德国想把豹1坦克送给乌克兰：是垃圾，还是妙招？
正文翻译
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.
德国正在讨论将豹1送给乌克兰。问题是这些坦克好不好，以及乌克兰军队将如何部署它们。在这个视频中，我们来看看豹1相对于T-72, T-80和T-90坦克的能力。
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.
德国正在讨论将豹1送给乌克兰。问题是这些坦克好不好，以及乌克兰军队将如何部署它们。在这个视频中，我们来看看豹1相对于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.
莱茵金属公司董事长表示，50辆豹1可以在数月内发运。在FFG公司的仓库里还有另外100辆。与此同时，德国总理并不情愿。公众普遍支持向乌克兰运送重型武器。
莱茵金属公司董事长表示，50辆豹1可以在数月内发运。在FFG公司的仓库里还有另外100辆。与此同时，德国总理并不情愿。公众普遍支持向乌克兰运送重型武器。
评论翻译
LessCommonKnowledge
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.
我认为大多数人都忘记了坦克实际上并没有花很多时间与其他坦克战斗，大多数时间它们是在与建筑、步兵反坦克武器和其他车辆交战。在这些角色中，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罗斯装甲车辆打出屎。
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.
我认为大多数人都忘记了坦克实际上并没有花很多时间与其他坦克战斗，大多数时间它们是在与建筑、步兵反坦克武器和其他车辆交战。在这些角色中，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罗斯装甲车辆打出屎。
Obsidian Jane
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。几乎任何23毫米以上的现代脱壳穿甲弹都能正面干掉它。它很容易成为rpg、ATGM和AT集束弹药的菜。它最多是一辆轻型坦克，实际上主要是一门轻型步兵支持炮，步兵可以用自己的重型武器对付它。
然后还有上面列出的再培训、维护和后勤方面的难题。要让它们真正进入乌克兰还需要几个月甚至几年时间。
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。几乎任何23毫米以上的现代脱壳穿甲弹都能正面干掉它。它很容易成为rpg、ATGM和AT集束弹药的菜。它最多是一辆轻型坦克，实际上主要是一门轻型步兵支持炮，步兵可以用自己的重型武器对付它。
然后还有上面列出的再培训、维护和后勤方面的难题。要让它们真正进入乌克兰还需要几个月甚至几年时间。
steve powell
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.
这一点很明显，但你说的完全正确。大多数人只会比较一辆坦克和另一辆坦克的能力。事实上，我最近看了好几个这样的视频，你是第一个这样评论的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
这一点很明显，但你说的完全正确。大多数人只会比较一辆坦克和另一辆坦克的能力。事实上，我最近看了好几个这样的视频，你是第一个这样评论的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Žiga Auer
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样多的支持和后勤保障。IFV，特别是轮式IFV，在需要的支持多寡方面效率更高——部署豹1意味着乌克兰将需要投入与T-64、T-72或T-80相当的后勤，同时它最多被用作步兵战车的破坏神，而不是主战坦克。
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样多的支持和后勤保障。IFV，特别是轮式IFV，在需要的支持多寡方面效率更高——部署豹1意味着乌克兰将需要投入与T-64、T-72或T-80相当的后勤，同时它最多被用作步兵战车的破坏神，而不是主战坦克。
If the Leo can't do what a MBT is supposed to do anymore it's more efficient to just deploy larger numbers of IFVs instead.
如果豹豹不能再做主战坦克应该做的事情，那么部署更多的IFV会更有效率。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
如果豹豹不能再做主战坦克应该做的事情，那么部署更多的IFV会更有效率。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Montblanc
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.
人们似乎忽略了一个事实，即便是这样的一种轻型坦克也是一回事，它并不是设计出来一炮一个小朋友的，它设计出来是为了获得更高的速度和敏捷性，就像它们的前辈在二战中所做的那样，它们将在乌克兰的地形上发挥奇迹般的作用。
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.
人们似乎忽略了一个事实，即便是这样的一种轻型坦克也是一回事，它并不是设计出来一炮一个小朋友的，它设计出来是为了获得更高的速度和敏捷性，就像它们的前辈在二战中所做的那样，它们将在乌克兰的地形上发挥奇迹般的作用。
Montblanc
@Žiga Auer if ukrainians have no comparable equipment then this is still an upgrade, the rest depends on how they will deploy them.
@Žiga Auer 如果乌克兰没有类似的装备，那么这仍然是一次升级，其余的取决于他们将如何部署这些装备。
@Žiga Auer if ukrainians have no comparable equipment then this is still an upgrade, the rest depends on how they will deploy them.
@Žiga Auer 如果乌克兰没有类似的装备，那么这仍然是一次升级，其余的取决于他们将如何部署这些装备。
Elistaer 85
@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 乌克兰用的所有坦克都比豹1好，我正在观看和阅读关于豹1和它的前对手T50/T55的任何资料。豹被部署和建造出来，是作为德国之前使用的T48和T60的替代品的。这些坦克是为捉迷藏而造的，比俄系坦克射程更远，但装甲贫弱。
@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 乌克兰用的所有坦克都比豹1好，我正在观看和阅读关于豹1和它的前对手T50/T55的任何资料。豹被部署和建造出来，是作为德国之前使用的T48和T60的替代品的。这些坦克是为捉迷藏而造的，比俄系坦克射程更远，但装甲贫弱。
Obsidian Jane
@Montblanc None of your post is accurate.
