 14 Leopard 2A6 battle tanks with long-barreled guns to Ukraine and open the way for many additional donations from the type’s numerous operators. Perhaps a quid pro quo was at work. On the same day, word spread about U.S. President Joe Biden’s announcement that he would send 31 M1 Abrams tanks over to Ukraine.

That could be the first tranche of a more significant transfer—as has proven the case For Bradley fighting vehicle. Both the Leopard 2 And M1 Abrams are broadly comparable in performance—heavier at 60-70 tons, faster, harder-hitting, and with much better sensors than the 45-55 ton main battle tanks used by Russia and Ukraine. For both crews and maintainers to become fully trained in Ukraine, it will take at most 2-3 months.

However, the M1 Abrams’ deployment amounts to a rapid about-face for Washington. Prior to the deployment, Lloyd Austin, defense secretary, was present. dismissed the Abrams as too logistically demanding—“a very complicated piece of equipment”— compared to Germany’s Leopard 2.

This assertion sparked an internet debate amongst retired senior officers, all vocal advocates of Ukraine Experienced in commanding M1 Abrams-equipped units

Retired U.S. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who has commanded everything from platoons to an entire armored division of Patton and Abrams tanks, supported Austin’s take, tweeting:

“Ukrainian Army commanders who I talk with want tanks, but have admitted they struggle with logistics, repair parts getting to the right places, and resupply. So reducing the burden must be a key consideration—and in my professional opinion, the Abrams would cause more of a burden due to training and resupply to a force that’s in a tough fight. Also, in my view, Leopard 2s would means less of a burden.”

Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general, was once commander of the Abrams brigade, which was located in northern Australia. argued These arguments were  “…excuses…entirely absent when these tanks were sold to Iraq, Egypt and Australia – all of whom possess very light military logistic capabilities.”

Retired General Barry McCaffrey is commander of the 24^Th Infantry Division which destroyed  Iraq’s 1^st Rumaila’s Armored Division, in one day endorsed Abrams, noting its incorporation by previous foreign operators. “An experienced Ukrainian tank crew could fight in 30 days,” He concludes.

Lt. General Ben Hodges, who was previously chief of U.S. Army Europe. agreed Adoption was not easy. “The Ukrainians will figure all of that out. Please no more condescension from DoD.”

But Hertling disagreed That the M1 Abrams were withheld was an a “political decision” and didn’t find the examples of non-U.S. Abrams operators persuasive. “Countries we’ve sold it to took years–and [U.S.] contractors—to field and sustain them.”

While it’s certain Ukraine will get both Leopard 2s and M1 Abrams, it’s still worth interrogating—just how serious were those downsides cited by Austin prior to the change?

Is there enough M1 Abrams or related support facilities?

Broadly speaking, the U.S. has a staggering 3,700 Abrams tanks estimated in storage according to IISS’s Military Balance 2021, and builds more yearly—even if the Army doesn’t want them—to keep the factory in Lima, Ohio open.

Marine Corps also recently retired all of its 400+ M1A1 tanks. There are also between 2000-3,000 Leopard 2s in storage or service. However, they are split up between several operating countries and different models.

But there are 13 countries in/around Europe operating Leopard 2s, and only one—Poland—that Simply began inducting M1 Abrams. That means there’s a lot of Leopard 2 inventory, maintenance depots, and sparts parts geographically close to Ukraine.

Still, there’s one other big Abrams operator in Europe—the U.S. Army. Although U.S. armor in Europe was briefly reduced to zero in 2013, it has not declined since then. ticked back up after Russia’s invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022, notably including a rotating armor brigade Poland

MORE: Why Putin Fears the M1 Abrams Tank

MORE: I Went to War in the Leopard 2 Tank Ukraine Wants

MORE: World War III – Where Could It Start?

MORE: A U.S.-China War Over Taiwan Would Be Bloody

Dave Demorrow, a retired Army non-commissioned officer-in-charge with 18 year’s experience serving in mechanized units, particularly in an intelligence role, sparred online with Hertling regarding the availability of M1 hulls and spare parts in Europe.

Demorrow is an organizer of equipment and gear donations to Ukraine and manages a Texas military museum. told I spoke to him over the phone and he said that, besides the Polish rotating brigade, he believed there were other opportunities. 2-3 additional brigade-sets M1s that have been pre-positioned in Europe and the region between there and Poland’s purchase of hundreds of M1s, there’s a healthier supply of spare parts. This could reflect unspecified “enhancements” Last year, the White House had promised to fulfill its promises.

