Modelling > Engineering Dept.

Leopard 1s for Ukraine

<< < (3/3)

Old Wombat:

--- Quote from: M.A.D on January 24, 2024, 03:51:05 PM ---It's only my thought, but I think this Russian-Ukraine Conflict has reiterates to me as to an additional reason as to why the Soviets/Russians have doctrinally kept their MBT designs to a spacific weight margin. Where as I always excepted the Western narrative that Soviet and as a consequence Russian MBT were small/lighter due to scale of economy, so that they could build vast numbers (quantity vs quality) as exemplified by the said amount of Leo2 getting bogged hull deep in the mud of the fertile Ukraine. I'm picturing the smaller, lighter and less ground pressure exerting Leo1 faring better. After all, where as in the West, we have a tendency to remember all the sexy stuff about the Eastern Front during WW2, the Russians have never forgotten the inhospitable environment of their own country....
On top of this is also the reality that as much as many have made issue of the Leo1 being armed with 'an obsolete L7 105mm gun', it's acknowledged that there are reasonably few tank on tank engagements, instead the MBT in theatre are more employed in the direct and indirect gun fire support or from what I can see, plain harassing fire.

Regards
Pioneer

--- End quote ---

Have you paid attention to the Soviet/Russian tanks also getting well bogged down in the mud? ???

The principle reason that Soviet/Russian tanks are built small & low (the "lightness" is just a by-product of this) is because they are built for attacking ... that's it, no defensive doctrine worth mentioning whatsoever.

A smaller, lower tank is, theoretically, more difficult to hit as it advances.

Western tanks are designed for a doctrine of manoeuvre, which includes attack, defence & fire-support (the Russians have only begun to learn this use, due to their developing shortage of artillery), so they tend to be bigger & taller.

Still, from memory, the Abrams & Challenger tanks both have about 40% less exposure of the vehicle in prepared, hull-down defensive/ambush positions compared to the smaller T-80 or T-90 tanks in equally prepared, hull-down defensive/ambush positions.

apophenia:

--- Quote from: M.A.D on January 24, 2024, 03:51:05 PM ---It's only my thought, but I think this Russian-Ukraine Conflict has reiterates to me as to an additional reason as to why the Soviets/Russians have doctrinally kept their MBT designs to a spacific weight margin. Where as I always excepted the Western narrative that Soviet and as a consequence Russian MBT were small/lighter due to scale of economy, so that they could build vast numbers (quantity vs quality) as exemplified by the said amount of Leo2 getting bogged hull deep in the mud of the fertile Ukraine. I'm picturing the smaller, lighter and less ground pressure exerting Leo1 faring better. After all, where as in the West, we have a tendency to remember all the sexy stuff about the Eastern Front during WW2, the Russians have never forgotten the inhospitable environment of their own country....
On top of this is also the reality that as much as many have made issue of the Leo1 being armed with 'an obsolete L7 105mm gun', it's acknowledged that there are reasonably few tank on tank engagements, instead the MBT in theatre are more employed in the direct and indirect gun fire support or from what I can see, plain harassing fire.

--- End quote ---

A few thoughts on this ...

First, as Guy noted, no vehicle escapes Bezdorizhzhya. If there is a weight issue here, it is primarily that Ukraine's bridges weren't built to accommodate heavier Western tanks. But for the mud season, everyone has to wait it out.

IIUC, the weight/armour protection of the Leopard 1 series was dictated by Bundeswehr operational theories of the day. For defensive tanks in 1965, those were survival through fire-and-manoeuvre rather than relying upon armour protection (which BWB then thought was almost certain to fail). So, the end result may resemble the Soviet approach but it was arrived at from a completely different starting point.

As for the Russians remembering their own "inhospitable environment", that was, in part, a result of the Red Army becoming the second-best army in Finland during the Winter War. (Reality becomes highly memorable when you've just been handed your own ass on a plate!)

As for the direct fire support role, you are right that the L7 still has a role to play. Beyond simple availability, this is mainly because NATO didn't bother that much with 120 mm HE (hence all the tungsten and DU penetrators). Sweden solved the problem for their strv 121s by repurposing 120 mm mortar shells. NATO followed suit. So, 120 mm HE does exist ... just not in the same numbers as 105 mm. That will change as the percentage of 120 HE produced is increased. In other words, the L7's HE advantage is temporary.

I don't know if this helps ... but, for Ukraine, think of the Leo 1s as ideal BMP plinkers (to avoid wasting 120s in overkill) while retaining a DFS capability to back up infantry.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page