The war in Ukraine is nearing a full year by now and it doesn’t look like it’s going to end any time soon. President Zelensky has appealed to NATO countries for a revamping with heavy weapons and particularly armoured tanks. So far eleven NATO countries have pledged to send their equipment and the list of equipment includes the Leopard 2 tanks that were procured by the Government of Botswana for its military some years ago.
In Ukraine’s war effort, for their military to regain control of the parcels of land occupied by the Russians forces, they have realised that they need armour, and a lot of it. This is what studies of conventional warfare dictate. For a modern force to take away land and occupy, they need good armour.
But it seems this is contradictory to what has already been demonstrated in this current war. Ukraine has in fact proven armour to be extremely vulnerable in the theatre of war. Russia lost more than 70% of its armour to Ukrainian drones at the beginning of the war. For many students of warfare, the way things turned out at the beginning of this war spelled the beginning of the end of armour in future warfare.
It looked so easy for the drones to destroy the Russian tanks and many Russian soldiers died in the process. To this day, no one outside of Russia knows the true number of their troops lost as a direct result of their loss of tanks. Mind you, Russia has some of the best armour in the industry but however, they were reduced to plastic toys.
One of the effective ways that the Ukrainian forces managed to destroy Russian tanks and kill their logistics columns was through the use shoulder held anti-tank weapons. These proved to be very effective in the theatre of war. Several tank hunting teams were set up and they devastated Russian positions as they knocked their armour and making their turrets fall just like dominos.
For countries that had ordered armour for their military, they started asking themselves if that was a worthwhile investment. Simply, armour was turned redundant in this war. The big unanswered question now is; why is Ukraine asking for more armour when they have in fact come to know that this equipment is very vulnerable? They ordering more armour because they have now eliminated the threat posed by drones. Russia scored big in this war by engaging drones supplied by Iran. Ukraine has since figured out how to knock them off the skies with their NATO supplied air defence system. NATO invested a great deal in air defence systems for this country right at the beginning of the war and that has paid off.
In 1995, the Government of Botswana struck a deal with the Netherlands government over 54 pieces of armour that they no longer needed. This arrangement was actually engineered by the US Department of Defence as they were equally doing a draw-down of forces throughout Europe. The deal involved the procurement of Leopard 2 tanks, 105mm medium field artillery guns, several DAF trucks, mobile kitchens and massive winter uniforms that accompanied the consignment free of charge.
The rest of the items were delivered to Botswana save for the Leopard 2 tanks. There was a diplomatic problem that held them back. According to the statutes of NATO, a member country cannot transfer weaponry to a third country without the consent of the country of origin. In the case of the Leopard 2 tank, Germany as the manufacturing country had to give the green light on their passage to Botswana.
The deal occurred at around the time when Botswana had a fierce dispute with neighbouring Namibia over a an island known as Sedudu in Botswana and Kasikili in Namibia. When the Namibian government picked wind of the news of Botswana’s latest acquisition of good armour, they went to talk to the German government about this issue.
Botswana lost the tanks as Germany refused their transfer to a third country. It was obvious to BDF and Botswana government officials what the answer was going to be when the German foreign minister arrived here. His last stop had been Windhoek and the writing was clear on the wall.
Lt Col William Phethu on the advice of his officers recommended the French made AMX 30 to BDF HQ. Lt Motswana Barwabatsile and Lt Boiki Lesotlho had done a thorough homework on a realistic tank as close as possible to the Leopard 2 tank. These were the military researchers of the time.
It is pity that their second choice was disregarded at BDF HQ and Gen Khama settled for a far inferior Austrian made tank known as the SK105. They named for the calibre of the gun they are carrying but the tanks are as good as nothing. All of the SK105s that were bought against the advice of the armour officers are all dead now while the country has paid millions of dollars to Austria.
The 54 tanks that should have belonged to BDF were gladly absorbed by Finland at the time when they were re-equipping and revamping their military. It is the same 54 tanks in question on the Ukrainian war right now. Finland wants to send to Ukraine the Leopard 2 tanks which should have rightfully been a property of BDF had the Germans not stood on their way.
Interestingly, it is the same Germany that has to grant Finland the green light on the export of the equipment. The Germans are vacillating and hesitating on making a final decision on the matter. The Leopard 2 tank is the most common armoured vehicle in Europe and if Finland is allowed to send the iconic 54, then other nations will send their stock. This exercise of re-equipping the Ukrainian forces with this tank will certainly become a game changer. Their thrust through Russian defences will be felt right in the Kremlin underground bunkers.
