Thread by @nicholadrummond

I want to say more about Poland’s tank deal with South Korea. Before I do, full disclosure, I’m an advisor to KMW, the German manufacturer of the Leopard 2 MBT. So, yes, I have an interest to declare. I’m writing this to correct several misleading impressions.
1 of 18

Secondly, what follows is my personal opinion, not that of KMW. If the two happen to be aligned, great, but it’s what I believe not what I’ve been asked to parrot. If KMW values me as advisor, it’s because I tell them what they need to hear not what they want to hear.
2 of 18

Acquiring military capability is not a game of Top Trumps. Yes, selecting options against key requirements matters, but setting-up a robust manufacturing solution and ensuring efficient, reliable and affordable through-life support is equally important.
3 of 18

The best example of this historically is the Tiger versus the Sherman tank in WW2. Tiger was an immensely capable tank. But was complex, time-consuming and expensive to produce. It was also difficult to support. Which is why only 1,347 were produced vs 49,234 Shermans.
4 of 18

Winning a war is often concerned with economic strength rather than military power. Sherman was quick, easy and less expensive to produce than Tiger. Nazi Germany ran out of Tigers long before the Allies ran out of Shermans. In the end, this is what mattered.
5 of 18

The economic lessons of the Tiger were not lost on KMW when it developed Leopard 2. Yes, It’s an excellent balance of firepower, mobility and protection. Yes, It’s also been constantly and comprehensively upgraded to ensure it remains relevant and capable.
6 of 18

Yes, Leopard 2’s digital architecture and C4I systems have reached a high state of development and the latest A7 also has APS and counter-drone defences. But, crucially, Leopard 2’s most distinctive advantage was the industrial concept behind it.
7 of 18

When Hyundai Rotem was asked to develop a tank for South Korea, it used Leopard 2 as a model, not Abrams. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It licensed-produced the engine, gearbox and introduced its own version of the L/55 120 mm smoothbore gun.
8 of 18

So, which is better? Overall, the two tanks are very similar, although, like the French Leclerc, the K2 has an autoloader. I would say that that Leopard 2A7 has an edge, because it’s a more mature system. But let me emphasise, Top Trumps comparisons are not what matters.
9 of 18

It is the industrial set-up behind Leopard 2 that is all important. There is now a club of 18 Leopard users. They share user feedback. They share development costs for new systems. Most important, they have ready access to an extensive network of spare parts.
10 of 18

Many Leopard 2 customers have set-up domestic production lines to produce it locally. This has created a huge European supply chain with multiple sources for individual parts guaranteeing availability at low cost. In a crisis, this is exactly what you need.
11 of 16

So my issue with K2 Black panther is not its core functionality, it is the infrastructure that supports it. Initial units delivered to Poland will be made in South Korea while a local production line is established. This is a problem.
12 of 18

If North Korea were to invade South Korea or China, Taiwan, you can bet 100% that South Korean Army would be mobilised and would be first in the queue for K2 spare parts. Poland would have to wait. And wait. And that delay could be crucial.
13 of 18

In time, Poland will establish its own supply chain. But, as the sole user of K2, these parts will be more expensive than if it belonged to a club of 18 users. To ensure availability of essential spares, they’ll need to be batch produced in advance. Also more expensive.
14 of 18

Ultimately, K2 will be more costly than Leopard 2. Poland’s K2s won’t have interoperability with other EU members of NATO. Poland also risks not being able to support its K2 tank fleet in a crisis. If this is true for K2, it may also be true for K9 and AS21.
15 of 18

The UK has learned this lesson. Which is why it bought Boxer and why Challenger 3 will have a Rheinmetall turret with a 120 mm smoothbore gun. And, it’s why the UK will join the European MGCS programme down the road.
16 of 18

Those who say Germany is an unreliable defence partner forget that it’s a member of NATO. As is Poland. Which is already a Leopard 2 user, so benefits from being a member of the user club. To be clear, spare parts supply from Germany to Poland has never been an issue.
17 of 18

The narrative that Germany is an unreliable Defence partner comes from Putin apologists. It is ridiculous to suggest that Germany would not honour its NATO commitments. Ultimately, Germany is an industrial powerhouse on Europe’s doorstep not 5,000 km away.
18 of 18 / END