Tanks dilemma

Experts explain why America’s M1 Abrams would be ‘more of a burden’

Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, has reportedly said Berlin will not send tanks to Ukraine unless America does the same.

The US position has been that its M1 Abrams tank is too complicated and logistically needy to be a quick armoured solution. Is this true, or just intra-alliance politics being played out to a heavy metal tune?

“It guzzles fuel and the engine is difficult to repair and maintain,” Jack Watling, a senior research fellow for Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), says. The M1 “consumes an awful lot of fuel”, he told The Daily Telegraph, and given other nations have offered tanks, “too many different types [of tank] would be really unhelpful”.

In the hands of a trained crew, backed up by a robust logistic and maintenance chain, the Abrams’ complexity is balanced by it being one of the most capable tanks in the world.

However, whereas the M1 “seeks maximum performance”, Mr Watling says, Leopard II is designed to be used by conscripts, making the German vehicle easier to get to grips with.

Mark Hertling, a retired US army general, said on Twitter: “Everyone is an M1 expert, until they break it. The Abrams would cause more of a burden due to training and resupply. Leopard IIS would mean less of a burden.”

Mr Watling agrees, saying of the Abrams: “Is it the right tank to send to Ukraine? No.”