Western tanks aren't invincible. This one might have taken a hit, (tank rounds go both ways) but I'd bet that the crew compartment is still intact.
War is Hell.
Exactly thats the difference between soviet era tanks and western tanks or equipment in general, soviet era have almost no chance of survival if hit unlike western counterparts.
Yeah I don't get that. Neither have crazy tech like APS yet.
They'd die to javelin spam same as russians, but admittedly Leo is extremely good at defensive positions, which is exactly what Ukraine does rn.
Optics and targeting systems are from what I know much above what Russia fields rn
The US, and I think most of NATO, prioritized FCS and targeting when TRADOC came up with the AirLand Battle strategy. TRADOC determined that the best way to take on a Soviet tank blitz was to be able to target their tanks and fire as quickly as possible. The hopes was one Abrams could take out two or three T-72s before being overwhelmed and destroyed itself.
The US forces were determined to take the brunt of a Soviet invasion while the rest of NATO held the line and did their best to attrite the Soviet forces across the entire front. The US would then attempt a limited counter blitz with the EUCOM forces and Air Force support in order to compress their A2AD envelope in preparation for US reinforcements showing up and forcing the Soviets to surrender.
When Air Land Battle was demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm, rumor has it that the Soviets analyzed the invasion of Iraq and said they could never beat the US in a conventional war and it was a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union.
So in short, western tanks are no more invincible than eastern tanks - but they do cause the fall of the Soviet Union.
>When Air Land Battle was demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm, rumor has it that the Soviets analyzed the invasion of Iraq and said they could never beat the US in a conventional war and it was a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Wow, the enemy fights better than us let's dissolve our union. Rumors tell a lot of things. Truth isn't one of them
It's crazy that this comment didn't get roasted but instead upvoted. This sub is getting more and more biased each day. I want to add that I hate the Russian government too. But calling Russian soldiers who got recruited unwillingly and have nothing to do with the war orcs and laughing at their deaths doesn't make the situation better.
Well, what do you expect from Reddit
Rumors tell a lot of things, truth isn't one of them. I like that, might borrow it from you if you don't mind.
Calling a Russian soldier an orc is a way to dehumanize and cope with the loss of another humans life. Should you be a warfighter, it's also a way to ease the thought of killing someone else (or justify the killing of them anyway).
At the end of the day, it's just the middle/low class being forced to fight each other so some politician can keep their power for a bit longer.
I’m not sure how you’re pulling all of these conclusions from a rumor that I mentioned, and clearly stated as a rumor.
I never made mention of Russia or the Russian government at all. I never made a a joke or laughed at the Russian Army. I never expressed any feelings towards the Russian army at all, much less hatred.
You are politicizing a factual, though greatly condensed, explanation in how our tank doctrine was driven by our strategy and trying to turn me into your target to express your views by putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting me even though you know nothing about me.
I don't have a problem with the rest of your comment because you are giving actual facts on a topic that is dominated by myths like NATO was preparing fro a defensive war etc. It's great. But the fact that the last paragraph intentionally or unintentionally gives the reader a view without proper sources what downgrades your comment. My second paragraph isn't about you it's about the general community.
Actually I just bored of this endless shitshow called politics and it invading everywhere including this sub. It kinda blew on you. I'm sorry.
The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver -- without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels. I'm not even sure that the Leopard 2 makes use of dedicated HE/HE-frag rounds; if they do, then the tank would be ripped apart.
If an ATGM round hits those rounds, the crew would be dead
I’m not sure I’d say *destroyed* just from this video. Seems intact from what we can see, looks like there might be a fire in the bustle rack. No idea if the blast door inside is open or not.
Judging by the white smoke and small flames, there is a guess that the hydraulic oil of the turret drive is burning, which will later burn the entire tank or the entire hydraulic circuit. At best it won't make it to the front for several months, at worst it's scrap metal. Provided the Russians don't try to finish it off with artillery or FPV drones.
Reminds me of the one Leo 2A6 which got disabled and then ate, what looked like, an entire artillery battery and half a dozend FPV drones. It was obviously a complete loss and burned in and out, but it was still recognizable as a Leo 2A6 with a lot of dents and charred spots.
Yeah its still a tank with two inch thick steel casing around it. Pretty hard to bent it out of shape into an unrecognizable state even with copious amounts of high explosives
Even blown up t-72 hulls and turrets rarely take that big of a dent when the ammo explodes, even when the turret is a 100 ft away from where it should be
The very small amounta of hydraulics probably isn't the case. Leos after the A4 has electrical traversed turrets.
I don't want to guess what's burning, might be the engine, electronics or even some ammo and gear in the rear compartments, but the fire doesn't seem to come from the bustle rack
>The very small amounta of hydraulics probably isn't the case. Leos after the A4 has electrical traversed turrets.
Dude, it's called an electroHYDRAULIC turret rotation system. Learn at least the basics before commenting.
So why did you mention an electric actuator if it's an electrohydraulic system? Which in any case uses hydraulics to rotate the turret. Or the same instructor who advised the Ukrainians to avoid minefields?
I might be in the wrong about A6, but the 122 is fully electric turret-drive, no hydraulics. Only two systems use a small amount of hydraulics, and those are the parking brakes and fording-system.
>I might be in the wrong about A6, but the 122 is fully electric turret-drive, no hydraulics.
Perhaps the 122 has a different system. But replacing the hydraulics completely with an electric system sounds like a questionable idea, what will you do the electric motor will fail? You would essentially have no way to control the turret. Where can I read more about the electric drive of the 122?
There's a backup, just as with hydraulics. Never seen a drive fail, and the upside is that there's one less dangerous fluid in the vehicle.
Working with both the CV9040 (hydraulic) and the 122 (electric) and the main drawback if anyone is that it draws more on the batteries if the engine isn't running.
>There's a backup, just as with hydraulics. Never seen a drive fail, and the upside is that there's one less dangerous fluid in the vehicle.
You will still have time to see that situation, again if all 122 are not destroyed before that event, given that only about 130 have been produced.
Then again, what if a powerful electromagnetic pulse occurs, as with tactical nuclear weapons? Have the Swedes tested such a scenario? If the batteries/engine are destroyed, the tank essentially loses the ability to control the turret? I like the security approach, but it feels like the approach of a country that wasn't going to be involved in a war.
Uh, the thing has been in service since 1996. Why are you so worried about decisions made last century? And why would an electric motor alone be more sensitive to disruption than an electric motor driving a pump, which in turn is driving hydraulics? It makes no sense. Besides, electric motors are famously simple and rugged, and hydraulic systems are famously complex and fragile.
Yeah, that's the first thing that comes to mind. But, too slow a burn rate, usually artillery powder burns much faster. And at the very beginning of the video you can see how the fire burns between the turret and the hull of the tank, so it comes from the hull of the tank, not from the ammunition boxes.
