Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[conon394]

The more wars begin, the less time Ukraine has (imo) to try to sign peace.

You mean capitulations sans it being in NATO.

[Kyriakos]

I mean that when you rely on help from other powers, and they will need to divide the help given to other allies, your chances of getting out of this war with as few losses as possible are diminishing.

[conon394]

Maybe maybe not RUssia is finding inventive ways a loosing more tanks that even somewhat new exaggerated numbers of production can keep up with and you don't walk away from a Russian tank kill. STill that and you statement make no sense unless Ukraine immediately joins NATO it has no incentive to make peceice since its just essentially becoming a Russian puppet.

[Kyriakos]

"Ukraine immediately joins Nato". Not even Sweden can join Nato "immediately", if you haven't noticed

[conon394]

Then they have no good reason to enter negotiations.

[Cyclops]

Strangely Putin is the one hurrying up. Gotta ask, why?

Smells like desperation, maybe Xi is tired of propping up this liability and has given him a deadline.

[conon394]

Strangely Putin is the one hurrying up. Gotta ask, why?

Smells like desperation, maybe Xi is tired of propping up this liability and has given him a deadline.

Strange thing is seem only going partially in if you. The last couple of large armoured assaults ere uncovered. I mean he has and will retain a huge advantage in air power if thier was a time actually make the russian airfare earn its pay it would in supporting (at cost true) closing of a Ukrainian salient. I saving shiny expensiven planes is more important than disposable mobnicks in old versions of T72s.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Leopard 1 was never conceived in its design to be a breakthrough tank due to its very thin armour. It was designed when it was believed that HEAT projectiles made armour obsolete and survivability would depend on speed and maneuverability. And with the artillery spam that we have in this conflict, the very thin armour of the Leopard 1(which is 70 mm at its thickest) will become very vulnerable to artillery fire. The belly of the Leopard 1 is not really well armoured either as said earlier. If turrets blow up, boils down to whether the tank has blast doors and blowout panels for its ammunition, and the Leopard 1 does not have them to my knowledge, so there is every chance that a Leopard 1s turret will be sent flying like a T72 or a T64 or whatever (hell, not even a Leopard 2A4 has those on the hull, hence why the Turkish Leopard 2s ended up how they ended up in Syria, nor does a Challenger 2 -both tanks that have ever been destroyed so far had their turrets dislocated as a Challenger 2 literally uses WW2 style ammo storage)



That is most definitely a lie (most likely for PR reasons), the longest ever confirmed tank kill was recorded at 5 km and that was with a more modern tank than the Leopard 1, the fact that these guys claim that they are casually matching or beating the record here is definitely dubious to say the least.

Some clarifications on the armour of the Leopard I:

Yes its front armour is only 70 mm, but:

The hull is made of welded armored steel and is separated into the combat and engine compartments by a transverse partition wall. The bow armor is 70 millimeters and is inclined at an angle of 30°, which corresponds to a penetration length of 140 millimeters. The side armor is on average 30/35 millimeters, the hull bottom and rear have 20 and 25 millimeter thick armor plates.[16]

The armor thickness of the cast turret is up to 60 millimeters, which was thickened on the A2 and reinforced with rubberized steel plates in the later combat performance improvement program. The plates, which were screwed onto the base armor at a distance and on the front of the turret with additional shock absorption (with rubber elements called shock mounts), had the task of igniting incoming projectiles early and dissipating explosive energy. The turrets of the A3 and A4 versions were welded and had bulkhead armor with the same level of protection. There was no subsequent additional armor. At nine tons, the Wegmann cast turret was relatively light compared to the twelve tons of the M48 or the 15 tons of the Chieftain.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Panzerung

As a fight tank against tank is normally a frontal engagement - if the enemy attack you from the side you have run into a trap and your Reconnaissance unit has done a bad job. So the front is not that hopelessly bad armoured, as its 30 ° angle will reflect some direct hits. So mostly the enemy will hit the 60 mm strong turret and a hit there will nt kill the whole crew as the ammonitioin is in the belly. In the T 72 it is in the turret. Booom chain reaction.

