>

Some are pretending to, some learned it from experience in the military, and some learned about it from reading
Oh tank of the lake, what is your wisdom? >

You can't declare yourself Emperor just because a watery tart lobs a tank at you! >

We are the tanks who say… nee ! >

"First, you must find....another shrubbery!" >

How many is a company? >

According to German media it's a company. 14 tanks. >

Same as Poland then. Poland will send their 30-40 year old 2A4s instead of their modernized ones tho (the german ones are 2A6s, which is the version build in the 2000s). >

The A6 have the newer L/55 gun..
Massive firepower upgrade + new optics >

"Normally, if it's old but it works wonderfully, you tend to keep the same model.
This does not include weaponry. You always want to shoot the shiny new gun when the opportunity presents itself." >

Hey, tank guys: I'm tech, but not up on military. What's the significance of the Leopards? >

If you want to get the best tanks that are available, you either buy the American M1 or the German Leopard 2. How good they are now exactly depends on the exact versions but they are generally the best of the best of a certain age bracket of tanks.
With a few nations sending stuff, Ukraine is getting 30 M1s and around 45-50 Leopard 2s or so. Some of those are the older Leopard 2A4 standard, which was up to date in the late 80s and some are the newer A6 standard from the late 90s/early 2000s.
The big thing is that heavy tanks like these are indispensable offensive weapons. If Ukraine uses them well, they have the capability to go on serious offensives and retake territory much more effectively than before. >

You add the British Challenger and the French Leclerc and you got the big four >

German media outlets are reporting that the US might send Abrams aswell (along with MTBs from other nations). If so Scholz got what he wanted. >

So you're telling me that since Russia won't be holding their own tank biathlon this year that Ukraine will be holding them instead with the Challengers, Leopards, and Abrams all competing? >

Yeah will be interesting against the "t-72" team. Micheal bay will be happy. Vs. the t-90 will be a rare sight probably. >


t-90 will be a rare sight probably

Never a better opportunity for real world trials... >

The T-90 has been in service since 1992. It's just a next gen T-72, including the abysmal 4 km/h back up speed that's proven to be so completely lethal.
If the maybe 20 T-14s that exist are actually combat ready, then that'd be a neat thing to capture without a fight when it throws a track. >

In Russia tank only go Forward, no Back. >

Russia must really be holding on to order 227 >

NOT ONE STEP BACK, err TREAD
-Stalin I think >

Potato, po-vodka, same difference >

Well that about seals the deal for russia being totally fucked. Yeah it's "just" 14 tanks but that's not the big news, it's that this opens the flooddams for everyone. Just like how everyone was trepid to even send artillery at the start whilst now everyone is sending tons of it, this basically leaves very few things of the table for Ukraine.
And modern tanks vs non-modern tanks is a nightmare for the non-modern, more so than any other field of equipment bar airplanes >

Artillery quickly went from a few pieces to a goddamn competition. >

Everyone in the arms business wants to real-world test their wares. >

Except Russia for some reason. >

Russia: "We have a hypersonic cruise missile that can destroy the decadent west without warning. Don't test us. No, you can't see it. No, it didn't blow up, that's just propaganda."
The US: "Want to see our new hybrid turbojet/ramjet switch modes in a windtunnel?" EDIT: volume warning >

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

The US is the sort of entity that freaks the fuck out when their enemies MIGHT have a weapon at their disposal that can hurt them, and goes full R&D on a massively superior weapon to crush it......and then learn that the aforementioned weapon doesn't actually exist. >

Literally the F-14/F-15 development cycle, yup. >

Was that the plane that was built because the communists (Soviet or Chinese, I can't remember which) flimed a grand total of like 14 nuclear-ready planes twice (to make it look like it was 28 planes in total), and then the US responded with developing hundreds or thousands of superior planes of their own?
I mean I don't think it is, but I can't remember how exactly I learned this. >

Oh, no, but good on you remembering that story!
That was the Myasishchev M-4, a spectacular disappointment in range and payload that mostly was converted to aerial tankers. In 1955 the Soviets flew 10 of them for a crowd, then lapped around again, and again... even with 2 of them having to drop out... until the observers saw 28... and "extrapolated" from that, that the Soviets must have about 800 of them total.
The F-14 and F-15 were inspired by the appearance of the MiG-25 interceptor, with too many analysts believing it was a high-speed, highly-maneuverable air superiority fighter... when it was really a massive radar and two massive engines with a bunch of stainless steel in the shape of an airplane holding those together, that measured turning radius in miles. So the US built the two most dominant air superiority fighters ever to counter it (until the F-22 came along), with the F-15 to this day having never having been shot down in air-to-air combat with the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Qatar and Singapore. And the F-14 came out with a radar + missile system that could lock up and fire on 6 separate targets at once, from beyond where the enemy might even know the US fighter is in the air, then exit the combat area while the missiles tracked on their own, OR move in to engage with shorter-range missiles and its gun as an excellent dogfighter that could match planes that had half of its massive weight. >

Well. I wonder what they are holding on to till intelligence says someone else has something new and improved. You know it'll be something like "you might hear it, maybe, but you sure as fuck won't see it or be able to hit it." >

Damn... Steiner is really going to attack after all. >

There was only a 33% chance that he wouldn't >

But what if you take away Kurt Angle and his sakerfice? >

Imagine having to deal with Leopard AND Abrhams tanks.
Putin gonna have a rough time. >