However, Major. Joe Minarick, 278^Th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Tennessee Army National Guard, wrote to me that they “would not expect” The U.S. should dip into its prepositioned assets and, based on his experience as a battlegroup planner for Poland, spare parts, These were This is a problem.

“[Many parts] have to be ordered from the U.S. When we were in Poland they would fly parts to Ramstein then truck them to an SSA yard in Poland, where we would have to drive and pick them up. The Ukrainian border would be an addition to this process, which in our case would take up to a few days.”

Is the M1 Abrams’s gas turbine engine incompatible with Ukraine’s armed forces?

Like most Ukrainian tanks, the Leopard 2 uses a diesel engine. Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine powers the Abram. can It can run on jet fuel. But it’s a multifuel engine, so it can run on diesel too—and according to Demorrow, frequently does in U.S. Army service when refueling alongside diesel-engine Bradley fighting vehicles.

“It could run on Chanel No. 5,” Demorrow, referring to the aforementioned, said: stunt pulled by comedian Jay Leno His gasoline-turbine-powered Chrysler. Ukraine Does deploy some gas-turbine engine tanks, the speedy T-80BV Airborne brigades are assigned.

Joe Minarick echoed the sentiment “The fuel is a non-issue. M1s are thirsty, but they’ll drink anything. Running diesel through the turbine slightly increases the maintenance burden (they prefer JP8 [kerosene-based jet fuel]), but it’s not much of an issue.”

The real problem is that the M1 Abrams’ faster starting and accelerate engine is a gas hog. According to reports, the M1 Abrams’ faster starting and accelerate engine is a gas hog. consumes 10 gallons every hour Idling And.6 to 1 gallons per minute while on the move. Leopard 2 only consumes half the amount of fuel per mile. That’s obviously a big logistical burden.

“I hope to hell we give them good HEMMT fuelers as well,” Minarick made the comment, referring to eight-wheeled Heavy Expanded mobility Tactical Trucks like the M978 tanker, which can transport 2,500 gallons.

Demorrow insists the fuel-efficiency gap is lower—“around 17%”—and believes Ukrainians will field-improvise external auxiliary power units (APUs) for M1 Abrams to avoid gas consumption while idling, a solution he says is harder to implement on the Leopard 2A4’s turret. Only the latest-model Abrams Leopard 2A7s and Leopard 2A7s are equipped with APUs.

What happens to Ukraine’s weapons and armor made from depleted Uranium?

To maximize firepower and protection, the U.S.M1s contain ultra-dense depleted uranium. A depleted uranium mesh weighing a few tons is inserted between steel or carbon plates to help Abrams’s front turret to achieve dramatically higher effective levels of armor protection, rendering parts of its front turret impenetrable to most armor-piercing weapons.

The Army uses hi-tech M829 depleted uranium shells tailored to defeat sophisticated Kontakt-5 and Relikt explosive reactive armor on newer Russian tanks (which may use DU shells, but don’t sport DU armor.)

Depleted Uranium is radioactive and has been removed from Abrams tanks exported by the United States to countries like Egypt and Thailand. This leaves them with less armor protection. However, the ban isn’t absolute; Poland and possibly Australia’s M1s will have DU armor inserts and M829 rounds.

Thus it’s unclear whether Ukraine’s M1s will benefit from the controversial material. To match the M1’s benefits, Leopard 2A5s, 2A6s, and 2A7s of later models have extra armor and longer-barreled weapons.

Demorrow argued, however, that secrecy concerns around DU armor had been exaggerated for decades. “I think it’s more about radiation rather than it’s a strategic or tactical secret.”

He also claims that M1s are strong even without DU. Present at the titanic Battle of Norfolk in the 1991 Gulf War, he was driving an ammunition truck close to an M1A1 Abrams—an earlier model lacking uranium armor—when it was repeatedly hit by friendly fire from forces advancing behind it. It was damaged by a dozen bullets before being finally disabled. Only three of its crew survived.

M1 Abrams: Training & sustainment

There are also concerns the M1’s advanced components will make it difficult to train personnel to operate and sustain it in the field. Nicholas Drummond, British armor officer and advisor to KMW German tank manufacturer KMW told Breaking Defense the Leopard 2 may be easier to integrate due to being designed for Germany’s Cold War conscript army.

