You are right, the most probable root cause is the lack of training.
They learning on the frontline what should be done with the eqipment.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
They learning on the frontline what should be done with the eqipment.
@Janiz, why don't you grace us with your super duper NATO insight as to why the above post is comedy to you. All I ever seen you do is loiter every posts you find disagreeable with a LOL emoji. Surely, there must be something of value we have yet to learn from you, so it would be nice to actually gain a different perspective even if it's pro-NATO/Ukraine narrative. What's the harm in doing that.
All of the Russian tanks are supposed to fit 1 less person though.
T90 weighs 46 tons/3 ppl = 15.3 tons/ person. Challenger 2 is 64 tons/4 ppl = 16 tons/person.
Assuming the NATO tank has been incrementally updated with modern-ish composites and electronics since it was built, it is 100% going to have better protection than a T72 which was brought out of storage weeks ago and essentially has 1980s engineering.
I'd guess they're on average T80BV to T90 and T90M level, at least when it comes to hard protection numbers.
However Russian/Ukrainian tanks have a lower profile and may be less prone to getting stuck in poor terrain.
2A4s got beaten up hard in the ME by really basic weapons. I could buy that they're as bad as the more basic T72s. But Challenger 2 should be better because theyre constantly updated to be somewhat modern.
That has a lot to do with them being bigger tanks. Relative to their volume, T tanks are as well armored as western tanks.
And yes, they might have been created with a defensive doctrine in mind but that doesn't spare the west from developing requirements around faulty assumptions, which was the case of the Chieftain/Challenger family and early Abrams. Early requirements for these tanks revolved around erroneus assumptions about soviet weapons performance and specs, for example, thinking the T-64 had the same 115mm gun as the T-62 so their early versions had protection levels to deal with this.
They also assumed T-64's and T-72's still used steel armor, which as we already know, is wrong as the T-64's was one of the earliest tanks to introduce composite armor.
Once the west realized that Soviet tanks had bigger guns and were better armored than what they anticipated, they started to improve the armor and targeting systems of their tanks. That's how we got the early upgunned and uparmored M1IP and M1A1HA.
This only applies to the M1 and Leopard 2, though. The Challenger 2 never got improvements from its original requirements mostly due to lack of money; it still uses Gen 1 thermals( while they label it as Gen 2, the sensor still is Gen 1), and there is the whole issue of using a rifled gun with a three piece ammunition with a manual loader.
The brits kept the rifled gun precisely because of that assumption that the T-64 and T-72 used steel armor so HESH rounds would be highly effective agaisnt them. But as they don't, HESH rounds can't penetrate composite armor. Another negative aspects of the Challenger 2 its is ammo storage as it has ammo racks spreaded all across the turret and hull.
A T-72B3 with K5 can deal with with a Leo 2A4, though. Most Leo 2A4(which I guess is what Ukraine will get) are just as much 80's tech as a T-80U.
I think the challenger 2 have very thin front lower hull armor, even RPG can penetrate it. Although, its very low to the ground, so the chance of getting hit is low (by another tank).
Then again, there are so many RPG all over the world. the chance one RPG hit the lower front hull might just be enough to cause embarrassment.
Something a bit different about today's missile attack is that there are quite a few ballistic missiles from Belarus launched to Kiev.
The most obvious answer is Iskander, to avoid AD perhaps. Alternatively I wonder if this is Iranian ballistic missiles becoming available..
This is the turbine hall of one of the thermal power station around Kiev that was hit today.
The most obvious answer is Iskander, to avoid AD perhaps. Alternatively I wonder if this is Iranian ballistic missiles becoming available..
This is the turbine hall of one of the thermal power station around Kiev that was hit today.
Reportedly 2 thermal power stations were hit this time.
Strange.
So, they get rid of cold start ,replaced it with an extra booster, and possible guidance/warhead changes.
Interesting let say.
From that link:
Ukrainian specialists will study the wreckage of missiles fired by Russia on Saturday to determine the type of rockets used, Air Defence spokesman Yuriy Ihnat said in a televised interview.
“It is obvious that these were either ballistic missiles or S-300 anti-aircraft missiles flying along a ballistic trajectory,” he said.
Again an Ukrainian s-300 going nuts ?
Apparently, an S300 missile fell on Moldova earlier today.