"Everything is based on the accuracy of the first shot": the Hungarian army named the differences between the Leopard tank and the T-72

After the acquisition of German tanks The Leopard A4 arsenal of the Hungarian army, previously consisting only of the T-72 MBT, has been replenished with a new product. The commander of the training battalion gave his assessment of two types of combat vehicles.

According to Lieutenant Colonel Horvat Sandor, their preparation for operation is practically the same, but although both tanks are contemporaries, they differ significantly in design philosophy.

The German product focuses on the survival and protection of the crew

- names the military differences on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the country.

As he explains, the Leopard A4 has a more powerful engine, the mechanic drives the car with a joystick, and a set of sensors that signal the state of the system - the pressure and temperature of oil, water, and so on - seriously help in controlling the equipment. As a result, the overheating of the power plant is not so terrible, unlike the T-72.
The concept of firing is also significantly different.

In "Leopard" everything is based on the accuracy of the first shot [apparently due to the absence of an automatic loader]: the probability of hitting a target should be 98-99%, a ballistic computer helps to achieve this indicator. For the T-72, the permissible percentage of misses is much higher.

- indicates the lieutenant colonel.

In his words, the fire in motion is fired from the Leopard at a speed of 30-35 km / h, which "has been unimaginable until now."

Comments

[Voltsky]

something like this; , the stabilization system is pretty good

[John22]

Good! And the suspension is soft too. I would have tried it on the T-72 as well. It is reported that shooting on the move at 30-35 km / h. - At our biathlon, the rate of fire is barely 10 km / h. Why?

[poquello]

Quote: John22

At our biathlon, the rate of fire is barely 10 km / h. Why?

so who is stopping them from shining at biathlon? ))))))))))))))))))))

[Gunther]

Quote: John22

shooting on the move at 30-35 km / h. - At our biathlon, the rate of fire is barely 10 km / h. Why?...

John22, make an ideal autobahn on biathlon - shooting on the move will grow 4 times)))

[PROXOR]

Took off the tongue.

[Andrey NM]

Basically, Syria has shown the Leopard's combat capabilities.
The second moment ... I would like to see how they reload at speed in a battle with open hatches over rough terrain. He will be unwound with this shell around the tower and the smile will quickly fly off his face. Indeed the tank of the first shot. It's probably good to stand in an ambush. The "cat" ideology remained from the Second World War, where their tigers and panthers actually performed the functions of anti-tank self-propelled guns.

[Zaurbek]

The hit of Kornet or TOU -2V (in the absence of KAZ) will show you disadvantages on any ngo tank ... the difference will be only in the propensity to fire and explosions of ammunition (again, due to differences in ammunition in the composition of shells)

[PROXOR]

Has already shown. Video 2 years ago Kurds against Turkish Leopards 2A4. In my opinion, the Cornet is used there.
"And of course. Burn for a sweet soul" Maestro (Leonid Bykov) "Only old men go to battle"

[Zaurbek]

Merkavas were amazed, but burned less ... some tanks have no HE shells ...

[PROXOR]

At Merkavs, each shot is packed into a special glass, which lasts for what time and does not allow the cartridge case to heat up.

[Zaurbek]

I wrote about it ... they were amazed ... but not all burned and exploded .. (or rather, different%)

[Incvizitor]

Only now, in the current conflicts, the opponents have few tanks and everything is knocked out from the air, because such a concept has become useless, like the tanks for it.

[maykl8]

"Good! And the Suspension is also soft. I should have tried it on the T-72 as well. It is reported that shooting on the move at 30-35 km / h. - In our biathlon, the rate of firing is barely 10 km / h. Why?"
IMHO. Due to the fact that the attack speed on foot is 6 km / h, and in the combined order, 10-12 km / h.

[ccsr]

Quote: John22

It is reported that shooting on the move at 30-35 km / h. - At our biathlon, the firing speed is barely 10 km / h. Why?

Well, if only because the Americans in the nineties, even in training tasks on the Abrams, did not have shooting on the move - only from stops. I think even now it is unlikely that anything has changed, but I will not argue - I just took into account that the Hungarian T-72s were produced in the days of the USSR.
As for the statement about 30-35 km / h, this should be checked by our tank troops specialists, and not just take the word of some commander of a training unit, especially since he does not describe the accuracy of such shooting.

