What tank is better? (1 Viewer)

[Combat]

Aside from the fact that you don’t reward aggression, and this aggression goes back to 2014, the Russians have shown no inclination — ever — to negotiate in good faith. If anything, by their actions they have shown that they wish to suppress Ukraine, its people and culture. This is not a new phenomenon; Stalin, during the Holodomor, was responsible for killing millions of people, around three million or so.

Moreover, what would they negotiate about exactly. Anything that leaves them in possession of the Donbas (and probably Crimea) is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people and it is up to the Ukrainian people to determine whether to negotiate or not.

As an aside, please disregard the “like.” I hit the wrong button by accident.

Not every wrong can be righted. These regional conflicts go back hundreds of years. Time and again intervention has resulted in disaster. Russia may be in the wrong but endless war is helping no one. Ask the people in Vietnam and Afghanistan how that works out. What is going on here appears to be an effort by politicians to gain access to billions in war-related funds which they allocate to military contractors who then kick back contributions to their campaigns and supporters. A vicious cycle. There is no apparent end game. No diplomatic effort to find a solution. Just to fight on and on "as long as it takes." Again, just like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

 

[Horus]

if an American Abrams was disabled and captured by Russian troops...
is our technology so advanced...
is there any concern they would scrutinize and replicate it on their tanks?

Read something recently saying that NLAW's and other captured anti tank missile systems were being examined and back engineered and the Russians had also given some of these captured anti tank weapons to Iran for the same purpose. No doubt these weapon clones will be popping up in other places too.
Also yesterday saw that the Russians are after equipment left behind in Afghanistan which I'm sure with the current state there that they will be willing to trade.

 

[paxtoysoldier]

I think we need some info from real battles to know, but what is the best MBT is an interesting topic. Don't forget the Brits, French & Israelis, etc...
Best and Peaceful Wishes,
Paddy

 

[tdubel]

Aside from the fact that you don’t reward aggression, and this aggression goes back to 2014, the Russians have shown no inclination — ever — to negotiate in good faith. If anything, by their actions they have shown that they wish to suppress Ukraine, its people and culture. This is not a new phenomenon; Stalin, during the Holodomor, was responsible for killing millions of people, around three million or so.

Moreover, what would they negotiate about exactly. Anything that leaves them in possession of the Donbas (and probably Crimea) is unacceptable to the Ukrainian people and it is up to the Ukrainian people to determine whether to negotiate or not.

As an aside, please disregard the “like.” I hit the wrong button by accident.

I think you guys may be misreading my point. Nobody is prepared to do what is necessary to remove the Russians from the battlefield, we just are not and I think that is a pretty clear fact. Therefore, if you are not going to go full scale, all you are doing is prolonging a suffering on all sides. Putin, if he is anything, is a very dangerous individual and the more this continues, the more destruction and escalation we will see. So, if he uses a tactical nuke, what is the next step? My overall point - these tanks are not going to do much except continue a crisis. They will not in my opinion move the bear off the field. Now, if you want to talk about a tactical assassination to remove Putin, which includes Russian leadership, then I think that makes sense, although, you are probably kicking the can down the pike as it seems to me the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is as old as time.

End of the day, a ragtag response thus far has proven nothing except to prolong this mess as well as cause a ton of economic hardship worldwide, not just in Russia or Ukraine. All my opinion, but it seems to be playing out - this mess continues and all the saber rattling in the world right now is not ending it.

TD

 

[tdubel]

I think you guys may be misreading my point. Nobody is prepared to do what is necessary to remove the Russians from the battlefield, we just are not and I think that is a pretty clear fact. Therefore, if you are not going to go full scale, all you are doing is prolonging a suffering on all sides. Putin, if he is anything, is a very dangerous individual and the more this continues, the more destruction and escalation we will see. So, if he uses a tactical nuke, what is the next step? My overall point - these tanks are not going to do much except continue a crisis. They will not in my opinion move the bear off the field. Now, if you want to talk about a tactical assassination to remove Putin, which includes Russian leadership, then I think that makes sense, although, you are probably kicking the can down the pike as it seems to me the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is as old as time.

End of the day, a ragtag response thus far has proven nothing except to prolong this mess as well as cause a ton of economic hardship worldwide, not just in Russia or Ukraine. All my opinion, but it seems to be playing out - this mess continues and all the saber rattling in the world right now is not ending it.

TD

I also meant to include, that I hope I am wrong and the tanks do the trick, I just am cynical on it.

