Using a tank as a stationary pillbox without infantry support. No tank would have done well there because that's not what tanks are for.
Or as another anon said
Leos never had any combat experiences until Afghan. Even then, it was merely against lightly armed goatfrickers. This is literally one of the most overrated tanks ever in the history.
>Leo was considered best of the world
Literally all it took to be considered a world-beating tank until the late 90s, was an accurate FCS and a thermal sight
Leopards have always had a lot more compromises in terms of protection and crew safety, than heavier American and British tanks
>Leo was considered best of the world
Nah, Abrams was and is better.
Even now, the Leopard 2 still only uses half of its turret bustle for ammo, only 15 rounds are in blowout panel storage. The rest of the ammo is exposed in the hull.
All ammo on the Abrams, even the hull bin behind the TC, is blow out paneled.
>The rest of the ammo is exposed in the hull.
So i'm gonna go on a bit of an autistic rant here, but stay with me.
I know you are referring to the fact that hull storage usually dont come with blow-out panels, and that the crew compartment is exposed to the effects of something spicy happening in the hull bunker. And i'm in no way disagreeing with this or trying to handwave away the blow-out issue.
But, from a design standpoint, the hull bunker is about the best protected storage that the MBT can have (not the carousel type ofc).
a) It's placed behind the monolithic front armor package, which while usually of lesser thickness than that of the turret, is one of the most protected parts of the MBT.
b) Side protection (of the bunker area) is set to stop autocannon and hollow charge rounds. Ofc a main gun round will not care about this, not a heavy ATGM. Same goes for the bustle storage, giving protection against artillery splinters, autocannon and whatnot.
c) When correctly employed, i.e not parked on top of a hill by a bunch of turks, the MBT will expose as little of itself as possible using the terrain, both when static and during bounding/movement. This reduces the exposure of the hull in particular, and follows wartime and cold-war research which showed most rounds hitting the upper 1/3 of the MBT. This has only increased in modern times with the proliferation of top-attack munitions.
d) The actual storage are is quite small, only about 1 cubic meter. So the chance of directly hitting it is quite small. This is in contrast with the carousel-type, which while often mounted low in the hull, is usually as wide as the turret basket and covers a significant area between the driving compartment and the engine compartment. A penetrating hit to the turret (the most likely part to be hit) will usually lead directly down to the carousel, something which is less likely to happen on a vehicle with a hull bunker.
You're wasting your time. Only tourists and morons care about the relentless shilling about ammo placement and neither know what they're talking about or care.
Hull ammo thing is overrated as frick especially with modern 120mm ammo that's incredibly hard to detonate. But still they should at least give blow out panels to hull ammo storage like K2 did.
The Leopard 2's hull design is still really stupid for what it is. They could have easily designed a turret with more rounds in the ready rack instead of unprotected, non-blowout and non compartmentalized ammo but instead they went the dumb route.
A old friend, wich was in the german army told me that they miss used them,there where made for driving and shooting, not for stationnary fire Positions.they where sitting ducks.
>why did the T90 perform so badly in ukraine
moronic design that had staid the same since the T-64 which was meant for amassed tank advance, aged horribly >why did the Abrams perform so badly in yemen
Monkey models with the composites taken out, performed better than leoshit
Really bad armored doctrine combined with inept commanders and crews. Even the best and most modern M1A2 SEPv3 can easily be destroyed if it's just sitting somewhere unsupported.
They used them as mobile artillery to provide overwatch from hills, almost as bad as Arabs that think tanks are invincible moving fortresses and send them into urban combat without infantry support.
2A4 isn't some sort of wunderwaffe anymore.
It's old as frick and the protection levels against mine and ATGMs isn't adequate. Combine that with unprotected ammo being stored in the hull and you have a recipee for disaster.
Tanks WILL inevitably get hit by enemy fire.
