I suspect Germany and France in particular might heartily disagree.
A breakdown of Leopard 2 tanks among NATO countries. The video speculates there could be a collaborative effort to supply tanks. Each country supplies a small number. The total could be enough to help Ukraine push the Russians out.
Turkey isn’t about to give any of theirs up, so they should be scratched as well. I’m guessing most will come from Poland, Spain and Germany.
It’s a interesting inventory. Poland has a lot of Leopard tanks. They want to make sure history won’t repeat itself.
Britain and the US don’t use the Leopard.
Canada could donate a few from their stock.
I’m sure that, if the US were to donate some Abrams, the Ukrainians could find ways to make effective use of them, logistics or no.
This really isn’t accurate. Europe collectively fields a huge and very capable military force. Do they spend as much relative to GDP as the US? No. Could they defend themselves against any plausible threat, such as Russia prior to its losses in Ukraine, or, ummm, I have no idea, Saudis trying to recreate Umayyad Caliphate? Yes.
For a detailed analysis, see this Perun video:
I feel compelled to point out that Finland is not in NATO, at least not yet.
British PM confirms Challenger 2 tanks to be sent to Ukraine:
Challenger 2 tank
AS-90 self-propelled howitzer
Sidebar, please: what is the difference between a tank and a self-propelled howitzer? To my non-military eye, they look much the same? In my ignorance, I’d probably call them both « tanks »?
The key is it is more mobile than a field gun, which needs to be towed. [Self-propelled artillery] can drive itself to where it is needed and fire from there. Or it can continue driving itself to keep up with other armoured vehicles and units that it is intended to support.
Tanks, on the other hand, usually go into battle directly rather than supporting a battle indirectly. They have turrets that allow for easy rotation of their guns, which fire at a flatter trajectory more suited for direct fire upon their intended targets.
Tanks also have thicker armour, making them more suited to this direct combat role.
Also, a howitzer is an indirect-fire weapon – the shell arcs high and comes down on something. Tanks are direct-fire, more or less point blank.
Our idiot sheriff, Joe Arpaio, got himself a self-propelled howitzer and dubbed it a tank. To the ignorant eye it does look more impressive, with a very big… gun.
Odd that an anti-drug howitzer would have Rasta colors on the muzzle. Wonder what it’s loaded with?
Ego, of course.
More briefly than the helpful links already posted:
Self-propelled howitzers are field artillery mounted on a (relatively lightly) armoured chassis. Compared to towed artillery, they’re more mobile. They can get into action more quickly, and can get out of Dodge after firing more quickly compared to their towed counterparts. They’re intended to engage the enemy at long range, several km or further. The relatively light armor is mostly intended to protect against shrapnel from near miss counter-battery artillery fire. It would be very vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank guided missiles (Javelin etc), and main gun fire from tanks.
Tanks are intended for direct engagements. Their principle purpose is to bring to bear direct fire from their large main gun. Not lobbing shells at enemy positions 5km away (though they’re being used that way a fair bit in this war), but driving up and shooting things in the face. They are much, much more heavily armoured than anything else on the battlefield. In addition to the main gun, they’ll typically have a few heavy machine guns for engaging targets where 120mm shells are overkill.
Another class of vehicle frequently misclassified is the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). This is stuff like the American Bradley or the Russian BMP. These are also tracked armoured vehicles with main guns mounted in turrets, but in this case the main gun is a mere 30mm autocannon instead of the big 120mm of the main battle tanks. Additionally, these vehicles typically carry 4-6 infantry inside which by doctrine dismount the vehicle prior to engaging. Their armour is again much lighter than a tanks. To make it possible for them to survive in the presence of tanks, they typically carry anti-tank guided missiles like the TOW.
They’re all big green things on treads with shooty bits sticking out the front, but they all have quite different roles.
Self-propelled artillery is artillery that’s contained within a vehicle and doesn’t need another vehicle to transport it around the battlefield. Commonly, they have tracked wheels, so they can go wherever tanks go, and armor, although not at the level of tanks - more for protection against enemy artillery than enemy tanks, as they wouldn’t be so close the front line. They don’t need unlimbering and setting up, like regular field artillery, so they are usually fielded in formations with tanks and mechanized infantry, designed for rapid advance into enemy territory.
The three main categories of artillery (aside from rocket artillery): guns (or cannons), howitzers and mortars. Guns fire pretty much directly at targets, which gives them accuracy and range, but they can only fire at things they have direct line of sight of. At the other end of the scale, mortars fire indirectly upwards and travel in a high arc, which means they can fire over things like hills, trees or buildings, at things that are not in line of sight, but it also limits their range. Howitzers are in between - they can fire over things, but also have good range. When one thinks of an artillery piece, it’s likely a howitzer.
So, tanks: close to front line, well-armored, generally firing directly at targets. Self-propelled artillery: further back - AS-90 above has range of up to 30 km - generally firing indirectly at targets from distance.
I think it is in regard to certain NATO members, apart from the US. Germany for instance has been well known for not meeting NATO spending limits, despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Now, I think you could argue that was a feature and not a bug; NATO was designed to replace German militay power with US military power in Central Europe. With both world wars in living memory of many of the policy makers
France has a very capable military, that it deploys in combat unilaterally. I am curious as to your statement about Germany. It has currently started an expansion but I am under the impression that it is not especially capable right now, it is just too small.
Blockquote
The highest percentage of GDP spent on the military by any nation in NATO is by…Greece. A little ahead of the United States by a few tenths. #3 is Croatia. Greece and Croatia of course don’t make the top 10 in overall spending, because they’re small and relatively poor.
UK is 4th by percentage, second in real (converted) dollars. Germany and France are 3rd and 4th in real spending and France does (just) hit 2.0% with their most recent budget increase. It is a serious overstatement to say that only the UK and US contribute much to NATO in a military sense. The UK (227), France (222) and Germany (234) for example all basically field about the same number of active main battle tanks (not the same as total tanks held).
That doesnt really make Germany a major military power currently though, right?
Depends on your definition of “major” I suppose, but mostly no. Certainly their international force projection ability is pretty limited compared even to the UK or France (themselves pretty constrained). And unlike those two, they aren’t a nuclear power.
But that wasn’t what I was asserting 
. I was responding to this:
The above, as a bald assertion, is not remotely accurate.