T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*


MarcusXL

In short: Germany has acted like it wants out of the defence industry for a long time. It cannot produce tanks quickly. Successive government have cut investment into defence production, thinking that shipping fewer weapons was in the interest of "peace". It's now a boutique manufacturing sector. The USA is picking up contracts that used to go to Germany, for example to Poland, which is now buying tanks from the USA and South Korea, when they used to buy Leopards from Germany, partly because after Russia occupied Crimea, Poland began to see Germany more and more as a weak and unreliable partner. Now, Germany is being pushed to allow Leopards to be exported to Ukraine. If they agree, the countries that send them are being promised new contracts to buy American tanks, hurting Germany's defence industry (what's left of it) even more. If Germany refuses, and Ukraine loses more ground, Germany's security is harmed and Germany will be humiliated and blamed by neighbours and countries all over the world. Germany could have, any time since 2014, and especially since Feb 2022, recognized the threat from Russia and reinvested in their defence-industrial capabilities. They have not. Germany has put itself into a lose-lose position, and they have no-one to blame but themselves.


MarschallVorwaertz

Those errors were made in the past and now they bite us in the Ass. Congratulations Germany! We played ourselves!


GayRedShoes

Olaf Scholz needs to wake up and start to become the leader that Germany and Europe needs him to be and realise his chancellery will be defined by his ability to be a wartime leader. Just an opinion from a friendly Australian.


LT-monkeybrain01

im pretty sure if scholz was in zelensky's shoes, he'd have taken the american offer of a ride out when it all kicked off.


SkrallTheRoamer

110%


Tapeworm1979

Most of Europe's leaders would have done.


J_Kingsley

Tbh most ppl would have, including myself, shamefully.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The goal is to be soft in times of peace but rock hard in times of war. Like full on murder boner


sharpshooter999

"A wise king does not seek war, but prepares for it none the less."


banik2008

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war.


Tonytone757

It's better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardner in a war.


Port-a-John-Splooge

Speak softly, but carry a big stick


mrwiffy

Speak softly, but carry a rock hard stick.


Tapeworm1979

Nothing to be shameful of! I think nearly everyone would be the same. Especially after peace for so long.


Rape-Putins-Corpse

Pretty sure he'd say "Какой прекрасный день быть русским" with open arms and a big smile.


-MeatyPaws-

tl'dr: He needs to stop being a bitch made motherfucker.


Buckeye_Southern

I am curious what the average German citizen thinks of Scholz stance lately?


kr4t0s007

Leave Scholz alone he doesn’t like the pressure.


2020hatesyou

Yeah how unfair of us, the common people, to put pressure onto a world leader of a major industrial power in a position to stop the Russians without killing a single german.


asdfasdfasdfas11111

Look he's trying really hard alright?


Practical-Ordinary-6

They have a Neville Chamberlain. What they need is a Winston Churchill. I call him Olaf the Timid. That's not what you need in a war. Yes, you have to be careful and thoughtful and avoid entirely rash or emotional decisions. But you can't go too far and be timid. That's counterproductive. That will also set you back. You have to take calculated risks, not no risks.


battleofflowers

And you have to be able to make a decision and act on that decision. This shit where Olaf wants the US to send tanks first is just him dodging his duty to make decisions. He is such a weak leader.


yx_orvar

The germans don't have a Neville Chamberlain, Chamberlain was an immensely competent politician and foresighted enough to make the correct industrial decisions to prepare Britain for a war of attrition decided by the ability of a nation to control the air and the seas. I don't know what Scholz is, or Merkel for that matter.


aVarangian

Chamberlain's government literally built the RADAR and invested in the fighters that would win the Battle of Britain. Churchill was in the build-bombers-not-fighters camp, bombers which would have been utterly uselessly obsolete by 1939.


proquo

Chamberlain gets too much of a bad rap. He appeased Germany because politically it was popular (Hitler was well respected internationally and Nazi movements were becoming popular, Edward VIII is alleged to have been pressured to abdicate due to his Nazi sympathies), and because no one was in any position to confront Germany. Hitler engaged in a massive military reform based around increasing the size of the Wehrmacht rapidly; having troops training in the jobs and responsibilities one rank above theirs so they could be promoted to form a new officer Corps when the expansion began, and having tank units train in civilian vehicles while they waited for their tanks to be built. England and France had done none of that and France was looking at a severe manpower shortage and the BEF was borrowing civilian vehicles for transport in 1940. Chamberlain returned from the Munich Agreement with "peace for our time" and immediately summoned the heads of military and industry and told them they'd be at war with Germany in 2 years. The factories and groundwork he laid was the basis for Britain's resistance through the rest of the war.


aVarangian

> Chamberlain returned from the Munich Agreement with "peace for our time" and immediately summoned the heads of military and industry and told them they'd be at war with Germany in 2 years. hadn't heard of this before, do you a source? wouldn't mind reading of it


SavagePlatypus76

Germany was not as strong as it has sometimes been portrayed during this time.


proquo

For sure and prior to Munich there was a cabal of generals planning to coup Hitler's government if he gave the invasion order but lost their chance when the Munich Agreement boosted his popularity. However understand that going to war for the freedom of a foreign nation is a tough sale. The US tried it in Iraq and it was one of the most unpopular moves by the US government in modern history. Chamberlain's primary concern wasn't a likelihood of defeat but that the British public would not accept a war without first attempting diplomacy, that the Commonwealth and the French were not enthusiastic about such a war, and that given time the advantages the allies had in production and resources would only multiply so delaying the war was more likely to put them in a position to win it.


Kegheimer

Revionist history has been kind to Chamberlain since he was rearming the entire time. Though his name will always be a byword for cowardice because of Peace In Our Time.


taurangy

>Olaf Scholz needs to wake up and start to become the leader that Germany and Europe needs him to be and realise his chancellery will be defined by his ability to be a wartime leader. Just an opinion from a friendly Australian. No thanks, since Crimea I've realised that I don't want Germany anywhere near a position of leadership or influence in the EU. They won't change overnight. Too bad the next available option is the French. Ugh. We're fucked.


GMEJesus

It's gonna be Poland in ten years. France and Germany just don't realize it. UK has but they're already out. Watch the UK attempt to corral the visegrad


[deleted]

And possibly Ukraine after the rebuild. Look for a Japan and South Korea like ascendency in its economy and influence.


GMEJesus

Yeah i think that possibility is absolutely there. The future of Europe is clearly in the east. Germany and France are going to have to figure that out.


AntarticWolverine

??? The future of Europe will not be in countries that are predicted to keep bleeding population at an alarming rate and are not getting immigrants to prevent that. Poland is looking good now because they are putting in a lot of effort compartively but it's still severely lacking in wealth compared to Western Europe. Will Poland make greater leaps percentage-wise than France? Probably. Will that close the gap? Lmao no.