TD

 

[Poppo]

I think you guys may be misreading my point. Nobody is prepared to do what is necessary to remove the Russians from the battlefield, we just are not and I think that is a pretty clear fact. Therefore, if you are not going to go full scale, all you are doing is prolonging a suffering on all sides. Putin, if he is anything, is a very dangerous individual and the more this continues, the more destruction and escalation we will see. So, if he uses a tactical nuke, what is the next step? My overall point - these tanks are not going to do much except continue a crisis. They will not in my opinion move the bear off the field. Now, if you want to talk about a tactical assassination to remove Putin, which includes Russian leadership, then I think that makes sense, although, you are probably kicking the can down the pike as it seems to me the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is as old as time.

End of the day, a ragtag response thus far has proven nothing except to prolong this mess as well as cause a ton of economic hardship worldwide, not just in Russia or Ukraine. All my opinion, but it seems to be playing out - this mess continues and all the saber rattling in the world right now is not ending it.

TD

..

 

[tdubel]

..View attachment 294271

Again, misreading my point and by the way, I am a Churchill believer. What I am pointing out is that the United States/Nato/etc is NOT choosing war. If you choose war, then you have a plan and a plan that is a path to victory. Unfortunately, IMO, we do not, we are sending band aids, ragtags, call it what you will, in a way, we are appeasing the Ukraine, but we are not putting a winning plan in place or a war plan for lack of a better word. I would have no problem with putting a full scale war plan in place and I agree with that concept. IF we are willing to commit the resources necessary and giver ourselves and allies a chance of really "winning", then I am all in. My problem with all of this is I see a half-baked response to throw money at the problem with no real plan in place. IF that is what we are going to do, then might as well figure out an accord and save the money, save the casualties, save the economic maelstrom, etc. We do not have a winning strategy by merely placing tanks on the chess board.

Again, probably not what anyone wants to hear, but as is life, the truth is brutal and we can all kid ourselves, but this is what we are doing. I hope I am wrong, but call me a realist/cynic, etc, but when Politicians are calling the shots instead of Field Generals/Leaders, this is what you get. Band-Aids that make good headlines and rhetoric for a few months.

As my late Grandfather said many times (He was a veteran of World War 2), if you are going to win, then you do that by committing the resources necessary for total supremacy and the last time we did that in his opinion was WW2 and I agree with his assessment.

TD

 

[Hunter Rose]

Jet fuel???

The Abrams is powered by a gas turbine engine (essentially jet engine), hence the jet fuel. The Leopard was designed with a traditional diesel engine and priority on ease of maintenance and is significantly easier to maintain in the field/austere environments. The Abrams requires more intensive specialized maintenance. Main armor and main weapons are essentially identical. The Abrams likely has a slightly better sensor suite.

Qualitatively, the Abrams is probably slightly "better", but for this conflict the Leopard is definitely the better system for the Ukrainians. Them getting some Abrams is really more political and about Germany not wanted to send tanks to the Ukraine unless the USA was going to send tanks as well.

 

[Barkmann]

Just a thought, but the M-1 Abram has a very successful combat record, proven over multi-conflicts and years. The Leopard has been used in combat on a much more limited scale. -- Al

Part of me is sort of glad that modern German tanks do not have a combat record. On the idea of 'successful combat record', not as good as the Challenger, only 1 recorded loss of a Challenger Tank in combat and that was because it was hit by andother Challenger tank in a blue-on-blue accident, all crew survived.

Think Leopard hands down, consistantly beat the Abram in exercises, as it has done with most other MBTs. easier to maintain and use, spares etc are available from a multitude of sources throughout European users, gun is more accurate and has longer range, know some say that the M1 gun is more effective, but the Leopold is a rifled barrel and it will be fighting against older generation of tanks, so need range and accuracy, crew survivability is said to be higher, the tank is more adapt to operating in smaller unis or even independantly, whereas the Abrams is designed in the US intergrated system of layered air support. Fuel is in easier supply and the Leopard has a better range and fuel useage. The Leopard does have a weakness in ammo storage, not as protected as it should be. The Leopard performs way better in muddy conditions, as a German tanker once said to us when we were having a familisation visit in the 1980s and we saw just how wide the Leopolds tracks were. He said that is because the next the German army goes to Russsia they will not get caught in the mud.........

Recent report on the BBC has outlined the Russians are losing close to 800 men per day, no one can sustain that.

 

[Combat]

I was reading somewhere that the Russians are about to send 1,000 tanks to Ukraine. Even if many of those are outdated hunks of junk, that is a problem.

 

[jazzeum]

Recent report on the BBC has outlined the Russians are losing close to 800 men per day, no one can sustain that.

One thing the Russians proved in WW II is that they can throw untold numbers into battle. Do not underestimate their ability to do so again.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys

Brads point about Russian ability to sustain losses that would be catastrophic for other countries is correct. But in todays day and age with social media and information being more readily accessible and not being on the receiving end of an invasion from a foreign country there are problems with that point. But it remains to be seen as to which country can sustain the losses and come out on top. Ukraines losses are pretty high as well so the bottom line will be who can out last who. I would think that Russian leaders would be tired of this drain on resources and be trying to make their leader see the wisdom of ending the invasion. Time will tell.