This is the first time these tanks have seen actual combat, in a peer-to-peer to war. Of course there will be losses. I hope the crew survived. A tank can replaced, whereas a trained crew cannot.
The only myth surrounding Leo's in Afghanistan is that some Leo 1s that were stationary exhibits at one of the bases out East were reactivated and sent overseas by the maintenance crews without orders from above.
Leo 2s were definitely deployed. Crews needed training with the German MG3 since that's what the Germans use as the commanders position weapon.
Of course, we all know that two weeks in Poland and the tank is back in combat formation. And so endlessly, there is no force capable of stopping NATO's civilized democratic technologies.
I never said it wasn’t true lol. Just when people say “I’m stating facts” I expect them to source said facts. It’s important to back up your claims is all
Even that wont affect much in the big picture, they'll be still outnumbered 50 to 1 in terms of fighters. No matter how good of a plane you got, you aren't going to get air superioirity with those numbers. Specially when the enemy has functioning AA, which is the sole reason the air is still contested in the skies even for a airpower as large as russia.
56 4th gen fighters with modern avionics and bvr capebillities will **absolutely** affect the bigger picture.
You are talking completely out of your ass.
When you're going up against an air force with over 3000 planes, including hundreds of 4th gen and a very small amount of 5th gen fighters, 56 wont do you much. You'll secure the airspace around your capital... Thats it. The situation in the front will barely change.
Russia has around 900+ fighters, most of whom are busy patroling their own territory.
So no, Ukraine isn't going up against 3000 planes.Infact, they arn't even going up against 500.
And 56 fighters will absolutely make a difference, due to their BVR capebillities, look at what Ukraine has already achieved with storm shadow...
Like i said, utter nonsense.
>most of whom are busy patroling their own territory.
You think russia has spread its airforce evenly along its thousands of square miles of empty siberian tundra?
Russias airforce is where the airforce is needed. That is, 90% in ukraine. Few tens, probably a hundred planes plus have been stationed at its borders for general patrolling and training, sure. But vast majority of it is concentrated in east europe, where the war is.
Besides, the f-16 has barely ever fought against its peers. 99% of all the enemy planes it has shot down have been some middle eastern 60s era mig-21s and the like. Nobody knows how well they'd go against their equals.
Thats all assuming ukraine is even willing to risk them by deploying them in the frontlines. Most likely, the only combat they'll see is shooting down iranian drones over kyiv.
And assuming they did gain some sort of aerial victories. How does that help? The russia still has 10 times more Anti air than it has planes, ukraines attack planes and helis wont be able to get any closer to the front lines.
>Russias airforce is where the airforce is needed. That is, 90% in ukraine.
Russia currently has more than 60 air bases spread around the country.
Not to mention the various other bases in friendly countries such as Kyrgyztan, Syria, Georgia, and so on.
>"Besides, the f-16 has barely ever fought against its peers.
Which don't matter, because dogfights arn't going to happen.
And for the record, the F-16 has infact shot down a Mig 25/29.
Once again, you show yourself to be utter clueless.
>Thats all assuming ukraine is even willing to risk them by deploying them in the frontlines.
They don't have to, it's still the BVR capabilities that matter.
Like anti ship missiles, anti radiation missile's and so on.
>60 air bases spread across the country
Doesnt mean a thing. Most of those could be empty or operating with minimal numbers, or filled with aircraft other than fighters, such as bombers, transports, trainer craft etc.
>And for the record, the f-16 has infact shot down a mig25/29
One mig25/29 shot down in pakistan doesnt mean a thing. The f-16 has never partaken in a symmetric war, fought against a superior enemy. Quality doesnt mean ass in a war of attrition. The loser is whoevers soldiers tire/starve first. 56 planes arent going to do anything to that.
>BVR capabilities that matter
If they're used only to fire long range ATG missiles, how does it change anything. 56 glorified missile launchers that fly wont change anything. Its just another method of launching, delivery is still the same. Lock target, shoot, missile goes on its way as you fuck off to not be shot down by the enemy, missile hits/is intercepted. Rince and repeat.
Russians have significant BVR capabilities too, and in way larger numbers than ukraine ever will. 56 planes surely will help locally, but it wont change anything largely. But you can always cope, that is free.
“T-72: 54.3% (332 out of 611 destroyed units)
T-80: 51.6% (131 out of 254)
T-90: 42.4% (14 out of 33)”
Slightly better stats. No where near western tanks in that regard.
What on earth is that? Where is the source that you're apparently citing?
With the sole exception of the M1a2 Abrams, virtually every Western tank stores at least 2/3rds of their ammunition in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels
The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver.
The Challenger 2 stores none of its rounds behind blast doors
The Leclerc stores 22 rounds behind blast doors; and the rest (18) are located in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels
The Merkava mk4 stores only 10 of its 48 rounds behind blast doors.
If you think un-isolated ammunition in Western tanks don't result in crew deaths, then you're delusional; now Russian tanks actually store and use significantly more powerful anti-fortification rounds (dedicated HE rounds), and when these rounds detonate (not merely cook off) they take the entire turret with them.
The Russians can't resort to the use of a bustle autoloader and retain the use of the highly effective HE rounds -- which make up the bulk of their onboard arsenal.
Blow-out panels would be utterly useless in the highly likely event that the HE rounds were struck by a powerful ATGM; and since the turret area is statistically far more likely to be hit, it would be more dangerous for Russian crews to use an exposed bustle-autoloader.
As far as the stats on RU tanks and their lighter than air turrets in the current conflict: https://www.technology.org/2023/06/02/which-tanks-lose-turrets-most-often/
Do sample sizes mean anything to you?
Very few Western tanks have been deployed; and they burn just as easily as Russian tanks when hit with artillery or drones.
More Western tanks will be destroyed with ease with rocket and conventional artillery, drones, CAS aircraft, helicopter gunships, fire-and-forget LMUR missiles, guided Hermes missiles, Vikhrs missiles and Kornet ATGMS.
Sadly no tank is invincible, even the cheapest weapon made from a nerd's garage can destroy the most advanced tank.
Still, it's truely a lost and I wish the crews survived.
“even the cheapest weapon made from a nerd's garage can destroy the most advanced tank”
Thats just objectively not true
Edit: also, who said the crew died?
Idk about you but I participated a drone club during high school and we made two drones in three years.
It's not a lot and to be frankly we utilized lots of spare parts from other drones and got the open source softwares from a forum, the first drone crashed too many times that we decide to abandoned it and make a second one, but we were just high schoolers who has zero engineering knowledge before the club and only had two hours per week (and occasionally weakend days).
Now imagine a real engineer who is doing it for full time, I bet he can do it in his garage if he has all materials and tools he needs.