Expecting it to never happen is moronic and as such a possibility is never taken under consideration when designing a tank,
Because they were driven and commanded by morons doing moronic things they shouldn't have been doing. Same reason so many tanks are getting fricked in Ukraine, morons forget tanks are but one piece to a greater whole and you can't just send them in alone
Pre A5 models have severe flaws in their turret armour configuration. The A5 came about when the A4 was laughed out the late 1980s trials at Bovington (which the M1A1 Abrams won) - the competition never eventually being completed and contracts rewarded, etc, due to Thatcher and MoD flip-flopping on either replacing Chieftain or replacing Chieftain and Challenger.
Turkish army is filled with gulen agents
Leadership wants to go in Syria, army says no. This continues for months. Coup happens. Leadership must project power. Hastily order invasion. Let commander of special forces command op because no one left. All real kemalists imprisoned years before. Go in. Disorganized. Soldiers use off the shelf tents from Alibaba. buy groceries from regular stores. Muster ragtag Syrian militia force.
Maybe underestimate enemy a little.
Honestly, given the circumstances they did pretty well. Once you read into how disorganized the first op was, you kinda wonder how the f they didn't suffer more casualties. No logistics, no aircover, no proper local force, sleeper agents still in army messing up on purpose. Shit show beyond anything I ever read up on. Still won the ping pong though.
Regarding the tank, it did everything it was supposed to. Was never meant to be shot at with advanced atgms in this particular configuration and circumstances. Some of them were abandoned and later bombed simply because they suffered technical problems. All in all performed liked advertised.
>Turkish army is filled with gulen agents
Turkish hands typed this. Literally everyone else in the world doesn't believe this ominous terrorgroup even exists
Every major party in Turkey, including Erdogan's opposition, believes there are Gulenists who want(ed) to take power through subversion.
There are Gulenist-run websites and activists across Europe as well.
Fricking pajeets man. You'd be impressed by their self confidence and boldness, if only they weren't using both to be the most embarrassing degenerates possible.
It does take serious balls to tell a dictator's daughter that you want to steal his money and bang her silly. But all of that is immediately negated by how moronic the entire situation is and how much of a fricking simp-chimp he comes across for even trying.
Blows my mind that there are still teenagers in the world that worship this guy. He's going to be a prostitute for Iranians for the rest of his life, assuming he doesn't get the Ghaddafi treatment
Blows my mind that there are still teenagers in the world that worship this guy. He's going to be a prostitute for Iranians for the rest of his life, assuming he doesn't get the Ghaddafi treatment
I don't think he will get the Ghaddafi treatment as most of the important areas have been secured with the exception of Turkish border and a few Islamist strongholds. I guess being under Iranian influence is a lesser price to pay than getting killed
>park tonks on hills, only infantry protection are a bunch of inept Arab militants >enemy has at missiles >how could this happen??
APS might have saved some of them but that's about it with this MO
US invests lots of manpower and resources to keep their tanks out of harms way.
- if you do moronic things with Abrams it will also be destroyed - its not invulnerable - no tank is and there always were viable weapons to counter tanks throughout history.
As others stated, it really doesn't matter what the strengths or weaknesses of the Leopard are in general. Their faillure falls squarely on the fact that the Turks just messed up in their usage of tanks in general. Had you put an Abrams, T-90 or whatever China has in the same position, and it wouldn't have made a difference.
It's like someone hammering a nail into a concrete wall with their smartphone. We can talk hours about the brand, quality of production, stats, waterproofness, warranty, etc. etc. But at the end of the day, none of those are the reason the phone is now a splintered piece of plastic and glass. And using the result as a review in order to compare it to other phones is kind of an exercise in futility, since using them as a hammer is not how you're supposed to use any of them.
Nobody is saying Abrams and Leo are bad, except the moron who made the thread and keeps bumping it.
Both were driven aggressively and without adequate support and not all crews were adequately trained. And losses were minimal despite that.