Hertling tweeted The Abrams tank requires a higher level of training than other tanks, particularly for crew members to avoid mechanical breakdowns.

“Some M1 repairs require part replacements (requiring many high tech spare parts to be in a Prescribed Load List [a standardized unit inventory of on-hand spare parts]). Other replacements require pulling things (like Full Up Power Packs [engine and transmission], sights, etc.) to a logistics center/depot with new one being sent forward. It’s a 500-mile supply line from Poland to the Donbas.”

Minarick, who has 24 year’s experience with armor, agreed Leopard 2s were easier to maintain than the Abrams. “The turbine is more complicated (although having fewer moving parts) than a diesel engine. From having worked with both platforms in the field, the reliability is about the same, only the repairs are more difficult.”

Demorrow, however, argues there’s a double-standard, noting M2s Bradley fighting vehicles already given to Ukraine use Bushmaster cannons with more components than the Abram’s main gun, and use the same support systems including M88 Armored Recovery Vehicles. He believes that faulty power pack could be shipped to Ukraine, while vehicles remain in country with a replacement pack.

Diverging views among officers

Despite sharing the Abrams experience, how is it that these veterans have come to so different conclusions? They may have different assumptions about the integration and opportunities costs.

Major general Patrick Donahoe—recently retired from his role overseeing maneuver warfare training at Fort Benning—argues, “[Ukrainian forces] need one system, delivered in numbers that matter, in one variant to east sustainment in order to maximize the effect on the enemy and reduce internal friction and challenges.”

His view is that it’s worse to have two tank models than maximize the delivery of one type.

Hertling responded in kind to the M1 news. reiterated his concerns: “…can they quickly learn the capability of the Abrams (and Leopard II) the way it is designed to operate?  That’s training with other tanks, infantry, scouts, drones, artillery, engineers, intel. All more than crew training when the tank – or small critical parts in the tank – break (which they do), and when those small and large replacement parts need replacing, and when it requires daily/weekly/monthly echelon maintenance, will Ukraine have also trained those who do these things?

After the tank crews, sections, companies, battalions master the gunnery skills, the maneuver, and the maintenance; will there also be echelons of support that will flow the needed parts, Full Up Power Packs, ammo, fuel, roadwheels, torsion bars, etc., etc., to the front lines?…I’ve seen U.S. units at our training centers and in combat get just a few things wrong and it causes disaster and failure. Lethal tanks turn into pillboxes that don’t move or shoot.”

Hertling also sees a difference between simply Operating The tank will be used to sustainably and efficiently employ U.S.-styled combined arms doctrine and logistics.

Ukraine’s military has undeniably absorbed a staggering variety of troop-carrying vehicles And artillery systems via foreign assistance—diversity ordinarily seen as a massive no-no to logisticians due to the inefficiencies of having to train for and sustain so many different types of equipment. It is likely that overhead costs will be significant for new equipment types. ‘bandwidth’ to do so, there’s less benefit to furnishing two types just to increase volume.

However, supporters of the M1 Abrams are for Ukraine say Kyiv would gladly accept all tanks and has the culture, motivation, and culture to adapt faster via crash course. MacGyver-style fixes A peacetime army could do more than it ordinarily could. They argue that Ukraine could sustain a diverse force by keeping foreign experts available for technical consultation and quick on-demand parts delivery. This is more than what is commonly believed to be possible.

Mick Ryan writes: “Ukrainians have demonstrated throughout this war that they are very capable of integrating very complex hardware and weapons quickly. They are an adaptive, learning institution with a strong imperative for constant improvement.”

Ryan and defense Michael Kofman also argue that Ukraine can learn a lot from U.S. maneuver doctrine but the tactics are contextually tailored to Ukraine may differ greatly.

Minarick considers Leopard 2s as similar to M1 Abrams “apex tanks,” You wrote to me: “Other countries far less competent have used them in austere environments. I think the concern that the Abram specific logistics will distract from more pressing issues on the ground is genuine, but overblown.”

Expertise & Experience Sébastien Roblin writes on the technical, historical, And political aspects of international security and conflict for publications including The National Interest, NBC News, Forbes.com, War is Boring and 19FortyFiveHe is Defense-in-Depth Editor at.  He holds a Master’s degree from Georgetown University and served with the Peace Corps in China.  Follow his articles here Twitter.

---

---

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."