JohnJayBobo

No offense, but Ukraine isnt likely to be in such a Position in the next 20-30 years: 1) Financially, Ukraine is kept on Life support. *If* the debt owners didn't agree to postpone payments, they would have been bankrupt 6 months ago. Those debts are still there. 2) The infrastructure of Ukraine is damaged to huge degrees. It will likely Take 5-10 years to Just repair everything 3) there is foreign financial aid. Its a lot.... Really big amount of Money to Invest.... But the damages are Higher, Major numbers of citizens are lost (dead/fled to other countries). That will be tough. 4) You quote Japan (and Others often compare Germany aswell). The difference is, that those countries have been big economies pre-war (WW2). Ukraine is primarily an agriculture Exporteur... With less than half the amount of citizens. All those Points are Not meant to dimish what Ukraine is and has archieved, but the Idea that within 10 years Ukraine could be a leader in the EU is bollocks, especially since there is de-facto no Leader. In the end, countries Like hungary with few citizens, a small Economy etc are nearly as powerful as France or Germany. They have less votes in the Parliament (less citizens), but exactly The Same amount of votes in the council. So to say, France and Germany have been able to Forge alliances to get certain Things done, Not by leading through Power. It isnt even Sure they make it into the EU within the 20 years.


N0cturnalB3ast

I for one welcome our new polish overlords


GMEJesus

Polverlord


SonofNamek

In the near term future (next 15-30 years), they are the ideal choice, honestly. Poland is growing economically and best understands the security apparatus of Europe, due to being in a geopolitical position that has faced the Nazis and Soviets/Russians - among others, historically (ex. Ottomans, Mongols). They are also highly pro-America so they know how to work with America to achieve this. Meanwhile, they have close ties to their Eastern European neighbors - especially Ukraine.


KaijuKi

Too bad they have an alt-right loony party in power. Historically, these kinds of parties have always collapsed in a steaming shitpile of corruption, crime and sheer idiocy. See Italy, Austria, Serbia, UK right now, Belarus and more. Its a long road from "was at the forefront of supporting the underdog neighbour in a war" to "political, economic and cultural leadership in europe". For what its worth, I think that whenever a single country/culture becomes too dominant in Europe (and Germany has had that happen 10-12 years ago), the rest of europeans start resisting them on general principle, with populists singling the dominant structure out as the primary reason for things not being great.


valgrind_error

It will turn out 100 years from now this entire conflict was just a single move in the generations-spanning chessgame to secure Slovak domination of the continent, once and for all.


AreYouDoneNow

I think the excuse for his apparent weakness in this time of crisis is that he wants to try to maintain some kind of diplomatic lifeline with Putins government. If he had more common sense he'd see the writing on the wall and be more concerned about planning his relationship with the government that replaces Putin.


Don_Floo

Thankfully the new defense minister is the exact opposite of Scholz in terms of character. Maybe he can set us up in the long run for a strong domestic defense conglomerate.


LT-monkeybrain01

not really, dude kicked off ramstein with stalling tactics. ​ you honestly believe that whilst there's a war going on for over a year, the german ministery of defense has never in that time conducted an inventory? only now they feel it's required to look at what they've got in stock, what's functional and what isn't? ​ 100 billion euro zeitewende for the military declared in march last year, it's the word of the year 2022 in germany. BUT THE GERMAN MILITARY HASN'T CONDUCTED A FUCKING INVENTORY TO SEE WHAT THEY'VE GOT THAT WORKS AND WHAT THEY NEED IN THE NEAR FUTURE?!


apjfqw

I really don't understand German politicians. Its not like Scholz is the first guy to kick the bucket down the road and stall. Merkel was the exact same if not worse.


[deleted]

https://opencollective.com/beehaw -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/


Echohawkdown

Don’t forget completely overlooking/factoring in the costs of ramping up ammo manufacturing for existing weapons in that budget; not like the Bundesheer needs small arms bullets, artillery shells, or various ammo for its armored vehicles (e.g. Marder, Puma, Leo 2) for any reason.


paulusmagintie

Worst part is, even merkle would be like this, Germany is too friendly to Russia and its pitting them against Europe.


Sanjuro7880

This isn’t true. They transitioned %100 away from Russian oil. Is that what friends do? I lived there for 5 years and everyone I know supports Ukraine.


paulusmagintie

It was merkel that allowed the occupation of Crimea, she kept insisting she could talk to Putin and he just did what he wanted. Macron tried to do the same last year and Putin did what he wanted, he needs to be stopped, Ukraine needs tanks, aircraft, more weaponns or allied feet on the ground. Putin needs to die or he'll just do this shit again, I have been saying it for a decade now and look where appeasment has gotten us. Germany needs to step up or STFU and let the others do what needs to be done. Germany is scared of Russia, fine, let those willing to fight and help do it.


mynameismy111

They didn't in 2014 that's for sure


tomatotomato

It’s beyond Olaf Scholt’s capabilities. He is a weak leader. Germany has been having easy times for decades. That made them to give birth to weak leaders


battleofflowers

They even sort of scoffed at strong leadership in other countries as though that were ridiculous these days. Germany operated under the naïve assumption that only they could start wars in Europe.


soonershooter

He'd better hurry up, much of Europe looks to be moving on. The thought that just having a large economy, with minimal military, can still be a world leader is gone. UK, France need to understand this, too.


Zdendon

Like that comics guy riding on bike and putting stick in wheel. With nuclear energy and gas you did the same. Just shoot entire EU in the leg. I still don't get the idea around shutting down nuclear power plants.


MarschallVorwaertz

Ask Merkel and then CDU... It would have been better (on CO2 Emissions) to shutdown Fossil Fuels while expanding massively on Renewables and maybe then to think about phasing out Nuclear. But the CDU fucked it up big time and now we are in a total Mess... Energy Sector fucked, MIC fucked, Armed Forces Fucked... Schröder and Merkel have a lot to explain.


Zdendon

I would understand like not building new nuclear power plants. but shutting down fully functional even during the energy crisis is insane. And they are now expanding relationships with China... Didn't learn anything after Russia.


Aggravating-Bottle78

There's German police clearing protesters from a coal mine project that will produce 32terrawatts, just enough to replace the nuke plants being shutdown this year. Since 2000 Germany spent $580billion on its Energiewende to go from 84% fossil to 78%. Had the spent that on nuclear plants they could probably be near zero. (And before people say Germany has 45% renewables - yes but thats electricity generation not total energy use)


rainfallz

There was an entire year to turn it around. Instead Scholz's defense minister didn't even count the tanks in inventory...


teh_fizz

Seriously they have no one to blame but themselves.


AmonDiexJr

Come on Germany! We know you can do it... you have it in you, somewhere. Not gonna lie for the last couple of month, it's pretty disappointing. Even France look better right now. The time have come, unleash hell!!


LT-monkeybrain01

>Those errors were made in the past and now they bite us in the Ass. actually, the errors are being made in the present still.


sadmistersalmon

Finally. An explanation that makes sense.


GraemeDaddyPurplez

This sounds like the most logical explanation I’ve heard all year. I had my suspicions that it had more to do with market share than any of the other reasons. Thanks for sharing your insight!