If we take Yemen and Syria as indications that either tank model is bad, that means that basically every Russian tank is nothing but a rolling coffin.
But russian tanks are dog shit, the overrated as all hell t34 is just a bigger copy pf the BT which is just a pre ww2 US tank design and can only stop a few at most 75mm HE rounds from the panzer 4. The KV1 also had huge transmission problems and still gad reliability issues against 75mm AP. That homosexual posting the abrams IS trying to say the abrams is bad, but these morons can only really find export models or else the abrams would literally either be blown in half or torn to absolute shit in which the crew then has to destroy the tank. The leo really isn't all that in a bag of chips, it does have too thin of armor considering every frickwit in the dunes tatooine has ATGM or a modern launcher either through governments creating proxy groups like the now FRICKING TALIBAN and ISIS, abandoning equipment, and your pussy allies you trained and equipped to hold their own run like cowards abandoning everything.
Western MBTs have a reputation for being impenetrable but that's only on the front arc, and they use their superior situation awareness and accurate long range guns to kill anything that even tries to get a shot at them from that angle. But if you *can* get at them from the side, usually due to operator error, they'll die to even obsolete weapons.
""Monkey models"" with less impressive composite packages still have decent frontal protection, but the exact same side protection.
Right so why haven't abrams or challengers been shooting their turrets up 1,000km into the air to appear bigger against scary RPGs shooting the side? Cause your claim of "just hit it from the side" doesn't work, they literally armored the sides too bud.
Not him but Abrams has blowout panels for both its hull ammo storage and its turret ammunition.
To cause a catastrophic kill on an M1, you would have to penetrate the turret of the tank at the time the ammo doors are open for a reload, which is a 2-3 second long period for a competent loader out of a six second reload. And even that's not guaranteed since the blowout racks are still there and would vent away much of the ensuring fireball and explosion.
First you'd have to somehow even penetrate the turret which good luck even doing that, if you listen closely you can hear gaiisraelite and war thunder cucks seething rn.
Saying its all the Turks fault is abit of a meme given Turkey has infinetly more experience than Germany or any other Leo user out there, how would you know if they would fare better?
Turks
Turks are synonymous with Modern Germans.
weird cope but ok
Turkey captured a territory size of Israel by losing like 10 armored vehicles and tanks
Using a tank as a stationary pillbox without infantry support. No tank would have done well there because that's not what tanks are for.
Or as another anon said
>Turks
Tanks are done.
Leopard wasn't good until 2A6 the ones in Syria are older models.
Crewed by literal roaches
Bullshit, until the mid 90s when the Abrams got tins of upgrades Leo was considered best of the world
Leos never had any combat experiences until Afghan. Even then, it was merely against lightly armed goatfrickers. This is literally one of the most overrated tanks ever in the history.
The seething Bong and the Coping Polak
>Leo was considered best of the world
Literally all it took to be considered a world-beating tank until the late 90s, was an accurate FCS and a thermal sight
Leopards have always had a lot more compromises in terms of protection and crew safety, than heavier American and British tanks
>Leo was considered best of the world
Nah, Abrams was and is better.
Even now, the Leopard 2 still only uses half of its turret bustle for ammo, only 15 rounds are in blowout panel storage. The rest of the ammo is exposed in the hull.
All ammo on the Abrams, even the hull bin behind the TC, is blow out paneled.
>The rest of the ammo is exposed in the hull.
So i'm gonna go on a bit of an autistic rant here, but stay with me.
I know you are referring to the fact that hull storage usually dont come with blow-out panels, and that the crew compartment is exposed to the effects of something spicy happening in the hull bunker. And i'm in no way disagreeing with this or trying to handwave away the blow-out issue.
