Based on my last post in the "
GREEN & WHITE PAPERS" thread, my thinking was Germany had to take the lead on the MBT issue.
I thought I had made a comment to
reverse that in my
Post 1414 here but, I guess I thought it and just didn't "
put it down on paper" in that post.
The German
BUNDESTAG is putting pressure on the Chanceller to provide the
LEO 2A4 or better.
But the read I get is Germany wants us to move first on the tank issue.
But nobody wants to be the leader at this point.
Post 1414 provided for many options from the
USA to include
very modernized
M-60A3 conversions that would be suitable for combat in the Ukraine and provide an easy introduction to western tanks with
minimal loss of technology data if captured.
The following provides for
very good context on this issue.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ks-for-ukraine
So having provided better context for our faithful readers, to your question now partially answered,
I would say take out the LEO 1A5 TO WHERE THE PLAYERS CAN'T USE IT but keep it in there as we'll have an answer in the coming year.
And we'll just have to take a
"wait and see" position depending how the war is going but estimates are indicating the Ukrainians have more than recouped their tanks losses with the MORE modern Russian tanks they've captured.
I would also go as far to say the Ukrainians are using much a
much better armored doctrine than the Russians. This is borne out of western doctrine and has been
clearly demonstrated on the battlefield of late. Not quite "
PATTONIST" but certainly as aggressive as he was.
For what's it's worth.
Regards,
Pat