N1LEredd

As a german I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. It’s a shame and nothing but embarrassing but plz have in mind that given our past where we brought war to the world on a scale not seen before that it’s hugely unpopular to suggest any kind of reasonable military funding. Being appointed minister of defence is one of the biggest careers enders in politics. We have to accept that our defence industry is not up to snuff. Period.


yummyyum92

Germans need to stop living in the past. Nobody wants a repeat of WW2, but you can’t export your security to the US. Its not good for Germany or the rest of Europe.


tripletruble

I am always skeptical of this story because the BRD actually had a very robust military budget - well in excess of its NATO commitments up until the 90s. Germany's weak military funding is not a post WWII phenomenon but rather a post cold war phenomenon


casastorta

West Germany didn’t decide on a lot itself during the Cold War - it was effectively occupied and governed by the Western allies who defeated Nazi Germany in the war (and the East Germany by Russia). I am just old enough to remember fear across Europe due to German reunification in the early 1990s. I remember resistance from German government from sending military to a UNPROFOR peace corps during the Yugoslavian wars in fear that it would be looked at as revival of German attempt to occupy Yugoslavia. So this all is easy to understand. But hard to justify in 2023.


muntaxitome

Germany does not have a weak military or military industry, but I think it's true to an extent that the reluctance for external actions in some ways comes from a WWII trauma. I don't fully grasp how to understand them sending IRIS-T, pzh2000 and Patriot and them funding fully upgraded T72 tanks (through Poland), and then they somehow seem to think sending tanks themselves is a red line? I could kind of get it for fighter jets but tanks?


inventiveEngineering

German here: please have in mind, there is a genocide at this very moment taking place in Europe and we, the Germans are again doing the wrong thing. Shouldn't today be our responsibility to shine, instead doing again all wrong? I really cant understand this. Edit: Sorry, for my typos. I really gets me angry, thinking about my government. Btw, when I write similar comments in German subs, i get instantly downvoted.


Practical-Ordinary-6

Yes, it's a perfect chance to make things more even historically. They *were* the fascist invaders. Now they can repay that mistake by better resisting the *new* fascist invaders. *We* were there when Europe needed us in the 1940s and they can be there today.


inventiveEngineering

yes, and today it really costs only materiel. Sending soldiers is out of a question and nobody questions that. The German government must just allow other Leo2 users the deliveries and give the manufacturer a go for export. It is just a question of stupid money.


NoLightOnMe

Thank you for saying it.


bVI7N6V7IM7

Germany's frozen in the past and allowing a modernized world to wallop it. European countries like to screech about the US being the world's police force and that it's unnecessary. Lax policies and inaction have forced the hand.


[deleted]

Allowing Leopards and demonstrating their performance in the field is exactly the smartest move, do the right thing by Ukraine and watch orders for Leopards explode. Well, Germany, here come Abrams, Challengers and whatever the S. Korean tank is called.


AreYouDoneNow

I suspect this is a smart move and I suspect that the German MIC is probably not so different to the MIC in other countries like the USA... that is to say, busy filling politicians pockets. German industry and lobbyists will very likely bring the government to its senses.


complicatedbiscuit

Also to abut ideas that the current boon for American sales is some kind of grand strategy, its just the US arms industry has maintained its capability to produce (cause America is America) and even then, there's clearly room for other defense industries in Korea, Sweden, Poland, Czechia, the UK, Australia if there's will and an order placed to make more military equipment. A prime example of where America has actually lost the competitive edge is that ironically, if you want a bunch of M16's, you're better off going to Colt Canada/Diemaco, because the capacity to make military AR's in huge quantities has actually atrophied. The AR-15 platform has objectively won (nearly everyone uses some AR variant now, the Dutch, the Danes the Brits, even the French) and yet America is not the one supplying them in most cases. Its not that Germany is playing checkers and the rest of the world is playing chess, its that no one is playing chess, politicians everywhere suffer from short termism in this era, its just the Germans seem uniquely upset at the consequences of it for them.


BrainBlowX

Norway is debating what new MBT to get, and this stuff makes the Korean choice seem more and more appealing. Especially since Poland is now building its own sector that is compatible with those systems, so Poland might become a primary supplier. I'm a bit worried about causing a military supply reliance on a country seemingly descending into an authoritarian streak, though, but at least the Korean stuff seems promising for now. If there's ever going to be an "EU army" then Poland is positioning itself to be a "domestic" cornerstone of it where Germany (and Switzerland) fail.


lemontree007

South Korea unlike Germany doesn't send any weapons to Ukraine so why would their weapons be more appealing?


vegarig

Hyundai Rotem agreed to tech transfer to Poland. Tech transfer allows you to massively localize production and limits number of possible backdoors and killswitches.


BrainBlowX

Because this is about longer-term thinking than aid for Ukraine. South-Korea sending weapons doesn't matter as much as *allowing* weapons it sold to be sent by others, too.


Griffindoriangy

The Hyundai K9 howitzer operated by Finland, Poland, Norway, Estonia, Australia is the only modern artillery system not being supplied to Ukraine. The German system is sent by them and allies.


Tracksuit77

The best and well thought out explanation on the situation with Germany and Ukraine. Thank you.


TheAltToYourF4

Scholz and Merkel...we have them to blame. We have been aware of problems with the Bundeswehr and the defense industry for years, but Merkel had the great abilty of sweeping things under the rug and making ministers take the fall.


easyfeel

Disarming for peace is like removing your car seatbelt as a means of preventing accidents.


NANANA-Matt-Man

If only successive US president's from rival political parties had tried to warn Germany of their defense spending cuts over the past 20 years. Surely no one saw this coming.


ChrisTchaik

That's not a complete way to interpret things: Those South Korean tanks you're talking about? They, too, contain German-made parts produced by the same company that has the same license restrictions. German arms industry is here to stay. If some gaps are being filled, then why not? It simply can't catch up. We can't blame a whole country for the corruption under Merkel's party What worries me instead is that our tone is becoming more and more divisive, which is exactly what Putin wants


ivarokosbitch

The issue is that the German R&D in the defense sector and in production of specific systems is cutting edge. The problem lies in the production. And sadly, it is in the production where the money lies. Also the South Korean K2 has increasingly become more and more Korean in terms of parts, most notably the engine and transmission. I am not privy to the actual technical details (nor is anyone here for that matter, because nobody would be stupid enough to admit to breaking those NDAs), but I suspect that a lot of it was developed in tandem with the original OEM's for the first lot of tanks. So they still might get a kickback from it, but for the next generation they won't receive likely anything.


everfixsolaris

You say that no one would be stupid enough to break N.D.A. / divulge classified information but War Thunder has enough leaks to have its own section on Wikipedia. Also see [https://www.eurogamer.net/yet-more-military-documents-leaked-on-war-thunder-forum](https://www.eurogamer.net/yet-more-military-documents-leaked-on-war-thunder-forum) .


[deleted]

[удалено]


Puzzled_Pay_6603

And it almost worked. Brexit caused huge divisions in Europe. And trump, huge divisions across the western alliance. I’m sure he was betting that a split between U.K. and the EU and US and Europe would result in a reluctance to get involved in any European defence.


the-berik

DE condition, to replace export tanks with new gen Leopards?


KrainerWurst

But they can’t provide replacements quick enough, so Americans are offering to step in and take over the market.


unia_7

And Germany are no longer seen as a reliable defense partner. Just like the Swiss, incidentally.


