德國想把豹1坦克送給烏克蘭：是垃圾，還是妙招？
Leopards for Ukraine: Scrap or Wunderwaffe?
譯文簡介
德國正在討論將豹1送給烏克蘭。問題是這些坦克好不好，以及烏克蘭軍隊(duì)將如何部署它們。在這個(gè)視頻中，我們來看看豹1相對(duì)于T-72, T-80和T-90坦克的能力。
正文翻譯
There is a discussion in Germany about sending Leopard 1s to Ukraine. The question is how good these tanks are and how the Ukrainian forces could deploy them. In this video we look at the capabilities of the Leopard 1 in regards to the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.
德國正在討論將豹1送給烏克蘭。問題是這些坦克好不好，以及烏克蘭軍隊(duì)將如何部署它們。在這個(gè)視頻中，我們來看看豹1相對(duì)于T-72, T-80和T-90坦克的能力。
The chairman of Rheinmetall stated that in a few months 50 could be shipped. There are an additional 100 in storage with the company FFG. Meanwhile the German chancellor is reluctant. The general public opinion is in favor of sending heavy weapons to Ukraine.
萊茵金屬公司董事長表示，50輛豹1可以在數(shù)月內(nèi)發(fā)運(yùn)。在FFG公司的倉庫里還有另外100輛。與此同時(shí)，德國總理并不情愿。公眾普遍支持向?yàn)蹩颂m運(yùn)送重型武器。
萊茵金屬公司董事長表示，50輛豹1可以在數(shù)月內(nèi)發(fā)運(yùn)。在FFG公司的倉庫里還有另外100輛。與此同時(shí)，德國總理并不情愿。公眾普遍支持向?yàn)蹩颂m運(yùn)送重型武器。
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
I think most people forget that tanks don’t actually spend a lot of time fighting other tanks, most of the time they are engaging buildings, Infantry anti tank weapons, and other vehicles. In these roles a Leopard 1 is still very effective, and the 105mm main gun will still shit mix all other non tank Russian armoured vehicles.
我認(rèn)為大多數(shù)人都忘記了坦克實(shí)際上并沒有花很多時(shí)間與其他坦克戰(zhàn)斗，大多數(shù)時(shí)間它們是在與建筑、步兵反坦克武器和其他車輛交戰(zhàn)。在這些角色中，豹1仍然是非常有效的，而且105毫米主炮仍然可以把所有其他非坦克的俄羅斯裝甲車輛打出屎。
Leo Is have very thin armor. Pretty much anything with 23mm and up firing modern APDS can kill it frontally. And its easy meat for RPGs, ATGM, and AT cluster munitions. Its basically a light tank at best, and really just a light infantry support gun mostly, something that infantry can deal with their own heavy weapons.
Then there is the retraining, maintenance, and logistical headaches listed from above. And it will take months to years to get them actually in Ukraine.
豹1的盔甲很薄。幾乎任何23毫米以上的現(xiàn)代脫殼穿甲彈都能正面干掉它。它很容易成為rpg、ATGM和AT集束彈藥的菜。它最多是一輛輕型坦克，實(shí)際上主要是一門輕型步兵支持炮，步兵可以用自己的重型武器對(duì)付它。
然后還有上面列出的再培訓(xùn)、維護(hù)和后勤方面的難題。要讓它們真正進(jìn)入烏克蘭還需要幾個(gè)月甚至幾年時(shí)間。
That is an obvious point, but you are absolutely right. Most people only compare a tank's capabilities against another tank. As a matter of fact, I have recently watched several of these videos, and yours is the first comment about that.
這一點(diǎn)很明顯，但你說的完全正確。大多數(shù)人只會(huì)比較一輛坦克和另一輛坦克的能力。事實(shí)上，我最近看了好幾個(gè)這樣的視頻，你是第一個(gè)這樣評(píng)論的。
Yes but even a Leopard 1 will need similar amounts of support and logistics to any other tank. IFVs and especially wheeled IFVs are simply more efficient in regards to how much support they need to operate - deploying Leo 1s means Ukraine would need to dedicate the logistics comparable to T-64, T-72 or T-80 units while being at best used as IFV busters instead of MBTs.