[El Barto]

Elementary Watson.
a) You can shoot from any tank at any speed. The well-known pictures of a T-80 shot in a jump from a hill is a colorful example of this. Getting hit is another matter.

b) Magyar speaks about the importance of the first shot because it is difficult for the loader to throw shells into the cannon on the move. And it would be interesting to see how he will somersault along the bo with a projectile in his hands at the same 35 km / h.

In the end, everyone comes to the idea of ​​the need for AZ, even the Americans plan to stick it into the abrams

[ccsr]

Quote: El Barto

You can shoot from any tank at any speed. The famous photos of a T-80 shot in a jump from a hill is a colorful example of this. Getting there is another matter.

This is natural - it was shown more than once, but the accuracy of the hit was not reported.

Quote: El Barto

Magyar speaks about the importance of the first shot because it is difficult for the loader to throw shells into the cannon on the move. And it would be interesting to see how he will somersault along the bo with a projectile in his hands at the same 35 km / h.

And this is obvious to anyone who has ever sat in armored vehicles of even a lower class.

Quote: El Barto

In the end, everyone comes to the idea of ​​the need for AZ, even the Americans plan to stick it into the abrams

In general, I think that a tank cannot be considered modern without it.

[Vadim F]

10? Seriously? at best they shoot from 3 km / h, and often from a stop (and the judges turn a blind eye to these "tricks")

[omega_elf]

That there are none of them in biathlon? No one forbade))) neither Leclercs nor Challengers nor Merkava nor Abrams nor leopards ... because they crap in a desert storm in 1991?)))

[Sergey Valov]

Video for amateurs, the slightest roll of the tank and the mug will fly away.

[Troll]

A drop of glue and it will never fly away

[Avior]

Beer won't come with glue, it will spill

[Troll]

Who said there was beer? Don't trust the commercials. The ice can be plastic cubes and the flowers can be plastic.

[Avior]

At least a liquid that you can't stick with glue

[Kurare]

Quote: Avior

Beer won't come with glue, it will spill

There is a tricky beer mug - double-walled. And between the walls "beer" is poured. It definitely won't spill (just kidding).

[Avior]

Easier with a transparent lid

[Kurare]

Quote: Avior

Easier with a transparent lid

Easier, but then you can see that it is closed with a lid. And the meaning of this experiment is to show that beer does not spill over the edge.

[Avior]

Transparent same
Transparent film can be tightened more
Maybe you can see, but double walls or the fact that there is no liquid in the circle is also visible

[tralflot1832]

The Hungarians yesterday, the former Defense Minister von Leyen, was sent into the erotic, with her joy for the blueness. And at the same time they praise the Lepards. The ways of God are inscrutable.

[Guardian of the walls]

What surprises you? You can be opponents of the propaganda of pederasty and at the same time recognize the superiority of the LEO-2 over the T-72

[tralflot1832]

So they have Leopard A4, already the third modification. I have a friend of the tank commander, he always said that we have one serious opponent, this is Lepa. And for some reason I believe him.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: tralflot1832

So they have Leopard A4, already the third modification

In the photo, at least Leo-2A5.

[atakan]

Quote: tralflot1832

So they have Leopard A4, already the third modification. I have a friend of the tank commander, he always said that we have one serious opponent, this is Lepa. And for some reason I believe him.

But why are there so many of them in Syria on the Turkish border? About ten in 16, and several times for the second time. I am not at all surprised, since the side armor of the Leopard is very thin, it is cut with a simple autogenous one.

[img]https://misterxanlisis.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/leo2dk6_k.jpg?w=737&h=527http://[/img]

[tralflot1832]

So among the Turks like Lepa A. 2. Abrams cornets do not hold in the lateral projection. Yes, and the Kurds vertuozy. About 4 years ago, the Cornet Cobra was planted on the ground, in a drava. They were struck by Kurdish girls who spread their molasses into molecules. Any tank cannot stand on the battlefield. ...