@Montblanc 你的帖子没有一个是准确的。
@Montblanc None of your post is accurate.
@Montblanc 你的帖子没有一个是准确的。
Andrew Speer
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.
从概念上说，豹I(和其他北约)冷战时期的主战坦克在设计时考虑到了防御，并假设它们在数量方面被远远压倒，因此会使用延迟战术逆境作战。因此，它们应该躲在防御护坡后面“车体下隐”执行任务，当从防御位置射击时，它的炮管有能力下俯高达9度。这使得它能最大限度地利用自然障碍和人造护堤作为防御，并利用重力帮助实现快速撤退的能力……在面对迎面逼近的敌人时，这一点通常比任何装甲保护都要好（反过来，护坡被设置在战略位置，迫使攻击者进入那个方向）。虽然听起来很傻，但它们的设计也同样适合倒车和前进，这在战斗撤退时很重要，这与乌克兰的纵深防御战术相一致。苏联/俄罗斯坦克的设计哲学更注重攻击，而不是防御，所以炮管，掩蔽处（不是坐在护坡后面等着攻击）和倒车速度根本没有给予相同的设计参数优先级。所以，我认为豹1在伪装交战中应该能发挥很好的防御作用，它们可以快速地从一个防守位置转到另一个防守位置，而其他更在意进攻的乌克兰坦克可以作为机动预备队，填补攻击方坦克打开的缺口。因此，如果使用正确，这两种类型的坦克应该是相当互补的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
从概念上说，豹I(和其他北约)冷战时期的主战坦克在设计时考虑到了防御，并假设它们在数量方面被远远压倒，因此会使用延迟战术逆境作战。因此，它们应该躲在防御护坡后面“车体下隐”执行任务，当从防御位置射击时，它的炮管有能力下俯高达9度。这使得它能最大限度地利用自然障碍和人造护堤作为防御，并利用重力帮助实现快速撤退的能力……在面对迎面逼近的敌人时，这一点通常比任何装甲保护都要好（反过来，护坡被设置在战略位置，迫使攻击者进入那个方向）。虽然听起来很傻，但它们的设计也同样适合倒车和前进，这在战斗撤退时很重要，这与乌克兰的纵深防御战术相一致。苏联/俄罗斯坦克的设计哲学更注重攻击，而不是防御，所以炮管，掩蔽处（不是坐在护坡后面等着攻击）和倒车速度根本没有给予相同的设计参数优先级。所以，我认为豹1在伪装交战中应该能发挥很好的防御作用，它们可以快速地从一个防守位置转到另一个防守位置，而其他更在意进攻的乌克兰坦克可以作为机动预备队，填补攻击方坦克打开的缺口。因此，如果使用正确，这两种类型的坦克应该是相当互补的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
ilkham amanu
leopard 1 has a thin amor that even bmp 2 can penetrate
豹1的护甲很薄，甚至BMP2都能穿透。
leopard 1 has a thin amor that even bmp 2 can penetrate
豹1的护甲很薄，甚至BMP2都能穿透。
Weasel 65
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...
我担任过坦克司机/炮手；学习“驾驶”的部分很容易，花的时间很少，真正的时间是学习如何观察你面前的地面，如何利用死角地、低地或覆盖地从A点到B点；地面是草地（高大茂盛的草）？石头地？要不要抹掉你坦克的“踪迹”？这些事情需要很多年的时间来学习，才能成为第二天性，司机只需要知道指挥官想要的是什么。这只是我的意见。话虽如此，我还是不想用豹1去对抗T72……
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...
我担任过坦克司机/炮手；学习“驾驶”的部分很容易，花的时间很少，真正的时间是学习如何观察你面前的地面，如何利用死角地、低地或覆盖地从A点到B点；地面是草地（高大茂盛的草）？石头地？要不要抹掉你坦克的“踪迹”？这些事情需要很多年的时间来学习，才能成为第二天性，司机只需要知道指挥官想要的是什么。这只是我的意见。话虽如此，我还是不想用豹1去对抗T72……
Kevin Kliegl
Well put, good reasoning.
说得好，有道理。
Well put, good reasoning.
说得好，有道理。
Gregg Strasser
I drove a 113. Those tanks are going to get stuck if the entire crew is new.
So they’ll probably use mercenaries.
我开过113。如果所有车组成员都是新人，那些坦克就会抛锚。
所以他们可能会用雇佣兵。
I drove a 113. Those tanks are going to get stuck if the entire crew is new.
So they’ll probably use mercenaries.
我开过113。如果所有车组成员都是新人，那些坦克就会抛锚。
所以他们可能会用雇佣兵。
E K
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.
有了合适的弹药是可能的。
早期M1也使用了一些L7的改型，如果采用钨芯尾翼稳定脱壳穿甲弹，应该能够对付T-72乃至于T-90。
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.