是的，但是即使是豹1，也需要和其他坦克一樣多的支持和后勤保障。IFV，特別是輪式IFV，在需要的支持多寡方面效率更高——部署豹1意味著烏克蘭將需要投入與T-64、T-72或T-80相當(dāng)?shù)暮笄?，同時(shí)它最多被用作步兵戰(zhàn)車的破壞神，而不是主戰(zhàn)坦克。
如果豹豹不能再做主戰(zhàn)坦克應(yīng)該做的事情，那么部署更多的IFV會(huì)更有效率。
People also seem to ignore the fact that a light tank like this is a thing, it wasn't designed for taking out every target in 1 shot, it was designed for having more speed and agility, these will operate like a marvel in Ukraine's terrain just like their predecessors did in WW2.
人們似乎忽略了一個(gè)事實(shí)，即便是這樣的一種輕型坦克也是一回事，它并不是設(shè)計(jì)出來一炮一個(gè)小朋友的，它設(shè)計(jì)出來是為了獲得更高的速度和敏捷性，就像它們的前輩在二戰(zhàn)中所做的那樣，它們將在烏克蘭的地形上發(fā)揮奇跡般的作用。
@?iga Auer if ukrainians have no comparable equipment then this is still an upgrade, the rest depends on how they will deploy them.
@?iga Auer 如果烏克蘭沒有類似的裝備，那么這仍然是一次升級(jí)，其余的取決于他們將如何部署這些裝備。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
@Montblanc all tanks the Ukraine using as mit is better than an Leopard 1 I'm watching and reading anything about Leopard1 and his former counterpart the t50/t55. the leopard was deployed and constructactet as replacement for the t48 and t60 germany using before. the tanks ar build for hide and seek with higer range than Russian tanks but Weak Armor.
@Montblanc 烏克蘭用的所有坦克都比豹1好，我正在觀看和閱讀關(guān)于豹1和它的前對(duì)手T50/T55的任何資料。豹被部署和建造出來，是作為德國之前使用的T48和T60的替代品的。這些坦克是為捉迷藏而造的，比俄系坦克射程更遠(yuǎn)，但裝甲貧弱。
@Montblanc None of your post is accurate.
@Montblanc 你的帖子沒有一個(gè)是準(zhǔn)確的。
Conceptually, Leopard I (and other NATO) cold war MBTs were designed with defense in mind with the assumption they would be severely outnumbered and hence would fight in reverse using delay tactics. As such they a supposed to operate "hull down" behind a defensive berm with the ability to decline their barrels up to 9 degrees when shooting from that defensive position. This allows maximum use of natural obstacles and man made berms as defense with the ability to use gravity to help beat a fast retreat...which is often far superior to any armor protection when facing an enemy advancing towards you head on (the berm in turn is placed in locations that are strategically located to force the attacker into that direction). As silly as it sounds, they are also designed to operate equally well in reverse as driving forward, which is important when engaging in a fighting retreat, which is consistent with Ukrainian defense in depth tactics. Soviet/Russian tanks are more philosophically designed with attack, not defense in mind so gun depression, habitation (where you are not sitting behind a berm waiting for the attack to come) and reverse speed were simply not given the same design spec priorities. As such, the Leopard I should serve a great defensive role engaged in camouflaged and dug in spots they can quickly reverse from to the next dug in defensive position, while other more attack minded Ukrainian tanks could be kept as a mobile reserve to fill gaps opened up by attacking tanks. As such, together both tank types should be quite complimentary if used correctly.