[Zaurbek]

It is necessary to compare the generation of Leo with the T-72 or T-90 ... there already the A7 goes into the "Revlyushin or Evolution" ... But in general, Leo's "cart" (and other western tanks) is 7-roller and in terms of carrying capacity close to Armata ..... like Diesel

[Sergey Obraztsov]

No one argues that Leopards are good tanks, with good guns, and in general an example of engineering. Especially the latest modifications. True, their number is such that I would prefer to have 10 T72B3 for one modern Leopard, and not vice versa. But comparing in 2021 the T72 of the late USSR and the Leopards of the same years, forgive me in the museum, is good. And to make an informational lead out of this from the words of some colonel ...

[A.K.]

Well, yes, if you really compare it at least with the T90 MS.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: A.K.

Well, yes, if you really compare it at least with the T90 MS.

You will have to fight with what is in combat units ...
And not with whom you want ...

[boris epstein]

So the Germans A4-x and A5-x are not a lot.

[Romario_Argo]

no matter who to compare with. the main thing is what is the tactics of using tanks
we like reinforcement of motorized riflemen in 95% of cases
those. these are tank trenches with a narrow tank hazardous sector
the old T-72 has the equivalent of 700 mm forehead armor, 800 mm turret + 400 mm DZ
1100 mm / 1200 mm
do not care what Leo.
and in the attack with the support of tanks from the beginning of MLRS, OTRK, self-propelled guns, Drying and turntables iron
so that do not care who is there and how much

[paul3390]

The Panther was also probably a better tank than the T-34-76. And - a helluva lot of it helped nemchura then?

[Reiter]

Then the USSR could afford to lose conditionally five T-34s per panther, and if only with pieces of iron, but also crews, and now Russia can afford this? The pieces of iron can be riveted in large quantities, especially if they are simpler and cheaper, but we cannot rivet people in any way, we are shrinking, it’s probably easier to bring AI to perfection. Now only the Arab countries and Africans can afford such a position on the massive expenditure of tanks, their overpopulation and fertility are off scale, people have nowhere to go.

[Lettp]

In the USSR, the concept of using tanks was not against tanks. Nobody counted how many T-34s are needed for one panther. It was considered how much less infantry would die if a dozen tanks went ahead of the infantry to break through.

[Reiter]

Well, at the beginning of the war, such an explanation could work, but it was 1943, it seemed like it became clear to everyone that the Germans were actively using tanks and still Prokhorovka happens on July 12. Losses of the USSR: at least 340 tanks, 108 tanks and self-propelled guns. Formally, ours had an advantage in numbers there, but our tanks were T-34-76 and T-70 (more than 30%), but the Germans did not have Panthers there, like 15 Tigers and some Ferdinands, the rest , this is T-3, 4. And the Germans also advanced. The result is disastrous for both hardware and people. In fact, the Germans, like Kpkine, achieved their goal then, did not break through the defenses, but they left Prokhorovka and the battlefield behind them, tactically they won the battle with fewer tanks.

[Lettp]

What does Prokhorovka have to do with it? Do you understand why Prokhorovka happened? The doctrine of the use of tanks of the Red Army was to break through the defenses with the support of the infantry, go out into the operational space, cut communications, seize supply depots, and conduct an encirclement. At the same time, no one was guided by panthers, they were guided by the range, armor from enemy field guns, mass production and cost of the tank, the complexity of training.

[Reiter]

It's just that Prokhorovka, as the most contrasting case, showed the shortcomings of Soviet tank equipment, both in terms of firepower in the first place and in terms of protection, neither one nor the other was lacking in the conditions of the emergence of new equipment from the Germans, even to break through the defense, as suddenly on the defensive there can also be tanks and self-propelled guns.

[boris epstein]

Ask Rotmistrov about the losses at Prokhorovka. The tankmen had to bypass a large ravine, substituting the sides. Rotmistrov did not really reconstruct.
ME Katukov refused to counterattack there, even on pain of being shot, and proposed the tactics of tank ambushes, as in 1941 at Orel. Mtsensk and Tula.

[Reiter]

Everything was difficult there, with tactics, I do not argue, but going into it, it can be noted that German tank guns and self-propelled guns had an advantage in the range of destruction of our tanks, up to 2 kilometers were sewn into any projection, and not only on the sides of Ferdinand. stugs and tigers. I don't remember about T4, they already had 75 mm. It was after Prokhorovka that a shift occurred in the concept of tank building and as a result, the T34-85, 85 mm guns on the KV, and subsequently the ISs appeared.