But, from a design standpoint, the hull bunker is about the best protected storage that the MBT can have (not the carousel type ofc).
a) It's placed behind the monolithic front armor package, which while usually of lesser thickness than that of the turret, is one of the most protected parts of the MBT.
b) Side protection (of the bunker area) is set to stop autocannon and hollow charge rounds. Ofc a main gun round will not care about this, not a heavy ATGM. Same goes for the bustle storage, giving protection against artillery splinters, autocannon and whatnot.
c) When correctly employed, i.e not parked on top of a hill by a bunch of turks, the MBT will expose as little of itself as possible using the terrain, both when static and during bounding/movement. This reduces the exposure of the hull in particular, and follows wartime and cold-war research which showed most rounds hitting the upper 1/3 of the MBT. This has only increased in modern times with the proliferation of top-attack munitions.
d) The actual storage are is quite small, only about 1 cubic meter. So the chance of directly hitting it is quite small. This is in contrast with the carousel-type, which while often mounted low in the hull, is usually as wide as the turret basket and covers a significant area between the driving compartment and the engine compartment. A penetrating hit to the turret (the most likely part to be hit) will usually lead directly down to the carousel, something which is less likely to happen on a vehicle with a hull bunker.
Thank you al for coming to my TED-talk
You're wasting your time. Only tourists and morons care about the relentless shilling about ammo placement and neither know what they're talking about or care.
Hull ammo thing is overrated as frick especially with modern 120mm ammo that's incredibly hard to detonate. But still they should at least give blow out panels to hull ammo storage like K2 did.
K2 doesn't have blowout panels in the hull
I've seen poles claim the K2 doesn't store ammo in the hull at all.
These people aren't here to talk about weapons, anon.
The Leopard 2's hull design is still really stupid for what it is. They could have easily designed a turret with more rounds in the ready rack instead of unprotected, non-blowout and non compartmentalized ammo but instead they went the dumb route.
driving unsupported tanks into atgm ambushes in open terrain is always a good idea,just ask the 4th guards tank division,or whats left of it
Because it's shit
No matter how good your equipment is bad judgement and poor tactics will not save you
A old friend, wich was in the german army told me that they miss used them,there where made for driving and shooting, not for stationnary fire Positions.they where sitting ducks.
Sounds like your army buddy was fricking moronic.
So basically a tank that can't take a hit, got it
why did the T90 perform so badly in ukraine
why did the Abrams perform so badly in yemen
tanks need combined arms to be effective
>why did the T90 perform so badly in ukraine
moronic design that had staid the same since the T-64 which was meant for amassed tank advance, aged horribly
>why did the Abrams perform so badly in yemen
Monkey models with the composites taken out, performed better than leoshit
You are just as bad as the vatniks.
Kraut junk.
Leopard 2a4 are tanks from the 80s, Even Russias t90s and t80s are newer
Really bad armored doctrine combined with inept commanders and crews. Even the best and most modern M1A2 SEPv3 can easily be destroyed if it's just sitting somewhere unsupported.
It didn't. Not a single tank lost to enemy fire.
>Syria
How should I know, I was only in grade school when /sg/ threads were a thing.
>2014 was 8 years ago
Goddamn
Tanks are obsolete. Heavy IFVs are the future.
They used them as mobile artillery to provide overwatch from hills, almost as bad as Arabs that think tanks are invincible moving fortresses and send them into urban combat without infantry support.
Did they? I've seen a handful of destroyed Leopards like OP's pic, but never any concrete numbers.
Monkey model!
German weaponry is overrated. Only good for selling junk to Russia.
2A4 isn't some sort of wunderwaffe anymore.
It's old as frick and the protection levels against mine and ATGMs isn't adequate. Combine that with unprotected ammo being stored in the hull and you have a recipee for disaster.
>park tank on a hill like a moron
>gets hit by anti-tank missile
>THIS TANK SUCKS!
Tanks WILL inevitably get hit by enemy fire.
Expecting it to never happen is moronic and as such a possibility is never taken under consideration when designing a tank,
Yeah, but parking it so it can be approached how the attacker chooses just exacerbates its weaknesses and severely limits its strengths.
