Are the UK, Germany and USA not concerned about their (donated) tanks being captured and researched by Russia?

Question

It has been well established that several NATO countries are donating armoured vehicles (and training crews) to Ukraine. Some of the more notable vehicles that are being delivered include the American M1 Abrams, German Leopard 2, and British Challenger 2.

All of the mentioned tanks have use some sort of secret/classified armour (Chobham Armour/Composite armour) that is meant to provide excellent protection for the crew (which can say much for Russian-manufactured tanks that seem have an inherent design flaw.)

Has there been any concern from any of the countries donating armoured vehicles with one of these secretive armour types, about whether one of their donated vehicles may be captured by Russian forces and reverse-engineered/researched for weaknesses?

Answer 1

Has there been any concern from any of the countries donating armoured vehicles, with one of these secretive armour types, that one of their donated vehicles may be captured by Russian forces and reverse-engineered/researched for weaknesses?

I don't see why there should not have been such a concern. In particular you seem to conclude that a sending of such equipment is tantamount to not having such concerns. I think this does not follow. It's perfectly possible to have these concerns but after careful consideration come to the conclusion that the potential benefits (higher military strength of Ukraine) by far outweigh the potential risks as you mention them. This trade-off should be explored better.

If there have been such concerns (and military estimations of the pros and cons of sending tanks most likely would include them), they do not need to have been made public. Military assessments are often classified.

On the other hand, here is a reason why such concerns, have they been voiced, might not have been deemed as crucial. Reverse engineering and research of weaknesses takes a lot of time, months if not years. Reproduction of reverse engineered technology additionally requires a certain own expertise and takes even more time. It's not clear that the Russian military industry, even if capable of reverse engineering the technology of these tanks, is capable of manufacturing effective counter-equipment in large amounts. All this would very likely not influence the current war. Sending the tanks however will influence it.

To answer the question in the title: I think it's fairly self-evident that UK, Germany and the US are not overly concerned about that risk, given that they have professional military advisors and that they are sending these tanks.

By the way: British Challenger 2 tanks have been exported to Oman; German Leopard 2 tanks have been exported to Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Canada, Qatar, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Singapore, Spain, Turkey and Hungary; US Abrams M1 tanks to Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Poland and Saudi Arabia. It might be much easier to reverse engineer examples from one of these countries.

Answer 2

There are some concerns, but also mitigating factors.

• Challenger 2 is being replaced in service with Challenger 3.
• The US also sold Abrams to a lot of Middle East countries. I think the armor package gets changed for them, and it might be for Ukraine too. Abrams has a modular armor package, which while looking the same from the outside...
• Less sure about the situation with Leopards A6. But Germany is not giving them the A7. And Rheinmetall is now pushing for the 130mm-armed Panther etc.

It's also hardly the case the Russia doesn't know how to make better tanks. For them the T72B3 (their most numerous in Ukraine, IIRC) was a matter of scale economics, with the T90s etc. (to say nothing about the Armata), being a lot more expensive.

(There is a video on YouTube analyzing the T72B3 as a bit of "frankentank" with two gun sights because they didn't find it worthwhile to remove one sight simply because it had some switches on it while adding another of a newer generation. While the T90 was completely redesigned in that regard.)

Answer 3

Abrams was designed in 1972–1975, Leopard 2 in 1970s. Only Challenger 2 is newer, designed in 1986–1993. Hence the basic models are not very new. Challenger 3 and Abrams X are coming.

Parts that have received significant upgrades later probably can be swapped for older versions even without talking too much. From that is known, Abrams will be without depleted uranium in the armor.

Answer 4

I have followed the German debate on this issue, and the risk of secret technology being leaked was probably the third most common argument against providing Leopard IIs to Ukraine (after "escalation", and "it looks bad to have once more German tanks rolling east).

One the one hand, it makes sense that this risk is just seen as less important than all the reasons in favour of arming Ukraine properly. But it also would not suprise me if changed circumstances surrounding this risk are one of the reasons why the tanks were delivered now, not a year ago.

These days, Ukraine has tank crews whose professionalism and dedication have been proven on the battlefield. Given what some of them have been through, I'd be very much inclined to believe them if they tell me "This tank won't fall into Russian hands in anywhere remotely near intact condition".

