Ack. War reporting by people who know nothing about the military. Armored losses in Ukraine.

 

Stars and Stripes cartoon by Bill Mauldin.  Large numbers of M4 Sherman's were lost in World War Two, even though the now underrated tank was well liked by every army that used it.  Same with T-34s, the best tank of World War Two, and the same with the much heralded series of German tanks of the late war period.  Tanks get destroyed in combat.

I've been seeing some headlines like this:

Russia releases video of captured German and U.S. tanks

Indeed, I saw one just this morning along these lines, asserting that President Biden was embarrassed by the Russian "capture" of American and German tanks.

Sigh.

Leopard 2.

The Russians have destroyed some Leopard 2s. Frankly, this is no surprise to me, as I don't regard the Leopard 2 as a particularly good tank, although I don't think it's a bad tank either, and have already said as much here.  I suspect, but certainly don't know, that part of the German reluctance to supply Leopard 2s to Ukraine is that they'd turn out to be vulnerable for this reason.  I noted quite awhile ago that the Turks withdrew Leopard 2s in some areas of Syria in favor of older American made tanks (and I also urged here that those older tank designs be supplied to Ukraine).

The Leopard 2 does have a very good gun system.

The Russians seem to have captured at least one Leopard 2.

The also destroyed some Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicles, which is absolutely nobody's idea of a tank, at least not anybody with any knowledge of armored vehicles.

M2 Armored Fighting Vehicle.

That some M2 Armored Fighting Vehicles would be destroyed or captured was inevitable and really no big deal in and of itself.  It's an armored personnel carrier, basically, and they are always vulnerable as they are not heavily armored.  It's an exceptionally capable armored personnel carrier, but not a tank.

The Ukrainians destroyed a Russian T-90M the other day. It's the most advanced Russian tank.

And this is also no big deal.  It's one tank.

And here's the thing 

A lot of armor gets destroyed in a peer to peer conflict.  The Russians have lost an inordinate number of tanks. . . quite a few to other Russian tanks in Ukrainian service.  That's significant.  The Ukrainians have lost some Leopard 2s and they will lose more.  Right now, those losses aren't significant, but if they become numerous, they will be, which may point to one or more things if it occurs.

If they lose M1 Abrams, even a handful, that will be significant.

Same with British Challengers, and South Korean K2s.

And that's because all three of those tanks are first-rate modern battle tanks, whereas, in my view, the Leopard 2 is second or third rate.

And, another thing.  Ukraine is attempting a peer to peer offensive against an army larger than its own, without Ukraine having air superiority.  That's hard in and of itself. There's no guaranty that they'll pull it off.  We should hope they do, but victory, and certainly not cheap quick victory, is not assured.  The Ukrainians were begging for F16s, which they ultimately received, but probably too late to be of real use.  

We probably see why now.  In order to really be assured of advancing, they need air superiority.  We should have supplied them with F16s earlier.  And we likely should have supplied them with A10s as well.  If A10s, a lot of which are now on maneuvers in Europe, are too vulnerable to be used in Ukraine, they're certain not a viable NATO weapon now in any event.

So where are we at?

We don't know.  Offensives do not move at the speed of Le Mans.  This offensive could be proceeding at the pace that it should.  But the Ukrainians face a tough strategic and tactical situation.  They need to gain a lot of ground in this offensive in order for it to matter.  And they might not be able to, even if they gain ground.  If they don't, that may be just because of the situation they faced, or may be because they were left resource short.

Hopefully that will not be the case.