從概念上說，豹I(和其他北約)冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期的主戰(zhàn)坦克在設(shè)計(jì)時(shí)考慮到了防御，并假設(shè)它們?cè)跀?shù)量方面被遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)壓倒，因此會(huì)使用延遲戰(zhàn)術(shù)逆境作戰(zhàn)。因此，它們應(yīng)該躲在防御護(hù)坡后面“車體下隱”執(zhí)行任務(wù)，當(dāng)從防御位置射擊時(shí)，它的炮管有能力下俯高達(dá)9度。這使得它能最大限度地利用自然障礙和人造護(hù)堤作為防御，并利用重力幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)快速撤退的能力……在面對(duì)迎面逼近的敵人時(shí)，這一點(diǎn)通常比任何裝甲保護(hù)都要好（反過來，護(hù)坡被設(shè)置在戰(zhàn)略位置，迫使攻擊者進(jìn)入那個(gè)方向）。雖然聽起來很傻，但它們的設(shè)計(jì)也同樣適合倒車和前進(jìn)，這在戰(zhàn)斗撤退時(shí)很重要，這與烏克蘭的縱深防御戰(zhàn)術(shù)相一致。蘇聯(lián)/俄羅斯坦克的設(shè)計(jì)哲學(xué)更注重攻擊，而不是防御，所以炮管，掩蔽處（不是坐在護(hù)坡后面等著攻擊）和倒車速度根本沒有給予相同的設(shè)計(jì)參數(shù)優(yōu)先級(jí)。所以，我認(rèn)為豹1在偽裝交戰(zhàn)中應(yīng)該能發(fā)揮很好的防御作用，它們可以快速地從一個(gè)防守位置轉(zhuǎn)到另一個(gè)防守位置，而其他更在意進(jìn)攻的烏克蘭坦克可以作為機(jī)動(dòng)預(yù)備隊(duì)，填補(bǔ)攻擊方坦克打開的缺口。因此，如果使用正確，這兩種類型的坦克應(yīng)該是相當(dāng)互補(bǔ)的。
leopard 1 has a thin amor that even bmp 2 can penetrate
豹1的護(hù)甲很薄，甚至BMP2都能穿透。
Ex- driver/gunner here; learning to "drive" is the easy part and takes little time, the actual time is learning how to appreciate the ground in front of you, how can you get from point A to point B using dead ground, low ground or covered; is the ground marshy (tall lush grass), rocky, are you going to be putting your tank "tracks up". These things take years to learn to become second nature and for the driver to just know what the commander wants. Just my two cents. With that said, I would not want to go up against a T72 in a Leo1...
我擔(dān)任過坦克司機(jī)/炮手；學(xué)習(xí)“駕駛”的部分很容易，花的時(shí)間很少，真正的時(shí)間是學(xué)習(xí)如何觀察你面前的地面，如何利用死角地、低地或覆蓋地從A點(diǎn)到B點(diǎn)；地面是草地（高大茂盛的草）？石頭地？要不要抹掉你坦克的“蹤跡”？這些事情需要很多年的時(shí)間來學(xué)習(xí)，才能成為第二天性，司機(jī)只需要知道指揮官想要的是什么。這只是我的意見。話雖如此，我還是不想用豹1去對(duì)抗T72……
Well put, good reasoning.
說得好，有道理。
I drove a 113. Those tanks are going to get stuck if the entire crew is new.
So they’ll probably use mercenaries.
我開過113。如果所有車組成員都是新人，那些坦克就會(huì)拋錨。
所以他們可能會(huì)用雇傭兵。
It's possible with the right ammo.
The early M1 also used some variant of the L7, with tungsten sabot it should be able to handle T-72 - T-90s.
有了合適的彈藥是可能的。
早期M1也使用了一些L7的改型，如果采用鎢芯尾翼穩(wěn)定脫殼穿甲彈，應(yīng)該能夠?qū)Ω禩-72乃至于T-90。
There is a difference between knowing how to drive tanks and knowing how to drive a specific tank modell.
While you habe to adapt your general knowledge to a specific tanks of course, a lot of it is still generalized knowledge. Some Ukrainian reservist tanker that might have been trained on a T-72 Variant originaly should be able to adapt that knowledge to a Leo1 in a few weeks time, most lf it probably while learning the mechanics of driving the 'new' tank.