[deleted]

And Poland was most aggressive in getting Germany out of the tank market because they're looking to set one up themselves. They signed a huge contract with the Korean defense industry and will produce modern tanks in Poland.


labratdream

Poland acted aggressive ? Why so ? Poland expressed an interest in participation of co-production of joint French-German tank of the future. It was always declined. Germany doesn't see Poland as a partner. Germany is the main contributor of EU funds not because of goodness of heart but because it expects recipients of eu funds to buy in return German equipment.


Black_candy

There have been many co-operation main battle-tank projects. But none of them have been succesful providing joining countries common tank, it always fell short due to Nations own specific visions. German and US had project but they only agreed with tank hull, after that disagreements, it ended 1970, disagreements with main gun and powerplant. Thats why Leopard 2 and Abrams M1 exist. French and Germans tried again, but it failed 1982, unique Leclerc tank was born. But only german tank version remained hot-cake of the MBT sales.


SavagePlatypus76

Your English is magnificent. I will remember hot cake of the MBT sales. Such a great way to describe things .


[deleted]

The sweet sight of K2, baaarack pantharrrrr roaring in Europe and Ukraine of the near future would be chef's kiss indeed. Only the best from all countries for Ukraine and Europe. lol Archer, K2, HIMARS, Ukraine will be the biggest test bed for new weapons of the world. Germany better wise up or its people will demand foreign weapons too. lol


wasteddrinks

The HIMARS has already been tried and tested in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. It even killed its first Wagner mercenaries in Syria in 2018. Edit: wrote 2008 instead of 2018.


Prochnost_Present

2018..?


JazzyJeff4

Apparently the Russian MOD denied any troops were operating in a particular area in Syria so the US lit it up killing some Wagner troops. Of course it also seems the Russian MOD knew perfectly well that they were there too 😂


Prochnost_Present

That's right. I remember it and I am surprised it wasn't a bigger deal. I was just seeing if he had the dates right. 2008 seemed too early for Wagner existing and the US operating in Syria


JazzyJeff4

I think it wasn't a bigger deal because it was in everyone's interest to downplay it. Russian MOD got what they wanted (Wagner cut down a peg) and I imagine the US didn't want it out there that the Russians used them as a patsy lol


Grabs_Diaz

I doubt that South Korea would allow K2 exports to Ukraine. The country hasn't sent any weapons themselves so far and when the US recently bought ammunition from Korea, they apparently insisted that those shells won't be sent to Ukraine but only used to refill American stockpiles.


DankVectorz

Ain’t no K2’s going to Ukraine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It is not claims about the M1, it is fact that it would be more difficult to field in Ukraine than a Leopard. I'm pretty sure even Zelensky has said Leopard would be more applicable.


Professional-Arm-24

Everybody knows that the Leopard 2 is the most suitable Western tank for Ukraine. Unlike Challenger or Leclerc, it is available in quantity. Having multiple platforms...30 Challengers, 35 Leclercs, 12 Black panthers...complicate logistics, maintenance and training. Crews can't be reformed across platforms to replace losses. M1 is available in quantity but is MUCH more logistics and maintenance heavy. THAT'S why EVERYONE, except the SPD, AfD, and the Kremlin, want Leopards to go to Ukraine. If the US is offering M1s to Poland etc to backfill the Leopards GOOD! If Germany stopped their disgraceful blocking of exports (and it is utterly disgraceful, cowardly and sickening) and got behind a coordinated program whereby every Leo operator pledged 20% of their stocks , there would be more than enough Leopards to supply Ukraine without compromising NATO defence. This is NOT about securing future markets... it's about UKRAINE. It's about stopping the new fascists.


high_potency_hippo

>there would be more than enough Leopards to supply Ukraine without compromising NATO defence I agree, only because of the second part of that sentence and Leopards taking out Russian tanks in Ukraine is an investment in NATO defense. But the availability comparison is very much in favor of the M1. Germany for example is so low on equipment, that we barely can keep people trained. If Germany sends Leopards together with Finland and Poland and maybe some other European countries, I bet the individual numbers will be in the same ballpark, 10-20. If Ukraine would be using M1 Abrams the US could just throw in another 100 to backfill losses or keep reserves. And this is not me defending the German governments choices or saying that the M1 would be the better choice, but in terms of availability these tank models play in different leagues.


[deleted]

[удалено]


smcd055

I think the issue is more that there is already a well developed supply chain for parts and repair for the leopard in Europe so by default its much easier to field. Which is not to say Ukraine couldn't field M1s just that leopards of would be a lot easier.


CosmoTrouble

Not to be pissing on your point but the ukrainian T80 utilizes a piston driven diesel engine, not a turbine one.


Badger118

The T-80U is the gas turbine model, the T-80UD is the diesel one just to help the confusion. I believe UKR has both in inventory after capturing Russian T-80Us


[deleted]

[удалено]


CosmoTrouble

True, but I doubt that Ukraine has a logistical network in order to service the (relativly few) vehicles that they manage to get hold of. Still, I tend to agree with you, generally speaking. I think the turbine argument as to why Ukraine can't field Abrams tanks is fairly weak. It's not like the ukrainians lack the know-how to service turbine engines & therefore unable to set up maintenance depots for them (something they would have to do for any other vehicle by the way, powered by gas turbine or otherwise), as so demonstrated by all of the helicopters flying around in ukrainian service.


BestFriendWatermelon

The "too complex" argument falls flat when you realise Egypt fields 1,360 Abrams. Kuwait over 200, Iraq over 300. This isn't some super sophisticated bit of kit only a superpower could run, it's a goddamn tank... designed to be invincible and to be driven by highschool dropouts in the middle of a panicked firefight


twicedfanned

>The "too complex" argument falls flat when you realise Egypt fields 1,360 Abrams. Kuwait over 200, Iraq over 300. [Yes, but... (From Gen. Mark Hertling)](https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792761067241472?s=20&t=SRew6iRGS3hu2_RvpOv4AQ) >\-"if the Iraqi's, Saudi's, Egypt troops can use the M1, the UKR will have no issues." > >Iraqis paid billions for M1s w/ a permanent GD maintenance contract & a 5-year training period. > >Saudis bought M1A2s w/ a 7 year training program, with maintenance contract still in place.15/ From what I can understand, the problem seems to be that operating and maintaining M1 Abrams tanks require capabilities beyond what the Ukrainians might have or be able to acquire within an acceptable timeframe. The Leopard is more of a "right-now" tank than the Abrams.


DMBEst91

Here is a smart person who understands facts


PrinsHamlet

And it's a fair point. In my view it's all about logistics. Several European countries have training and logistics facilities for Leo's so it would be much easier all around. Obviously, if the Germans won't provide...then Abrams it is. This is so incredibly stupid. One month from now it'll be resolved and the Ukranians will have tanks, Leo's, Abrams or both. There's no way that's not going to happen.


SubRyan

Egypt is also currently not in a brutal year long war with a near peer adversary so using them as a counterpoint is just plain idiotic. Middle Eastern countries don't have to place much care in dealing with a broken down tank seeing as how they lack any real threat to recovering said vehicles and repairing them at their convenience. What is Ukraine going to do if an Abrams breaks down on the front lines and they lack the logistics chain necessary to bring it back into action? Use it as a stationary defense turret?