[boris epstein]

The 75-mm guns were on fours from the very beginning of the war, but they were short-barreled with a low initial projectile velocity and, as a result, with low armor penetration. In the middle of 1942, guns with a longer barrel were installed - first the L-43, and then the L-48, they were already dangerous at CERTAIN distances (but far from 2 km) for the T-34, even in a frontal projection. had 75-mm long-barreled Panther guns and 88-mm guns of the Tigers and Ferdinands. But in fact, the Panthers and Tigers were created as tank destroyers, in their ammunition there were VERY few high-explosive fragmentation shells. And the main purpose of the tank of ANY country is not so much the fight against enemy tanks, but the cover of the infantry in the attack with armor and the destruction of enemy firing points.
And tanks were destroyed by anti-tank mines, aviation (PTAB), RSs hung under the wings of the Il-2, anti-tank guns, and heavy artillery. Especially when the German armored rhombus stopped in front of Soviet anti-tank minefields in anticipation of its aviation, it got hard from Katyusha and heavy artillery.

[Reiter]

Well, yes, cover for the infantry, this is the task of tanks, only cover from whom? You think that for some reason the enemy should not have tanks, like he is stupid and will not guess to cover his infantry with tanks. It is possible to count on this only in the war with all sorts of barmaley.

[boris epstein]

Covering infantry IN ATTACK AND CONTRACTING from machine-gun, rifle and automatic fire, destruction of enemy firing points (bunkers, dugouts, machine-gun nests, small-caliber artillery), including dug-in tanks. Soviet / Russian tanks had ALL types of ammunition more or less evenly in their ammunition, but the Tigers and Ferdinands had anti-armor-armor-piercing, sub-caliber, cumulative ammunition prevailed ... But high-explosive fragmentation (against firing points) - according to the residual principle. That is why I call them anti-tank self-propelled guns.
Even Heinz Guderian considered the four modifications of the HK to be the most successful type of German tank. They were also not without drawbacks (the center of gravity was shifted forward, due to which the front road wheels were overloaded), but there were no ideal tanks in the world, and never will be.
Army proverb: The enemy's position is considered taken when I ... and the first soldier hovers over the enemy's trench.

[Maksimov]

How many Prokhorovki were there during the war? Already ONE! Oh, yes, there was also Balaton, where there was already T34-85, ISs and Dryers of Tigers with Panthers rolled into the tail and mane. And how many ordinary, "infantry" battles with the participation of tanks, breakthroughs, detours during the war? Thousands, tens of thousands. And you again grab a single, essentially unique case of a massive tank battle (in which ours still won), and begin to reproach our tanks for not being quite a wunderwaffe. This is stupid. Thank God that during the war, our command was not so stupid and was not carried away by the creation of the wunderwolf. And time has shown that our command was right, and you continue to chew liberoid noodles. Well, if you like it so much, chew here's something else - the Germans had Panthers, and even more so the Tigers were not the most massive tanks. The most were PZ-4 and Stugi based on them with 5cm frontal armor and 3cm side armor (by the way, the Panther also has only 4cm). The American Shermans have 6cm in the forehead (which is the same as in the T-34), and 3,5cm in the side without any slopes at all, and even a tall silhouette. For the sake of justice, complain that Hitler did not spare the Fritzes, and Roosevelt did not spare the Americans. The Shermans began to produce in 1942 and riveted about 50 thousand T-34s during the SAME period of 55 thousand. That is, following the liberoid logic, the Americans overwhelmed the Germans with tanks. Only for some reason I do not hear such splashes towards the Germans and Americans, but all the whine towards the USSR. Probably because someone who is not very good at fighting tries to gloss over his shortcomings by pouring mud on the winners. This is the accepted practice in the Western world.

[Reiter]

Throw away your primitive cliché to change everyone who looks a little differently than you at some event. I am definitely not liberoid-minded. But you are throwing yourself into the complete opposite of the libers. Everything was correct for you, there were no mistakes, as I understand it, it would be up to you to decide what to equip the spacecraft with, so they would have fought on BT-7, T-26 until the end of the war, or even cavalry and machine guns would not have been given to them , a three-ruler with a head would be enough. And yes, the Shermans were Mr. compared to the Panthers. And on the occasion of the Panther, they were piled in batches. Therefore, the Americans, knowing the uselessness of the Shermans against the Panthers, immediately stopped and called in the aviation so as not to overwhelm the corpses of the Germans. And yes, contrary to your opinion, thank God, they were not fools at Headquarters, because after Prokhorovka, ISs and T-34-85s appeared and then they brought down the Germans near Balaton, including, but they would not exist, so would the second Prokhorovka.

