Quote:
Originally Posted by Wdll
ok I am curious, which MBTs do you consider as modern? Aren't all of them at least 20 years in development in one way or another?
|
The 2A4's Turkey has were front line equipment in the early 90's and development has moved on which is why there have been 2A5's 2A6's and 2A7's since then
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wdll
I hope you are not implying that my comment is part of some propaganda against western tanks, because you would be way off. way way way off.
|
No......... but certain arms manufacturers and nations might think putting an ATGM into them might be since most tanks destroyed in this conflict have been Russian in origin and the Leo has been long touted as a top line tank......it was ....in 1990 ....and is as a 2A7 , not so much as an early 90's vintage 2A4 in 2016 with no active or passive anti-ATGM countermeasures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wdll
Do you consider the (export versions or not) T-55 and T-72 as the same....I don't know....tier? as the Leopard 2A4? That would be an interesting way of seeing things.
But that's your prerogative.
|
It makes little difference what the tank is when the side armour is less than the penetration of the missile hitting it....does it ? The Leo's crew would have a better chance of getting out but that's about all. The T-55 was wonderful....in 1960....not so much in 2016 against any ATGM