Aging Leopard Tanks 'Not Prepared' for Combat in Ukraine Hurt Rheinmetall's Reputation
© Photo : Screenshot / Russian Defense Ministry video
Subscribe
Longread
A former US Army commander told Sputnik that the lackluster performance of the Leopard tanks in Ukraine was hurting maker Rheinmetall, as the Western media has built the aging weapons up as the latest "wunderwaffe" or "wonder weapon" that would turn the tide against Russia.
According to US media reports based on Ukrainian data, Ukraine has received 71 of the Leopard 2 main battle tanks promised to it, five of which have been destroyed outright and at least another 10 have suffered sufficient damage to send them back to repair stations in Poland and Germany.
Kiev has been promised 104 Leopard 2s in various configurations, the majority of which are the older A4 design with inferior turret gun and turret armor to the newer models. Another 178 Leopard 1 tanks, the predecessor to the Leopard 2, have also been promised, but a smaller number have been delivered, with 96 remaining in storage in Switzerland after Bern refused to allow the defense contractor RUAG to transfer them to Ukraine.
It’s unclear how many Leopard 2s have taken part in the counteroffensive operation that began in June, but according to Earl Rasmussen, an international consultant and retired US Army lieutenant colonel, they have “absolutely not” been the game-changers they were imagined to be.
22 August 2023, 18:10 GMT
“I don't think most of the NATO systems - the whole strategy was not prepared for the type of war or type of conflict that we're actually seeing,” he told Sputnik on Tuesday.
“The heavy artillery usage, we've got heavy tank battles that occur as well, and the ground conditions - the conflict is not against Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, even Syria,” Rasmussen noted.
“The land conditions are completely different as well. So the military capabilities of Russia, and the ground conditions, and the escalatory dominance that Russia has, does not put the Western forces, and their equipment being supplied to an army that's really not fully trained to use it and kind of piecemealed together in there - it does not provide a good storyline. There's no way any individual thing is providing a ‘game changer,’” he noted.
Rasmussen noted that in the various Middle Eastern conflicts where they’ve been used, Leopard 2 tanks have never faced this kind of combat. Having been introduced in the late 1970s, “warfare has changed” in the decades since the tank was designed.
"The Leopard 2 came into service initially back in the early 1980s, the Leopard 1s even before that. And the Leopard 2 has been upgraded over time as well, and that's the most sophisticated that Germany has. But warfare has changed, the ammunition has changed, they probably need some major upgrading in design. Based on some of the capabilities that Russia has that are out there, and China has that capability too, I don't know how you can look at them as being game changers."
He noted that when it comes to combat in Ukraine, "they haven't been coming out the greatest. I think the armor is probably not sufficient and the guns have not been operating sufficiently as well. And the number of rounds that are being fired is ridiculous out there. So it puts a lot of stress on the weapons system itself, not just the Leopard, but probably also the artillery capability, too, because the [Panzerhaubitze 2000] is the Rheinmetall's self-propelled artillery, it would not surprise me if they are deployed there as well."
Rasmussen said a few vulnerabilities had revealed themselves during the counteroffensive, such as the protective armor and their maneuverability, but that it was likely the tanks had not been tactically deployed correctly.
However, he noted that Rheinmetall, one of the tank’s primary makers, has suffered reputationally, too, due to the Leopards not living up to the hype generated by the media.
"It's not helping the greatest for them. I don't know what their stock prices have been doing or sales. They’re a major supplier - not just for the Leopard tank, which is actually manufactured by Krauss-Maffei - but they're a major supplier to BAE, which is a major British company, they own something like 40-50% of that. They have Rafael. They provide the main gun for the US Abrams M2 tanks. So their capabilities are integrated across multiple NATO systems. So depending on where they're seeing their weakness, with them saying they're not prepared for this type of warfare, that could affect a lot of other systems,” he said.
“I think with them coming out admitting that their capabilities are questioned, I think you'll see people looking for other competitors,” Rasmussen continued. “Maybe they'll turn to the US, I don't necessarily think they're going to turn to the British or even the French, and Korea seems to be really picking up. The main company there is Hanwha, and its sales have increased 60% during this time period, over the last year.”
23 August 2023, 12:59 GMT
However, he predicted that Rheinmetall would eventually learn from its mistakes and recover, which might take a decade or more.
“They've been around for a long time. They're probably learning from this situation. And they're one of the largest companies in Germany, I think they've got almost 30,000 employees, they've got partnerships around the world. So I think they have the capability to catch up, but they probably have to do some rigorous analysis and it may be 10 years to work in a whole new generation of systems and stuff," he concluded, noting that it is likely that the company has already started analyzing their weaknesses.