Challenger 2 is an extremely capable tank as well. >

It has a kettle inside, for when you’re taking 80 rpg hits. 
Or however many that one Challenger 2 tank took in Iraq. Beastly tanks >

People make fun of the kettle.  Considering where (and when) they're sending them, it's actually not a bad feature.  Ukrainian winters are fucking cold. >

According to wiki, Americans are going to start including it in their equipment. Having ready access to hot water is a pretty significant moral booster. >

Having access to hot water means having access to coffee or tea (if supplies are right), which means having access to caffeine. Hell, it's not just a morale booster, it's practical. >

Coffee and tea can both be made and consumed cold. Also Americans generally have Ripit energy drinks available by the pallet. Warm food, beverages, and water for hygiene are “luxuries.” But those kinds of luxuries make a big difference in quality of life while deployed. >


Coffee and tea can both be made and consumed cold

Angry British noises >

r/noncredibledefense just had a collective orgasm lol >

I read the description for that sub but still have no idea what it is >

It's like furries but for military equipment. >

This is hilarious! >

It's happening!!! >

It was always gonna happen.  Ukraine has been planning a massive spring offensive once the mud dries up.  Giving them tanks before that was just giving Russians something to target.  Now they are gonna show up just in time roll in and clean up >

I don't think that's a particularly credible take. Tanks are complicated machinery with immense logistical requirements and can't just be integrated into an army just before an offensive. The time taken for training and coordination of logistics means that Ukraine would almost certainly have preferred these well on advance - assuming Russia would automatically know where the tanks are and be able to target/destroy them in advance seems very optimistic of Russian strike abilities. >

Whether or not this was planned in advance (commiting the tanks but holding them in reserve "out of harm's way" until they're needed) I don't think they'd let the media know. It would be a savvy move to cast doubt on the tanks being sent until they're needed. If the tanks were committed to Ukraine but held in Poland or elsewhere, it would present diplomatic complications for whoever was holding onto them, and for NATO as that would be directly harbouring Ukrainian war material instead of sending it as aid. Small distinction but could make a difference. 
Whatever the plan is/was, we will probably never know until after this war is over and they start declassifying things and writing history books. >

If countries keep this up Ukrainian will be as equipped as a US police department in no time. >

Excellent, that can open the flood gates. Now let’s send as many as Ukraine can use. >

I'm not privvy to modern armor but these Leopard 2 tanks must be the pinnacle of tank technology we have for this much push and celebration.  
Now...if we can get New Zealand to send a few Bob Semple Tanks... >

Apart from fuel efficiency and state of the art armor, it has a stabilized gun barrel with a 4.5 km range. 
It's considered the best mbt in the world. >

Are they equipped with the new anti-missile systems? >

Trophy-APS is only equipped on the A7A1 afaik.
And since its an israeli-designed system they'd have to agree, which given their track-record so far, they probably wouldnt. >

Risking top of the line secret technology falling into enemy hands to support another country? That ain't gonna happen.
I'm already surprised they're something as modern as the 2a6 variant. >

Tbf, they are getting 18 Rch-155s straight from KMWs production-line, and that thing is so new they only finished trials in 2021 >

Well, yes, but that's a very long range artillery piece. The chances of those getting captured are way smaller than a frontline tank. Besides, rhe 18 rch-155 is basically a PzH2000 on a more mobile platform. Capturing one of those doesn't reveal much more info than capturing the already present PzH2000. But the leopard has super secretive armor, even just getting to know what composite materials are used would really help Russia. >

German tank division vs the Russians? Uh oh >

But this time we're the good guys :D >

To be fair, last time you drove around with skulls on your uniforms. Whenever you have skulls on your uniform, it's a good sign you are the bad guys. >

“Vladimir, are we the baddies?” >

Everyone’s a gangsta, until the real gangster arrives >

This is good news, someone had to pull the trigger first nobody wanted too. but now that there is a go ahead from Germany everybody will be sending them tanks, the floodgates are open. Hopefully with this decision further advanced munitions and armaments will be sent. Ukraine needs air burst artillery rounds like there’s no tomorrow, that would change the tide of the war as well. >

Let's. Fucking. Go.
I seriously hope these Leopards, along with the vast array of other western vehicles, will be able to change things for the better in Ukraine. These Leopard 2s are a step above current Russian and Ukrainian tanks, and if provided in large numbers they could really do some serious damage, along with the British Challenger 2s that are already slated to be sent.
Looking forward to seeing their combat performance once they arrive in Ukraine. >

There is intresting issue someone pointed out with the wide variety of tanks being sent. Each of these tanks need diffrent types of logistics specifically fuel and parts. Them having a wide variety is going to make it difficult to train all the Ukrainian tank operators on how to each tank works. If it was one type of tank this wouldn't be a problem. Fuck putin, but I think the Tanks won't be as effective compared to the IFVs as they don't have the same logistical demand compared to the tanks. >

That's a big benefit of the Leopard tanks. There are several countries close to Ukraine which use them and have maintenance capabilities for them. >


There are several countries close to Ukraine which use them and have maintenance capabilities for them.

This is like being able to heal your units in allied city-states. >

Isn’t this what people in Germany were protesting about recently?  To speed up these things being sent to Ukraine? >

How does everyone here know so much about artillery?