Frankly I’m somewhat concerned about mention of ATGMs with specifically over 500 mm penetration. It seems to imply anything less, or perhaps an RPG would not work. Plus the only mention of using tank shells is to “blind” the tank, not destroy it.
And frankly comparison to “grandfather beating tigers and panthers” is distasteful
“blinding” is nothing to shy about. I’m not up to my Russian, but I think it says it’s vulnerable to blinding.
At any rate, if you use a sufficiently explosive shell and destroy a tank’s scopes, it’s basically dead against a fully operational tank, especially if the blind tank relies too much on computer-assisted aiming (which the Leopard does). Blinding first, destroying second is a common tactic in encounters against heavy tanks.
Fair, but tank-on-tank battles are pretty rare. Most destroyed Russian tanks were with Javelins, and most destroyed Ukrainian tanks were with Kornets, Izdeliye 105Es, Lancets, etc. etc. It’s become a sort of standoff war with tanks functioning as long range “artillery” battering rams of sorts. Here’s an example of footage from a Lancet destroying an AD system:
Ultimately, Leopards and Abrams are doomed to failure because they’re trying to meet the T-series head on, while the Russians will just potshot them with ATGMs and drones.
Which one’s that? I am not familiar with this code.
Ultimately, Leopards and Abrams are doomed to failure because they’re trying to meet the T-series head on, while the Russians will just potshot them with ATGMs and drones.
Thing is, that is what the Ukrainians (and NATO stans) used to say. Except, you know, about Russian tanks.
Product 105E is a BVR (beyond visual range) munition. Fired by a helicopter crew, the missile can change targets based on the operator’s whims, and you can fire without knowing where exactly the target is. It’s basically accurate to the centimeter, just not ridiculously powerful. It’s especially potent when destroying buildings, because it can precisely fly through windows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVpZucBYqnk
that’s insane. even the type 99 tank can only penetrate 960mm at most.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_tank
why aren’t tanks being mounted with weapons like the kornet?
Frankly I’m somewhat concerned about mention of ATGMs with specifically over 500 mm penetration. It seems to imply anything less, or perhaps an RPG would not work. Plus the only mention of using tank shells is to “blind” the tank, not destroy it.
And frankly comparison to “grandfather beating tigers and panthers” is distasteful
“blinding” is nothing to shy about. I’m not up to my Russian, but I think it says it’s vulnerable to blinding.
At any rate, if you use a sufficiently explosive shell and destroy a tank’s scopes, it’s basically dead against a fully operational tank, especially if the blind tank relies too much on computer-assisted aiming (which the Leopard does). Blinding first, destroying second is a common tactic in encounters against heavy tanks.
What, did you expect tanks to just fall apart of their own accord? And 490 MM is nothing, the Soviet RPG-7 which entered service in 1961 can penetrate 650 MM with ERA The Kornet can penetrate 1300 MM.. 490 MM is hardly intimidating.
I expected at least some mention of tank usage, beyond “blind it”
Fair, but tank-on-tank battles are pretty rare. Most destroyed Russian tanks were with Javelins, and most destroyed Ukrainian tanks were with Kornets, Izdeliye 105Es, Lancets, etc. etc. It’s become a sort of standoff war with tanks functioning as long range “artillery” battering rams of sorts. Here’s an example of footage from a Lancet destroying an AD system:
Ultimately, Leopards and Abrams are doomed to failure because they’re trying to meet the T-series head on, while the Russians will just potshot them with ATGMs and drones.
Which one’s that? I am not familiar with this code.
Thing is, that is what the Ukrainians (and NATO stans) used to say. Except, you know, about Russian tanks.
Product 105E is a BVR (beyond visual range) munition. Fired by a helicopter crew, the missile can change targets based on the operator’s whims, and you can fire without knowing where exactly the target is. It’s basically accurate to the centimeter, just not ridiculously powerful. It’s especially potent when destroying buildings, because it can precisely fly through windows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVpZucBYqnk
Thank you
no problem
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
that’s insane. even the type 99 tank can only penetrate 960mm at most. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_99_tank why aren’t tanks being mounted with weapons like the kornet?
IIRC Kornets are so expensive the Russian military doesn’t actually plan to replace existing systems with them. It’s just too costly. Elite Russian units use it as an anti-tank weapon or with the thermobaric warheads against infantry groupings, but it’s not the most common weapon used by Z units.
Edit: Russia also has a “Kornet truck”, what an actual superweapon