Certainly every battle tank is doomed if the enemy attack from the side and the heck.

But nobody claimed the Leopard I is a tank, which would plough through the enemy lines, it would be shot down, as its not constructed there for.

Its advantages are others:

Since the A2 version, the tank has had a gyroscopically controlled weapon stabilization system, which always aims the on-board cannon at the target while driving. However, the technology at the time - stabilizing the weapon and tracking the optics - primarily served only to improve target reconnaissance and observation during movement in order to minimize the shooting stops otherwise required for the opening of the fire fight. With a trained crew, firefighting on the move was possible to a limited extent. However, a high first-shot hit probability like that of the Leopard 2 was not possible until its fire control system was used in the 1A5.[20]

Fire control and targeting equipment

The distance measurement is done optomechanically in front of the Leopard 1A5. The turret distance measuring device (TEM) with 16x magnification was the heart of the fire control system until the Leopard 1A4 and enabled the gunner to determine the distance using the mixed or spatial image principle. The gunner had to adjust the attachment angle of the loaded ammunition manually using a lever. The Leopard 1A4 was equipped with the EMES-12A1 optical spatial image rangefinder. The second aiming device available was the turret rifle scope (TZF) with 8x magnification. If the TEM failed, it was intended as an emergency aiming device; the firing distance was estimated and set for the respective ammunition using a scale in the line diagram. It also allowed fire fighting while moving because the weapon's parallel installation in the mantlet transferred weapon stabilization to this optic. The turret panoramic wheel (TRP) was available to the commander as an observation, target and distance measuring device. If necessary, he could completely override the gunner so that he could carry out the fire fight himself in an emergency. The stabilized PERI R12 panoramic periscope in the Leopard 1A4, however, allowed the commander for the first time to search for targets while driving and assign them to the gunner. This variant was given hunter/killer capability.[21]

For night combat, the main battle tank initially had an IR/white light shooting spotlight for target illumination. If it was illuminated with infrared light, the commander had to take over the shooting because his TRP was swapped for an infrared rifle scope. The 1A4's night fighting capability was achieved by switching the PERI R12 to the IR channel. The searchlight was used throughout combat and could therefore only be used from a standing position. Illumination tanks took turns taking over the task of illuminating while a second tank fought the enemy. The settings of the searchlight were diffuse when searching or focused to illuminate the target during combat. In the early years, only a few battle tanks were equipped with the shooting spotlight. Only the platoon commander's and company commander's vehicles had the XSW-30-U from AEG-Telefunken for target illumination. The average combat distance of 2.5 kilometers per day fell to 1.2 kilometers to 1.5 kilometers with the shooting spotlight. With the introduction of the PZB 200 residual light amplifier, this form of combat became increasingly irrelevant.

With the last combat upgrade to the 1A5, the commander and gunner received a common thermal imaging device, which was housed with the laser rangefinder (LEM) in the EMES-18 main target device. With the WBG-X from Zeiss, the reconnaissance range increased enormously compared to the PZB 200. Depending on the weather conditions, targets could be discovered at a distance of up to 3,000 meters and identified at 2,000 meters during the day. The Leopard 2's adapted fire control system made aiming and firing easier for the gunner. In addition, the type of ammunition loaded in the EMES was set by the loader using a button.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Panzerung

Last bu not least pro is its speed and maneuverability.

It has a high movement range and needs only diesel (logistics is a very important point in my opinion).

So its not a breakthrough tank, but used in the right way as hunter-killer/assault gun for russian tanks it can be valuable.

Not more not less.