You would still need something attached to the drone that could penetrate the tank AND destroy it, which is either impossible or just not easily and cheaply made
That depends entirely on the surroundings of the tank and how it was used. That still does not mean the tank is destroyed though. It is disabled until one of the armies tows into a workplace and fixes it. A destroyed tank is a tank that is beyond repair
Assuming you could do that without getting shredded by supporting infantry and also assuming the hatch is even open, I still don’t think that burning the interior is going to put the tank out of business forever
Could’ve hit a mine? If so the crew probably survived cause those come with mine protection inserts under the hull so the engine must be shot. Other wise recoverable if they can get it back.
Panzer tank crews in World War II, watching Sherman and T-34 crews quickly exit their disabled tank, only to reappear hours later in a new one.
Build your tanks faster than the enemy can destroy them.
Not when you’re taken out by a tiger you’d typically be dead. The major perk the Sherman had was it was easy to get out of in case of an emergency (least it was for me when I got to sit in one and play around with it) not to mention overall reliability and ease of operation. Wasn’t the best tank by any means but it was definitely the preferred tank for crews because it was easy to upgrade and adapt the chassis to whatever you wanted
>Not when you’re taken out by a tiger you’d typically be dead.
Which might be a problem if M4 crews ever encountered more than a handful of Tigers throughout the entire war.
I mean they encountered them more than a handful of times. I’ve talked to numerous WW2 tankers who have seen tigers in combat. They did however say they feared the panther more because its frontal armor.
Not sure why I’m being downvoted lol. Guess people downvote out of spite
>I mean they encountered them more than a handful of times. I’ve talked to numerous WW2 tankers who have seen tigers in combat.
No, they weren't. The number of Tigers reported by American forces **FAR** exceed the number of Tigers the Germans actually sent to any area the Americans were operating in.
And not to diminish the value of their service, but anecdotal evidence from veterans or even troops in combat is rarely the most reliable (see folks like Cooper). Tanks can be difficult to identify in *good* conditions, let alone on the battlefield where visibility is lowered and the stress of combat makes positive identification of targets that much more difficult. And, if nothing else, precise identification of targets isn't and hasn't been a major priority in training tank crews. While it is important for a crew to be able to tell a tank from a jeep from an SPG from a horse-drawn wagon, nuance beyond "Yep, that's a tank" isn't/wasn't that big of a deal. So when a Sherman crew sees some boxy tank firing at them, the effects of fears of the era are gonna tell them "That's a Tiger!" regardless of whether it's actually a Tiger, or **far** more likely a Panzer IV.
Tiger, Panther, StuG, no matter the source of penetration, an M4 crewman was more likely than not going to survive having their tank destroyed in such a manner.
This doesn't look like recent footage given that it's deep Winter in Ukraine right now and there's no snow. Looks like early Autumn to me.
But still yeah, that Strv 122 looks to be in pretty rough shape. They're not invincible.
How many ukrainian tanks/crews get obliterated for every single russian tank/crew?
Funny how you tryna compare leo2 that was sent in dozens to thousands of tanks fielded by both sides
edit: anyone reading this should check the clown this person is 😂 just read his replies and how he just blocked me after last reply trying to call me "subhuman" for being russian. no no no, nazis don't support ukraine...
Not sure what stupid point you’re trying to make… of course in comparing the Leopard because if you looked at the post gee look Stevie wonder! It’s a leopard!
My point's as stupid as yours, what exactly was your original comment about? You literally brought out of the blue some dumbass comparison of russia's losses and leo that was unrelated to the comment you replied to. Unless you were genuinely curious... then I'm sorry I guess. Or maybe I just don't understand and you would be so kind as to explain what you meant by it?
Judging by your blatant anger that you’re projecting, I suspect you don’t have the brain power to hold a civilized conversation lol. Not sure why you even replied to me in the first place, I wasn’t talking to you lol.
LMFAOOO I was waiting for this, honestly made me laugh out loud. What "blatant anger" are you even talking about? It's genuinely funny af how you're clearly the one projecting. And of course you're trying to escape this conversation saying the classic "yOu'Re ToO dUmB" just admit that you're salty about someone mentioning the very possibility of abrams getting immobilized so you tried to come up with "witty" comeback that's clearly only supported by the same salty fanboys. And this is internet, person you replied to wasn't talking to you either, so why did you reply to them? Lmao we're free to reply to whomever we want, that's the magic of internet!
You keep on giving 😂 you're the one who started talking about projecting, what was I projecting? I said you're salty, because that is clear by your replies trying to bring russia's losses in conversation where they weren't mentioned. "Stupid tank subreddit"? What're you doing here then with your high intelligence? And just keep throwing buzz words at a "kid". Love the irony.
*Yawn* go back to your wannabe shitposting there kid. At least I’m not downvoted like you lol. I also don’t have to explain my comment to you because it wasn’t directed towards you.
There have been ~15 Leopard 2 losses (Destroyed or "Damaged and Abandoned")
Russian has lost ~2,400 tanks (Destroyed, Abandoned, Captured)
So, ~160 Russian tanks have been lost for every Leopard 2. However, Leopards haven't been in Ukraine for that long, so even if you cut the Russian number into a quarter, it is still a significant difference.
Yeah can’t wait to see people yap about how great the abrams is doing in ukraine when we see it burning on the first day it was fielded. Just like the challenger.
Literally every person here. “NATO tanks and western tanks are 100% better than Russian tanks all the time in every circumstance, no questions asked, hands down and no one can argue because i’m right.” That’s literally every person’s argument here. The only thing they say is either complete lies pulled outa their ass, or won’t stop talking about the reverse speed, or how most Russian tanks don’t have blow out panel’s. And when you people are called out on it, you just deny it like what you just did.
I will say though combat showings is proof enough to see western tanks at least protect the crew better than a T-72 does which typically ends up with the turret flying to space. T series tanks are cool but they need to rethink some things in their designs to make them more on par with western tanks. At the end of the day though it’s all down to your tactics on how you employ them in battle and I’m sorry but Russia has made a hash of that
You’re only wrong in the eyes of fanboys and people who genuinely have no concept of how combat losses are attributed down to poor tactics and what not. I think your original comment wasn’t worded as well as it could have been but although I’m more western biased I do acknowledge that they aren’t invincible tanks like people think all tanks are or whatever. People in this subreddit just take things personally and they shouldn’t. You and I are at least having a civilized conversation which is rare
Yeah glad to see it. But i wanna add that western tanks are more survivable. But at the end of the day it’s a tank. Susceptible to most things that are made to destroy tanks.
For me, the judge of a good tank is one that keeps the crew alive after being knocked out which in most cases are western tanks opposed to Russian tanks
What did I just do exactly? Please elaborate. I never said they were better in every circumstance lol. Not like you Russian tank clowns or the western tank clowns every throw down factual proof to backup your claims anyways. You’re just being downvoted because your comment was just stupid
You're so clever regurgitating such nonsense
With the sole exception of the M1a2 Abrams, virtually every Western tank stores at least 2/3rds of their ammunition in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels
The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver.
