Earlier today, Markos wrote an article on the difficulty of sending new weapons to Ukraine in the middle of a conflict. If Ukraine had actually joined NATO back in 2006, rather than having their movement toward membership sabotaged by Russia with a big assist from Paul Manafort, by now they not only have the protection that association would bring, but familiarity with a whole collection of shared hardware that made resupplying them in a crisis much simpler. That’s the whole reason that things like “NATO standard ammunition” exist.
But to really drive home how difficult it is to just “give them them what they need,” here’s a look at a small portion of the T-72 tank family, and why even what seems to be a simple exchange can be harder than it looks.
The number of dead T-72s in Ukraine right now shows just how important this tank remains to Russia. Oryx—which is woefully behind after the events of the last three days—lists 231 T-72 tanks on the Russian side that have been destroyed, damaged, or otherwise lost in the first month of the war. Ukraine had over 600 T-72s before the invasion, its known losses total only 10.
NATO has quite a few T-72 tanks scattered across several member states, Ukraine is doing well with T-72s. Give Ukraine more T-72s, slide Abrams M1 or similar modern tanks to those NATO members handing over their T-72s, and everyone is happy. Only it’s not that simple.
Ever since the first one rolled off the line—and was promptly rejected—it’s been hard to pin down exactly what constitutes “a T-72.” At one point, the Soviet Union stamped out a crap ton of the T-72A and the closely related T-72M, which was primarily created for the export market. But its fairly safe to say that no one is driving around Ukraine in something that’s actually outfitted to those original specs.
The chart above is just a subset of the many varieties. Especially of the T-72M. That tank has gone everywhere, and multiple nations are still making it today. The Iranian “Lion of Bagdad” was a T-72M variant, so is an Indian Tank EX. This chart doesn’t even cover most of the variants that exist in Europe, like a Crotatian M-95, Serbian M-2001, and Romanian TR-125. And all of this is before you even get to all the things that armies have stuck on top of the T-72 basic frame. Those TOS-1 thermobaric missile launches are riding on what amounts to a decapitated T-72A. Several nations, rather than creating a whole new infantry fighting vehicle, took the main gun off a T-72, gutted out some of the interior, and called it a day. There are T-72s that have been turned into almost every variety of vehicle an army needs. And some it doesn’t.
For those main line T-72As, every few years, the Soviet Union came along and changed out the fire control system, the viewing system, the communications, and pretty much any form of electronics. That’s because those things were (and are) changing rapidly, and upgrades there can have a big impact on the efficiency of the tank. Then something even bigger happened when it came to the uniformity of these tanks: The Soviet Union fell apart.
There are now essentially three different broad families of these tanks. 1) There are those that were made in Soviet days and which were upgraded one or more times since then, often with the best (or cheapest) gear on hand at the moment. 2) There are tanks that were made or modified by former Soviet states or client states that had not yet become members of NATO — tanks like the Polish PT-91, Czech T-72-M4Cz, and Ukrainian T-72-B3/2016. 3) There are tanks that belong to former Warsaw Pact states that have now been modified to an agreed-upon NATO standard, principally the T-72M1R.
Some of these tanks vary widely—everything down the M84 line has a different engine, and some of the tanks are packing different guns, meaning they need completely different ammo. Others are relatively small updates, but they may have comms gear or other equipment specifically meant to integrate with the armies who built them. Some of the tanks may be very similar, like the T-72-M4Cz on the Czech side and the T-72B3 on the Ukrainian side. But since only 30 of the Czech tanks exist, it may not be reasonable to stock the equipment and put techs through the training needed to support even relatively minor differences.
The point is that it’s going to take an almost tank-by-tank evaluation to determine which if these vehicles is suitable for this fight. Hopefully that includes making changes to bring them into something closer to Ukrainian spec before sending them to Ukraine. Because techs like working outside the war zone when possible.
It’s much easier to give Ukraine something like a Javelin or a Switchblade drone. You don’t maintain these systems. They’re quick to learn, and if they break, you throw them away. But a tank or a plane is a very complex construction with multiple systems, all of which are vital to its continued operation. Maintaining them and operating them is expensive in the best of circumstances. It’s going to take some care to see that what’s delivered to Ukraine provides real utility, and isn’t just a white elephant that drags a unit down.
So don’t expect to see trainloads of NATO tanks arriving in Ukraine in the immediate future. Not unless they come with NATO parts, NATO techs, and NATO drivers.
Saturday, Apr 2, 2022 · 7:15:53 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
The discoveries in Bucha and Irpin are sickening and unforgivable. Mass graves, civilians shot in the back while handcuffed, bodies of both civilians and soldiers left to rot in the street for days. This cannot end without some form of trial for the individuals involved, as well as Russian leadership.
Saturday, Apr 2, 2022 · 11:26:20 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner
Some of the colors have changed this week. It doesn’t represent a change in information, but an attempt to be clearer for those who have trouble with color perception. No matter how you color it, the north looks prettier every day.
THANK YOU