Because they were driven and commanded by morons doing moronic things they shouldn't have been doing. Same reason so many tanks are getting fricked in Ukraine, morons forget tanks are but one piece to a greater whole and you can't just send them in alone
any tank will preform poorly if used poorly
>>Why did the Leopard perform so badly in Syria?
>its wakey wakey time in poo-land
>shit threads like these pop op
seeth, cope, dilate, ywnbaw, rent free, pottery
Pre A5 models have severe flaws in their turret armour configuration. The A5 came about when the A4 was laughed out the late 1980s trials at Bovington (which the M1A1 Abrams won) - the competition never eventually being completed and contracts rewarded, etc, due to Thatcher and MoD flip-flopping on either replacing Chieftain or replacing Chieftain and Challenger.
overrated tech
Turkish army is filled with gulen agents
Leadership wants to go in Syria, army says no. This continues for months. Coup happens. Leadership must project power. Hastily order invasion. Let commander of special forces command op because no one left. All real kemalists imprisoned years before. Go in. Disorganized. Soldiers use off the shelf tents from Alibaba. buy groceries from regular stores. Muster ragtag Syrian militia force.
Maybe underestimate enemy a little.
Honestly, given the circumstances they did pretty well. Once you read into how disorganized the first op was, you kinda wonder how the f they didn't suffer more casualties. No logistics, no aircover, no proper local force, sleeper agents still in army messing up on purpose. Shit show beyond anything I ever read up on. Still won the ping pong though.
Regarding the tank, it did everything it was supposed to. Was never meant to be shot at with advanced atgms in this particular configuration and circumstances. Some of them were abandoned and later bombed simply because they suffered technical problems. All in all performed liked advertised.
They were still fighting Arabs, who are a step below turks
>Turkish army is filled with gulen agents
Turkish hands typed this. Literally everyone else in the world doesn't believe this ominous terrorgroup even exists
why do you talk about things you dont know anything about?
you actually believe in Gulen agents
Every major party in Turkey, including Erdogan's opposition, believes there are Gulenists who want(ed) to take power through subversion.
There are Gulenist-run websites and activists across Europe as well.
holy cope
Assad debuff
I want to be involved in an FFM mom and daughter scenario.
Is that his daughter on the right? She's actually pretty good looking
She has an IG account
https://www.instagram.com/zein_alassad/?hl=en
>https://www.instagram.com/zein_alassad/?hl=en
Sending my marriage proposal now
SIRS, PLEASE DO NOT REDEEM
It was really funny when she used to post pictures of pajeets harassing her and then pose with an AK
Fricking pajeets man. You'd be impressed by their self confidence and boldness, if only they weren't using both to be the most embarrassing degenerates possible.
It does take serious balls to tell a dictator's daughter that you want to steal his money and bang her silly. But all of that is immediately negated by how moronic the entire situation is and how much of a fricking simp-chimp he comes across for even trying.
>tfw no dictator daughter girlfriend
she could pass like a normal girl in here and live a normal life, like my great-grandparents did. I'm from Argentina btw.
>Is that his daughter on the right? She's actually pretty good looking
Which is surprising as her father looks like a cartoon
Blows my mind that there are still teenagers in the world that worship this guy. He's going to be a prostitute for Iranians for the rest of his life, assuming he doesn't get the Ghaddafi treatment
I care about unenlightened despotism as much as the next person, but "can't mossad the assad" is pretty catchy.
He also does have one catchy theme song
I don't think he will get the Ghaddafi treatment as most of the important areas have been secured with the exception of Turkish border and a few Islamist strongholds. I guess being under Iranian influence is a lesser price to pay than getting killed
I would like to sexo the wife and daughter
Assads wife has an Israelin girlfriend.
Honestly his family could pass for Italians or Hispanics
Raghead crews. Durkas transmute anything they touch into garbage. Like some sort of fecal Midas.
