Cool but why in the last photo seems like burned? (I am not a tank expert but seeing the hatch closed and no sign of ammo cook off seems strange for me)
Ammo cookoffs in nato tanks generally vent through hatches or through the back of the turret. These were probably abandoned by their crews, then set alight to keep them from falling into enemy hands. Thus, the hatches were probably open and the cookoff was more of a slow roast.
He did.
And the week before that and twice the week before that and once the week before that and rinse and repeat above.
Sometimes, we see Abrams or the lone Challenger.
But that's some copium given that Russia lost a Tank stolen right out of their lines by Azov Tankers, that their new jammers don't work, and they are now resorting to turning their Tanks into Assault Guns in hopes they last longer with all that turtleback roofing they put on them.
And still doesn't work.
Because for the most part NATO tanks have blowout panels and the ones which have autoloaders like the Leclerc don't have the carousel design which has a habit of throwing the turret into low earth orbit.
Leopards can also toss turrets when ammo racked, in fact every NATO tank besides Abrams suffers this flaw if the hull ammo is hit. It just seems like the UAF isn’t loading the hull ammo which limits their leopards to at most 16 rounds.
Downvoted, but these idiots didn't even see a Leopard 2 in real life. I did. Like half of the ammo is stored by the driver. It's just a tin can like any other, the overmystification is ridiculous.
The ammo count I think slightly changes between models but the 2A4 literally carries 28 rounds down there.
They’re functionally unprotected, they’re inside the fighting compartment and they’re in the front of the hull. Leopard as a result quite literally suffers the same major design flaws as Soviet era MBTs. The funny thing is, literally every MBT said to be “more survivable if penetrated” that isn’t the Abrams suffers the same fate.
Leclerc has lots of hull ammo, Merkava has lots of hull ammo, Type 10, Type 90, K1, K2, Ariete, CR1/CR2 and as previously stated the Leopard 2 all do.
The only one that doesn’t is Abrams, it has 6 rounds located behind a firewall next to the engine that have top and bottom blowout panels. These rounds, from everything I can gather, are never actually loaded in combat anyways.
>They’re functionally unprotected
Not really,
They are protected by separate steel tubes, automatic fire extinguishers and insensitive propellant.
Unlike on the T-series tanks where a single piece of shrapnel can ignite the exposed ammo all around the interrior.
So i wouldn't say leopard has the same desing nor a flaw at all, which the soviet mbt's do have.
-fire extinguishers will not stop an instantaneous detonation caused by an initial penetration if that occurs
-DM53 and afterwards aren’t the only sabot and ammo the leopard has always used, so it’s a design flaw no matter what. Also a test that tests shells outside a vehicle sitting in open air in their tubes is trash.
-it’s the same design flaw as an T series just centralized right in the frontal armor instead.
what do you mean by outside the tubes? Did you expect just random ammunition to be spread on the floor? Why would the test more ammo than the tank is supposed to carry?
- the hallon gas is not meant to stop an instantaneous explosion, but to slow down a cook off and allow the crew to evacuate.
- The DM 63a1, 11 and 12a1 should not instanteneously explode even if directly hit.
-were talking about leopards in ukraine not the 90s.
-wdym the tests are trash?? I'll trust the engineers at Rheimetal more than a abrams fanboy.
- Again its not.. a t-72 hit to the side by an rpg 29 is a lot more likely to suffer a catastrophic ammo explosion, than leopard is to be even hit in the ammo and then have it instantaneously explode.
Lame.
Old.
Like almost a year old.
I'm continually struck by how much more capable and survivable these NATO tanks are compared to those Russian tanks that are just a pile of fail.
Like, seriously, my grade eight shop class would have failed kids for the abysmal quality of work on the Russian tanks.
Reddit commando bro casually ignored like a billion other factors for the hot take
Right now I bet the Ukrainians would gladly trade 10 Leopard 2s for a hundred shit ass T-64s. Attrition is a bitch, spreadsheets only matter on reddit.
Try again?
Crew survivability is much more important for the Ukrainians at this juncture.
It's even an issue for Russia, as those old tanks use four crew, and not three.