知道如何駕駛坦克和知道如何駕駛特定型號(hào)的坦克是有區(qū)別的。
當(dāng)然，當(dāng)你必須將你的常識(shí)應(yīng)用到特定的坦克上時(shí)，其中很多仍然是一般化的知識(shí)。一些烏克蘭的后備坦克兵可能已經(jīng)接受過T-72改型的訓(xùn)練，應(yīng)該能夠在幾周的時(shí)間里達(dá)到駕駛豹1的程度，其中大部分時(shí)間可能是在學(xué)習(xí)駕駛這種“新”坦克的機(jī)制。
How can you be a driver/ gunner, they are in different positions of the tank? I call B.S!
你怎么會(huì)既是車手/又是炮手，二者在坦克的不同位置！要我說你在扯淡。
@Randy Boisa It means they were trained as a driver and as a gunner. They were not meaning driving and being a gunner at the same time. No B.S.
@Randy Boisa 這說明他們受過駕駛員和炮手的訓(xùn)練。并不代表一邊開坦克一邊當(dāng)炮手。不是扯淡。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
@E K LOL, no ;) Germany did tests and its a NO.
@E K 哈哈，不行。德國測(cè)試過，不行。
T72 is nothing compared to leporad 1 Mop the floor
在擦地板方面，T72根本比不上豹1。
Thx for the info - its always good to hear an opinion from someone who actually has some practical experience!
謝謝你提供的信息——從有實(shí)際經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人那里聽到意見總是好的!
Yup, Leopard 1 is largely obsolete, Poland gave Ukraine 100 T72's, hope we give more
是的，豹1基本上過時(shí)了，波蘭給了烏克蘭100輛T72，希望我們能給更多。
The Leopard 1 relies a lot on "fire and movement" that again relies on the crews ability to aquire the taget and hit it, and that it never works alone.
It all requires a trained and skilled crew.
豹1在很大程度上依賴于“射擊和移動(dòng)”，這同樣依賴于乘員獲取目標(biāo)并擊中目標(biāo)的能力，而且它從不單獨(dú)行動(dòng)。
這一切都需要訓(xùn)練有素、技術(shù)嫻熟的船員。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Good point.
說的好。
So long as they have tank crews this shouldn't be rocketry for them...
只要他們有坦克兵，這對(duì)他們來說就不應(yīng)該是高科技……
@Montblanc
Don't underestimate the training need to master the Leopard 1. It really depends on employing its manoeuvrability correctly. Get this wrong and you are "meat on the table".
@Montblanc
不要低估掌握豹1所需的訓(xùn)練。這取決于正確運(yùn)用機(jī)動(dòng)性。如果你做錯(cuò)了，你就是“砧板上的肉”。
Add to that that UA crews are pretty good, I saw a video of an ukrainian BMP4 with a 30mm gun engaging a russian T72 face to face, literally, and destroying it.
此外，烏克蘭的車組人員都很棒，我看過一個(gè)視頻，一架烏克蘭BMP4用一門30mm炮與一輛俄羅斯T72面對(duì)面交戰(zhàn)，并將其摧毀。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
This whole thing is a "pretend" to give tanks - not to really give tanks that will make a difference.
這整件事都是“假裝”給坦克，而不是真的給出能帶來改變的坦克。
@E K Don't underestimate Ukrainians. They have already learned a lot of sophisticated weapons and Leopard 1 is not a rocket science. So far Ukrainians use all weapons they got very very efficiently !
@E K 不要低估烏克蘭人。他們已經(jīng)學(xué)會(huì)了很多復(fù)雜的武器，豹1號(hào)不是火箭科學(xué)。到目前為止，烏克蘭人非常有效地使用了他們得到的所有武器!
@Poseidon No? Pretty much every weapon the west gives Ukraine is easy to use shoot and forget. Ukraine doesn’t have any experience with Leopard it’ll take years for a proper officer corp to build up. You can’t just individually train this is something that needs an institutional rewiring.
@Poseidon 不是嗎? 幾乎西方給烏克蘭的每一件武器都很容易使用、射擊和遺忘。烏克蘭在豹式坦克方面沒有任何經(jīng)驗(yàn)，組建一個(gè)合適的預(yù)備軍官團(tuán)需要幾年時(shí)間。不能單獨(dú)培訓(xùn)，這是一件需要制度性重組的事情。
That`s very true. I don`t think the Ukrainians will have enough time to get up to snuff, though. On the other hand, Ukraine is great terrain for fire and maneuver.
