Analyzing the Durability and Challenges of Western Tanks in Ukraine

Russians often highlight the destruction of Western-origin vehicles as a significant propaganda victory. Kremlin media make it a point to document these incidents. It leads to questions about how much of these losses are due to Ukrainian tactics, and how much can be attributed to potential weaknesses in Western military equipment.

During last year's counteroffensive, extensive coverage was given by Russian sources to photographs and videos of damaged or destroyed Western tanks, confirming the total loss of approximately 10 Leopard tanks. In total, damage or loss has affected more than 20 German-made tanks.

The majority suffered damage from mines. With necessary repairs to tracks and undercarriage components, these tanks were redeployed to the front. Still, the overall equipment loss rate does not exceed 19 percent—a figure considered acceptable given the challenging conditions faced by Ukrainian forces.

These conditions are markedly different from those encountered by NATO forces in previous engagements. Polish generals have assessed, based on staff exercises, that equipment loss rates could climb above 30 percent when attacking fortified positions.

Sometimes, Ukrainian strategy led to sizable equipment losses. Specifically, tanks were sent into combat without support from armored vehicles or infantry. Despite these challenges, the robustness of Western equipment helped keep personal losses to a minimum.

The design philosophy behind Western military vehicles primarily focuses on maximizing crew safety. As a result, Western vehicles tend to be larger and heavier than their USSR or Russian counterparts. This design approach significantly enhances the chances of crew survival, even after direct hits.

Recently, Russian sources have shifted their focus from Leopards to boasting about targeting Abrams tanks. Yet, they have not succeeded in causing irreversible damage to any M1 Abrams, much of which can be attributed to the vehicles' design.

A critical design feature contributing to crew survival in Western tanks is the location of the ammunition magazine. It is housed in a protected compartment at the rear of the turret, isolated by a blast-proof barrier, which greatly reduces the risk to the crew. In contrast, USSR-era tanks feature ammunition storage in carousel containers beneath the turret, compromising protection against anti-tank fire and increasing the risk of catastrophic explosions.

This vulnerability was starkly revealed in side-hit scenarios, where Russian tanks often suffered turret dislodgment following a single anti-tank missile strike. Western tanks, benefiting from superior armor and structural design, offer significantly better protection for the crew.

A recent incident involved a Ukrainian M1A1SA Abrams tank surviving two hits from a Kornet missile. The crew was able to continue operations after the first strike and only evacuated after the second hit, which indicated the vehicle could still be salvaged and repaired.

Training remains a persistent challenge for Ukrainian forces. An adage highlights the importance of crew training to a tank's effectiveness. Videos and reports suggest that Ukrainian crews sometimes engage from exposed positions without repositioning, making their vehicles vulnerable.

Such was the case with the 47th Independent Mechanized Brigade near Berdyansk, where tanks operated without the necessary support and protection. This issue stems from ingrained habits among reserve officers drafted over the past two years.

Although they have received training in countries like Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany, many still rely on outdated tactics from 15 years ago. This observation is not just made by Western trainers but also by younger Ukrainian soldiers. Hence, avoidable losses continue to mar Ukrainian operations, underscoring the importance of solid Western-made equipment.