Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "How to destroy a T-72 - Leopard 2 Gunner Interview" video.

  1. what surprised me in a tank museum is that t-72 was much bigger than i imagined. its not very tall but it is a big tank and it carries a big metal gun as big as a flagpole. And Centurion that looks smaller than average in world of wanks was huge in size. And artillery pieces are even larger. Bandkanon is simply massive. But then there are tanks that are extremely tiny like Panzer 1. T-38 that russia used in the winter war is just 1.6 meters tall so I imagine this to be the most crampy tank ever built.
    6
  2. Both sides are painting white markings on their tanks for a reason, because identifying friend from foe is difficult. And just seeing a siluette of an enemy tank from far away is not easy for identification - hence the talk that every german tank is a tiger (even if it is a panzer4 whos siluette looks a bit similiar).
    5
  3.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  T-34/85 was pretty large compared to how I imagined it after hearing people on tv and on the internet saying how crampy it was. Likewise was Hetzer a lot bigger than I imagined after seeing Chieftains video about it. I imagine 4 persons could actually fit very well into that tank now - altough I haven't seen the inside of any of those tanks. Sherman firefly is tall like a tower - and with a tank commander looking out from the turret you would probably have your head head like 3.5 meters above the ground. Leopard1 was just about the same size as I imagined it to be, but the gun still looks large and menacing despite its old age.
    2
  4. why are you so short Putin?
    2
  5. Minefields works in a confied battlespace i guess but not if the enemy can walk around them. And mines are only useful if you have someone that can fire on the people trying to clear the minefield - but if the enemy have artillery or air power to kill off all defenders then the minefield becomes pretty worthless. I don't think RPGs are effective against modern western tanks.. Challangers have many dozens of hits so I think more powerful anti-tank weapons are needed. And I consider attack helicopters a relic of the past that is dying out. Its too vulnerable to ground fire and cannot carry as much bombload or fly fast like aircrafts. Russias small number of helicopters did have some effect last summer, but on the other hand do I believe this problem is easily solveable by just putting som mid-range SAMs mounted on some Humvees to protect an armored column. Using air power to knock out tanks is hard. And especially if your airforce suck, like the russian one. I mean two of the newest bombers in the russian air force - SU-34 - tried to fly extremely low and close to a target to drop russias new gliding bombs on a target in Belgorod but all bombs failed to hit their target and half of the bombs failed to explode. This is the result of russias best. And something tells me that this is not a very effective way of fighting. I used to think that SU34 must have been a good plane unlike the old A10. But given their pathethic performance in Ukraine with high losses I think I would prefer the old crappy A10 over it after all. If not for anything else so then for the better armament. This russian piece of crap usually can only drop dumb bombs, because they have runned low on guided bombs. But not only are the dud rate on russian bombs extremely high and the precision with badly trained pilots not that high - I also think it is stupid to risk an expensive new plane and pilots for flying low altitude and get exposed to manpads. Furthermore do I think it is idiotic to have a two engined plane with all ground maintance that entails - especially if you are just going to risk those expensive planes in missions with high risks and tiny rewards. I will however agree with you that tanks mainly are not fighting other tanks - and that was also the case back in WW2. Rommel did not want to waste his few tanks fighting tank duels in the desert. He rather used them to drive up to the Brits and fire a few shots and then retreat - and then the British tanks followed the retreating enemy into a trap. And suddenly they stood in an open field and got targeted by 88mm anti-tank guns and got blown into pieces and the British tanks with their tiny guns could not shot far enough to hit the powerful german guns that massacred them from far away. And today armies still prefer to not risk their expensive tanks in duels and rather use cheap weapons to destroy enemy tanks. Ambushes is the preferred way of war, but its not always possible to achieve surprise attacks so then are other metods of destroying tanks needed. And sometimes must an area be conquered quickly with brute force and then are tanks needed. As you say are they useful as infantry support as infantry - especially low quality troops - needs tanks and artillery support to be succesful in their attacks and for fighting morale not to fall apart and the men panicing and start fleeing as soon as the enemy starts firing. However true combined arms warfare is a skill needed to make all weapon systems to work at full effect, and few armies have this capability today.
    1