Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Leopard vs T-62: Underdogs of the Ukraine War" video.

Most people see only one characteristic - caliber. Barrel length, case length, case volume, chamber volume, rod length, barrel rigidness, ability to sustain pressure, presence of muzzle reference device and thousands other things don't exist for them.
37
Weird question, but since return of T-62 into service coincided with russian arms purchases from North Korea, does the mythical "tank repair plant in Far East that specialized in repairs of specifically T-62 and was untouched by budget cuts while retaining all the skilled workforce for over 30 years of collapse" exist... or are they just purchasing Chonma parts kits and scratching the letterings off?😅
15
@glubokayaoperatsiya 4 month old empty account that has russian name "deep operation" written with latin letters. Idk if there's even a point of investing time to argue and explain what you're trying to derail the conversation into and why here...
15
@joshuabonilla3491 "to be fair" To be fair "bad arabs, who don't know how to fight" is a myth USSR and Russia used to excuse deficiencies of their equipment. Iraqi tank crews during BOTH Desert Storm and Iraqi War performed BETTER then russians did innpast two years. Despite having worse equipment, being outnumbered and having less budget dedicated to training(as it turned out iraqis were indeed training, not only stealing funds). Especially showing are instances of where iraqi tanks were ambushed by M1A1's and were still able to score hits. Not penetrations, but hits. Some M1A1's were hit several times so likely the optics and turret ring weren't in best condition so it might be even counted as mission kill as those tanks would need to return to camp for maintenance instead of going further. And how they done it? They didn't panick, they assessed the situation, they closed the distance and they returned fire. Without modern or even adequate fire control systems, without thermals, without GPS, without pretty much everything. Meanwhile russians?😂
10
@JF-ee3nn Russia has equipment superiority, numbers superiority, it is supposed to have air superiority and it is the side that invaded ie it had initiative. Iraqis had none of that. Cut your bs.
5
@phunkracy hey, look who came back? How are you doing? How are copium supplies? Anyway, to answer your question - against modern(for that time period) soviet tanks used by Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Same tanks that are now once again becoming modern for Russia.
3
@lightdarthvader777 Russia gave Syria a few dozen T-62's at best after 2000 total. Syria had over 1000 of their own T-62 that they purchased from USSR from 1973 to 1984. And almost 200 more were apparently sold by Russia from 1991 to 1995. And that was the last delivery until 2018. However in case of T-72 the situation is far more interesting and russian "adventures in Syria" are one of the main reasons Russia has such huge discrepancies between tanks on paper and tanks in actual service. On paper Russia should have between 5000 and 7000 T-72 in active service ie combat ready. Unless those tanks were lost in 2014-2022 in Ukraine, we lost in Syria, were sold on black market and cannibalised for parts for "new production" of T-90A over the years. I wonder where those tanks might be?
2
@BojanPeric-kq9et you wonder why tank designed with focus on mobility over armor might have higher focus on mobility over armor? Could it be...
2
@konosmgr I just did. They had the same armour, just of an older model. Moreover iraqi engineers had modified armor further to protect the tank from early versions of TOW. And yes, soviets removed FCS. But iraqi crews were still hitting targets. Solely due to having proper training. It's as if it's the whole point of this discussion and you came right back to it 🤣 Yes, and it did better then Russia against Ukraine.
2
@konosmgr by russian claims they've used old steel penetrators. By further russian claims they've delivered mild steel penetrators because they didn't want to break the embargo. By even further russian claims they've further sabotaged their quality on top of that. And if I'll dig even further, then there'd be a russian claim that the provided penetrator rods were made out of wood painted with chrome paint, that they were never sent and the whole situation was made up anyway. Which one are you interested in, comrade? However it doesn't change the fact that 1)iraqi tankers were scoring hits; 2)before T-90A's revised autoloader that elongated the allowance of possible penetrator length there wasn't a penetrator for 2A46 that would go through M1 turret; 3)iraqi tankers were scoring hits:P Even without your claimed good FCS that never heard of MRD until 2017, without your precious claimed good penetrators they were performing like you guys NEVER did. Both in discipline and skill. Training matters. Maintenance matters. And no matter how many times you will try to derail this convo, iraqi tankers>>>soviet tankers>>>>>russian tankers. And you can't change that :P
2
@deven6518 let's start point by point. "caliber, when talking tanks, already accounts for diameter and barrel length." 1)I presume you have a quote somewhere here that stated otherwise? Or mentioned diameter at all? Please provide it. 2)while it's common to mention barrel length in calibers, caliber itself is in no way indication of barrel length. Simple example are L/44 and L/55 guns. So please specify what you've meant in these two as in current form they make no sense. Then we'll continue.
1
@BojanPeric-kq9et kiddo, you're the last person who should be talking about what people are and aren't aware of, my dear empty 2023 profile. And since you had no idea that T-72M/M1 have combined turret armor array like T-72A, you've already admitted that you have no place in this discussion:D
1
@konosmgr iraqi tankers>>>soviet tankers>>>>>russian tankers Deal with it:P
1