[Maksimov]

Thanks for the adequate argument. You rarely hear such a thing. But Stalin also said that a tank, first of all, is a cart with a cannon. It is logical that the more "carts with guns" on the battlefield, the better.

[Reiter]

No way without Stalin? Is he still conscious? Apparently the ovs still quote Roosevelt wherever they go, but in Germany, Hitler. There are different carts with a cannon, for example T-70, in your opinion, if we rivet more of them than ISs every five, then we might not bother with new powerful tanks. If everything was as good as you write, then Stalin would have demanded the development of more powerful tanks after this "unique" Prokhorovka. Well, he turned out to be right, but not you, you would have continued to rivet the T-70 and T-34-76.

[Maksimov]

Are you really smart? With what business could the USSR afford to lose tank crews? In the USSR, what, people were cloned immediately by trained tankers? The human resource of the USSR itself was exactly 2 times lower than that of Germany with its allies. And the tankers still need to be trained. But the fact that the USSR was able to produce 5 times more tanks than its enemy with the entire European industry is a real military-economic miracle. And naturally, 5 times more tanks fought more. It is also natural that more of our tankers were killed, simply because there were many times more of them. But they died from enemy tanks in the penultimate turn - only 20% of the losses. In general, the account of the dead must be kept common for all types of troops on all battlefields for the war. And here it is about 1 to 1. Taking into account the fact that we won, half of Europe bent down and the ambitions of the Americans and the British were greatly lowered, the losses were not in vain, unlike the Fritzes.

[omega_elf]

No one there lost 5 for a panther, one bottle of KS and there was neither a tiger nor a panther, as well as one drying a couple of tigers with a panther filled up, especially with a hundred

[mvg]

And - a helluva lot of it helped nemchura then?

Tell this to the dead tankmen ... sick man

[Alexander Seklitsky]

Quote: mvg

And - a helluva lot of it helped nemchura then?

Tell this to the dead tankmen ... sick man

Tankmen of the burned-out panthers?

[Zaurbek]

The German tankers themselves helped (the bulk of the Tigers and Panthers were destroyed by artillery and aviation) ..... it did not help ours ....... and the Reich did not help (due to economic and logistic reasons). It is believed that more mass production (and further modernization) of the T-4 would be more correct. 75mm there was powerful and pierced everything that was needed ... and the Panther, in fact, is a heavy tank.

[Knell wardenheart]

Leo is still a tank for a contract army with a completely different level of culture. The T-72 was created for other approaches and as a product of incomparable mass, which inevitably imposed on it certain restrictions on its own dueling characteristics for the sake of the average power in a massive breakthrough and the average statistical survivability and maintainability. A tank as an anti-tank weapon and a tank as a strategic tool are, in general, two different approaches, the same Germans ran into it at one time.

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Leo is still a tank for a contract army with a completely different level of culture.

Pavel57 (Gf) The Germans proceed from the postulate that the service of a contractor is work, so it should be convenient

The Germans began to have a contract army since 2011, what were the postulates there during the Cold War and the 90s?

The German army - the Bundeswehr - abandoned compulsory military service back in 2011. General military service was replaced by professional service, but not completely canceled. The Constitution of the country retained an article that permits the conscription of young men from 18 years of age for urgent military service, if it becomes necessary for Germany due to "a change in the international situation and the emergence of a real threat to the security and sovereignty of the country." However, experts are sure that because of such a vague formulation, Germany is unlikely to be able to call on anyone in reality, unless the war goes on on its territory. So, apart from potential threats, service in the German army is voluntary.  

Source: https://migrantumir.com/sluzhba-v-armii-germanii

[Knell wardenheart]

Thanks for the clarification! The German conscription, however, did not have the need to bring everything to such quantitative indicators for tank crews, which made it possible to operate with a more stringent selection framework, and, accordingly, rely on a greater technological culture in this selection. Yes, that was the premise of the contract, but they got it right with the trend, as they say.