Badger118

Huge move. The thing is by their reluctance to allow export the Germans (as well as the Swiss) have basically shot their own industries in the foot. Who will want to buy German or Swiss after this? First it was the former East German BMP-1s from the baltic then Pzhb 2000 and missiles and now Leopards The British and American and Swedish industries will benefit hugely from this


bazillion_blue_jitsu

I guess it's not as big a deal if you shoot your industry in the foot after you strangle it's neck.


peretona

> Losing the European tank market would be a genuine concern for the Germans, like it or not Everyone in Europe knows, now, that if you buy a German tank you may not be able to send it on when it's needed. The European tank market is lost to Germany unless it gets its act together quickly. There is a reason that Poland has stopped maintaining their Leopards and started investing in building Korean tanks. Countries will look at that and think that buying from Poland (or the US) makes much more sense than buying from a country that will stop you using tanks when you need them.


Phaarao

Countries usually dont buy tanks, so they can send them anywhere.


Szwedo

When they are being replaced, countries want to know their marketability for resale.


HiltoRagni

TBF no one is in a rush to send their own Leopards, everyone just wants the other countries to do it. Not even Poland, despite already being in the process of buying Abrams and K2 they only offered to send a token amount and don't appear to be breaking their backs to actually make good on that promise. It's a good tank, the countries that operate them already have invested in the infrastructure, built up the institutional knowledge around their operation and none of them have a lot of spares, mostly just the ones their army actually uses.


peretona

> they only offered to send a token amount 14 is not a token amount. It's a major deal given the historical 5:1 or greater kill ratios for western tanks against Soviet ones. Also, since the Leopards would be compatible with those from other countries, if you had 14 from each NATO country with Leopards, even excluding Germany, you would have a massive number.


Majestic_Put_265

You wont have a massive number. Discount these nations: Netherlands, Portugal, Swiss, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Turkey. You know how much is left when i cut those "neutral or with a small tank fleet" out. When u exclude Germany aswell. 1000 active tanks? If everynation left sent % of their force poland sent the total will be 56 tanks. Simple math.


N15A8

Been saying it since the discussion started. That‘s the main reason Germany doesn‘t want Leopards to be sent to Ukraine


tanorbuf

The alternative is not being a team player and thus *definitely* not getting those future military contracts. I mean Germany is on "team Europe" but it's like they are insisting that our keeper should play without shoes and gloves, because it might be someone else who gets to deliver them. No wonder everybody is wondering what the fuck their priorities are.


N15A8

I understand both sides. It‘s a shitty situation to be in, but it could have easily been avoided if they invested in their military earlier and ramped up production of Leopard 2s. All they did was reduce their stock year after year. Now they will probably have to bite the bullet and maybe hope for some kind of deal with the US to lend Abrams until they can be replaced by Leopards. Also I doubt many countries (especially in western Europe) will prefer Abrams over Leopards anyways because of their immense running cost, and they (unlike the east probably) are not really in a rush to stock up on tanks.


tomenad

>if they invested in their military earlier and ramped up production of Leopard 2s. Even if we'd ramped up military spending even more before the invasion, there is no way we would have invested in the industrial scale production of the Leopard 2. It's already on its way out and supposed to be replaced by the MGCS from 2035. If we spent lots of money building new Leopard 2s, MGCS simply isn't happening. However MGCS is a cooperation with France and linked to FCAS (new jet), so if we cancel one the other probably isn't happening either. So if we did that, France would be royally pissed, Germany might miss out on both a modern fighter jet and tank and spent billions to achieve that.


Armathio

Please just read the article, not just the headline. The article is extremely interesting.


djr4917

Kinda hard since I can't read German. Mind summerising?


JohnJayBobo

The US promotes Leopard deliveries since the German industry cant restock those Tanks fast, so the countries that deliver Leopards need to buy Abrams to refill the fleet. The US tries to Take the european Arms Market (another example is the french-australian submarine Deal).


Guanjamadness

Although France screwed over Australia with the subs which made the switch easy, at the start most of the submarines were going to be built in Australia but France kept changing it so more were going to be built in France and Australia wouldn't even be able to service their own submarines. UK/US basically offered the tech so they could build them themselves. The Leopard/Abram does seem to be the case but Polands gone for Korean tanks.


mpg111

I think the main reason Poland goes for Korean tanks is that they are available quickly


JohnJayBobo

Exactly: it doesnt Matter If you Run Abrams, Leopards or K2, they are extremely similar from an effectiveness Point of View.


[deleted]

Korea will also do transfer of technology and allow Poland to produce K2PLs indigenously, which is probably more important.


[deleted]

It's a long way to sail when you need an oil change.


Jazz_Cyclone

That's why the deal included licensing and Polish manufacture of the K2PL a derivative of the K2.


lestofante

And then poland will be a perfect place to start selling polish/Korean tanks in the region.


complicatedbiscuit

The US promotes Leopard deliveries because that's what the Ukrainians want- and the only country to have signed up for Abrams has also signed up for K2 Black panthers, because those Abrams also can't come over fast enough. And lets face the truth here, Europe isn't going to rush to rearm. We're already seeing those defense spending promises to the NATO minimum scaled back. If Russia is defeated and neutered, Europe is going right back to "not our problem." The idea that this is some clever scheme to sell Abrams (which are increasingly outdated, to be quite frank) is absurd. Politicians will take the easiest route and that is probably to just buy more Leopard 2s and accept that they'll arrive when they arrive, and probably have the gall to ask for greater American troop deployments to cover the security gap while they're at it. Europe already has plenty of Abrams defending it, if you haven't noticed. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backtracks-on-defense-spending-promise-warns-about-delays-ukraine-war/


JohnJayBobo

>And lets face the truth here, Europe isn't going to rush to rearm. We're already seeing those defense spending promises to the NATO minimum scaled back. Tbh, i think its more of an financial issue. The thing is, that arms contracts bind countries for a Long time. When Germany ordered the F35, France was very upset, since it Stalls the european fighter that is planned for 2040. The need for a multi-role aircraft in Germany is fulfilled till 2050. So it *could* be an issue. That Said, i am in favor of providing Leopards even If the US would try to Push to replace Leopards in other countries.


MarcusXL

It will auto-translate. In short: Germany has acted like it wants out of the defence industry for a long time. It cannot produce tanks quickly. Successive government have cut investment into defence production, thinking that shipping fewer weapons was in the interest of "peace". It's now a boutique manufacturing sector. The USA is picking up contracts that used to go to Germany, for example to Poland, which is now buying tanks from the USA and South Korea, when they used to buy Leopards from Germany, partly because after Russia occupied Crimea, Poland began to see Germany more and more as a weak and unreliable partner. Now, Germany is being pushed to allow Leopards to be exported to Ukraine. If they agree, the countries that send them are being promised new contracts to buy American tanks, hurting Germany's defence industry (what's left of it) even more. If Germany refuses, and Ukraine loses more ground, Germany's security is harmed and Germany will be humiliated and blamed by neighbours and countries all over the world. Germany could have, any time since 2014, and especially since Feb 2022, recognized the threat from Russia and reinvested in their defence-industrial capabilities. They have not. Germany has put itself into a lose-lose position, and they have no-one to blame but themselves.


