This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 7:46 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5:19 by schnuersi
Latest 7-Dec by autogun
Latest 6-Dec by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 4-Dec by stancrist
Latest 4-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 2-Dec by smmheart1
Latest 1-Dec by EmericD
Latest 30-Nov by Refleks
Latest 26-Nov by stancrist
Latest 25-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by Farmplinker
Latest 23-Nov by Refleks
Latest 22-Nov by stancrist
Latest 17-Nov by PRM2
Latest 17-Nov by TonyDiG
Latest 16-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 16-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 15-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Nov by TarheelYank
Latest 14-Nov by JPeelen
Latest 13-Nov by DavidPawley
Latest 10-Nov by Lorrybaker
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
If they are sending Leapord 1 with the 105 mm there are probably 1,000s of US M60 tanks that would be a rough equivalent that could be sent.
yup. I do have my doubts about this though. I think they dug up old information and drew the wrong conclusions. Also, Those tanks would be useful as FSVs, but not as MBTs.
Leo1A5 headed to UA?
there are no substancial news on this topic.
I'm disappointed. We used to have a number of posters on this forum that were very vocal about the supremacy of Russian equipment, and were ready and willing to insert such opinions into nearly any conversation. (In truth, it was mostly Soviet equipment or derivatives that were being discussed, but whatevs. Those largely sucked too.) Are we not talking about this anymore? In truth, I only came back here to see the "muh monkey model" rationalizations and mine a little salt, but we seem to be talking around that subject entirely without addressing the rather obvious elephant in the room. Again, very disappointing, but I suppose when this is all over and enough years have elapsed for those with short attention spans to forget the recent past, they'll start talking about it again, and we'll get to hear yet again about how good the ACTSHUAL T-72 truly is. I miss those days, and I look forward to the return of those delusional muppets. They could be annoying, but they were entertaining nonetheless.
And you came to that conclusion based on what , Ukraine where 2 armies are both fighting with nearly same soviet gear?
I think this is because everyone is speechless. The abyssmal operational, tactical and logistic performance of the Russian forces in their war against Ukraine is the really big surprise in my view.
It makes no sense to discuss weapon system strengths or weaknesses, when the crews of the aggressor seem to not know how to make effective use of them.
and we'll get to hear yet again about how good the ACTSHUAL T-72 truly is.
How good by todays standards can a tank developed in the late '60 based on a concept from the late '50 be?
Exactly the point , you would have same results if they waltzed in on Leopards and Marders or Abrams and Bradleys following the same 'plan' or lack of theroff particulary in first couple of weeks .
Its not like any of these have any protection to top attack ATGMs . Everyone knew the base line Soviet/Russian armor strengths and weaknesses. And its not like there is much armor being used that is post-soviet. Corruption made sure modernization was minimal and mostly limited to upgrades of the old gear.
What we are seeing from Ukraine is an absolute propaganda win.but you have to take it all with a showel of salt as propaganda is off the charts by any conflict standards.
From bellow the turret ring ,writien on the theme of wrecked Leo2 in syria but is applicable just the same in Ukraine.
''While this term doesn't exactly apply to the topic, it clearly shows the same problem: people are judging the peformance of a combat vehicle, a military unit or even a whole nation based on a biased subset of encounters. The Battle of Crete was a horrible failure from the perspective of the Nazi-German Army, which abandoned the tactics of airborne invasion via paratroopers after it. From the perspective of the Allies, who were unaware of the German losses, the airborne invasion was suddenly a highly effective tool of warfare - that happens when only a subset of data is considered. How many videos out there are showing an Iraqi or a Saudi Abrams tank getting hit by an ATGM, while sitting in the open without (mechanized/motorized) infantry support? Everytime such a video appears, someone comments on how bad said vehicle/persons are doing and how they are essentially getting slaughtered. What is ignored in this context is that the terrorists will only show your successful attacks - that's how propaganda works. But how many times do their attacks fail by missing the target, failing to penetrate the armor or being discovered and killed?''
Rostec Boss - in charge of arms industry
His 100mio $ yacht was literally paid by Russian military
We have seen Leopards2 in action in Syria , couple of weeks in against in a minor skirmish against nonstate actors without Javelins left a dozen or so smoldering wrecks and even some captured by ISIS and Turk military is on paper most combat experienced in NATO Europe.
This now gold standard on reporting from ukraine , anything goes from painting own losses as opposing to edited vids that show same action from different viewpoints