ole1291

After this war is over, it will certainly be interesting to see a proper statistical analysis done of all the various losses as was done after WW2 and the Arab-Israeli wars. I largely agree with all you said, but I wouldn't want to be so certain about the linear progression of the conflict, there's still some intangibles that could affect the balance enough to allow 'some' maneuver warfare to take place, not that it would result in Kursk like battles but still. Keep in mind that in 2014, over the same terrain, and with essentially the same kit, there was plenty of movement, encirclements and such. Drones do complicate everything, but to what extent? Here I don't agree (leo1), you just made a point that most tank work in this war was infantry support, leo1 would be ok in that role. And with their thermals and good FCS, they wouldn't be useless vs other tanks. Especially at night or in those ambush scenarios that are are most common. In an offensive role, of course things would get dicey. I also don't understand why the Ukrainians seem so fixated on the leo2s? Anyway, you are right, only large numbers would have a decisive impact. The main reasoning put forth by the Ukrainians and media pundit is that they are running out of 125mm ammo, they said that a couple of month ago and still appear to be fine so might be BS.

Absolutely, the importance of the move is in breaking the threshold. All of that would also apply to other western systems the Ukrainians have received like PzH2000, and the very same arguments were made at the time. I'm sure they're not making the most out of those systems (just look at the videos) and are abusing them a lot, but from their point of view it's still better than no system at all. Agreed.

For the time being... It's obviously contingent on how the war proceeds and other factors. But as Snake already outlined, there aren't many Leo2 that could realistically be donated. M1s on the other hand are plentiful. Bradleys are already going to be sent there. Did most of those placed in long term storage receive an upgrade as well prior to retirement? So Poland will basically receive M1s with latest (or close) protection level but without the hunter killer capability, data link moving map etc... of the M1A2. I imagine no APS as well (any plans for the future?).

So, the Germans and Americans gave up their own best assessment of their armor arrays effectiveness to the Russians during these talks (and I imagine the reverse too), and that data was later leaked. Would you say those are the most reliable metrics to assess current leo2A4 and M1A1 HA armor then, more so than the British assessment posted previously, as it would be more up to date? Or could it be a case, as SSnake outlined, of deliberately seeding slightly false information to further blurr the picture, impossible to know I guess.

Any link to his work? what's his family name?

That's the question... The debate was initially about whether the Leo2A4 and M1A1 that are likely to be sent to the war in Ukraine could resist BM42 rounds on the front. What do you think? M1IP upgrade dates to early 80s so still presumably aimed at improving initial M1 poor (relative to CE) KE protection, threat round at the time likely still BM22. M1A1 HA upgrade (with DU inserts) from late 80s logically defeats BM42, were all M1A1 HA upgraded to HA standard? Very interesting, thanks for bringing them up.

Look at the tables posted by Damian, that's what. Early Leo2 could also possibly be penetrated by leo1 105mm DM33.

300-400mm advantage on T-72M1, not T-80U.

I'm going to have to re-read my book about leo@A4... But what I gathered from the discussion at TN is yes, original batches were designed with BM 15 and BM 22 threat in mind, later production batches got a little more RHAe protection but not dramatically, say from 400 to 500mm, still not enough to resist BM42. In any case, vanilla T-80 is not really better armored than T-72 and doesn't fire different ammo (save for the missiles), the big difference is the propulsion and FCS.

I just used that as an example that parameters like level of armor has an effect on the tactics themselves.

Which round do you have in mind in this case? BM-42? 510mm RHAe in SB. The contention is that it was specially designed to penetrate newer composite armor and would exceed the 510mm against such arrays. Apparently, the Poles themselves who operate the leo2A4 came to that conclusion, as well as various intelligence reports from the period. To me, the smoking gun is the 2A5 upgrade, if armor was already sufficient for the current threat, why add the weight? Never said that. It seems Leo2A4 was designed to offer protection against BM15 and maybe BM22. BM42 was introduced in 1986, by which time the Leo2 was well into production. To get a better idea where I'm coming from you wade through this thread: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/38893-kiev-is-burning/page/2668/#comments

Good to hear. I was hoping the discussion at tanknet would yield a bit more specific data, especially with regards to the Polish trials, but that wasn't really the case unfortunately.

I agree, but in this case there's not much esim can do about it, at least not without introducing bigger problems, things are actually a bit better now with the surrender option. Also you can look at it both ways, infantry is unrealistically suicidal, but in a way that still doesn't really compensate for the speed at which infantry combat plays out. I know it always seems so slow from a tank commander point of view but the truth is it's fairly common to sweep a small settlement of enemy infantry within half an hour or so. Compare that to wat's currently happening in Ukraine where fighting for small towns can sometimes take months.

Sure, but in practice many scenarios don't really do that, it's a lot of work to script it all. A lot of them end up playing out as a deathmatch of sorts, that's not really the point of this thread though. The problem in this case is it'll effect your tactics and might result in negative learning. Take the hasty defense classic scenario for instances: With the current leo2A4, I can win it every time, it's just a question of finding suitable hull down firing positions, and rotating between them to avoid arty. Eventually retreat to other ones and resupply as well but once you get the gist of it you get reliable wins. Part of the reason is the leo2A4 turret front is so strong enemy counter fire rarely damages your tank when hull down. Now, if the enemy is capable of reliably penetrating your turret this no longer works. You're forced to concentrate your entire company on one of of OPFOR axis of advance and use a lot more of ambush/flanking fire. As result, some enemy companies moving on another axis can usually reach the end of the map before you can get to them and winning the scenario has more to do with location of enemy axis of advance (random). Using the old defense model will just result in your leopard company being destroyed piecemeal by the far more numerous soviet forces. Armor models can never be perfect, but 300-400mm RHAe bonus to western tanks makes a huge difference, and they already enjoy so many other advantages. At first I was skeptical esim could be wrong by that much, about 400mm RHAe frontal turret protection for leo2A4 appears to be a consensus everywhere else and we have to admit; why did the Germans upgrade their tanks armor to the 2A5 if 2A4 turret armor already offered 733mm RHAe? It only makes sense if it was estimated BM42 could penetrate it (SB has it 510mm)... Similar logic could be applied to M1 HA upgrade. Tanknet thread here: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/38893-kiev-is-burning/page/2663/

It has recently been brought to my attention on tanknet that the steelbeast armor model for the Leo2A4 (and therefor later models as well I assume) is very dated and probably off by 300-400mm RHAe (depending on the batch simulated) for the front armor. This seems to be mainly based on Polish analysis of their tanks as well as various intelligence reports. Also on the fact that the leo2A4 was designed to deal with BM15 or BM22 top and that BM42 (rated at 510mm in SB) should easily penetrate it. Which is why the 2A5 upgrade happened. These remarks also seem to apply to M1A1. Now I understand those are just estimates and one doesn't want to tinker with a model all the time, but these are big numbers that would radically alter the course of engagements (possibly making some scenarios unwinnable), and also alter usable tactics with those tanks.