Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbuna
|
00:10:00 on: Thats what I said already last year when the talking about tanks came up: that these tanks are made to kill other tanks, but that tank-on-tank alömpost enver occurs in the ukraine war and that therefore the Western tanks tactical weight may show to have been overestimated.
In case of the german doctrine of the past at last this was especially clear, the ammo loadout of Bundeswehr MBTs was very much focused on tank busting and often the tanks had just two rounds: KE (Sabot, a kinetic round), and HEAT (Explosive Anti-Tank), which may be explosive but again is optimised for overcoming and penetrating armour - again soft targets and infantry and houses it is less effective. American and British tanks always had a bigger variety of available ammo for different purposes than just tank busting, for example especially against dig in infantry, houses, and so forth.
Alkso, since the Western tanks are designed for tank busting, their prtection against incoming fire focusses on the vector folowed by travelling rounds from an enemy tank: thus, the sides of hull and turret, all aspects, is hardened, while belly and roof are significvntly less armoured, because an enemy tank hardly gets a shot off against these. Now these tanks face drones from above, artillery from above and mines from the bottom.
Also, the geography in the Ukrainian battle spaces and terrain is not what it would have been in the North-German plains.
I also expect that the tanks in Ukraine face an amount of wear and tear that their designers probably did not expect, and not over such an extend period of time. This is complex kit, the logistics must be nightmare for ukraine - multiplied by three (Leo, Chally, Abrams).