[From Germany]

@Knell Wardenheart What did they guess? I served in the Bundeswehr. If earlier all sorts of schizos practically dissolved in the bulk of normal soldiers, now in the army the percentage of those who are a true "warrior" who just to shoot, and preferably at someone alive, has clearly grown. Psychos may be good killers, but they are not soldiers. The abolition of compulsory military conscription is the way to the degeneration of the army. Look at the same US army - in spite of the simply gigantic costs - for the most part - a bunch of clowns, it is not surprising, most go to the army not from a good life. And Germany made a huge mistake by following the same path. Although on the other hand, maybe Germany does not need a well-trained army. Better to let all sorts of contractors arrange their Nazi parties abroad, they are at least somehow looked after. I very much hope that if Russia wants to remain a defensive and militarily strong state, it will never cancel its military conscription.

[Lara Croft]

Quote: From Germany

I very much hope that if Russia wants to remain a defensive and militarily strong state, it will never cancel its military conscription.

Will not cancel. Russia is constantly at war (not of its own free will) state and it needs a mobilization prepared human resource, although due to the mess of the 90s, there are many VUS 999 ...

[Knell wardenheart]

You can't push through normal training with a force. Here we need analogs of the Soviet approach - with gto, osoaviakhim, shooting courses, etc. To guide motivation in those who have it. But since we exist under capitalism, our state does not really soar because the organization of this would require considerable material costs. It is much easier to row yesterday's shkolota along the entrances and hope that the zergach will take it out in case of something "like a star". But our demographics no longer allow us to play with such dregs.

[omega_elf]

Russia is constantly at war? Did you fall off the oak tree? From 1995 to 2022, one exception was poured into Georgians for three days! And the west?! US especially?

[Knell wardenheart]

There is no definite answer here - the truth is probably somewhere in between. The conscript army is highly dependent on the internal stability of society and the objective motivation of the conscript. In conditions that do not shine with either one or the other, she does not differ in combat effectiveness and often suffers huge losses, suffers from desertion and hazing. In the conditions of pluralism of ideas in the modern world, the forced unification of people of different social strata and level of intelligence is a very unreliable path. In the modern civilized world, a person, as a rule, reacts negatively and disapprovingly to violence and coercion, while the question of the reaction of a particular person to specific circumstances can often exist within very wide limits. The conscript army is also more susceptible to the influence of the enemy's propaganda means, since these people are not professional and motivated military men - they are yesterday's inhabitants, for the most part still very young. It is also worth considering that people have completely different thresholds of perception of violence, stress, their effectiveness in these conditions is also very different - there are Warriors, there are Non-Warriors.
During the wars of the past, the feeling of elbowing and visual contact with the enemy was often taken out - in a modern war, people will be much less crowded, and the abundance of remote and extremely destructive weapons will act as a powerful demotivating factor.

Constantly howling and relatively mono-national-cultural states like Israel have the ability to maintain an effective and combat-ready conscription. Large and culturally heterogeneous states that do not have permanent, pronounced conflicts can rely on conscription in peacetime, but during wartime it can be a double-edged sword - which was well demonstrated by the initial period of the Second World War and the behavior of individual peoples during this period in particular.
Probably, we need to find ways to reduce recruits and increase their material motivated interest (and its prevalence over coercion) - in this case, we will get a certain ideal point.

[Zaurbek]

Culture and trained crews and tactics of use have always been a strong menst in the German army ... in the Hungarian, by the way, too.

[lynnot]

The Turks' enthusiasm for the Leopards seems to have subsided. BK in the forehead next to the mechvod - a dubious emphasis on survivability ...

[Fedor M]

I think with any hit in the BC, the survival rate is reduced to zero

[Barberry25]

straight YouTube Alkonafter is recalled .. who announced on the Leopards and recalled the "tower throwers" T-72 every time .. and then when the Kurds burned some Leo from the ATGM, he immediately sang about "any tank can be destroyed"

[tank64rus]

While in the barred niche there were crowbars of BPS, it rolled both in Abrams and in Leo. As soon as the OFS laid down, the "flights" of the towers from a low start began. In general, the tankers do not care whether the b / c will explode or one shell will fall from the hands of the loader's bunglers. The result is one - heaven.

