The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Why the "Bradley" is becoming more interesting than the "Leopard"

2023-01-17T11:22:05.582Z


As the German tank debate continues to spin in circles, Washington changes the face of the battlefield.


As the German tank debate continues to spin in circles, Washington changes the face of the battlefield.

Berlin - "Leopard" here, "Leopard" there, "Leopard" everywhere?

Initially, it was only one voice that urged the federal government to hand over copies of the "Leopard 2" to Ukraine: the now ex-Berlin ambassador Andriy Melnyk.

He and Kyiv knew that the "Leo" could withstand the mostly hopelessly outdated Russian armored force.

It's now a very loud, polyphonic chorus that makes Olaf Scholz' walls tremble against the "German solo effort" (which isn't and never was).

But does the “Leopard 2” really need to be in Ukraine?

Ukraine war: Leopard delivery necessary at all?

Not necessarily.

The four main tank types of the West, the US Abrams, the French Leclerc, the British Challenger 2 and the German Leo are closely related.

This is reported by fr.de.

First and foremost is the cannon, caliber 120 millimeters.

Some take the part from Rheinmetall, others from the Royal Ordnance Factory in Nottingham or from Nexter Systems in Roanne.

The next logical step - opposed only by crude nationalism and vested interests of economic interest - would be to build a common carrier for a 120mm gun.

The differences in the dimensions of the four individual types mentioned are almost the same, and their maximum speeds are between 60 and 70 kilometers per hour.

Deficiencies in armor are noted by experts mainly on the sides of the "Challenger".

The decisive factor is always the ammunition and the logistical effort associated with it and with the technology in the tank, which is immense in modern armed forces and puts the manpower of the fighting troops in the shade (which has still not brought a better image of supplies and supplies). .

+

A "Bradley" on the way to the Baltic States.

© imago

New tanks for Ukraine: Increasing logistical effort

In the corresponding online circles, mostly only the US ammunition with depleted uranium and the conventional one with tungsten (carbide) are compared.

A few years ago there was still fierce controversy in the West about the uranium projectiles in the US arsenals (keyword: nuclear rearmament underhand).

Almost all of them have now fallen silent.

It is now only "comradely" pointed out that, for example, one prefers not to approach a tank wreck that was destroyed by a uranium shell...

London is now supplying “Challenger” specimens.

"Leos", "Leclercs" and "Abrams" could follow, but each additional type only increases the logistical effort.

Ukraine can't actually afford that, given its increasing losses of trained and combat-experienced military.

Tanks to Ukraine: Washington organizes transfer of “Bradley” infantry fighting vehicles

But help is on the way: Washington is organizing the transfer of Bradley armored personnel carriers to Kyiv.

Dozens of them are stored in European arsenals as insurance for a possible "European war".

The "Bradley" has proven itself several times.

It can only take six infantry (the "Marder" seven), but the key is its 25mm autocannon.

It doesn't replace a 120mm gun.

But she shouldn't.

The "Bradley" was explicitly designed to operate in conjunction with tank artillery (e.g. "Hawitzze 2000") and combat helicopters.

The Ukrainian General Staff estimates that it would take 600 infantry support vehicles to throw the Russians back to the starting points of their invasion.

50 promised "Bradley", probably 40 "Marder",

Traditionally, armored personnel carriers operate in conjunction with main battle tanks.

Experience teaches that main battle tanks may attract a lot of attention, look good and break a lot.

But conquering and holding something is only possible when infantry are on the road with the tanks and actually do this work (while the tanks rush forward photogenic for propaganda).

For this, the infantry must be protected.

That's what armored personnel carriers are for.

The Bradley has been no exception since it went into production in 1981.

The "Abrams" had already served in the US armed forces for a year.

The joint commitment of the two is based on 40 years of experience.

This could also be a reason why "Abrams" could (but not necessarily have to) travel to Ukraine

However, the "Leopard 2" does not hurt either.

(rut)

Transparency note: In the first version of the text, the specification of some tank types was not correctly stated.

Please excuse the mistake.

List of rubrics: © imago

Source: merkur

All news articles on 2023-01-17

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.