Answer 5

I think there's an underlying assumption here that the difference in tank quality between the US and Russia is in large part down to US military secrets that Russia does not know. There is in fact a little of that. For example the US does not ship Abrams' to anyone else, even its closest allies, with its best depleted Uranium matrix armor. So the M1's going to Ukraine are right now having their armor changed out prior to shipment.

However, the on-paper superiority of US tanks has more to do with them being designed with a "money is no object" philosophy. They are the Lexus or Alienware of tanks. The expense isn't a problem for the US Army, as they are sitting at the tail end of what's the closest thing the world has to an endless tap of money.

However, pretty much everyone else, including Russia, is on a budget. That's why most of the US's NATO partners, despite having the ability to purchase Abrams themselves, prefer to purchase cheaper options of their own design or from other NATO members, such as German Leopard 2's. According to Newsweek the cost difference is on the order of $10mil each for an M2, but only $6mil each for a Leopard 2. Russian T-72's on the other hand, well a decade ago they were said to be about $1mil new, or $50k used. So for the same outlay, your military can get almost twice as many Leopard 2's, or ten times (an order of magnitude) as many T-72's.

Leopards are designed to be much cheaper to operate as well, with standardized parts, and far cheaper fuel (diesel vs. jet fuel). So even if Russia could get good design ideas from a captured NATO tank, likely a captured Leopard 2 would be more useful to them.

Abrams' are also notorious for being very complex, and requiring a lot more training of operators than other tanks. Extensive training has not exactly proven to be in the Russian military's core competencies.

However, even these concerns are getting ahead of things. Russia is one of the more corrupt societies on earth. With their military this shows up as a severe problem with Russians looting their own military equipment, particularly of anything that's small and expensive. A prime such item is the range-finders that modern tanks use to be able to engage at ranges measured in miles. As such, Russian tanks in the current conflict have been largely forced to close to WWII distances to be effective, which really means they might as well be using WWII tanks, which is exactly what they are starting to do.

They also have well-documented issues with tank doctrine. You are supposed to keep a certain amount of infantry with tanks to protect them from other infantry, and gear your logistics train to make sure they don't run out of gas (preferably truck them places when not in combat). Russia ... isn't really doing that. Which is part of why there was a meme last year of Ukrainian farmers toting off Russian tanks with their tractors.

So no, there's rather a lot about the Russian military and their society that they would have to change before getting a detailed look at US tank designs would be of much use to them.

Answer 6

Tactics vs. Tech

It has been said that the US could gift a supercarrier to any other country, but it would take them a decade or more to actually make it combat-ready. This is not for lack of fuel or munitions, but simply due to experience. Operating an aircraft carrier is a complex choreography rivalling the finest ballets. China has purchased 2 aircraft carriers themselves and built a third from scratch. And yet we do not see them projecting these carrier groups throughout the world's oceans. Clearly, they are going through this process of learning the operations, which Americans have been practicing since the 1940s (so almost 80 years).

In Ukraine, both sides started out with nearly the same armaments. If anything, RU started out with several technically superior models, and probably more of the advanced models than UA (T-80M vs. T-72, Ka-52 vs. Mi-11, etc.). However, a year of fighting has produced dramatically different results, with the "superior tech" side getting beat down viciously. We can argue about the contribution of morale, but there should be no dispute that one of the major advantages UA has enjoyed is superior training and tactics.

Responsibility

At this point, the Ukrainian army, at all levels, has proven that it can and will fight smarter than the Russians. Even when outgunned 5:1 or worse, they have held their ground, inflicted outsized losses, and protected the most advanced assets given to them by allies. Although RU has claimed to have destroyed more than 2x more HIMARs and M-270 than have actually been given to UA, there are no public admissions that a single HIMARs system has been lost, and plenty of reason to believe that they have not. On the other hand, numerous inflatable HIMARs-shaped balloons have, quite tragically, been obliterated with RU rockets.

Although UA has also lost tanks to capture, many of their armor stock at the start of the war was not exactly maintained in fresh-off-the-line condition, and in many cases was overmatched by RU armor. On the other hand, I have not seen any widespread reports of captured donated IFVs, APCs, MRAPs and armored cars circulating on RU telegram channels. This suggests that UA is mindful of how it protects its most valuable hardware and does not expend it in high-risk, low reward zones.