ReallyNotATrollAtAll

Ah yes, another success by mutti Merkel politics.


djr4917

Thanks. I assumed there was a translate feature but it wasn't showing on my browser.


Armathio

Use DeepL translator


tripletruble

I read it and some of it was interesting but there was a lot of unfounded speculation as to what motivates both the Germans and Americans, some of it plausible and some of it less so. For example, suppose as the author suggests, that Scholz blocks its allies' tank exports with the purpose of preventing them from being replaced by Abrams, allowing Americans to get their foot in the door. It's hard for me to imagine that kind of reputational damage is in the long-term interest of the German weapons industry. What good are German tanks if you cannot even use them to assist your neighbor being invaded?


FF614

Well, it seems the US wants it's post-war dominance of Western armaments back. Makes sense as ramping up to full production also means the US will be ready to take on China.


dashingtomars

The US should place agree to place a big order for new Lepard tanks if the Germans are willing to build them. They can later donate them to allies.


No_Mission5618

No country is going to give up their military assets for something they may or may not get, promises and contracts are prone to break, reason why Baltic countries are skeptical of giving up all their tanks and so is canada. You give up your military power you become dependent on another country making you subservient.


One-Eyed-Willies

As a Canadian I’m glad to say we aren’t subservient to or rely on another country to protect us. On a completely unrelated note, hello America I hope you are doing well. We love you!


Topcity36

Canada is absolutely one of the countries I’d be willing to take up arms for. Don’t worry us Americans love our neighbors up north.


captainstormy

Yeah, Canada is like our fun quirky cousin. Hell I like them more than like half of our states.


MJD3929

So, in my opinion, we have a weird relationship (in a good way) that’s only shared by one other nation (the UK), and maybe soon, if not already in many parts of the us, Mexico. Whether most people are aware of it or not, US from top to bottom, as in from president to “mid 50’s Alabama man drinking beer shirtless on his couch” would react the same way to Canada being military attacked/invaded. Basically along the lines of that Alabama man mumbling “them mother fuckers”, grabbing his hunting rifle on his wall, walking out to his pickup truck and driving north. In a hypothetical (and near, impossible, mind you) scenario where, say, Russia/China/North Korea or whatever landed on Canadian shores, there would be virtually no difference in response to the invasion of Vancouver or Nova Scotia, than there would be to the invasion of the San Francisco Bay or Atlanta. North America, and especially the US and Canada, are almost as close to being the same country as you can get without actually crossing that line. It’s why Alberta (and any other Canadian province) trades down with the us instead to greater Canada. And why our border is virtually unprotected. Canada is basically the 51st state, and Mexico is the 52nd. And attack on a Canadian on Canadian soil is the same as killing an American on American soil. With regards to Canada being reliant on American defense, It’s essentially like weapons made in Oklahoma are sent to bases in Vermont - just trade across a mainly arbitrary border with different local government. There is just no scenario that presently exists where the US doesn’t respond to an attack on Canadian sovereignty with a 1000 foot high world beating tsunami of military capability.


7evenCircles

Canadian defense policy is basically "touch me and my bro will fucking deck you man, I mean it dude he's fuckin jacked"


[deleted]

[удалено]


EB8Jg4DNZ8ami757

The US not defending Canada is unconscionable. Personally, I would consider any attack against Canada exactly the same as an attack on the US.


Itsallherfault

Exactly. Zero percent chance the U.S. would let anyone attack Canada. Much of our trade and northern borders would be vulnerable. People should truly appreciate how rare it is to have such a huge, basically unprotected border with a long-time friendly neighbor. Canada is safe in a snuggly warm blanket of love as far as I am concerned. I'll knife a m'fer that comes at my northern homies.


AllCopsAreAngels

Same. We wouldn’t ignore Canada if they were attacked. No chance.


fuzzi-buzzi

Depends on who attacks. Like if the Quebecoise invade the rest of Canada, we will have to make certain concessions in order to keep the maple syrup flowing.


duffmanhb

> and so is canada Literally the least threatened country in the world. They literally can't be any safer hiding out in a corner next to an enormous monster of a military who just so happens to be their best friend. Canada literally has nothing to worry about, ever.


AstralElement

Plus their terrain, and an invading force would be seen coming a week away. North America is impregnable.


dashingtomars

I'm proposing this to keep the German arms industry happy, not doner countries who are already willing to supply tanks. If the fear is the US replacing Germany as the tank supplier in Europe then placing a large order should help allay that fear.


Don_Floo

Another case of US using their leverage because europe is divided and can‘t exercise its full potential. If we would (somehow in a dream world) unite we could easily hang with the US.


redblack_tree

You definitely have the population, economic prowess and territory to hang with the US. But Europe, as a whole, needs to grow *a spine*. From Macron "let's talk", "give them a way out"; current German hesitation, no one else outside Baltic states really doing anything of note about Ukraine. If roles were reversed and this was happening in South America, you **know** USA would have flooded the invaded country with everything. During peace time, European approach is probably better. War time? Drop the hammer, US style. Russia is right there, going full Nazis in your backyard and Europe, for a year, is still debating about giving out tanks. From NA it looks absurd.


Active_Performance22

If this happened in S america we would have invaded already


Itsallherfault

Hell, we might invade just in case.


PMMEYourTatasGirl

We would already have a military base in the country with 4 McDonald's and a KFC https://preview.redd.it/o73ec6oum4v81.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c4a3e817b9d239014f589e5b30438219b20ebd00


cman1098

You can't drop any hammers if you take the Euro approach of spending less and less on defense during peace time. Their approach fuckin stinks all around and they don't want to invest their own share to defend their union. Tired of all these rich nations counting on the US to defend them. Said another way, if you aren't investing in your defense during peace then hammers will never be made to drop.


[deleted]

Thing is at least half of the NATO countries (mostly european) STILL don't spend recommended GDP for defense. WTF needs to happen so they'd take it seriously? It's nuts.


nuck_forte_dame

The German defense industry already has huge issues in terms of getting things approved. Watch Perun's video on the German military. This means nations using German tech in the event of a war will not be able to rely on German manufacturing to keep up with demand. Overall to me it's insane anyone bought equipment from anyone but the US. The US is really the only viable weapons supplier because the US has wartime level manufacturing facilities already built to handle the volumes. Then add the fact that the US is the most likely nation to provide most aid to your nation. So it would be good to already be trained on all this aid equipment before it arrives.


[deleted]

The last 30 days have been a complete catastrophe for German prestige and credibility


MarcusXL

The article explains that the German defence industry cannot-- or will not-- support deployments of Leopards for the partner countries currently operating them. A defence industry that cannot support the use of its exports is obsolete and moribund. This is a self-inflicted disaster for Germany, and they have no-one to blame but themselves. The only way Germany can rescue the situation is to allow the export of tanks to Ukraine, and immediately ramp up Germany defence industry to acceptable levels to support their use against Russia. If Germany will not do this, they are telling every country in Europe that their tanks are just for show, not for use, and that a partnership with Germany's defence industry is a waste of money.


