Britain has nothing to fear from sending tanks; it’ll only hasten a Ukraine victory

‘Combined arms’ warfare could leave Putin’s forces unable to stop another advance

Tanks are like dinner jackets; you don’t need them very often, but when you do, nothing else will do

Britain’s Challenger II will be the most capable armoured vehicle given to Ukraine, if Rishi Sunak’s government decides to increase military support for Kyiv.

The protection provided by the Chobham and Dorchester armour – the exact composition of which is graded secret – means the vehicles can survive direct hits from Russian T-72 tanks.

Some in the security establishment fear such a move could mean advanced military secrets falling into Russian hands. But it seems as if Kyiv’s dogged resistance and the ability of Ukrainian forces to go on the offensive has convinced external supporters to provide more advanced combat power; to shift from ensuring Ukraine doesn’t lose to ensuring it is victorious.

In 1994, I was an excitable young cavalry officer trying to get to grips with the three tanks the Queen had just issued me. My Commanding Officer demanded an essay from me about my chosen career in armoured warfare that explored the possible future utility of tanks, given the numerous and innovative ways they could be rendered redundant on the modern battlefield.

I argued that if tanks – still the most efficient way of maximising the holy trinity of armoured warfare: firepower, protection and mobility – could be removed from the battlefield visually, thermally, electronically and tactically, then there was a future for Churchill’s “landships”.

Fast forward a few years – and a leap or two in technology – and the debate is still raging over whether these lumbering beasts have any place on the front lines of a modern war. Surely, the critics say, drones are the new airborne snipers, ready to kill any tank nudging its barrel out of a hide.

Further, even if the wind is too strong for a drone, modern dualwarhead anti-tank missiles or mines will stop them in their tracks.

However, it speaks volumes that tanks are right at the top of the Ukrainian wish-list when discussing military aid for their efforts to eject the Russians from their country.

For each of a tank’s undeniable vulnerabilities, there is a countermeasure. Usually this involves working with other parts of the military: one’s own drone operators or anti-air defenders, for example.

Beyond this, the ability to employ accurate, deadly firepower in direct contact with Russian forces is still an extremely sought-after capability.

There is an old military maxim: “Tanks are like dinner jackets; you

don’t need them very often, but when you do, nothing else will do.”

The world saw this last summer east of Kharkiv, when Ukraine smashed through a thinly guarded line of Russian troops and rushed east, gobbling up ground as Moscow’s retreat turned into a rout.

There is every chance that could happen again, if heavy tanks such as Challenger II and perhaps the Germanbuilt Leopard II, sent by Poland and Finland, were combined with the armoured infantry fighting vehicles promised by the US, France and Germany. As long as Ukraine is able to adopt “combined arms” warfare – using tanks, infantry, artillery and air power – it could leave Putin’s forces unable to stop another advance. There is little that this Russian army has displayed since Feb 24 last year to suggest it will be capable of withstanding an assault by Western armour and Ukrainian spirit.

Britain is reported to be preparing to send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. If it does so, it would represent a significant escalation in the West’s military support to Kyiv. To date, the Western powers have acted cautiously – some would say overly so – in terms of the weaponry they have been happy to provide owing to concerns about provoking the Kremlin. However, with Russian forces severely depleted in terms of men and equipment, because of the numerous setbacks they have suffered during the past year, there is a powerful argument for giving the Ukrainians more sophisticated weaponry to enable them to defeat the invaders and complete the liberation of their territory.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned repeatedly that his forces are in urgent need of reinforcements if they are to press home the advantage that they gained on the battlefield in recent months, especially heavy armour.

The United States has responded by agreeing to send 50 Bradley armoured vehicles as part of a new weapons package for Ukraine, while both Germany and France have signalled that they are willing to provide similar support. If the Government does send Challenger 2 tanks, however, it would make Britain the first country to deploy Western heavy armour on the Ukrainian battlefield, a commitment that will greatly enhance the Ukrainians’ war-fighting strength.

The move would certainly help Britain to restore the leadership role in the Ukraine conflict that it enjoyed during Boris Johnson’s premiership but which has appeared less in evidence since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister. Despite his insistence that he remains committed to Ukraine’s cause, Mr Sunak has been less visible on this matter than his predecessor, concentrating instead on pressing domestic issues.

Sending tanks and other suitable weaponry to Ukraine would offer reassurance to Kyiv, while sending a clear message to Moscow that Britain and its allies remain committed to resisting Russian aggression – especially if, as reports suggest, the Kremlin is planning a new spring offensive.

For all Vladimir Putin’s sabre-rattling about Western support for Ukraine provoking a wider conflict between Russia and Nato, the bitter truth for Moscow is that it is losing the war in Ukraine.

The West should not be shy about accelerating Russia’s defeat.