[Gyrosmeister]

Some clarifications on the armour of the Leopard I:

Yes its front armour is only 70 mm, but:

The hull is made of welded armored steel and is separated into the combat and engine compartments by a transverse partition wall. The bow armor is 70 millimeters and is inclined at an angle of 30°, which corresponds to a penetration length of 140 millimeters. The side armor is on average 30/35 millimeters, the hull bottom and rear have 20 and 25 millimeter thick armor plates.[16]

The armor thickness of the cast turret is up to 60 millimeters, which was thickened on the A2 and reinforced with rubberized steel plates in the later combat performance improvement program. The plates, which were screwed onto the base armor at a distance and on the front of the turret with additional shock absorption (with rubber elements called shock mounts), had the task of igniting incoming projectiles early and dissipating explosive energy. The turrets of the A3 and A4 versions were welded and had bulkhead armor with the same level of protection. There was no subsequent additional armor. At nine tons, the Wegmann cast turret was relatively light compared to the twelve tons of the M48 or the 15 tons of the Chieftain.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Panzerung

As a fight tank against tank is normally a frontal engagement - if the enemy attack you from the side you have run into a trap and your Reconnaissance unit has done a bad job. So the front is not that hopelessly bad armoured, as its 30 ° angle will reflect some direct hits. So mostly the enemy will hit the 60 mm strong turret and a hit there will nt kill the whole crew as the ammonitioin is in the belly. In the T 72 it is in the turret. Booom chain reaction.

Certainly every battle tank is doomed if the enemy attack from the side and the heck.

But nobody claimed the Leopard I is a tank, which would plough through the enemy lines, it would be shot down, as its not constructed there for.

Its advantages are others:

Since the A2 version, the tank has had a gyroscopically controlled weapon stabilization system, which always aims the on-board cannon at the target while driving. However, the technology at the time - stabilizing the weapon and tracking the optics - primarily served only to improve target reconnaissance and observation during movement in order to minimize the shooting stops otherwise required for the opening of the fire fight. With a trained crew, firefighting on the move was possible to a limited extent. However, a high first-shot hit probability like that of the Leopard 2 was not possible until its fire control system was used in the 1A5.[20]

Fire control and targeting equipment

The distance measurement is done optomechanically in front of the Leopard 1A5. The turret distance measuring device (TEM) with 16x magnification was the heart of the fire control system until the Leopard 1A4 and enabled the gunner to determine the distance using the mixed or spatial image principle. The gunner had to adjust the attachment angle of the loaded ammunition manually using a lever. The Leopard 1A4 was equipped with the EMES-12A1 optical spatial image rangefinder. The second aiming device available was the turret rifle scope (TZF) with 8x magnification. If the TEM failed, it was intended as an emergency aiming device; the firing distance was estimated and set for the respective ammunition using a scale in the line diagram. It also allowed fire fighting while moving because the weapon's parallel installation in the mantlet transferred weapon stabilization to this optic. The turret panoramic wheel (TRP) was available to the commander as an observation, target and distance measuring device. If necessary, he could completely override the gunner so that he could carry out the fire fight himself in an emergency. The stabilized PERI R12 panoramic periscope in the Leopard 1A4, however, allowed the commander for the first time to search for targets while driving and assign them to the gunner. This variant was given hunter/killer capability.[21]

For night combat, the main battle tank initially had an IR/white light shooting spotlight for target illumination. If it was illuminated with infrared light, the commander had to take over the shooting because his TRP was swapped for an infrared rifle scope. The 1A4's night fighting capability was achieved by switching the PERI R12 to the IR channel. The searchlight was used throughout combat and could therefore only be used from a standing position. Illumination tanks took turns taking over the task of illuminating while a second tank fought the enemy. The settings of the searchlight were diffuse when searching or focused to illuminate the target during combat. In the early years, only a few battle tanks were equipped with the shooting spotlight. Only the platoon commander's and company commander's vehicles had the XSW-30-U from AEG-Telefunken for target illumination. The average combat distance of 2.5 kilometers per day fell to 1.2 kilometers to 1.5 kilometers with the shooting spotlight. With the introduction of the PZB 200 residual light amplifier, this form of combat became increasingly irrelevant.