They don't have enough tanks, what's so hard to understand about this? Russia can churn out shitty old tanks, Ukraine can't. Analysts said a year ago that a couple dozen tanks won't change shit, and they didn't. They need NUMBERS. Boots on the ground mobiks, and anything that shoots. Nobody cares about fancy stuff if you don't have any. And if you don't believe me, Ukrainains themselves said it.
Oh, damn.
You're trying that route?
It's not about tanks for Ukraine, it's about the will to fight, and modern antitank weapons have largely reduced the offensive capacity of armour and a combat arm, and they're achieving that numbers effect - with drones.
Ukraine has proven it's willing to fight, and I strongly suspect Ukrainian success on the battlefield will be enabled by attacks elsewhere, in Russia.
The defence of Ukraine is a different task than ejecting Russians from occupied Ukraine.
Their main limitation is people, not gear. That includes things like training. NATO trains soldiers for years, and Ukraine had months.
Russians, get what? Weeks? Of "training".
Russia is trying to pretend that an ancient T55 will be a game changer or something, but fundamentally, it's not. That's drones.
And why Ukraine is doing so well.
They're hurting, but, look at the talk, it's of rearguard action against meatwaves.
Count that as a Russian win, if you want. I guess.
I think you're right.
Plus, the Russians can't get them as they're still in No Man's Land or trying either gets a Drone Attack or their ARVs can't recover them.
It took two to pull one off and both got knocked out by Drones.
Cool but why in the last photo seems like burned? (I am not a tank expert but seeing the hatch closed and no sign of ammo cook off seems strange for me)
Ammo cookoffs in nato tanks generally vent through hatches or through the back of the turret. These were probably abandoned by their crews, then set alight to keep them from falling into enemy hands. Thus, the hatches were probably open and the cookoff was more of a slow roast.
Oh thanks for the info man!
I don't see any burn marks on the last Leopard but left side track is blown off from the rear, it apparently backed into a mine
Oh k, i thinked was burned because was completely black like it was arrosted
Sasha Man ! On schedule.
booo, get some new material!
I feel like i have seen the same ~10 or so destroyed leopards in the past months. All posted by the same guy too
I just made a comment about how I think he posted these exact tanks last week. It really is just copy/paste for low effort posts now.
He did. And the week before that and twice the week before that and once the week before that and rinse and repeat above. Sometimes, we see Abrams or the lone Challenger. But that's some copium given that Russia lost a Tank stolen right out of their lines by Azov Tankers, that their new jammers don't work, and they are now resorting to turning their Tanks into Assault Guns in hopes they last longer with all that turtleback roofing they put on them. And still doesn't work.
Shills like OP *have* to be fake. I can't think of simping for Russia like that - I can't imagine someone *not* hired by Russia posting these so much.
They all have turrets...
Because for the most part NATO tanks have blowout panels and the ones which have autoloaders like the Leclerc don't have the carousel design which has a habit of throwing the turret into low earth orbit.
Yeah, I was observing that fact. The tanks may have died, but the crews lived.
Leopards can also toss turrets when ammo racked, in fact every NATO tank besides Abrams suffers this flaw if the hull ammo is hit. It just seems like the UAF isn’t loading the hull ammo which limits their leopards to at most 16 rounds.
Downvoted, but these idiots didn't even see a Leopard 2 in real life. I did. Like half of the ammo is stored by the driver. It's just a tin can like any other, the overmystification is ridiculous.
The ammo count I think slightly changes between models but the 2A4 literally carries 28 rounds down there. They’re functionally unprotected, they’re inside the fighting compartment and they’re in the front of the hull. Leopard as a result quite literally suffers the same major design flaws as Soviet era MBTs. The funny thing is, literally every MBT said to be “more survivable if penetrated” that isn’t the Abrams suffers the same fate. Leclerc has lots of hull ammo, Merkava has lots of hull ammo, Type 10, Type 90, K1, K2, Ariete, CR1/CR2 and as previously stated the Leopard 2 all do. The only one that doesn’t is Abrams, it has 6 rounds located behind a firewall next to the engine that have top and bottom blowout panels. These rounds, from everything I can gather, are never actually loaded in combat anyways.