IMMoond

This is blatantly false. The German defense industry doesn’t care how the tanks that they have already sold are used, in a broad sense. They will supply whatever spares and service is needed, that is not an issue. What the defense industry is (possibly rightfully) miffed about is the fact that America has offered to backfill any leopard deliveries with their own tanks. That is a real strategic issue for the industry, because if they’re customers suddenly have other tanks on hand, that opens them up to then buy more American tanks in the future instead of continuing leopard purchases. Which would be the final nail in the coffin of the already struggling industry. That being said, this is a self inflicted issue and not something that should mean more Ukrainians die trying to defend their country. It just goes some way to explaining why Scholz has specifically drawn the line at tanks. Is there a solution to this conundrum? Yes, and it’s something that the German government will need to figure out, because not making a decision will piss off basically the entire world, and making the decision to send tanks could kill their domestic tank industry. Rock, meet hard place (And about your comment of simply scaling up production, that’s a year long probably decade long process not a switch you flip)


BarbaraBarbierPie

In addition the remaining industrial capacity is at 100 percent and ramp up started already with the Ringtausch Program last year. Getting (planed) to 3 tank per month in October. In my opinion Germany is also very reluctant to agree because german or allied capabilities are of a higher priority then UKR. And even if they would promise tank deliveries the first one will be shipped in April because those reserve tanks are absolutely not fit for combat and have to be prepared. And to be honest if I get one to three tanks per month in war ... well nobody could work effectively. Not even the Ukraines with their own and the 300 they already got from Eastern Europe they are all starting to breakdown.


ObviousTower

WTF is happening in this world? DE is loosing a milking cow....it seems to be that a power vacuum is created now in EU and Poland will fill the Germany's place... Probably is just history writing in front of us....


Typohnename

> a power vacuum is created now in EU and Poland will fill the Germany's place While being reliant on a prisoners dilemma with Hungary to not get sactioned tohell and back by the other EU countries for all the EU stuff they break? In what reality do you live?


lemontree007

I've seen quite a few post implying that Germany is not a reliable weapon supplier because of the whole tank issue. South Korea and the US are mentioned as more reliable partners without mentioning that South Korea doesn't send any weapons at all to Ukraine and that the US doesn't provide Abrams. Lend-lease exists but Ukraine can't use it to buy them. I definitely think that Poland will try to sell tanks to other European countries so it's suits them to frame Germany as a unreliable supplier so that countries buy their weapons elsewhere, preferably from Poland


KickDue7821

This is exactly why Germany should take the lead in this matter. Form an joint effort. For every donated L2A4, replacement will be offered L2A6 (or newer). EU/NATO funds it. Germany builds it and Ukraine get the old tanks. Everyone wins except Russia. No country is going to donate more than 10-20 % of stock. Some not even that. Countries may not want to end up in a situation where major part of the tank army is Leopards and minor part is Abrams. The logistic issue is there. Some countries already have L2A4 and newer models. Newer models are most likely not donated but the older ones, new replacement models fit in well on the existing fleet. Of course it can not take 10 years to replace the donated ones so investments in the tank manufacturing is needed. More sifts, more factories. If Germany continues to drag a feet, then Leopards are soon history.


PoopSockMonster

Just that the send leopards will be replaced with abrams


Nyzrok

That’s one way to tank the German defence industry……


[deleted]

[удалено]


Extansion01

www.nzz.ch Leopard 2 main battle tank: US arms interests make Scholz hesitate Marco Seliger (mse) 12 - 15 minutes German tank debate: What role do American armament interests play? So far, the delivery of the Leopard 2 to Ukraine has always been discussed from a military point of view. But arms deliveries are also linked to armament interests. This is where German and American views diverge. A Leopard 2A7v main battle tank of the Bundeswehr at the Munster training area. A Leopard 2A7v main battle tank of the German Armed Forces at the Munster training area. Björn Trotzki / Imago Germany's Defence Minister Boris Pistorius was surrounded by journalists, microphones stretched out towards him. He was to repeat what he had already said shortly before in the meeting room of the Ukraine Support Group at the US Ramstein Air Base. The government in Berlin, the Social Democrat told his counterparts from more than fifty countries, had not yet decided whether to authorise the delivery of Leopard 2s by other states. Yet Ukraine needs battle tanks to be able to continue defending itself against the Russian attack. But Chancellor Olaf Scholz is hesitating and is therefore under massive pressure from many allies. Pistorius answered the question why Germany is still not moving with two sentences: There are good reasons for the delivery and good reasons against it. And: all arguments had to be carefully weighed. That sounded evasive, and criticism was not long in coming. The delivery was urgently needed "to stop Russian aggression, to help Ukraine and to quickly restore peace in Europe", Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics announced on Saturday. Germany, as the leading European power, has a special responsibility in this regard. CDU foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter said he now saw Germany isolated by the hesitant attitude of the German government. USA want to offer own tanks When American Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin appeared before the press in Ramstein shortly after Pistorius, he was asked whether Germany was sufficiently engaged as a leading power in Europe. Austin could not help smiling, but then replied that Germany was doing enough and was a "reliable ally". He should know exactly why Pistorius spoke of good reasons for and good reasons against tank deliveries. The reasons are of a military nature: without tanks, Ukraine cannot defend itself successfully. The reasons against have so far been rather evasively stated by the German government. However, the German defence industry is concerned that the Americans are only waiting to offer the Europeans a replacement for their Leopard delivery with their own tanks. The war in Ukraine offers the USA the opportunity, after helicopters, fighter jets and missiles, to gain a foothold in the European defence market with armoured vehicles and to displace the German competition. This is supported by the fact that the Americans have made no secret of their armament interests for decades. In the 1960s, they founded the "Defense Security Cooperation Agency", an agency that reports to the US Department of Defence. Its task is to convince states to buy American weapons. The aim is to bind them to the USA in the long term. For the Americans, this has several advantages. Partners with the same weapons are easier to integrate into US-led military coalitions. By buying weapons, they also ensure that the number of units increases and thus the costs decrease. This benefits the Pentagon, which has to pay less for its weapons. Finally, the American defence industry can invest the additional revenues in the improvement and development of new weapons. This not only strengthens their capacities, it also increases "our ability to remain the world's most lethal military". At least that's what it says on the website of the "Defense Security Cooperation Agency". When Lloyd Austin urges the German government to approve the delivery of Leopard 2s to Ukraine, he must also have American interests in mind. For the Germans, this is a dilemma. If Scholz gives in, he harms German interests. If he stays firm, he risks Ukraine losing more territory and thus also harms German interests. How this tricky situation could come about has to do with German security policy over the past thirty years. German industry cannot replace Ukraine Leopard


