• Navaryn@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “designed for a direct confrontation with the USSR” is vague, it tricks you into missing the point. Those tanks were created when the main fear was that the USSR would try to steamroll all of western europe, because it objectively had the means to do so. Thus, Leopards were designed with a more defensive role in mind - one example of this is the lower reliance on autoloaders. Those tanks were thought to be fighting near home, where the benefits of having one extra crew member (the loader) far outweighted the downsides (the tank needs to be bigger and heavier to name one).

    Russian tanks on the other hand make ample use of autoloaders. Russia also designed tanks that were meant to be fighting at home, but their thought process was different - Autoloaders allows for smaller tanks, which means more armor for less overall weight and better firerate.

    But now, both those types of tanks are fighting on the offensive. In that condition an autoloader is a big advantage, and so is being smaller and lighter. Which means that Russian tanks are comparatively faring better than NATO vehicles.

    This is just one of the many aspects that make western tanks perform worse than expected, i’m sure others can mention more. Just to name another issue for them, NATO always assumed that they would have air superiority while fighting - and in Ukraine they don’t.