[Barberry25]

everything is simpler ... when Abrashi and Leo began to actively participate in the database, then there were losses ... in the same Iraq, Abrashi almost did not participate in direct clashes + The Pentagon really does not like photos and videos of their dead and destroyed equipment, but when it began partisans, then there were losses .. and according to the data that surfaced on the network, they lost a third of the equipment, because that is how much they "were forced to send to repair plants in the United States due to the impossibility of on-site repair" were destroyed both in Iraq and in the Caucasus .. in general, only Leclerc's pie remained of the "virgin", and then only because the Arabs, because of the price, use tanks as long-range artillery ..

[Radio operator and engineer]

The towers are notoriously torn for them. The Turks have lost a lot of Leos, though old mods.

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

That's right the dude says. Enough here to breed erotic moans and snot on German clothes. In one "evening" under Al-Bab, the Turks lost at least 10 2A4s. For erotomaniacs, making fun of the label, on a note. And why is there to remember the Second World War. Check out Guderian for what he writes about the T-34.

How many years have we been in Syria? Mother dear! Do not count already. So, over the years, fewer T90 tanks were burned (I, honestly, did not hear at all that they were burned and shown like this), than the Turks lost in one local battle (which T90s went through hundreds) ...

Well, if we take care of the crew, which is a sacred matter, then let's build the Armata. And to bring them to mind through the intensive operation of a large number of experimental samples, some 300 pieces.

[Pechkin]

(I, honestly, have never heard of them being burned and shown like this)

Unfortunately, they destroyed and one was even captured by the Islamists, but then the Syrians knocked him out. The last one was hit by the Syrians, captured by the T-90.

[Kurare]

Quote: Lynnot

BK in the forehead next to the mechvod - a dubious emphasis on survivability ...

During one of the shelling of the Abrams tower - there are knockout panels, which should take all the energy upstairs - the tower split. I'm not sure if the crew would have survived.

So, shells in a tank, when fired upon, are generally contraindicated for the good health of the crew.

[Pavel57]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Leo is still a tank for a contract army with a completely different level of culture.

The Germans proceed from the postulate that the service of a contract soldier is work, which means it should be convenient

[Kurare]

Quote: Pavel57

... the service of a contractor is a job, so it should be convenient

Convenience is done not only for the sake of "convenience" (sorry for the tautology). The crew gets tired less, is in working order longer, which means it fights better.

In the USSR, they did not attach much importance to this. In AWACS A-50, even a toilet was not provided. But in the Su-34, a small stove was installed to warm up food.

[Lara Croft]

The article, which is suspiciously short, and the comparative characteristics of the two tanks concern only the positive aspects of the empirialist tanks ... trash, in short, the article only attracted by the title ...

[Doliva63]

Quote: Lara Croft

The article, which is suspiciously short, and the comparative characteristics of the two tanks concern only the positive aspects of the empirialist tanks ... trash, in short, the article only attracted by the title ...

In fact, I did not see any comparative characteristics in the article - apparently, really short

[Dmitry Izmalkov]

What are you talking about the author ??? The Hungarians bought not a4, but 2a7 + (so far only they, the Germans and Arabs from Qatar have such)
Leo 2a4 has long been not a subject for pride in the civilized army (apart from upgrades like "MBT REVOLUTION")

[Keyser soze]

Hungarians bought not a4, but 2a7 +

Yes, the Germans gave them several A4s to teach the crews until the A7 was delivered. But the author does not know this ...

[Eugene-Eugene]

The author knows

[Recoil]

Damn, it's a bus! Have you ever been to 72m?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Rollback

Damn, it's a bus! Have you ever been to 72m?

The bus, you say ... And what about the loader with the hatch open? but because the height from the floor to the ceiling in the tower is 1m65 cm (as in Abrams). The width of the Leopard's hull is comparable to that of the T-72, and the crew is in a round basket, which is squeezed between the walls of the hull.

We have 2 people in this space (+ in the tower itself), and each has a hatch above their heads.
Leo has three there, and the loader has a semi-standing-pulsating seat to the left of the cannon, and to the right of the cannon: the commander is behind the gunner's shoulders. Yes, indeed, the bus, at rush hour ...
PS
In the photo, Abrams tower, but the meaning is the same.