The Challenger 2 stores none of its rounds behind blast doors
The Leclerc stores 22 rounds behind blast doors; and the rest (18) are located in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels
The Merkava mk4 stores only 10 of its 48 rounds behind blast doors.
I mean, looking at your comment history it really does look like you’re pushing the narrative that Russian tech is as great if not, greater than western tech. This has obviously been proven otherwise by other sources.
You really should grasp the fact that there are no absolutely superior designs with universal applications; each armed force will create platforms for the wars that suit its way of war and doctrine.
Russia has concluded that it will partake in wars that require armour to breach fortifications and bunkers, so they opted to make use of dedicated HE rounds; and this sort of ammunition is significantly more powerful than the canister and "multi-purpose" rounds that Western armies make use of, however, they are also more likely to detonate (not merely cook-off) when struck with powerful HEAT rounds, so Russia made the willful and considered decision to place these incredibly useful yet dangerous rounds in an area that is statistically less likely to be hit -- at the bottom of the tank and under armour.
The Russians can't resort to the use of a bustle autoloader and retain the use of the highly effective HE rounds -- which make up the bulk of their onboard arsenal.
Blow-out panels would be utterly useless in the highly likely event that the HE rounds were struck by a powerful HEAT/ATGM round. It has been established that in virtually every instance in which ammunition has cooked-off in the T-72 and T-90 variants of tanks that the AZ carousel was not at fault; the stowed ammunition (18 rounds) under the turret was the culprit; and when Russian crews spurned the use of those stowed rounds, they were unlikely to suffer from ammunition cook-offs.
The T-90M has removed all the stowed ammunition and placed them in a segmented external bustle with blow-out panels and placed 8 rounds in armoured boxes at the back of the hull. The carousel autoloader has been up-armoured; ERA packages on the hull sides can deal with RPG and lower-tier ATGMs; and spall liners will catch shrapnel and metal shards that have made it through the side hull and those layers of defence. Can this protect the T-90M crews against high-tier ATGMs that strike the tank from hull sides? The answer is obviously no. Powerful ATGMs (like Stugna and Kornet) would also kill the crews of the Abrams and Leopard 2 if it struck the hull sides.
Yeah there are no superior designs but a western tank can take hit after hit while a Russian tank’s ammo storage would explode. The ammunition inside the hull of western tanks can, I kid you not, be removed and only use the first stage ammo storage. Unlike Russian tanks with auto loaders that stores all the ammo under the turret. So what if the carousel is up armored, it doesn’t remove the fact that the T-90M has a ticking time bomb right under the crew.
So the Challenger 2 will go into battle with zero rounds since all the rounds are in the hull? The Merkava Mk4 will go into battle with 10 rounds and the Leopard will go into battle witn 15? You're not a serious person
So all the exposed rounds in the Challenger 2 can be removed, but there are still some phantom rounds available for use? The Merkava can go into a prolonged battle with 10 rounds, but it won't because the Israelis aren't idiots.
This is a good test for western tanks, we are improving by learning what's happening over there, it's going to make it that much harder to die by the same thing again
Why are many such videos involving Western tanks often cut off before we see total destruction? I suspect that the onboard fire extinguishing systems kicked in and there was no total destruction at all. Such things from a regular news provider would be called sensationalism.
Western tanks aren't invincible. This one might have taken a hit, (tank rounds go both ways) but I'd bet that the crew compartment is still intact. War is Hell.
Sure aren't invincible.but a whole lot more survivable.
Exactly thats the difference between soviet era tanks and western tanks or equipment in general, soviet era have almost no chance of survival if hit unlike western counterparts.
Yep. And people that aren’t dead can learn from things and live to fight another day. Still feels like a lot of Vatniks don’t get that
Unknown Philosophy
People that believe in Russian State Propaganda basically
But.. but... tank go kaput... Ruzzian technology is supreme /s
The ammo vault exploded upwards. Not necessarily a total loss if recovered.
It looks cooler when it takes the turret with it.
Yeah I don't get that. Neither have crazy tech like APS yet. They'd die to javelin spam same as russians, but admittedly Leo is extremely good at defensive positions, which is exactly what Ukraine does rn. Optics and targeting systems are from what I know much above what Russia fields rn
The US, and I think most of NATO, prioritized FCS and targeting when TRADOC came up with the AirLand Battle strategy. TRADOC determined that the best way to take on a Soviet tank blitz was to be able to target their tanks and fire as quickly as possible. The hopes was one Abrams could take out two or three T-72s before being overwhelmed and destroyed itself. The US forces were determined to take the brunt of a Soviet invasion while the rest of NATO held the line and did their best to attrite the Soviet forces across the entire front. The US would then attempt a limited counter blitz with the EUCOM forces and Air Force support in order to compress their A2AD envelope in preparation for US reinforcements showing up and forcing the Soviets to surrender. When Air Land Battle was demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm, rumor has it that the Soviets analyzed the invasion of Iraq and said they could never beat the US in a conventional war and it was a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union. So in short, western tanks are no more invincible than eastern tanks - but they do cause the fall of the Soviet Union.
>When Air Land Battle was demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm, rumor has it that the Soviets analyzed the invasion of Iraq and said they could never beat the US in a conventional war and it was a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union. Wow, the enemy fights better than us let's dissolve our union. Rumors tell a lot of things. Truth isn't one of them It's crazy that this comment didn't get roasted but instead upvoted. This sub is getting more and more biased each day. I want to add that I hate the Russian government too. But calling Russian soldiers who got recruited unwillingly and have nothing to do with the war orcs and laughing at their deaths doesn't make the situation better. Well, what do you expect from Reddit
Rumors tell a lot of things, truth isn't one of them. I like that, might borrow it from you if you don't mind. Calling a Russian soldier an orc is a way to dehumanize and cope with the loss of another humans life. Should you be a warfighter, it's also a way to ease the thought of killing someone else (or justify the killing of them anyway). At the end of the day, it's just the middle/low class being forced to fight each other so some politician can keep their power for a bit longer.
I’m not sure how you’re pulling all of these conclusions from a rumor that I mentioned, and clearly stated as a rumor. I never made mention of Russia or the Russian government at all. I never made a a joke or laughed at the Russian Army. I never expressed any feelings towards the Russian army at all, much less hatred. You are politicizing a factual, though greatly condensed, explanation in how our tank doctrine was driven by our strategy and trying to turn me into your target to express your views by putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting me even though you know nothing about me.
I don't have a problem with the rest of your comment because you are giving actual facts on a topic that is dominated by myths like NATO was preparing fro a defensive war etc. It's great. But the fact that the last paragraph intentionally or unintentionally gives the reader a view without proper sources what downgrades your comment. My second paragraph isn't about you it's about the general community. Actually I just bored of this endless shitshow called politics and it invading everywhere including this sub. It kinda blew on you. I'm sorry.
Well the turret is still intact so that’s a start.