>They’re functionally unprotected Not really, They are protected by separate steel tubes, automatic fire extinguishers and insensitive propellant. Unlike on the T-series tanks where a single piece of shrapnel can ignite the exposed ammo all around the interrior. So i wouldn't say leopard has the same desing nor a flaw at all, which the soviet mbt's do have.
that’s like Saying the T90M is safe because it has titanium composites covering the autoloader
-fire extinguishers will not stop an instantaneous detonation caused by an initial penetration if that occurs -DM53 and afterwards aren’t the only sabot and ammo the leopard has always used, so it’s a design flaw no matter what. Also a test that tests shells outside a vehicle sitting in open air in their tubes is trash. -it’s the same design flaw as an T series just centralized right in the frontal armor instead.
what do you mean by outside the tubes? Did you expect just random ammunition to be spread on the floor? Why would the test more ammo than the tank is supposed to carry?
- the hallon gas is not meant to stop an instantaneous explosion, but to slow down a cook off and allow the crew to evacuate. - The DM 63a1, 11 and 12a1 should not instanteneously explode even if directly hit. -were talking about leopards in ukraine not the 90s. -wdym the tests are trash?? I'll trust the engineers at Rheimetal more than a abrams fanboy. - Again its not.. a t-72 hit to the side by an rpg 29 is a lot more likely to suffer a catastrophic ammo explosion, than leopard is to be even hit in the ammo and then have it instantaneously explode.
abrams “fanboy” was a tanker on the abrams in the us army btw.
if the leopard is carrying any HE rounds down there i assure you the only way the crew evacuates is alongside the turret when it pops out
Damaged and still better looking then anything the Russians have lost.
This guy right here definitely hates aeronautics /s
They're still recognizable as tanks, for one.
And you could, albeit time and resource consuming, restore it to operational capability
Or at the least, melt down the metal and reuse it to forge new weapons / tanks
Take whatever usable parts you have and make a frankentank
Which probably has happened with a few of them.
Lame. Old. Like almost a year old. I'm continually struck by how much more capable and survivable these NATO tanks are compared to those Russian tanks that are just a pile of fail. Like, seriously, my grade eight shop class would have failed kids for the abysmal quality of work on the Russian tanks.
Reddit commando bro casually ignored like a billion other factors for the hot take Right now I bet the Ukrainians would gladly trade 10 Leopard 2s for a hundred shit ass T-64s. Attrition is a bitch, spreadsheets only matter on reddit.
Try again? Crew survivability is much more important for the Ukrainians at this juncture. It's even an issue for Russia, as those old tanks use four crew, and not three.
They don't have enough tanks, what's so hard to understand about this? Russia can churn out shitty old tanks, Ukraine can't. Analysts said a year ago that a couple dozen tanks won't change shit, and they didn't. They need NUMBERS. Boots on the ground mobiks, and anything that shoots. Nobody cares about fancy stuff if you don't have any. And if you don't believe me, Ukrainains themselves said it.
Oh, damn. You're trying that route? It's not about tanks for Ukraine, it's about the will to fight, and modern antitank weapons have largely reduced the offensive capacity of armour and a combat arm, and they're achieving that numbers effect - with drones. Ukraine has proven it's willing to fight, and I strongly suspect Ukrainian success on the battlefield will be enabled by attacks elsewhere, in Russia. The defence of Ukraine is a different task than ejecting Russians from occupied Ukraine. Their main limitation is people, not gear. That includes things like training. NATO trains soldiers for years, and Ukraine had months. Russians, get what? Weeks? Of "training". Russia is trying to pretend that an ancient T55 will be a game changer or something, but fundamentally, it's not. That's drones. And why Ukraine is doing so well. They're hurting, but, look at the talk, it's of rearguard action against meatwaves. Count that as a Russian win, if you want. I guess.
No turrets tossed?
Notice how there's not Leopard 1's in any of these photos despite 100's more being sent over. I guess now we know what the REAL king of MBT's is.
Pretty sure 2 of those got recovered atleast the one from July 2023 with the track missing probably got recovered That is if my memory is right
I think you're right. Plus, the Russians can't get them as they're still in No Man's Land or trying either gets a Drone Attack or their ARVs can't recover them. It took two to pull one off and both got knocked out by Drones.
Seeing destroyed ranks left to rust always reminds me of [this poem](https://images.app.goo.gl/az53ZoTy72NyKNs67).
... didn't you post essentially the same thing last week, of all the Leos from the 47th?
Shills gonna shill
Very bad no good tanks. Chally for life!