>park tonks on hills, only infantry protection are a bunch of inept Arab militants
>enemy has at missiles
>how could this happen??
APS might have saved some of them but that's about it with this MO
US invests lots of manpower and resources to keep their tanks out of harms way.
- if you do moronic things with Abrams it will also be destroyed - its not invulnerable - no tank is and there always were viable weapons to counter tanks throughout history.
Did it?
Name one tank from the 1980s that can survive a hit from a 1,300mm RHAe penetration Kornet ATGM.
As others stated, it really doesn't matter what the strengths or weaknesses of the Leopard are in general. Their faillure falls squarely on the fact that the Turks just messed up in their usage of tanks in general. Had you put an Abrams, T-90 or whatever China has in the same position, and it wouldn't have made a difference.
It's like someone hammering a nail into a concrete wall with their smartphone. We can talk hours about the brand, quality of production, stats, waterproofness, warranty, etc. etc. But at the end of the day, none of those are the reason the phone is now a splintered piece of plastic and glass. And using the result as a review in order to compare it to other phones is kind of an exercise in futility, since using them as a hammer is not how you're supposed to use any of them.
>2A4
>No CITV
>Lots of urban combat
>Lack of infantry support
Because Leo2a4 has weak armour and ammo is stored in the hull next to the driver.
For the same reason the Abrams performed so badly in Yemen.
>Show shitty export model blown to hell.
>Say abrams is bad.
You should go to school
Nobody is saying Abrams and Leo are bad, except the moron who made the thread and keeps bumping it.
Both were driven aggressively and without adequate support and not all crews were adequately trained. And losses were minimal despite that.
If we take Yemen and Syria as indications that either tank model is bad, that means that basically every Russian tank is nothing but a rolling coffin.
But russian tanks are dog shit, the overrated as all hell t34 is just a bigger copy pf the BT which is just a pre ww2 US tank design and can only stop a few at most 75mm HE rounds from the panzer 4. The KV1 also had huge transmission problems and still gad reliability issues against 75mm AP. That homosexual posting the abrams IS trying to say the abrams is bad, but these morons can only really find export models or else the abrams would literally either be blown in half or torn to absolute shit in which the crew then has to destroy the tank. The leo really isn't all that in a bag of chips, it does have too thin of armor considering every frickwit in the dunes tatooine has ATGM or a modern launcher either through governments creating proxy groups like the now FRICKING TALIBAN and ISIS, abandoning equipment, and your pussy allies you trained and equipped to hold their own run like cowards abandoning everything.
Western MBTs have a reputation for being impenetrable but that's only on the front arc, and they use their superior situation awareness and accurate long range guns to kill anything that even tries to get a shot at them from that angle. But if you *can* get at them from the side, usually due to operator error, they'll die to even obsolete weapons.
""Monkey models"" with less impressive composite packages still have decent frontal protection, but the exact same side protection.
Right so why haven't abrams or challengers been shooting their turrets up 1,000km into the air to appear bigger against scary RPGs shooting the side? Cause your claim of "just hit it from the side" doesn't work, they literally armored the sides too bud.
Not him but Abrams has blowout panels for both its hull ammo storage and its turret ammunition.
To cause a catastrophic kill on an M1, you would have to penetrate the turret of the tank at the time the ammo doors are open for a reload, which is a 2-3 second long period for a competent loader out of a six second reload. And even that's not guaranteed since the blowout racks are still there and would vent away much of the ensuring fireball and explosion.
First you'd have to somehow even penetrate the turret which good luck even doing that, if you listen closely you can hear gaiisraelite and war thunder cucks seething rn.
Is that why they were tommycooker-tier in Iraq?
Its funny how terrible the Saudis are
Any tank can get blown up these days.
Saying its all the Turks fault is abit of a meme given Turkey has infinetly more experience than Germany or any other Leo user out there, how would you know if they would fare better?