非常正確。不過，我不認(rèn)為烏克蘭人有足夠的時(shí)間來達(dá)到標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。另一方面，烏克蘭的地形非常適合射擊和機(jī)動(dòng)戰(zhàn)術(shù)。
@Poseidon you're right. We need look no further than the Ukrainian Air Force for an example of how quickly their forces have successfully adapted to the so called western way of warfare and how successful they have been with that.
It would also be a mistake imo to underestimate how long this war might go for and we don't want to be having the same debate about how long it would take the Ukrainians to adapt to using NATO weapon systems in 3-6 months time when they could have been on the front line and making a difference already.
@Poseidon 你說的對(duì)。我們只需看看烏克蘭空軍的例子，就能知道他們的軍隊(duì)是如何迅速成功地適應(yīng)了所謂的西方戰(zhàn)爭方式，并取得了多么大的成功。
在我看來，低估這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭的持續(xù)時(shí)間也是一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤，我們不想就烏克蘭人需要多久才能適應(yīng)北約武器系統(tǒng)的使用展開同樣的爭論，如果這個(gè)時(shí)間是3-6個(gè)月，那他們本可以奔赴前線，并帶來改變。
@Hernando Malinche wouldn't still be somewhat effective? Sure it wouldn't be as effective is an Australian or German tank crew who used it for decades back in the day but somewhat effective tanks would surely be more effective than no tanks, even if it's used in secondary theatres of the war.
@Hernando Malinche 多少還是有用的吧？當(dāng)然不會(huì)像幾十年前使用它的澳大利亞或者德國坦克車組用它時(shí)那么有效，但多少是有用的坦克，肯定比沒有坦克有用，即便它被用在這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭的次要戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)。
A tank has far more tasks than competing with enemy armor (in fact i would argue competing with opposing armor is not a priority for them). Supporting infantry with firepower destroying bunkers and buildings providing fire support providing mobility and more. That is what most "tank experts totally not a wot player" fails to understand. Tank on tank engagements rarely ever happen in modern chaotic warfare like this.
坦克的任務(wù)遠(yuǎn)不止與敵人的裝甲單位爭雄(事實(shí)上，我認(rèn)為與敵人的裝甲競(jìng)爭并不是它們的優(yōu)先任務(wù))。用火力支援步兵，摧毀地堡和建筑物，提供火力支援，提供機(jī)動(dòng)性等等。這是大多數(shù)“完全不是《坦克世界》玩家的坦克專家”無法理解的。在現(xiàn)代混亂的戰(zhàn)爭中，坦克對(duì)坦克的交戰(zhàn)很少發(fā)生過。
And aren't they all claiming MBTs can now be taken care of by other things and that they're obsolete?
難道他們不都聲稱主戰(zhàn)坦克現(xiàn)在可以用其他東西對(duì)付，而且已經(jīng)過時(shí)了嗎?
30mm modern sabot can pen this tank
30毫米現(xiàn)代穿甲彈可以穿透這輛坦克。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
@John reaper in Russia, tank penetrates you.
@John reaper 在俄羅斯，坦克會(huì)穿透你。
@John reaper That can perforate any tank in the entire world. Hell that can perforate centauro tanks which is most modern armored vehicles in italian army. Armor is overrated. It is in 3rd plan after mobility and firepower. This is not ww2 anymore. First tank that hits the enemy most of the time wins the engagement. That is why NATO prioritized first hit probability above all. Even if it doesn't penetrate it will damage or scare enemy enough to make them abandon.
