Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "Russia claims to have destroyed two Ukrainian Leopard tanks in Zaporizhzhia region" video.

@Klovaneer Your martyr complex is acting up.
20
Russians tanks, on the other hand, toss their turrets at the slightest sign of trouble. Wearing flip-flops and head towels is entirely optional, but they worked extremely well in the 80s.
9
You don't know your weapons. It's quite a stroke of luck if the Russians struck the Leopards with indirect artillery fire, using HEAT rounds. It typically takes dozens and dozens of shells to score a direct hit. A Leopard is not perturbed by a near miss, which leaves a hole in the ground as if somehow poked it with a stick. You really have to look for it.
6
@deven6518 No one in his right mind claims invincibility. However, there's no question that the Leopard 2 is by design more survivable than your average Russian tank. The carousel autoloaders with their exposed rounds make the latter inherently more vulnerable.
4
@Djjdwg06 I don't think you know what indirect fire is. Even with a Ka-50 artillery spotting, it's still called indirect fire.
1
@Klovaneer Kampfgruppe? Are you a N*zi fanboy now?
1
@alannatory Sure, and the Ukrainians have got our Strix, which is entirely self-contained.
1
EightFootSativa What's NAFO? I apologise if you have dyslexia.
1
@mikhailmik OK, I've reported you for spamming. Get ready to register a new account, yet again.
1
@slavicemperor8279 Turks with shoddy tactics, but still no tossed turrets. That's a design feature of Russian tanks.
1
@mikhailmik I knew you were just mindlessly copying canned statements, like the mindless bot that you are.
1
@t15661 The coping is strong with you Krembots today. As I hinted at before, the Turks committed the same fatal mistake that Russia has been guilty of in Ukraine, time after time. The Turks pushed their Leopards forward without proper infantry support. It is, after all, how the Turks fight Kurdish insurgents wielding mere AKs. Instead, what they had to contend with were ATGMs. Just like your Orcs in Ukraine, who were expecting to be greeted by grateful Ukrainian with flowers, not Javelins.
1
@AndreasConfirmed When a Western tank gets hit and its ammunition cooks off, there are not necessarily any KIAs. With Russian tanks, it's practically a given. That's the difference.
1
@Sun-Tzu- Don't be silly. While it's perfectly possible that a single projectile penetrates the crew compartment and kills everyone inside in an instant, it's more likely there's only a limited hull breach. Western crews stand a chance owing to the shielded ammunition storage, but Russian crews are blown sky-high, along with their turret.
1
@Sun-Tzu- If there's a hull breach, it's much more likely to result from a kinetic penetrator than a HEAT round or a squash head, which is what you're describing. I've actually fired an M72 LAW at a T-26. We had packed the target with styrofoam panels for damage assessment, and yes, it was extreme. However, the LAW would've only pockmarked a Leo-2. Of course, there are far more powerful AT weapons, but the point is to deny the enemy the opportunity to launch. What you're saying is that since tanks can't provide 100% survivability, we shouldn't bother with them. Ukraine has captured hundreds of battle-damaged but repairable Russian tanks, some with little damage like a thrown track and others with crew casualties, so battle damage occurs in all gradations. The Ukrainians are already confirming that their Western armoured vehicles are more survivable. It's no surprise, because they're designed with an emphasis on survivability.
1
@Sun-Tzu- Duh, tank design is always a compromise, and not only in terms of armour, but also, power to weight, ground pressure, armament and whatnot.
1
@Sun-Tzu- To rinse and repeat, the Leopard 2 is petter [sic] than the T-72 in terms of crew survivability, owing to petter [sic] ammunition storage arrangements, which make the former practically immune to the notorious jack-in-the-box effect that so plagues the Soviet/Russian T-series tanks, up to the very latest T-90 subtypes. Try to get that through your thick skull.
1