With the last combat upgrade to the 1A5, the commander and gunner received a common thermal imaging device, which was housed with the laser rangefinder (LEM) in the EMES-18 main target device. With the WBG-X from Zeiss, the reconnaissance range increased enormously compared to the PZB 200. Depending on the weather conditions, targets could be discovered at a distance of up to 3,000 meters and identified at 2,000 meters during the day. The Leopard 2's adapted fire control system made aiming and firing easier for the gunner. In addition, the type of ammunition loaded in the EMES was set by the loader using a button.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Panzerung

Last bu not least pro is its speed and maneuverability.

It has a high movement range and needs only diesel (logistics is a very important point in my opinion).

So its not a breakthrough tank, but used in the right way as hunter-killer/assault gun for russian tanks it can be valuable.

Not more not less.

The sloping won't make much of a difference to begin with, even if it's 140 mm of effective armour, unless you end up running on some BMP-2 or something. Every single tank that is on the field can kill the Leopard 1 frontally from very large distances (140 mm frontally is nothing, even for the older T62s that Russia uses with the 115 mm smoothbore gun, in fact, many late WW2 guns have no issues achieving penetration against 140 mm of effective armour, a 17 pounder firing APCBC can pen that at 1 km for example). But then again, the LFP of the Challenger 2 without the applique armour package that the Brits normally use (which they haven't delivered to Ukraine) can be penetrated by a Sherman or a T34, though the difference is this being a spot that is not that likely to be hit to begin with, unless real close, where as in the Leopard 1, it doesn't matter where the opposing tank hits it, unless the Leo gets very lucky the tank is done.

"So mostly the enemy will hit the 60 mm strong turret and a hit there will nt kill the whole crew as the ammonitioin is in the belly"

3/4 crew members of the Leopard 1 are situated in the turret, a solid penetration in the turret will most likely kill them regardless of an ammo detonation or not. Also in tank on tank combat, the gunner will aim for the centre of mass, not the turret specifically, unless the tank you are engaging is in a hull down position, so the turret is the only option you can hit. And as I explained earlier, it doesn't matter much where the penetrator will hit the Leopard 1, the shell will go through, 140 mm of effective armour against kinetic penetrators is very, very weak. And part of the ammorack is also situated in the turret, which is basically the norm for every tank with manual loading, they have a "ready rack" in the turret and then a different storage in the hull.

Another thing with the Leopard 1 is that its armour is simple steel, not composite (though later variants also added some ERA on the turret). What does that mean? Given that tanks in this war mostly run around as assault guns with mostly HE rounds loaded, the thin armour of the Leopard won't hold on well against HE rounds, if they come via direct fire from a tank. Composite armour etc handles HE shells much better than simple steel.

Yes the Leopard 1A5 has a good FCS, and it needs it because it needs to spot its opponent first, fire the shot and then get the hell out of there because of the very weak armour of the Leopard 1.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

You mean HEAT ammunition not High Explosive Fragmentation (HE).

And about T - 72:

22 of the 44 rounds of ammunition on board are stored in a loading carousel in the floor of the fighting compartment, where the crew also sits. A fire in the fighting area can therefore easily cause a cook off. Attackers often target the location of the T-72 behind which the ammunition is located. If a bullet penetrates the armor at this point, all of the ammunition inside the T-72 will explode. Sometimes this causes the tank's entire turret to be torn off the hull and thrown upwards. In other tank models, the ammunition is stored in the rear part of the tank, away from the crew, for safety reasons.[46]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72#Panzerung

But anyway you have your opinion, i have mine.

[Gyrosmeister]

You mean HEAT ammunition not High Explosive Fragmentation (HE).

And about T - 72:

22 of the 44 rounds of ammunition on board are stored in a loading carousel in the floor of the fighting compartment, where the crew also sits. A fire in the fighting area can therefore easily cause a cook off. Attackers often target the location of the T-72 behind which the ammunition is located. If a bullet penetrates the armor at this point, all of the ammunition inside the T-72 will explode. Sometimes this causes the tank's entire turret to be torn off the hull and thrown upwards. In other tank models, the ammunition is stored in the rear part of the tank, away from the crew, for safety reasons.[46]

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72#Panzerung

But anyway you have your opinion, i have mine.