@John reaper 那玩意可以打穿世界上任何一輛坦克。它可以打穿半人馬坦克，半人馬坦克是意大利軍隊(duì)中最現(xiàn)代化的裝甲車。裝甲單位被高估了。這是繼機(jī)動(dòng)性和火力之后的第三個(gè)計(jì)劃?，F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)不是二戰(zhàn)了。
首先擊中敵人的坦克贏得交戰(zhàn)。這就是為什么北約將首發(fā)命中的可能性列為最優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)。即使不能穿透，也會(huì)傷害或恐嚇敵人，使他們放棄。
Yeah but... Every single thing on the battlefield can blow this thing up. Whenever its another tank or some random soldier with ww2 era AT gun. For me this is a giant coffin
是的，但是……戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上的任何東西都能把它炸飛。無論是另一輛坦克，還是某個(gè)隨機(jī)的士兵帶著二戰(zhàn)時(shí)期的反坦炮。對(duì)我來說，這是一個(gè)巨大的棺材。
Wouldn’t that be the job of an ifv?
那不是步戰(zhàn)車的工作嗎?
if it was true, then su-122 was best ww2 tank, not t-34.
如果真是這樣，那么最好的二戰(zhàn)坦克是SU-122，而不是T-34。
But if used wisely like those old tank destroyers i believe it should work
但如果像那些老舊的坦克殲擊車那樣明智地使用，我相信它會(huì)發(fā)揮作用的。
@Local drug seller that was the case in WW2. That's why the Sherman kicked so much ass despite it's seemingly unimpressive firepower and armor.
@Local drug seller 二戰(zhàn)就是這樣。這就是火力和裝甲看似不起眼的謝爾曼仍然大出風(fēng)頭的原因。
@Lucas Vieira there is video where syrian tank hit 5 rpg shot and survive. Also tank is a giant snoper rifle.
@Lucas Vieira 有一段視頻顯示謝爾曼坦克被5枚火箭彈擊中并幸存。坦克也是一門巨大的狙擊步槍。
It sounds like the Leopard would be best used in the north where the forests and hills make for shorter than average range of contact. The Ukrainians could then send their T-72 tanks to the east where the open terrain means encounter distances are likely, but Ukrainian UAVs would be very effective spotting Russian vehicles.
聽起來豹最適合在北方使用，因?yàn)槟抢锏纳趾蜕角鹗沟媒佑|距離比平常短。然后烏克蘭人就可以把他們的T-72坦克送到東邊，開闊的地形意味著遭遇距離很可能會(huì)變長，但烏克蘭的無人機(jī)將非常有效地發(fā)現(xiàn)俄羅斯車輛。
I'm not too certain about the leopard ones combat readiness, but it's an attractive looking machine.
I'd be proud to have one parked in my driveway.
我不太確定豹1是否做好了戰(zhàn)斗準(zhǔn)備，但它看起來是一臺(tái)很吸引人的機(jī)器。
如果能有一輛停在我的車道上，我會(huì)很自豪的。
Leopard 1s could be used as direct fire support weapons much like the US Stryker based 105mm MGS. The British derived HESh round is outstandingly accurate and effective against infantry and emplacements. Most battlefield targets are not tanks but IFV, APCs etc..against those it would be devastating and be cheaper and faster than using Javelins etc on them.
豹1可以用作直接火力支援武器，很像美國基于斯特瑞克的105毫米MGS（機(jī)動(dòng)火炮）。英國衍生的高爆彈藥對(duì)步兵和炮位非常精確和有效。大多數(shù)戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)目標(biāo)不是坦克，而是IFV、APC等，對(duì)付那些目標(biāo)，它將是毀滅性的，而且比用標(biāo)槍等對(duì)付它們更便宜、更快。
You know that the Leopard1 has 200mm armour at the thickest spot? And less than 100 at any other?
你知道豹1裝甲最厚的地方只有200mm嗎? 而且其他任何地方都小于100?
Just a word of caution here: The leopard I uses the Centurion's 105mm gun dating from 1946 so I am not sure if there is much of those rounds about. Ever since the Chieftain the UK has used the 120mm rifled gun.
