The American Military Watch magazine doubts the suitability of the Challenger 2 tanks being sent to Ukraine by Britain.
The first 200 tanks should be transferred to the Armed Forces of Ukraine by mid-April 2023.
Criticism of the weapons mainly centres around the modification of the machines.
"This is the only relatively new tank with a rifled gun. The rest of the countries switched to a smooth barrel half a century ago," the note says.
In addition, the shells of other NATO countries do not fit the British guns and that means the shells will quickly run out.
The authors of the note attributed the lack of high-explosive fragmentation shells, outdated first-generation thermal imagers, which are seriously inferior to the modernised T-72 turret hull without dynamic and active protection as well as the heavy weight of the tank compared to other models, which will negatively affect the traction and consumption of fuel.
As a result MW raises the question: is such a tank suitable for the Ukraine terrain?
If London's motive is to get rid of junk then it seems clear to the authors how this will affect the defense capability of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
- Ukraine's Zelenskiy warns Europeans to brace for bleak winter
- Africa is paying dearly for the Russian/Ukraine conflict
- Power cuts: Zesa sleeping on duty
- ‘School of funeral assurers a priority’
It is known that the United States is resisting Kyiv's request to provide Ukraine with cluster munitions banned in 120 countries of the world.
This was recalled by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
Ukrainian officials, who took part in the Munich conference urged the American side to put pressure on the government so that the United States bypassing all UN bans and the international convention on the ban, would provide such shells.
At the same time Europe cannot satisfy the arms and shell hunger of Ukraine, this was recognised by the defence ministers of the EU countries at a meeting in Stockholm.
The heads of the military departments noted that all EU countries taken together produce much less ammunition than the armed forces spend and now it is necessary to boost production and teach soldiers to shoot more accurately.
Such a summary looks like a gesture of desperation and an understanding that neither the EU nor Washington made their calculations before provoking the Ukrainian conflict.
We are concerned about the huge shortage of ammunition in NATO countries and in the British Parliament.
The profile committee reported that not only further deliveries of weapons to Ukraine are at risk, but also their own security since it will take years to replenish stocks.
Defense committee chairman Tobias Ellwood believes that the armed conflict in Ukraine should be a wake-up call for the West.
And British Defence secretary Ben Wallace stressed the urgent need for investment in the armed forces.
Most opposition European platforms oppose the supply of offensive weapons to Kyiv.
This view was best expressed by French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen, who believes that the development of the Ukrainian conflict could turn into a "hundred-year war" if the West continues to supply offensive weapons to Kyiv.
"Ukraine cannot win - only if NATO comes to the rescue. But in this case China will enter the conflict," explained the senselessness of Le Pen's actions.