The law in Botswana prohibits mercenary activities and so does many states around the world. In other countries like in South Africa, able bodied men have skipped the country to participate in mercenary activities under the guise of working for security firms. One such firm which was outlawed in that country was Executive Outcomes. This was a well-paying outfit hired around Africa to do the dirty job of conducting coups.
I think the current government must work on relaxing some of the laws regarding participation with foreign militaries. I have mentioned this before but will need to mention it once more; it should be free for all to join the UK military. Besides the scholarships, the only other sensible thing that remains in the Commonwealth is our access to joining the UK military.
Last week I brought it to the attention of the reader that Finland was sending to Ukraine the 54 lot of Leopard II tanks that were initially earmarked for Botswana way back in 1996. But at the time, the Germans refused to allow the Dutch to sell the tanks to a third country. Unlike then, Finland has been given the green light to export them to Ukraine.
The Germans have been hesitant to allow this deal to subsist but with the Americans promising the all-powerful Abrams A1 Tanks, 31 are going as advance party. Germany has been too concerned that if the US does not send in tanks, Europe might be isolated in the case Russia regards that as an act of provocation.
The US is capable of sending much more, but their concerns are around the issue of sufficient training on the use of the equipment. But in the case of the Leopard II tanks, Botswana Defence Force had invested dearly in training its soldiers on the operation of this equipment. Several of them were sent to the Netherlands where they spent as much as two months training on the use and maintenance of the Leopard II tank.
Ukraine could approach Botswana on this matter and set up a contract on getting both serving and retired armour soldiers who had previously gone for training on the operation of this equipment. Most of these soldiers from 176 Armour Regiment and 205 Armour Regiment are now on retirement and would greatly appreciate the dollar on the deal. This would help in the war effort with Ukraine as well.
I have gone back to trace some of these officers and it is interesting what opinions they have formed on the war in Ukraine particularly on the sudden twist on the application of armour. Major (Retired) Boiki Lesotlho who was in the thick of things as a lieutenant on the procurement of the Leopard II tank, gives very interesting views on the use of tanks in this particular war. Initially, Ukrainian drones had almost made tanks obsolete.
Last week I had posited that this conflict has become the turning point in the use of tanks. The question I raised was; why then is Ukraine asking for so many takes to enhance their war effort. Lesotlho posits that the loss of Russian tanks to Ukrainian drones and tank hunters is simply clear evidence that the Russians were ill prepared for the resistance brought out by their opponents.
Lesotlho still sees the relevance and viability of the tank in the battlefield. He says the vulnerability of the tank in this particular war has been exaggerated by the weakness of the Russians themselves. According to this armour expert; “The efficacy in the employment of armour depends on good planning and battle preparation. The heavy losses of tanks by Russia came as a result of employment mistakes, poor planning and preparation which was further compounded by inadequate infantry support.”
On the above issue, it is true that at the start of the war, Russia prioritised speed and secrecy above all operational factors. Parallel to these factors, the Russians failed to fully exploit the Combined Arms Concept (CAC) which requires careful coordination between air, navy and ground forces. The ground forces mainly made up of armoured columns drove through cities and towns unprotected from any form of air attack. They were not adequately prepared for resistance from the Ukrainian forces. Their generals had informed them that this would be a walk in the park.
Furthermore, Russian forces were not given sufficient time to prepare for a far more complex operation than envisaged. This exposes the Russians in that it reveals that the Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Battle Space (JIPB) was inadequately done. For this great mistake, the Russians paid with their armour and their lives. The fact of this colossal intelligence failure has literally affected every aspect of the “Special Operation” has now turned out to be so ordinary like it was planned and executed by newly inducted officer cadets.
Lesotlho insists that it will be completely wrong to use this current war as a case study on the future of tanks in future conflicts. He says this war only serves as a very good example of poor planning at every level of preparation. Many of the aforementioned weaknesses of the tank and other ground systems have simply occurred as planning mistakes as opposed to technical relevance of the tank in the battlefield.
The total gift from European countries will number around 100 tanks and is expected soon as several countries are more than willing to become part of the coalition to assist Ukraine. Brigadier (Retired) Thulaganyo Masisi who retired at the time he was head of the Armour Brigade, says the 100 tanks will form a formidable force for the Russians to reckon with. According to him, this will surely punch a big whole on the Russian defences and a lot of territory will in turn be taken.
Interesting enough, it was the mighty Abrams A1 tanks together with the Leopard II tanks that won the war against Saddam Hussain of Iraq. This is a new level of confrontation and a test to the Russian war doctrine which is currently melting like snow in spring on a field in St Petersburg. But the tank is not obsolete yet.