Offense vs. Defense

For months, UA has complained that they cannot launch a counteroffensive because they lack the armor to do so. Clearly, they have tanks, but most are being used defensively all along the 1500+ km lines. And as the lines ebb and flow, it is not surprising that some tanks would be lost to capture when a position gets overrun. On the other hand, it does not take a MacArthur level strategist to see that UA is not going to set their platoon of Challenger 2s on a static position to fire defensively at human wave tactics. The best use of advanced armor is obviously to go on the offensive, and this is where the tanks will be least vulnerable to capture, assuming UA can maintain forward momentum. That is not to say that the tanks will be invulnerable or won't get hit. Rather, even if a tank gets disabled or destroyed, it won't get captured if the enemy can't hold the ground long enough to get to it. When UA has gone on the offensive, they have largely succeeded, and captured huge swaths of territory in doing so.

Although the West has collectively promised more than 100+ tanks, it seems likely that many fewer than this will be available in the first wave of deployments. The only logical use for a few platoons of your best tanks is as the tip of the spear on an offensive push. By now, Western analysts have surely determined that UA can successfully make such a push and hold the territory it gains. But hey, don't take Western intelligences' word for it...just ask the Russians in Crimea, who are leaving in droves. Nobody is ordering them out. They are just voting on their confidence in the RU army with their feet.

Conclusion

As others have noted, technology is leaky. It is pretty much impossible to control every export instance of your weapons, even if they are watered down. RU probably gets more tech through hacking than via captured equipment. RU has probably seen more Abrams in America via spying than anywhere else. I would be very surprised if they don't already know the secret sauce. But the reason RU doesn't deploy comparable tanks isn't because it lacks the technology...it's because it lacks the industry and manufacturing capability. The T-14 Armata is already nearly a decade old design, and RU reportedly only has 6 of them, mostly used for parade purposes. It would almost certainly be comparable in capability to modern Western tanks, if only RU could build it in numbers to be relevant.

Answer 7

There is little information on western armor that has not already been extensively published in open journals and news reports that Russia has access to.

Answer 8

In general, the DoD sells (and/or allows manufacturers to sell) variations of military vehicles to friendly nations. In other words, any tanks a country may provide to another nation are certainly NOT fully equipped with the same mechanics, electronics, etc. that the 'giving' nation keeps in their own arsenal. For instance, Lockheed Martin sells F16's to MANY friendly nations outside of the USA. The aircraft other nations receive are extremely stripped-down versions of what the U.S. military gets. The same thing would apply to warships, ground fighting vehicles, tanks, etc. So, to answer the OP's question; no-one should be worried about Russia reverse-engineering any tanks, because the Ukraine is NOT getting any of current, updated, fully-equipped tanks. Russia most certainly understands that to be the case as well...

Answer 9

The tanks being donated by the US are the M1A1. The M1A1 Abrams tanks were produced from 1986 to 1992.

The M1A1 is a very old tank. The latest ones are the M1A2SEP (with work being done on the M1A3).

All of the M1A2 and M1A3 tanks being produced right now are made from refurbished hulls from old M1A1 tanks. So its not surprising that from the outside they superficially look the same.

But its public knowledge that when the army refurbishes an M1A1 into a newer model they literally strip the whole thing down to just a metal hull and sand blast of the rust. The electronics and other components that go into a new M1A2 or M1A3 have very little resemblance to those from the old M1A1.

Even if one of those old tanks were captured, and the technology were to be reverse engineered, it would be like 30 years behind the state of the art.

Answer 10

Broadly no, they're not, as simply evidenced by two facts: A) They don't seem to mind their tanks being captured and inspected in this particular conflict and B) If any power minded its tanks being captured and inspected in any conflict, that would be either a reason not to use tanks at all, or a calculated risk. Which seems to you more likely?

Analysing other powers' tanks is useful in peace-time, because there might be time to use the knowledge gained but how long do you think it takes to make a new tank - even a pure copy with no design work needed?

Both weapons and production technologies have improved since the Second World War yet why do you discount the many TV documentaries explaining how logistics and production, even more than technology, killed the Thousand Year Reich in less than a decade?