Grzegorz Ochman
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Reality of what is being done. Like he has mentioned, Leopard 2 is a vague term. He talks about technical specifics of what they wanna send and he also mentions this very important fact.
2:04
“not to mention that they are too heavy for Ukrainian Bridges which are rated at around 44 tons while those tanks weigh at least 55 tons or more with Ukrainian Bridge layers also being rated to hold 50 tons maximum that is because Ukrainian tanks usually weigh around 45 tons and do not exceed 50 tons which is enough to cross the bridges since they can still sustain a bit more weight but in order for leopardus to cross any River of which there are many in the eastern part of Ukraine whoever is sending those tanks must send Bridge layers and Recovery vehicles that go along with those tanks and for sending four to five tanks it is simply not worth it”
Since the Ukrainian army was created to operate Russian tanks with a weight of around 40 tons, they need more equipment to operate them. Also part that the average bridge in Ukraine is created to sustain around 40 tons is very important.So Leopard’s and Abram’s are too heavy for their bridge layers, recovery vehicle and bridges.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
“Most people have very surface level knowledge about tanks and to the most it’s Abrams and leopard equals good and anything with t72 in its name equals bad while for these tanks it is definitely not the case both t72 M4 CZ and pt91 are very capable tanks and are more capable than the old variants of any NATO tank”
Once the main Barrell of a Battle Tank is in the 120mm to 125 mm range, it means it can take out any other Tank, be that Nato, Soviet, Russian or Chinese Tanks.
By that criteria, all Tanks are basically the same, and they will only make a battlefield difference when one side has far more of them than the other.
But all Tanks are highly vulnerable to ground attack aircraft’s and Attack helicopters. The side that holds air superiority can easily mop up a brigade of Battle Tanks.
Partially agree. Still Western tanks are better if it comes to optic communication and mobility. They are expensive AF but the west got a digital advantage in case of conflict air superiority wins conflit. Ukraine is losing because of lack of air superiority and the truth is top tech is not going there because the West is afraid of Russia getting it. So Ukrain can have western equipment but don’t have tech to fully even use it. So we don’t really see the full potential of technological advantage of the west even patriots don’t mean anything. So that expensive equipment… Read more »
“Partially agree. Still Western tanks are better if it comes to optic communication and mobility.”
The Russian T-14 Armata main battle tank is more advanced than any western tank.
It’s not more advanced. It’s really better but not more advanced, it’s just got better armour and guns. What I mean by technological advantage I mean you got foot solder with gps and camera that can be literal eyes for modern western tankers. Russia doesn’t have advanced electronics, which is now everything. T-14 Armata has better armour and gun so it’s better but not electro optic and ability to gather data it is more advanced in western tanks and they got better tested Israelian active defence system which is better than Russian. but it will not be useful because Ukraine is… Read more »
It might not be an advantage to have more sophisticated electronics. Remember 2014 when a Russian plane buzzed the USS Donald Cook disabling the electronics and rendering it deaf, dumb and blind? They used an electronic warfare device called Khibiny and reportedly they have since developed a device that can be used on the ground.