[Nikolaevich I]

With age, it becomes more and more difficult to remember the names of the tanks! That's why I like "leopards" and "abrams" ... it's easier to remember them! One name and truncated! Know rivet modifications! With age-related sclerosis, this constancy is very helpful in memory! Well, what about "them"? "Leopard" ... "Leopard-2" ... they talk about "Leopard-3" ... And there are so many "Abrams", but the name is one! (by the way, Abrams "reminds someone ... is this not a Jew? )
By the way, about the Jews! I almost forgot "Merkava"! How is it in the Talmud? In the beginning there was a layer ... "Merkava" Mk1 ...! And now ? Already "Merkava-3"? "Merkava-4? (Oho-ho, sclerosis!) But it's all the same ..." Merkava "! And what about Russia? T-55 ... T-62 ... T-64 ... T-72. ..T-80 ... T-90 ... T-95 ... then again T-14! What am I a "mathematician"? The Ministry of Defense is mocking pensioners! We'll have to write a complaint to "Sportloto"!

[Speedy]

Well, it's even easier here - everyone is called T.))

[ANB]

... Well, it's even easier here - everyone is called T.))

Even easier for the Chinese. They generally have all Type. :)

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

Unification, edreonat. There is still a lot of Lee

[tolmachiev51]

72 for real combat conditions, not for blitz-krieg on concrete !!! Joysticks !!! ?? - guys this is not a bulldozer, stopped well and figs with him, this is a shock combat vehicle, one dross in the electronics. from hitting, and you are a target for shooting.

[Jacket in stock]

I was a couple of times in my youth in a T-72 tank, with my height it was not easy. And now, with my chondrosis, I probably won't fit at all.
Magyar is right, our designers did not bother about such a science as ergonomics.
And why bother, if the tank lives on the battlefield for a few minutes, they will suffer.
Only this battle may not happen, God forbid, and before this battle in this box the soldiers will suffer and suffer.
But the price is cheaper and maybe more in number.

[ccsr]

Quote: Jacket in stock

Magyar is right, our designers did not bother about such a science as ergonomics.

This is a false statement, because the requirements for the dimensions of the projection and the dimensions of the tank are put forward by the military, and the designers have to dodge to get into them.

Quote: Jacket in stock

But the price is cheaper and maybe more in number.

And the simple thought that a cramped Formula One car would make any fancy Ferrari or Maserati sedan on the racetrack did not occur to you? And that the price of this racing crumbs is transcendental in comparison with prestigious cars, you also do not know.
So the smaller the dimensions of any weapon, the more talented the designers are, if other characteristics are approximately equal.
Our cheap price was made up of something completely different - but this is a separate conversation.

[Marachuh]

Turks in Syria have already shown how Leopards "survive"

[APASUS]

Interesting nonsense! If the T-72 hits from the first shot, then as I understand it, the crew will not expect anything good. A tank for ambush operation? In Syria, something vaunted Leopard did not particularly show themselves, and even against the barmaley
The deadly German tank "Leopard - 2" was considered a killer (until it was sent to Syria)

[Zaurbek]

After looking at this .... USA, Germany ordered another modernization of Abrams and Leo ... with KAZ Trophy. And the Turks too. We have not yet heard about the reaction of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, ATGMs of the 2nd ++ generations went to the masses to terrorists ... and ATGMs of the Javelin type, they are preparing to go to the masses (because they have already been entrusted to Ukraine and Chinese clones have appeared).

[iouris]

Is the modification of tanks with automatic loaders with advanced ballistic computers a problem?

[boris epstein]

In general, no. The ballistic computer has been installed on Soviet / Russian tanks for a long time. And the automatic loader is still with the T-64.

[Berkut752]

There is a stopwatch on the right, see how many shots per minute it fires.

[Pavel Gennadievich]

And what, at a speed of 35 km, do they manually charge !? They probably drive on the asphalt!

[Gosha Smirnov]

Well Duc and the concepts and costs of these OBTs are completely different. The T-72 is a cheap, technologically simple, disposable machine, sharpened for that strategy of database maintenance.

[steelmaker]

I believe that show-off is everything. If German tanks were really that good in comparison with the T-72, the Germans or NATO would have proven this long ago with an example. Options "sea". And so, the T-72 is still the best, only because no one wants to compete with it openly and honestly! And in the war, only because of the gardens in the "back" shoot.

[pavels52]

Hello - move over, so shoot - you won't even hit the shrimp)) ....