Nope, I mean HE frag, they can still be deadly against lightly armoured vehicles, as it will cause internal spalling etc. And our discussion was about the Leopard 1, not the T-72, it's already known that the T-series tanks, starting from the T64 have very vulnerable ammo racks, the T90M being somewhat better given that it has a spall liner for the carousel and the ammo at the rear of the turret has received blast doors/blowout panels. (as far as ammo protection goes, the Abrams is the King)

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

If you say so, i have read and heard different. And i find that more convincing.

[NorthernXY]

Why do so many Russians believe Russia has never done anything wrong? A Stalin stooge got in a fight with me on Telegram denying the Holomodor, gulags, and the "ethnic cleansing" of 1.5M Volga Germans.

Wiki actually states it wasn't a genocide but an "ethnic cleansing". Wasn't Hitler "ethnically cleansing"?

[StarDreamer]

Why do so many Russians believe Russia has never done anything wrong? A Stalin stooge got in a fight with me on Telegram denying the Holomodor, gulags, and the "ethnic cleansing" of 1.5M Volga Germans.

Wiki actually states it wasn't a genocide but an "ethnic cleansing". Wasn't Hitler "ethnically cleansing"?

Their society has never had to make peace with its past. So the society at large still holds deeply imperialistic views that justify any wrongdoings as being in the service of the "great" Russian imperial state(in whatever form it is at the time).

[Papay]

Why do so many Russians believe Russia has never done anything wrong? A Stalin stooge got in a fight with me on Telegram denying the Holomodor, gulags, and the "ethnic cleansing" of 1.5M Volga Germans.

Wiki actually states it wasn't a genocide but an "ethnic cleansing". Wasn't Hitler "ethnically cleansing"?

Stalin though was a Georgian not a Russian

[StarDreamer]

Stalin though was a Georgian not a Russian

And Hitler was Austrian. Your point is?

[Stario]

And Hitler was Austrian. Your point is?

His point was that Stalin was NOT Russian.
Stating Hitler was Austrian does not invalidate his point.

[StarDreamer]

His point was that Stalin was NOT Russian.
Stating Hitler was Austrian does not invalidate his point.

Society still has responsibility for what they do under a leader, even if that leader orginally came from a different country. There is a reason Germans were held resposible for what they did under Hitler. Russians can't seperate "the good" done under Stalin as Russian achievements and then sideline "bad things" as they weren't responsible for that cause "Georgian". Cherrypicking at its finest on a societeal level, which is exactly why I said that Russians haven't made peace with their actions in the past.

[Papay]

Society still has responsibility for what they do under a leader, even if that leader orginally came from a different country. There is a reason Germans were held resposible for what they did under Hitler. Russians can't seperate "the good" done under Stalin as Russian achievements and then sideline "bad things" as they weren't responsible for that cause "Georgian". Cherrypicking at its finest on a societeal level, which is exactly why I said that Russians haven't made peace with their actions in the past.

Germany was Germany. Soviet Union was Soviet Russia plus a dozen other Soviet republics. Stalin governed an entity of 15 republics the largest of whom happened to be Russia. Its only the west that used the term "soviet Russia" to describe whole Soviet Union for propaganda purposes. Did you know that Soviet Russia declared its independence from Soviet Union before the majority of the other republics did?

[Stario]

Society still has responsibility for what they do under a leader, even if that leader orginally came from a different country. There is a reason Germans were held resposible for what they did under Hitler. Russians can't seperate "the good" done under Stalin as Russian achievements and then sideline "bad things" as they weren't responsible for that cause "Georgian". Cherrypicking at its finest on a societeal level, which is exactly why I said that Russians haven't made peace with their actions in the past.

Again this doesn't disprove the fact Stalin was not Russian. Besides if you going to use that logic, that "Stalin stooge" comment applies just as much to Ukraine as it does Russia, as both were part of the Soviet Union.