Dave

 

[jazzeum]

Hi Guys

Brads point about Russian ability to sustain losses that would be catastrophic for other countries is correct. But in todays day and age with social media and information being more readily accessible and not being on the receiving end of an invasion from a foreign country there are problems with that point. But it remains to be seen as to which country can sustain the losses and come out on top. Ukraines losses are pretty high as well so the bottom line will be who can out last who. I would think that Russian leaders would be tired of this drain on resources and be trying to make their leader see the wisdom of ending the invasion. Time will tell.

Dave

Right now, any form of Russian opposition has been silenced. Any media that Putin tolerated before has been shut down or outlawed. The intelligentsia class that would oppose him have left the country or been cowed into silence. When Ukrainians who have family in Russia talk to them, they believe Putin’s propaganda or in what he’s doing — ferreting out Nazis. The overwhelming majority is with him and willing to take losses. This will not change anytime soon.

 

[Barkmann]

One thing the Russians proved in WW II is that they can throw untold numbers into battle. Do not underestimate their ability to do so again.

Agree but that was another world, no social media of instant communications, they were fighting against an aggressive invader, plus all of them were not Russian, but Ukrainian and other former Soviet satelite regions. Today people are generally better educated, more world aware and not willing to died in an unjust war. Putin does not have the hold that Stalin had, it is weakening, ever so slightly. There is no defined objective there for Russia, it will just be a slog fest. War will be lost at home and in the international community, as those powerful men/women start to be hit, financially, there was a report that the Russian 'influencer' community has taken a financial hit, not rich but powerful, so the affects are beginning to show. I think when he goes it will be sudden and quick, you can only upset so many Russian Billionaires. Possibly the equivalent of an offer, a bottle of Vodka and a gun, reports he died of a heart attack etc, then there will be a lot of bloodletting in Russia as revenge is taken. Or they will wait until an agreed figurehead successor can be agreed upon. Putin maybe guarded well, but money talks and walks.

Lets hope so, but one thng the war has proved, the Russian military is not the force it was perceived to be.

 

[Rutledge]

"Some guy" Joe Rogan interviewed had an interesting perspective. He said if Russia and NATO were to square off, casualties would be 1,000 to one in favor of NATO. The problem with such an outcome, according to this guy, is that Russia/Putin would respond as if to an existential threat - almost certainly resulting in a "nuclear exchange".

The West/US obviously wants to such a scenario. So they are using Ukraine as a (less awful) means with which to bludgeon Russia into submission.

 

[kings of Alt Clut]

One thing the Russians proved in WW II is that they can throw untold numbers into battle. Do not underestimate their ability to do so again.

Agree with the other 2 TFroggers that replied, the 'Russia' you spoke of above, is not the 'Russia' of today. Possibly because they sent so many to die in Afganistan, Crimea, Chechnya [2 wars] and Georgia they are not likely to stand for it again, as there is no reason for it. Propoganda does not work when they have access to social media and mobile phones. People just do not believe the state news programmes. They know why they have fight, such as WW2, but this war is just one mans making and for him only.

When you think about it, the Russian people have been treated terribly by their leaders for centuries.

 

[Desertkiwi]

As the saying goes…….the first casualty of war is truth, while I’m no fan of Putin, you have to look at the true causes of the conflict and what led Putin to take such measures.

Sadly this has largely been glossed over and down played by the west and Zelenskyy who is nothing more than a professional actor and comedian playing his part in this fiasco and is just a puppet.......I just can't take this guy seriously.

Through the ages the west has continuously under-estimated Russia and its ability to adapt and reform and reinvent itself.

Putin’s no fool and hasn’t become Russia’s leader by being Mr Nice guy like his predecessors.

The West poked the bear once too often and boom…..

I'm not convinced folks are better educated these days, more easily led and influenced perhaps??

 

[Panzer ace]

Tanks aside, the real question is what does the world do when a nuclear power invades another country no matter what the circumstances and/or reasons?

Try and stop them only to be told if you do not let us do what we want I’ll nuke it?

Can open, worms everywhere……

 

[Hunter Rose]

Keep doing what we're doing. Send as many arms and munitions as possible to Ukraine and let them keep killing Russians. Beyond the nuclear threat, Russia will pose zero threat to NATO for at least 10-20 years following the conflict. Attrit the Russian Bear...bleed it white.

 

[Panzer ace]

Keep doing what we're doing. Send as many arms and munitions as possible to Ukraine and let them keep killing Russians. Beyond the nuclear threat, Russia will pose zero threat to NATO for at least 10-20 years following the conflict. Attrit the Russian Bear...bleed it white.

Great analytical and informed post.