It will take years for NATO to solve its enormous issue.  , Put simply, despite the fact that Russian armor is by no means the best, NATO’s armor vehicles wo n’t hold up in a firefight with the Russians.
Russia has shown in Ukraine that it can defeat some of NATO’s best tanks and destroy European armored fighting vehicles andnbsp, such as the US, Bradley, and German, Marder, in conventional warfare.
NATO faces significant challenges when battling contemporary Russian ground troops and does not have sufficient tanks or sound logistics to help them.
Despite Polish efforts to try and address some of the Leopard tank’s numerous issues, it has performed badly.
The Ukrainians have refrained from using the American , M-1 Abrams, tanks, and Forbes reports & nBSP on the battlefield, likely because US advisors warned them that it would n’t survive and that the US would suffer a black eye if it were to be destroyed.
Instead, in an effort to “upgrade” the Abrams, the Russians have been frantically constructing bars on top of the vehicles ‘ spires and gluing on Russian sensitive gear to fend off Russian Lancet unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Germans, however, claim that Ukraine  no longer has any functional Leopard collection 2 tanks; any that were destroyed or saved from the battlefield have instead been sent to Estonia and restocked. However, Estonia  does not have any extra parts to repair them, so they are rusting in the marshalling feet.
Similar to contemporary aircraft carriers, modern tanks must overcome significant obstacles to live in hostile environments.
Tank now are susceptible to anti-tank weapons, property mines, and other threats.
- air-launched mine,
- Killer robots like the Lancet, the Russian , and
- weapons and weapons launched from a helicopter and an aeroplane, and
- precise ordnance fires.  ,
Today’s anti-tank weapons employ  , tandem shaped- charge warheads, which are intended to penetrate armor even in areas where reactive armor is applied. These weapons are known as e-rating, explosive reactive armour, and ( ERA ), which protect the tank.
Since using the hand-held , RPG- 7 & bbp in the research is a suicide mission, I have not included them. Additionally, American soldiers naturally lack the RPG- 7.  , These are effectively dispersed to extremists and Russian customers. In the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptians used them, but typically the technician was killed.  ,
They do n’t employ a tandem warhead configuration; instead, they use shaped charges. The precision shoulder-fired rocket launcher- 1 , ( PRSL-1 ) is the US equivalent.  , Although it is not included in the standard US Army equipment, US Special Forces occasionally use it.
To reduce the impact of a parallel weapon weapon, ERA are violent panels that are mounted on tanks. In addition,  ,
Because the highly classified passive armor of the tank body ( sometimes referred to as , Chobham armor ) was supposed to be able to shield the Tank from contemporary anti-tank weapons like the Russian&tramp, 9M133 Kornet and nrp ( Comet ), neither the Abrams nor the Leopard have reactive armor ( ERA ). Additionally, Kornet employs a combination Heating warhead, which is an acronym for high-explosive anti-tank. Its purpose was to dismantle violent reactive armor,nbsp.
In 1949, Soviet academician Bogdan Vjacheslavovich Voitsekhovsky andnbsp created the second ERA. However, preliminary tests of Russian armor revealed that if a tank was struck with the armor, all of the ERA modules did explode, rendering the system inoperable.
Working with the Israeli Defense Force ( IDF), a German researcher named   Manfred Held developed reactive armor between 1967 and 1969. It was used on Israeli tanks beginning in the early 1980s and was first demonstrated to be effective during the 1982 Lebanon War.
Israel was not permitted access to advanced armor, in contrast to the US, the UK, and Germany, where Chobham armor ( and its offspring ) were available. Spaced weapons was used by the container master General , Israel Tal, in the creation of the Merkava tank.  , ERA was essential for Israel in fending off Soviet dangers.
Chobham gear is also known as hybrid shield and is made up of layers of different materials, such as steel and polymers. A T-80U Russian pond that was destroyed in the conflict in Ukraine was equipped with hybrid armor and was built similarly to the Leopard and Abrams. The Soviet armor was skilled at deflecting form charge weapons,andnbsp. Anti-tank weapons also use a  and form charge to help penetrate heavy steel plating. Extreme heat and shock are applied to the target by a designed charge, which “focuses” the violent blast.