我這里只是提醒一句:豹1用的是百夫長1946年的105毫米炮，所以我不確定是否有很多這樣的炮彈。自從酋長以來，英國就一直使用120毫米膛線炮。
@Ruhrpottpatriot rightfully used thats no problem but if the crews are poorly trained we gonna have the same issue as the turks when they lost leopards because of lack of crew training
@Ruhrpottpatriot 用的對(duì)就沒問題，如果機(jī)組人員缺乏訓(xùn)練，我們就會(huì)遇到土耳其人那樣的問題。土耳其人因?yàn)槿狈τ?xùn)練而失去了豹豹。
Just because the 120mm is bigger doesn’t mean a 105 can’t take out anything the Russians are currently fielding. Besides, historically over 80% of tank gunfire is NOT aimed at other tanks.
僅僅因?yàn)?20mm更大并不意味著105不能對(duì)付俄國人現(xiàn)在的任何裝備。此外，歷史上超過80%的坦克炮火不是針對(duì)其他坦克的。
@1chish Lots of 105mm rounds available. And re the armour on the Leopard that someone else mentioned...the Leopard was inspired by the Hellcat in action against Panthers! Some of the design specifications team had seen this in 45. They got the mobility bug in their heads....people tend again and again to think tank v tank is the end all argument. But tank v tank is quite rare and we have seen little of it in Ukraine. I think fast light Leopards could be ideal in hitting APC and trucks etc in all arms attacks.
@1chish 大量的105毫米彈藥可用。還有有人提到的豹豹的裝甲……豹式的靈感來自于地獄貓對(duì)黑豹的行動(dòng)! 一些設(shè)計(jì)規(guī)范團(tuán)隊(duì)在45年就看到了這一點(diǎn)。有些人腦殼有坑……他們總是一遍又一遍地認(rèn)為坦克vs坦克才是一切爭論的終結(jié)。但是坦克vs坦克的情況非常罕見，我們?cè)跒蹩颂m很少看到。在所有攻擊武器中，我認(rèn)為輕快的豹豹用于打擊裝甲運(yùn)兵車和卡車等目標(biāo)非常理想。
@1chish British Army and the US Army have huge stockpiles of it.
@1chish 英國陸軍和美國陸軍都有大量庫存。
@Ruhrpottpatriot don't use it as a tank. Use it as a SP gun for fire support.
@Ruhrpottpatriot 別把它當(dāng)坦克用。用它作為自走炮提供火力支援。
@CorePathway I was not suggesting a 120 was 'better' than a 105. My point was to question availability of usable rounds.
@CorePathway 我不是說120炮比105炮“好”。我的意思是質(zhì)疑可用彈藥的可用性。
@Jim 99west So thats OK then ....
@Jim 99west 那就沒事了……
The Leopard I always had poor armor, good mobility, good optics, and a good gun. The problem is it's not something that Ukraine already has in service so they won't have a parts supply, training, ammunition, and its communications gear may not be compatible with what they are already using. I would rather see the former Warsaw Pact countries clear out their armories and supply Ukraine with gear they are already using.
豹1的裝甲很差，機(jī)動(dòng)性很好，光學(xué)設(shè)備很好，炮也很好。問題是，烏克蘭并沒有這種武器在服役，所以他們不會(huì)有零部件供應(yīng)、訓(xùn)練、彈藥，而且它的通信設(shè)備可能與他們已經(jīng)在使用的武器不兼容。我寧愿看到前華約國家清空他們的軍械庫，向?yàn)蹩颂m供應(yīng)他們已經(jīng)在使用的裝備。
Isn't there a question mark over the readiness of the Soviet equipment? In a perfect world the Warsaw pact gear would be the best but if a lot of it isn't really and the war lasts a while more NATO gear could play a big part.
對(duì)蘇聯(lián)裝備的準(zhǔn)備情況不是有疑問嗎? 在一個(gè)完美的世界里，華約裝備將是最好的，但如果其中很多不是真的，而且戰(zhàn)爭持續(xù)一段時(shí)間，更多的北約裝備將發(fā)揮重要作用。
We need to be careful that we're not burdening them with all our old garbage. What we're giving them needs to work.
我們需要小心，不要讓我們的舊垃圾給他們帶來負(fù)擔(dān)。我們給他們的東西需要發(fā)揮作用。
I seem to remember that the Swedes had a similar experience in training with 105mm L7 tanks.