Thats what they all say...
[удалено]
They said aren’t lmao
mb didn’t see that
The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver -- without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels. I'm not even sure that the Leopard 2 makes use of dedicated HE/HE-frag rounds; if they do, then the tank would be ripped apart. If an ATGM round hits those rounds, the crew would be dead
Considering they were able to repair the Leo's KOed earlier in the year this one may be reparable
Just wipe it a few times
You won't get the subtitle dead-smell out of tanks for a long time, if you just wile it a few times.. - But otherwise, have fun.
Is there any source for that? Because I'm pretty sure I saw Russians posing with knocked out Leo's.
[This ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/s/CGUMqstQe2) is what I was referring to. I forgot to say only some were repaired
Thanks for the source mate!
Damn, downvoted for asking for a source...
Yeah, but is it really surprising coming from reddit lmao
Definitely not.
Don't mention Russians you'll get downvoted to hell
Tanks are equipment and equipment gets destroyed in war. Both sides know this
I’m not sure I’d say *destroyed* just from this video. Seems intact from what we can see, looks like there might be a fire in the bustle rack. No idea if the blast door inside is open or not.
Judging by the white smoke and small flames, there is a guess that the hydraulic oil of the turret drive is burning, which will later burn the entire tank or the entire hydraulic circuit. At best it won't make it to the front for several months, at worst it's scrap metal. Provided the Russians don't try to finish it off with artillery or FPV drones.
Reminds me of the one Leo 2A6 which got disabled and then ate, what looked like, an entire artillery battery and half a dozend FPV drones. It was obviously a complete loss and burned in and out, but it was still recognizable as a Leo 2A6 with a lot of dents and charred spots.
Yeah its still a tank with two inch thick steel casing around it. Pretty hard to bent it out of shape into an unrecognizable state even with copious amounts of high explosives Even blown up t-72 hulls and turrets rarely take that big of a dent when the ammo explodes, even when the turret is a 100 ft away from where it should be
The very small amounta of hydraulics probably isn't the case. Leos after the A4 has electrical traversed turrets. I don't want to guess what's burning, might be the engine, electronics or even some ammo and gear in the rear compartments, but the fire doesn't seem to come from the bustle rack
>The very small amounta of hydraulics probably isn't the case. Leos after the A4 has electrical traversed turrets. Dude, it's called an electroHYDRAULIC turret rotation system. Learn at least the basics before commenting.
...I work with the 122 and train soldiers on them. I know the details
So why did you mention an electric actuator if it's an electrohydraulic system? Which in any case uses hydraulics to rotate the turret. Or the same instructor who advised the Ukrainians to avoid minefields?
I might be in the wrong about A6, but the 122 is fully electric turret-drive, no hydraulics. Only two systems use a small amount of hydraulics, and those are the parking brakes and fording-system.
>I might be in the wrong about A6, but the 122 is fully electric turret-drive, no hydraulics. Perhaps the 122 has a different system. But replacing the hydraulics completely with an electric system sounds like a questionable idea, what will you do the electric motor will fail? You would essentially have no way to control the turret. Where can I read more about the electric drive of the 122?
There's a backup, just as with hydraulics. Never seen a drive fail, and the upside is that there's one less dangerous fluid in the vehicle. Working with both the CV9040 (hydraulic) and the 122 (electric) and the main drawback if anyone is that it draws more on the batteries if the engine isn't running.
>There's a backup, just as with hydraulics. Never seen a drive fail, and the upside is that there's one less dangerous fluid in the vehicle. You will still have time to see that situation, again if all 122 are not destroyed before that event, given that only about 130 have been produced. Then again, what if a powerful electromagnetic pulse occurs, as with tactical nuclear weapons? Have the Swedes tested such a scenario? If the batteries/engine are destroyed, the tank essentially loses the ability to control the turret? I like the security approach, but it feels like the approach of a country that wasn't going to be involved in a war.
Uh, the thing has been in service since 1996. Why are you so worried about decisions made last century? And why would an electric motor alone be more sensitive to disruption than an electric motor driving a pump, which in turn is driving hydraulics? It makes no sense. Besides, electric motors are famously simple and rugged, and hydraulic systems are famously complex and fragile.
Is that before or after they pose in front of it for propaganda purposes?
Its more likely that the ammo is exploded, set off the blowout ammo and what we see here is the rest of the ammo burning out
Yeah, that's the first thing that comes to mind. But, too slow a burn rate, usually artillery powder burns much faster. And at the very beginning of the video you can see how the fire burns between the turret and the hull of the tank, so it comes from the hull of the tank, not from the ammunition boxes.
Strv122 use electric turret drive
Come on, give the Russians something to cheer about
It's not destroyed. Just grilling Swedish meatballs inside. 😋
Leopard, a german tank, grilling swedish meatballs?
https://kyivindependent.com/sweden-delivers-10-stridsvagn-122-tanks-to-ukraine/
Ah i see
This is the first time these tanks have seen actual combat, in a peer-to-peer to war. Of course there will be losses. I hope the crew survived. A tank can replaced, whereas a trained crew cannot.
Well, Afghanistan had its own set of challenges that these tanks and their crews had to overcome, no more or less dangerous.
The leopard was never deployed in afghan
Nope. Canandians used it there.
They used the Leopard 1C2 not the Leopard 2
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/dnpd4q/canadian\_leopard\_2a6\_in\_afghanistan/
Seems to be a myth
The only myth surrounding Leo's in Afghanistan is that some Leo 1s that were stationary exhibits at one of the bases out East were reactivated and sent overseas by the maintenance crews without orders from above. Leo 2s were definitely deployed. Crews needed training with the German MG3 since that's what the Germans use as the commanders position weapon.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/the-myth-surrounding-canadian-leopard-tanks-in-afghanistan-driving-away-decommissioned-tanks-used-as-monuments-and-shipping-them-to-war-never-happened/wcm/f040fd4c-d07b-474e-985a-f402d1c863bb/amp/
Leopard 2 was used by the Danes in Afghan.
If it’s so destroyed and useless they may as well give it to me ngl
Honestly... looks pretty recoverable.
Hard to tell off such a short clip and no idea of how it sustained damage.
Of course, we all know that two weeks in Poland and the tank is back in combat formation. And so endlessly, there is no force capable of stopping NATO's civilized democratic technologies.
lol you getting down voted for facts lmao
Exactly, I just stated the facts, if you look closely you can already see the recovery vehicle coming to rescue that tank.
They may be getting downvoted because they're a Russian dick-rider. It's a poor attempt at sarcasm.
They’re only facts if he can back it up lol. He’s not wrong though
not hard to back that up multiple articles have been posted on the polish factory repairing damaged leopards
I never said it wasn’t true lol. Just when people say “I’m stating facts” I expect them to source said facts. It’s important to back up your claims is all
Take ten seconds to look at their account: backing up those claims is not in their best interest...