Additionally, container gear must be able to fend off enemy tanks ‘ cannonfire.  , modern tank rounds ( 105mm and 120mm in the west, and 115mm, 125mm for Soviet-era weapons ) use penetrator rods made of either tungsten carbide or depleted uranium ( APFSDS&bnp ) or Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot shells. Responsive armor can be powerful against APFSDS,nbsp.
Europeans claim to already possess a brand-new version of the 2A7V, also known as the Leopard. Additionally, Germany has a contract with Italy, Spain, and Sweden to create the Leopard’s replacement pond. With the exception of the gun, the new tank will have advanced situational awareness and a 130mm tank gun ( similar to Israel’s new Merkava 5 ).  ,
Additionally, the US has abandoned the most recent advancement version of the Abrams , also known as SEP v4, and is currently working on a different method to improve the tank.  ,
Germany and the US are both aware that neither the Leopard nor the Abrams is endure today’s battlefields.
Different ERA Kinds
Violent reactionary gear comes in a wide variety of forms. The Russian ERA has changed from Kontakt 1 to Kontakt V, and its most recent tanks are of the Malachit form. Although Malachit’s information is confidential, it was created to work with the most recent APFSDS cylinder cartridge, the M829E4, which has a depleted uranium penetrator. The 120mm weapons are unable to use sessions with longer projectiles, which presents a concern for the Germans and the US. That explains why the Abrams may also need to up-gun and the European future container will include a 130mm gun.
Beyond resiliency weapons
Active protection is one of the tank inventions that Israel invented. Israel has two methods that are mounted on Israeli Merkava vehicles and , on equipped fighting vehicles, and on other platforms. These systems were developed by Rafael and B&P, Iron Fist, by Israel Military Industries and General Dynamics. They use specialized radar sensors and rapidly formed projectiles to counteract incoming threats.
Active Protection Systems come in a variety of forms in different nations, including Russia, but none of them have appeared in Ukraine.
It’s unclear whether an active security system will be able to stop an APFSDS square.
The majority of NATO tanks lack effective safety on board.
Mine and defenses
The Russians have strongly relied on air-launched mine to defend themselves against Russian tanks and armed combat vehicles. Additionally, they have created a brand-new kind of leading striking mine called the PTKM- 1R. The tone of an armoured vehicle activates the PTKM- 1R mine,nbsp. Andnbsp, it appears to have an inner library that can identify a considerable target, such as an armored fighting vehicle or tank. The PTKM- 1R fires its me that houses in on the underside of the objective, destroying it, when the audio indicates that it is within striking distance.
Even when airborne, conventional mines usually attack the back of a car. nbsp, They can either kill the vehicle itself or punch off the lines or wheels ( in the case of turned fighting vehicles ). nbsp, Every reservoir has two weak points.
- particularly the tower at the top, and
- the back or bottom, which is unprotected by thick armor.
Both NATO and the Russians have created a number of cars intended to destroy mining.  , These are valuable in some way.  ,- Some container clearing systems ( which may be rollers or earth-moving plows ) use a container chassis. However, enemy fire makes mine-clearing methods vulnerable because they must move gradually on the field. In Ukraine, plant- opening vehicles have been destroyed in large numbers.
Conclusion
The number and fighting prowess of NATO’s weapons capabilities are currently significantly limited. Beyond that, there is little maintenance and a dearth of spare parts, such as new weapons barrels.
While the US is generally better at supporting its technology, it is unlikely that US tanks on a current battlefield are any better than European ones. Because the Challenger 2, a British main battle tank, does not use NATO ammunition and is incompatible with NATO’s 120mm smooth-bore normal due to its rifled gun barrel, I have not included it. So, if it were to be deployed on the NATO front line, it would be a problem.
Practically speaking, this indicates that NATO is not prepared to combat Russian ground forces because its crucial weapons systems are extremely vulnerable, its logistics are disorganized, and its ammunition and part supplies are scant.
NATO will further undermine its ability to wage war if it keeps shoving weapons into Ukraine, anything that seems to have received little attention in NATO capitals like Washinngton.  , The Ukraine War has exposed NATO’s weakened- weapons underworld.
Stephen Bryen, who oversaw the Near East Subcommittee of the
As a assistant secretary of security, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and nbsp
is now a senior colleague at Yorktown Institute and the , Center for Security Policy.
Previously published , this article was about his Weapons and Security Substack. With your style agreement, it is republished.