EXPLAINED: These are the weapons Sweden is sending to Ukraine

[Emrys]

36. The Abrams M1's gas turbine can run on basically any fluid that can burn,

from jet fuel to sunflower oil, some more efficiently than others, which is one catch. Its fuel consumption is astronomical, which is another.

That adaptability comes with overheads in terms of maintenance, which is more likely to be a major hitch than software complexity.

If they were to be deployed to Ukraine, I'd suggest basing them around Lviv, to act as a deterrent to any idea of Russia attacking from Belarus, which it's been heavily flagging. That would place them nearer to supply lines and Poland, so maintenance and supply lines would be less of an issue, and they'd likely just sit there lurking way beyond the current front lines.

Their value would arguably be more symbolic than essential to the war effort. The UK's 14 Challenger 2s should be more formidable and useful if and when they see action - they've proven to be verging on indestructable in the field. The Leopards would be the real gamechanger all round if and when deployed, including in terms of sheer numbers potentially available. If Germany doesn't play ball soon, Poland will likely deploy them anyway and argue about it afterwards.