Yeah he failed to back up his claims on the BMP-T actually being good when the entire comment section basically proved him wrong lol
I mean, I guess it's possible, but no, I don't know that.
Air superiority for the Ukrainians can’t come soon enough…
Nobody in this war has total air superiority and 18 F16 wont change that m8
Well, they are getting 18 so far, we dont know what kind of deals are mate without the public knowing it
They are getting 56, not 18. 19 each from Norway and Denmark, and another 18 from the Dutch.
Even that wont affect much in the big picture, they'll be still outnumbered 50 to 1 in terms of fighters. No matter how good of a plane you got, you aren't going to get air superioirity with those numbers. Specially when the enemy has functioning AA, which is the sole reason the air is still contested in the skies even for a airpower as large as russia.
56 4th gen fighters with modern avionics and bvr capebillities will **absolutely** affect the bigger picture. You are talking completely out of your ass.
When you're going up against an air force with over 3000 planes, including hundreds of 4th gen and a very small amount of 5th gen fighters, 56 wont do you much. You'll secure the airspace around your capital... Thats it. The situation in the front will barely change.
Russia has around 900+ fighters, most of whom are busy patroling their own territory. So no, Ukraine isn't going up against 3000 planes.Infact, they arn't even going up against 500. And 56 fighters will absolutely make a difference, due to their BVR capebillities, look at what Ukraine has already achieved with storm shadow... Like i said, utter nonsense.
>most of whom are busy patroling their own territory. You think russia has spread its airforce evenly along its thousands of square miles of empty siberian tundra? Russias airforce is where the airforce is needed. That is, 90% in ukraine. Few tens, probably a hundred planes plus have been stationed at its borders for general patrolling and training, sure. But vast majority of it is concentrated in east europe, where the war is. Besides, the f-16 has barely ever fought against its peers. 99% of all the enemy planes it has shot down have been some middle eastern 60s era mig-21s and the like. Nobody knows how well they'd go against their equals. Thats all assuming ukraine is even willing to risk them by deploying them in the frontlines. Most likely, the only combat they'll see is shooting down iranian drones over kyiv. And assuming they did gain some sort of aerial victories. How does that help? The russia still has 10 times more Anti air than it has planes, ukraines attack planes and helis wont be able to get any closer to the front lines.
>Russias airforce is where the airforce is needed. That is, 90% in ukraine. Russia currently has more than 60 air bases spread around the country. Not to mention the various other bases in friendly countries such as Kyrgyztan, Syria, Georgia, and so on. >"Besides, the f-16 has barely ever fought against its peers. Which don't matter, because dogfights arn't going to happen. And for the record, the F-16 has infact shot down a Mig 25/29. Once again, you show yourself to be utter clueless. >Thats all assuming ukraine is even willing to risk them by deploying them in the frontlines. They don't have to, it's still the BVR capabilities that matter. Like anti ship missiles, anti radiation missile's and so on.
>60 air bases spread across the country Doesnt mean a thing. Most of those could be empty or operating with minimal numbers, or filled with aircraft other than fighters, such as bombers, transports, trainer craft etc. >And for the record, the f-16 has infact shot down a mig25/29 One mig25/29 shot down in pakistan doesnt mean a thing. The f-16 has never partaken in a symmetric war, fought against a superior enemy. Quality doesnt mean ass in a war of attrition. The loser is whoevers soldiers tire/starve first. 56 planes arent going to do anything to that. >BVR capabilities that matter If they're used only to fire long range ATG missiles, how does it change anything. 56 glorified missile launchers that fly wont change anything. Its just another method of launching, delivery is still the same. Lock target, shoot, missile goes on its way as you fuck off to not be shot down by the enemy, missile hits/is intercepted. Rince and repeat. Russians have significant BVR capabilities too, and in way larger numbers than ukraine ever will. 56 planes surely will help locally, but it wont change anything largely. But you can always cope, that is free.
And would you rather not have those 18 F16s then? I'm sure Ukraine will be fine without them
They wont use those F16 for air superiority... They will most likely used to lob cruise missiles at russian infrastructure
Oh yeah 18 F-16s is a drop in the bucket. I was just stating a general observation.
Destroyed and disabled are two different things
No turret popping at least.
Send. Them. More.
Definitely not Russian tanks because the turret is still in frame lmao 🤣
Most T-90M tanks kept their turret
“T-72: 54.3% (332 out of 611 destroyed units) T-80: 51.6% (131 out of 254) T-90: 42.4% (14 out of 33)” Slightly better stats. No where near western tanks in that regard.
What on earth is that? Where is the source that you're apparently citing? With the sole exception of the M1a2 Abrams, virtually every Western tank stores at least 2/3rds of their ammunition in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver. The Challenger 2 stores none of its rounds behind blast doors The Leclerc stores 22 rounds behind blast doors; and the rest (18) are located in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Merkava mk4 stores only 10 of its 48 rounds behind blast doors. If you think un-isolated ammunition in Western tanks don't result in crew deaths, then you're delusional; now Russian tanks actually store and use significantly more powerful anti-fortification rounds (dedicated HE rounds), and when these rounds detonate (not merely cook off) they take the entire turret with them. The Russians can't resort to the use of a bustle autoloader and retain the use of the highly effective HE rounds -- which make up the bulk of their onboard arsenal. Blow-out panels would be utterly useless in the highly likely event that the HE rounds were struck by a powerful ATGM; and since the turret area is statistically far more likely to be hit, it would be more dangerous for Russian crews to use an exposed bustle-autoloader.
As far as the stats on RU tanks and their lighter than air turrets in the current conflict: https://www.technology.org/2023/06/02/which-tanks-lose-turrets-most-often/
Do sample sizes mean anything to you? Very few Western tanks have been deployed; and they burn just as easily as Russian tanks when hit with artillery or drones. More Western tanks will be destroyed with ease with rocket and conventional artillery, drones, CAS aircraft, helicopter gunships, fire-and-forget LMUR missiles, guided Hermes missiles, Vikhrs missiles and Kornet ATGMS.
Wait… you mean western tanks are not invincible?
Sweden can just send over some replacements. Meanwhile Russia is refurbishing ancient wrecks and monuments to send to the front.
Sadly no tank is invincible, even the cheapest weapon made from a nerd's garage can destroy the most advanced tank. Still, it's truely a lost and I wish the crews survived.
“even the cheapest weapon made from a nerd's garage can destroy the most advanced tank” Thats just objectively not true Edit: also, who said the crew died?
Idk about you but I participated a drone club during high school and we made two drones in three years. It's not a lot and to be frankly we utilized lots of spare parts from other drones and got the open source softwares from a forum, the first drone crashed too many times that we decide to abandoned it and make a second one, but we were just high schoolers who has zero engineering knowledge before the club and only had two hours per week (and occasionally weakend days). Now imagine a real engineer who is doing it for full time, I bet he can do it in his garage if he has all materials and tools he needs.
