- cross-posted to:
- Ukraine_UA@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- Ukraine_UA@kbin.social
You must log in or # to comment.
Can we stop the bullshit narratives? Yes, those are light vehicles compared to modern MBTs. No, them being at risk when immobilized by a mine and then coming under artillery fire is not an issue of Leopard-1s. Neither is getting hit by ATGMs.
That’s the reality of every tank and vehicle in a war zone. And not one some smart Ukrainians will fix with their ingenious engineering skills. That’s just another bullshit fairy tale of how Ukrainians can improve crap the West delivered them. And I don’t understand their need to push such narratives constantly.
Well, you can, but first you should learn more about these tanks: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/11/19/ukraines-leopard-1-tanks-roll-toward-the-front-line-but-without-extra-armor/
If you care to read a purely Ukrainian weapon expert, David Axe, in the purely Ukrainian Forbes magazine :-)
Thanks, I probably know more about these tanks than you, if second hand media reports are your source.
Doesn’t change the facts. Leopard-1s cannot be considered MBTs by modern standards. They are mobile guns at best but given their fire control actually really good at that job.
But on the other hand no modern MBT is actually immune to being immobilized by a mine and then destroyed by artillery fire either.
Yet that’s exactly that this article is about: How Ukrainians “added reactive armor to Leopard-1s really in need of extra armor just in time…”… to then describe exactly the “immobilized and shot by artillery”-scenario that is now allegedly solved by reactive armor. Spoiler: No, this solves nothing, that’s coping. No amount of extra armor will make Leopard-1 into modern battle tanks. Use them in a supportive role as a precise gun on range (and as it’s rifled it is actually more capable in regards to long range precision than modern smooth-bore cannons). Believing otherwise will just get you killed.
Well, you probably know more about tanks than I do. But sorry, this article isn’t about making tanks completely immune. It is about improving protection. To quote the article:
ERA blocks contain layers of explosives that explode outward when struck, potentially deflecting the incoming blast. Reactive armor doesn’t work against inert penetrating rounds, but against high-explosive rounds it can roughly double a tank’s protection.
With a tight layer of ERA, a Leopard 1A5 should go from having around 70 millimeters of steel protection to the equivalent of 140 millimeters or so. That’s still less protection than a Russian T-72 has, but it’s enough at least to give Ukrainian crews more confidence as they roll onto battlefields teeming with explosive-laden drones and anti-tank missiles.
You write:
Use them in a supportive role as a precise gun on range (and as it’s rifled it is actually more capable in regards to long range precision than modern smooth-bore cannons).
Indeed, the Ukrainians use them as accurate long-range guns. But as for the “supporting role”, what other tanks should these Leopards support? Perhaps Ukraine will miraculously receive or make hundreds of modern battle tanks in the future. But for now, the Ukrainians must do the best they can with what they have, upgrading old vehicles where possible.