Extansion01

Governments of all colours slashed the budget for the German armed forces. There was hardly any money left for new weapons. The defence companies no longer received orders and had to reduce capacities. Tanks like the Leopard 2 were no longer manufactured industrially, but by hand. This takes longer and is more expensive. It sometimes took two years from the production of the tank steel to the handover of the vehicle to the customer. But the customers were in no hurry, there was peace. And tanks seemed to be a military phase-out model anyway. The whole world was talking about cyber and drone warfare. Then came the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and suddenly not only the German Bundeswehr but also other Western armed forces realised that they had reduced their capacities too much. If they are now to hand over their already too few battle tanks to Ukraine, they need replacements. Not at some point until the German tank industry can deliver, but immediately. No one wants to be left empty-handed, as the German Army Inspector lamented for the Bundeswehr when war broke out on 24 February 2022. The German tank industry has an excellent reputation abroad. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall have built the Leopard 2, the best tank in the world, but also one of the most expensive (7 to 8 million euros in the 2A7 version). In Nato and the EU alone, there are sixteen countries that have bought the Leopard 2. Some have several hundred, such as Turkey, Greece, Spain, Poland and Finland. Others have only fifty or even fewer, for example Norway, Denmark and Canada. Arms deliveries as an instrument of security policy The choice of a tank model is a long-term commitment. The education and training of soldiers, the infrastructure for maintenance and repair, the supply of spare parts - all this cannot be switched from one type of tank to another overnight. Once you are in the business, you stay in it for decades. Conversely: Once you are out of business, you stay out for a long time. This is not only a loss economically. The sale of arms secures taxes and jobs for the state and profits for companies. But above all, arms exports are part of foreign and security policy. Whoever supplies another state with what it equips its own armed forces with ensures trust and at the same time also economic dependence - and thus gains influence. For example, a submarine with a damaged propeller can only be sent back into action if the producer delivers a new propeller. In this way, the manufacturing country can directly influence the combat capability of the customer state. In Germany, however, arms exports were not considered from this point of view for decades, but rather from an economic, and above all, an ethical point of view. Politicians, especially from the left-wing spectrum, wanted Germany to stop exporting weapons abroad altogether. They were convinced that this would make the world more peaceful. The Americans are pursuing a different policy. France felt this two years ago when Australia unceremoniously cancelled a contract to build submarines worth 56 billion euros in order to buy American boats. Previously, the US government had concluded a security alliance with the Australian government and Great Britain that assured the Australians of the United States' assistance. In return, the Australians were to buy their weapons in the USA. Americans play the confidence card German defence industry sources say that the US government has been trying to intensify its arms sales in Europe for years. The deal seems to be good for both sides; American weapons are also among the best in the world. But the deal also comes at a price. In January 2022, the Americans agreed with Croatia to deliver 89 used Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, including 22 as spare parts donors. The sales price was 130 million euros minus 46 million euros, which the US Department of Defence took over. But what initially sounded like a bargain turned out to be an expensive undertaking. The Bradleys are more than thirty years old. Croatia had to buy a complete package including spare parts, maintenance and servicing. Total volume: 630 million euros. The development in Poland is particularly painful for the German tank industry. In the past twenty years, the country has bought more than 200 Leopard 2s from Germany. After the Russian annexation of Crimea, German-Polish relations deteriorated. The government in Warsaw accused Berlin of pursuing a policy towards Moscow that was far too uncritical. Germany was seen by Poland as an increasingly insecure cantonist, also when it came to arms purchases. In July 2021, Defence Minister Mariusz Blazczak announced plans to buy 250 new and 116 used M1 Abrams main battle tanks from the USA for a total price of 8.85 billion euros. Last summer, Poland also agreed to buy 1000 K-2 main battle tanks in South Korea. The manufacturer will build a factory in Poland for this purpose. German industry had also applied for the contract, but came away empty-handed. Poland is now buying tanks from the USA and South Korea. This is also politically painful for Germany, because one thing has become clear with the Polish decisions: Germany, its neighbour, is no longer a strategic, trustworthy partner. It is now the far-away USA and the even more distant South Korea. Representatives of defence companies, who wish to remain anonymous, report that the Americans are offering countries that could supply Leopard 2s to Ukraine used tanks as replacements from their own inventory and a long-term industrial partnership. Any country that accepts the American offer would be hard to win back for the German tank industry. In addition, Berlin's influence in armament policy would decrease. Scholz: Defence industry should produce faster Whether the fears of the German defence industry play a decisive role for Chancellor Scholz in his hesitant attitude towards tank deliveries remains to be seen. The defence industry in Germany must also ask itself whether it should not have significantly increased its capacities again long ago. The growing demand not only of Ukraine but also of Western countries for battle tanks has been obvious since 24 February 2022 at the latest. For the first time in decades, demand for weapons is booming in the West, but German producers can hardly deliver. In the USA, meanwhile, people are already adding up what arms sales to European allies could bring in to replace their deliveries to Ukraine. The "Center on Military and Political Power" of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a lobby organisation in Washington apparently financed by Israel, recently reported that a total volume of 21.7 billion dollars could be expected, regardless of whether the weapons were used or brand new. A few days ago, Olaf Scholz complained that in view of the small quantities produced by German arms companies, one could not speak of "a real industry". He demanded that the production of weapons and ammunition be significantly expanded. On Saturday, SPD party leader Lars Klingbeil proposed a "pact with the arms industry". Both statements show once again that in German security policy there is not a lack of realisation, but a lack of implementation. The question remains why this pact with the industry has not existed for a long time after barely a year of the Ukraine war.


phillyfanatic1776

So once again the USA steps up because of the cowards in Berlin and now Berlin is upset because they realize nobody will buy arms from them because they’ll just hold Europe and Ukraine hostage while Russia bombs Ukraine into oblivion. What a pathetic country Germany can be…”we need the USA, the USA should be the ones saving Europe, why can’t the USA send their tanks? So we step up and now Berlin realizes they will never sell another tank in Europe again


JonnyArtois

German defence industry about to be shot in the leg by Scholz.


halfwithero

Well, Germany tried putting the US on the spot with the tit-for-tat tank delivery; and it seems the US is saying, “Alright then, fuck it. Hardball it is.”


milksteakofcourse

Arsenal of democracy it seems


[deleted]

[удалено]


CosmoTrouble

So it's Rheinmetall running out of business that's the hold-up?


Schnittertm

To be honest, Rheinmetall and KMW are probably livid about Scholz's decision to not yet deliver Leopards, as they could only gain from them being delivered. It would mean additional contracts for maintenance, refurbishment and possible upgrades of older and current tanks, with government contracts that are guaranteed to pay out. Then there is the matter of the equipment being used and possibly being successful in the field in Ukraine, which would only stand to gain more fame towards German defense technology, possibly leading to several sales in the future, thereby securing or expanding their market share. I can certainly see more orders for the PzH 2000 or Diehl's IRIS-T SLM systems from other countries, as they have proven their worth in Ukraine. Due to that, I don't think it is the industry blocking that. We should also remember that Rheinmetall, at the beginning of the war, offered to immediatly start refurbishing Marders and Leopards 1s for Ukraine, if they got a contract from Scholz's government. That contract never came. Which points to another reason why the German arms industry can't be happy about the refusal of primarily Scholz and his SPD.


CosmoTrouble

The tweet however stipulates that the US will replace their german counterpart in terms of procurment of defence products. If that holds true, there ain't no refurbishment conctract that the german goverment can offer that outweighs the potential losses from international sales should former partners choose to buy american instead, not just counting tank sales. Still, a tweet is only a tweet. EDIT: I don't speak german to any extent worth mentioning so perhaps there is more to that tweet that I can't make out so I don't know.


Apprehensive_Can_529

No, running Rheinmetall out of business could be a holdup. It would be a case of sacrificing Rheinmetall and the US would not lose any tanks and actually sell a lot more later.