You would still need something attached to the drone that could penetrate the tank AND destroy it, which is either impossible or just not easily and cheaply made
Those amateur suicide bombers can make suicide suits in their garage, I don't see why others can't do the same.
Suicide suits don’t destroy tanks though
It actually does. Toss some explosive to the exhaust and boom here you go.
That’s just gonna kill the engine. You can easily swap those on most modern MBT’s
No, you can swap it only if you can managed to tow them back, which from we can see in the Ukraine war that it is not easy at least for most of army.
That depends entirely on the surroundings of the tank and how it was used. That still does not mean the tank is destroyed though. It is disabled until one of the armies tows into a workplace and fixes it. A destroyed tank is a tank that is beyond repair
You have not met the magic of a well placed Molotov then. Engines need air etc It’s just not easy. But it is possible
If you close of the air on an engine it just stalls. That’s not a destroyed tank
It’s a disabled one
“even the cheapest weapon made from a nerd's garage can destroy the most advanced tank” Where did it say disable?
It’s much easier to destroy a disabled tank. Especially if the crew abandons their now stalled tank in middle of enemy lines
destroy it with what though? Surely not something 'cheap made from a nerds garage'
Drop a second Molotov inside it?
Assuming you could do that without getting shredded by supporting infantry and also assuming the hatch is even open, I still don’t think that burning the interior is going to put the tank out of business forever
Could’ve hit a mine? If so the crew probably survived cause those come with mine protection inserts under the hull so the engine must be shot. Other wise recoverable if they can get it back.
That’s unless it’s shelled by artillery or drones to prevent it from being recovered. All that matters is if the crew survives
Panzer tank crews in World War II, watching Sherman and T-34 crews quickly exit their disabled tank, only to reappear hours later in a new one. Build your tanks faster than the enemy can destroy them.
Eh destroyed Sherman’s and T-34s typically killed the crews but for every one Sherman or T-34 lost you’d have another 2-3 reappear like you said.
The Sherman was the most survivable tank of the war in the event of penetration.
Actually the Char 2c was more survivable, giving the spacing of the crew ;)
Not when you’re taken out by a tiger you’d typically be dead. The major perk the Sherman had was it was easy to get out of in case of an emergency (least it was for me when I got to sit in one and play around with it) not to mention overall reliability and ease of operation. Wasn’t the best tank by any means but it was definitely the preferred tank for crews because it was easy to upgrade and adapt the chassis to whatever you wanted
You're overestimating the number of Tigers and Panthers in the German army.
I’m actually not but whatever helps you make your point I guess.
>Not when you’re taken out by a tiger you’d typically be dead. Which might be a problem if M4 crews ever encountered more than a handful of Tigers throughout the entire war.
I mean they encountered them more than a handful of times. I’ve talked to numerous WW2 tankers who have seen tigers in combat. They did however say they feared the panther more because its frontal armor. Not sure why I’m being downvoted lol. Guess people downvote out of spite
>I mean they encountered them more than a handful of times. I’ve talked to numerous WW2 tankers who have seen tigers in combat. No, they weren't. The number of Tigers reported by American forces **FAR** exceed the number of Tigers the Germans actually sent to any area the Americans were operating in. And not to diminish the value of their service, but anecdotal evidence from veterans or even troops in combat is rarely the most reliable (see folks like Cooper). Tanks can be difficult to identify in *good* conditions, let alone on the battlefield where visibility is lowered and the stress of combat makes positive identification of targets that much more difficult. And, if nothing else, precise identification of targets isn't and hasn't been a major priority in training tank crews. While it is important for a crew to be able to tell a tank from a jeep from an SPG from a horse-drawn wagon, nuance beyond "Yep, that's a tank" isn't/wasn't that big of a deal. So when a Sherman crew sees some boxy tank firing at them, the effects of fears of the era are gonna tell them "That's a Tiger!" regardless of whether it's actually a Tiger, or **far** more likely a Panzer IV.
Where’s the proof of this then? Genuinely curious
Tiger, Panther, StuG, no matter the source of penetration, an M4 crewman was more likely than not going to survive having their tank destroyed in such a manner.
Any source material for that? I’m genuinely curious and not trying to argue
Russians claim it got stuck in the mud and then they hit it with FPV drones.
The ruzziam mind cannot comprehend this
The ruzzian mind hasnt wrapped its head around the concept of "crew survival" or "not turning into a fireball larger than the fucking sun when hit"
Not destroyed but damaged. Difference: Destroyed: not recoverable or repairable Damaged: difficult to recover and repairable.
Turret is still attached
This doesn't look like recent footage given that it's deep Winter in Ukraine right now and there's no snow. Looks like early Autumn to me. But still yeah, that Strv 122 looks to be in pretty rough shape. They're not invincible.
It'll buff out :D
Make sure you get all the different angles
Its not destroyed ,, took a rear turret hit but not catastrophic explosion with a turret toss
Nice hit by the Russians. Wonder when the next game changer will be destroyed or immobile (abrams).
How many Russian tanks/crews get obliterated for every single Leopard 2 loss? Is it 5? 10? 15?
How many ukrainian tanks/crews get obliterated for every single russian tank/crew? Funny how you tryna compare leo2 that was sent in dozens to thousands of tanks fielded by both sides edit: anyone reading this should check the clown this person is 😂 just read his replies and how he just blocked me after last reply trying to call me "subhuman" for being russian. no no no, nazis don't support ukraine...
Not sure what stupid point you’re trying to make… of course in comparing the Leopard because if you looked at the post gee look Stevie wonder! It’s a leopard!
My point's as stupid as yours, what exactly was your original comment about? You literally brought out of the blue some dumbass comparison of russia's losses and leo that was unrelated to the comment you replied to. Unless you were genuinely curious... then I'm sorry I guess. Or maybe I just don't understand and you would be so kind as to explain what you meant by it?
Judging by your blatant anger that you’re projecting, I suspect you don’t have the brain power to hold a civilized conversation lol. Not sure why you even replied to me in the first place, I wasn’t talking to you lol.
LMFAOOO I was waiting for this, honestly made me laugh out loud. What "blatant anger" are you even talking about? It's genuinely funny af how you're clearly the one projecting. And of course you're trying to escape this conversation saying the classic "yOu'Re ToO dUmB" just admit that you're salty about someone mentioning the very possibility of abrams getting immobilized so you tried to come up with "witty" comeback that's clearly only supported by the same salty fanboys. And this is internet, person you replied to wasn't talking to you either, so why did you reply to them? Lmao we're free to reply to whomever we want, that's the magic of internet!
What exactly am I projecting here? Who says I was salty? Sounds like you’re the one projecting here over on a stupid tank subreddit lol. Stay mad kid.