Their Centurions (105mm L7) with veteran crews had great results against their own newly leopard 2 (I think maybe the Strv 121)
我似乎記得瑞典人在訓(xùn)練105毫米L7坦克時(shí)也有類似的體驗(yàn)。
他們用經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的車組駕駛百夫長(105mm L7)，在對(duì)抗他們自己的新豹2(我想可能是Strv 121)時(shí)取得了很好的成績。
The Swedes went from the Centurion, to the "S" Tank, to the Leopard.
瑞典人先用百夫長，然后是S坦克，再到豹式。
? @Gert Bonk Swedes were using Centurions as late as the year 2000, though they were formally replaced by Leopard 2 around 1992. S-Tank were purchased because they were cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, and could go more places due to their superior mobility, but the existing Centurions were considered the heavy combat force for Sweden. Put another way, S-Tanks were the cheap tanks bought to support Centurions, not replace them.
? @Gert Bonk 瑞典人使用百夫長一直用到2000年，不過在1992年左右正式被豹2取代。購買S-坦克是因?yàn)閮r(jià)格更便宜，運(yùn)行成本更低，而且由于其優(yōu)越的機(jī)動(dòng)性，可以去到更多地方，但現(xiàn)有的百夫長被認(rèn)為是瑞典的重型戰(zhàn)斗部隊(duì)。換句話說，S-坦克是用來支持百夫長的廉價(jià)坦克，而不是用來取代它們。
Some might consider the Leopard 1 as "Legacy".
Some others might the Leopard 1 as "Essential".
有人可能把豹1當(dāng)做“遺產(chǎn)”。
其他人可能把豹1當(dāng)做“必需”。
I say the Leopard 1 is not Essential.
It is Necessary.
我認(rèn)為豹1號(hào)不是必需的。
而是必要的。
@Nick Stone A very Valued opinion. Do you have any experience in said weapons system ?
@Nick Stone 一個(gè)很有價(jià)值的選項(xiàng)。你對(duì)這種武器系統(tǒng)有任何體驗(yàn)嗎？
@Paul Suprono You did NOT catch the reference.
@Paul Suprono 你沒懂我在說啥。
I consider it the best looking tank since the Panther.
我認(rèn)為它是繼黑豹之后最好看的坦克。
Oooooohhh a WOT PLAYER
Noice
哎呀，一個(gè)坦克世界玩家。
聒噪。
@Taylor C 'Hey Ivan, there's an enemy tank there, shouldn't you be shooting it?
'No comerade, for it is art!'
@Taylor C “嘿伊萬，那里有一輛敵軍坦克，你難道不打嗎？”
“不，同志，因?yàn)樗撬囆g(shù)！”
Here in Brazil the Leo 1 A5 is the backbone of armored units...and it does it's job :)
在我們巴西，豹A5是裝甲部隊(duì)的骨干……而且它很稱職。:)
If need be, they could be dug in and used as "portable" pillboxes. Perfect for ambushes. The Germans did this in WW2 with Panther turrets in Italy.... minus the tank hull.
如果需要的話，它們可以挖坑埋了，當(dāng)做“便攜式”碉堡。適合伏擊。德國人在二戰(zhàn)時(shí)在意大利就用黑豹炮塔這么干過……去掉坦克車體。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
Just that back then RPGs were still rare... However, having something that can throw some HE against a soft target is definitely something they can still use... It would be even better, if they had something bigger and with longer range, such as a 155mm Howitzer, or a 240mm Mortar.
那時(shí)候RPG還很少見……然而，如果能對(duì)軟目標(biāo)發(fā)射一些高爆彈，肯定還能派上一些用途……如果他們有一些威力更大射程更遠(yuǎn)的家伙，比如155mm榴彈炮，或者240mm迫擊炮，那就更好了。
Russians did this too at Kursk, digging in their T-34s all the way to the turret.
It was surprisingly effective.
俄羅斯人在庫爾斯克也是這樣做的，挖坑把T-34埋到只剩炮塔。
效果驚人。