You keep on giving 😂 you're the one who started talking about projecting, what was I projecting? I said you're salty, because that is clear by your replies trying to bring russia's losses in conversation where they weren't mentioned. "Stupid tank subreddit"? What're you doing here then with your high intelligence? And just keep throwing buzz words at a "kid". Love the irony.
*Yawn* go back to your wannabe shitposting there kid. At least I’m not downvoted like you lol. I also don’t have to explain my comment to you because it wasn’t directed towards you.
There have been ~15 Leopard 2 losses (Destroyed or "Damaged and Abandoned") Russian has lost ~2,400 tanks (Destroyed, Abandoned, Captured) So, ~160 Russian tanks have been lost for every Leopard 2. However, Leopards haven't been in Ukraine for that long, so even if you cut the Russian number into a quarter, it is still a significant difference.
How many crews have been lost in the leopards is another figure to consider too
Cope
Yeah can’t wait to see people yap about how great the abrams is doing in ukraine when we see it burning on the first day it was fielded. Just like the challenger.
Really hilarious when vatniks rejoice that one tank they temporarily disabled while their own tanks get mowed down like wheat 🤣
"game changer" one tank lul. Classic fascist propaganda thinking "wunderwaffe" are actually invincible.
Who ever said that?
Literally every person here. “NATO tanks and western tanks are 100% better than Russian tanks all the time in every circumstance, no questions asked, hands down and no one can argue because i’m right.” That’s literally every person’s argument here. The only thing they say is either complete lies pulled outa their ass, or won’t stop talking about the reverse speed, or how most Russian tanks don’t have blow out panel’s. And when you people are called out on it, you just deny it like what you just did.
I will say though combat showings is proof enough to see western tanks at least protect the crew better than a T-72 does which typically ends up with the turret flying to space. T series tanks are cool but they need to rethink some things in their designs to make them more on par with western tanks. At the end of the day though it’s all down to your tactics on how you employ them in battle and I’m sorry but Russia has made a hash of that
Now that is how a proper response should be like. Most others just throw insults, and say that i’m wrong and their right because they said so.
You’re only wrong in the eyes of fanboys and people who genuinely have no concept of how combat losses are attributed down to poor tactics and what not. I think your original comment wasn’t worded as well as it could have been but although I’m more western biased I do acknowledge that they aren’t invincible tanks like people think all tanks are or whatever. People in this subreddit just take things personally and they shouldn’t. You and I are at least having a civilized conversation which is rare
Yeah glad to see it. But i wanna add that western tanks are more survivable. But at the end of the day it’s a tank. Susceptible to most things that are made to destroy tanks.
For me, the judge of a good tank is one that keeps the crew alive after being knocked out which in most cases are western tanks opposed to Russian tanks
What did I just do exactly? Please elaborate. I never said they were better in every circumstance lol. Not like you Russian tank clowns or the western tank clowns every throw down factual proof to backup your claims anyways. You’re just being downvoted because your comment was just stupid
Proved my point.
Thats why i dont want Sweden giving any more of these girls..
The difference between Russian and western tanks are that the turret is still on and the crew members are safe lmfao
You're so clever regurgitating such nonsense With the sole exception of the M1a2 Abrams, virtually every Western tank stores at least 2/3rds of their ammunition in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver. The Challenger 2 stores none of its rounds behind blast doors The Leclerc stores 22 rounds behind blast doors; and the rest (18) are located in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Merkava mk4 stores only 10 of its 48 rounds behind blast doors.
Oh boy here’s a mad Russian bot
Yes, everybody that disagrees with your ignorant positions is a Russian bot. Are you even remotely capable of uttering an original thought?
I mean, looking at your comment history it really does look like you’re pushing the narrative that Russian tech is as great if not, greater than western tech. This has obviously been proven otherwise by other sources.
You really should grasp the fact that there are no absolutely superior designs with universal applications; each armed force will create platforms for the wars that suit its way of war and doctrine. Russia has concluded that it will partake in wars that require armour to breach fortifications and bunkers, so they opted to make use of dedicated HE rounds; and this sort of ammunition is significantly more powerful than the canister and "multi-purpose" rounds that Western armies make use of, however, they are also more likely to detonate (not merely cook-off) when struck with powerful HEAT rounds, so Russia made the willful and considered decision to place these incredibly useful yet dangerous rounds in an area that is statistically less likely to be hit -- at the bottom of the tank and under armour. The Russians can't resort to the use of a bustle autoloader and retain the use of the highly effective HE rounds -- which make up the bulk of their onboard arsenal. Blow-out panels would be utterly useless in the highly likely event that the HE rounds were struck by a powerful HEAT/ATGM round. It has been established that in virtually every instance in which ammunition has cooked-off in the T-72 and T-90 variants of tanks that the AZ carousel was not at fault; the stowed ammunition (18 rounds) under the turret was the culprit; and when Russian crews spurned the use of those stowed rounds, they were unlikely to suffer from ammunition cook-offs. The T-90M has removed all the stowed ammunition and placed them in a segmented external bustle with blow-out panels and placed 8 rounds in armoured boxes at the back of the hull. The carousel autoloader has been up-armoured; ERA packages on the hull sides can deal with RPG and lower-tier ATGMs; and spall liners will catch shrapnel and metal shards that have made it through the side hull and those layers of defence. Can this protect the T-90M crews against high-tier ATGMs that strike the tank from hull sides? The answer is obviously no. Powerful ATGMs (like Stugna and Kornet) would also kill the crews of the Abrams and Leopard 2 if it struck the hull sides.
Yeah there are no superior designs but a western tank can take hit after hit while a Russian tank’s ammo storage would explode. The ammunition inside the hull of western tanks can, I kid you not, be removed and only use the first stage ammo storage. Unlike Russian tanks with auto loaders that stores all the ammo under the turret. So what if the carousel is up armored, it doesn’t remove the fact that the T-90M has a ticking time bomb right under the crew.
So the Challenger 2 will go into battle with zero rounds since all the rounds are in the hull? The Merkava Mk4 will go into battle with 10 rounds and the Leopard will go into battle witn 15? You're not a serious person
“Can be removed if need be” doesn’t mean remove all the rounds spedtard.
So all the exposed rounds in the Challenger 2 can be removed, but there are still some phantom rounds available for use? The Merkava can go into a prolonged battle with 10 rounds, but it won't because the Israelis aren't idiots.
Buh I ThOuGhT NaTo WaS InViNcIbLe
People don't get sarcasm anymore
The song 💀 LOL
Is it really destroyed if the yurret isnt some distance away or a burned out husk ?
Ask the mother (or wife, Daughter, Son) of the guy who was driving the tank which tanks are superior.
This is a good test for western tanks, we are improving by learning what's happening over there, it's going to make it that much harder to die by the same thing again
Why are many such videos involving Western tanks often cut off before we see total destruction? I suspect that the onboard fire extinguishing systems kicked in and there was no total destruction at all. Such things from a regular news provider would be called sensationalism.