有了合适的弹药是可能的。
早期M1也使用了一些L7的改型，如果采用钨芯尾翼稳定脱壳穿甲弹，应该能够对付T-72乃至于T-90。
Jeff
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.
知道如何驾驶坦克和知道如何驾驶特定型号的坦克是有区别的。
当然，当你必须将你的常识应用到特定的坦克上时，其中很多仍然是一般化的知识。一些乌克兰的后备坦克兵可能已经接受过T-72改型的训练，应该能够在几周的时间里达到驾驶豹1的程度，其中大部分时间可能是在学习驾驶这种“新”坦克的机制。
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.
知道如何驾驶坦克和知道如何驾驶特定型号的坦克是有区别的。
当然，当你必须将你的常识应用到特定的坦克上时，其中很多仍然是一般化的知识。一些乌克兰的后备坦克兵可能已经接受过T-72改型的训练，应该能够在几周的时间里达到驾驶豹1的程度，其中大部分时间可能是在学习驾驶这种“新”坦克的机制。
Randy Boisa
How can you be a driver/ gunner, they are in different positions of the tank? I call B.S!
你怎么会既是车手/又是炮手，二者在坦克的不同位置！要我说你在扯淡。
How can you be a driver/ gunner, they are in different positions of the tank? I call B.S!
你怎么会既是车手/又是炮手，二者在坦克的不同位置！要我说你在扯淡。
Kevin Kliegl
@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 这说明他们受过驾驶员和炮手的训练。并不代表一边开坦克一边当炮手。不是扯淡。
@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 这说明他们受过驾驶员和炮手的训练。并不代表一边开坦克一边当炮手。不是扯淡。
Tom K
@E K LOL, no ;) Germany did tests and its a NO.
@E K 哈哈，不行。德国测试过，不行。
@E K LOL, no ;) Germany did tests and its a NO.
@E K 哈哈，不行。德国测试过，不行。
Davids Painting
T72 is nothing compared to leporad 1 Mop the floor
在擦地板方面，T72根本比不上豹1。
T72 is nothing compared to leporad 1 Mop the floor
在擦地板方面，T72根本比不上豹1。
Mr Hoplite
Thx for the info - its always good to hear an opinion from someone who actually has some practical experience!
谢谢你提供的信息——从有实际经验的人那里听到意见总是好的!
Thx for the info - its always good to hear an opinion from someone who actually has some practical experience!
谢谢你提供的信息——从有实际经验的人那里听到意见总是好的!
Windows XP
Yup, Leopard 1 is largely obsolete, Poland gave Ukraine 100 T72's, hope we give more
是的，豹1基本上过时了，波兰给了乌克兰100辆T72，希望我们能给更多。
Yup, Leopard 1 is largely obsolete, Poland gave Ukraine 100 T72's, hope we give more
是的，豹1基本上过时了，波兰给了乌克兰100辆T72，希望我们能给更多。
Ib Erik Söderblom
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在很大程度上依赖于“射击和移动”，这同样依赖于乘员获取目标并击中目标的能力，而且它从不单独行动。
这一切都需要训练有素、技术娴熟的船员。
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在很大程度上依赖于“射击和移动”，这同样依赖于乘员获取目标并击中目标的能力，而且它从不单独行动。
这一切都需要训练有素、技术娴熟的船员。
Kevin Kliegl
Good point.
说的好。
Good point.
说的好。
Montblanc
So long as they have tank crews this shouldn't be rocketry for them...
只要他们有坦克兵，这对他们来说就不应该是高科技……
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
So long as they have tank crews this shouldn't be rocketry for them...
只要他们有坦克兵，这对他们来说就不应该是高科技……
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
E K
@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所需的训练。这取决于正确运用机动性。如果你做错了，你就是“砧板上的肉”。
@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所需的训练。这取决于正确运用机动性。如果你做错了，你就是“砧板上的肉”。
Stop the Crazy Dwarf
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，乌克兰的车组人员都很棒，我看过一个视频，一架乌克兰BMP4用一门30mm炮与一辆俄罗斯T72面对面交战，并将其摧毁。
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，乌克兰的车组人员都很棒，我看过一个视频，一架乌克兰BMP4用一门30mm炮与一辆俄罗斯T72面对面交战，并将其摧毁。
Tom K
This whole thing is a "pretend" to give tanks - not to really give tanks that will make a difference.
这整件事都是“假装”给坦克，而不是真的给出能带来改变的坦克。
This whole thing is a "pretend" to give tanks - not to really give tanks that will make a difference.
这整件事都是“假装”给坦克，而不是真的给出能带来改变的坦克。
Poseidon
@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 不要低估乌克兰人。他们已经学会了很多复杂的武器，豹1号不是火箭科学。到目前为止，乌克兰人非常有效地使用了他们得到的所有武器!
@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 不要低估乌克兰人。他们已经学会了很多复杂的武器，豹1号不是火箭科学。到目前为止，乌克兰人非常有效地使用了他们得到的所有武器!
Hernando Malinche
@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 不是吗? 几乎西方给乌克兰的每一件武器都很容易使用、射击和遗忘。乌克兰在豹式坦克方面没有任何经验，组建一个合适的预备军官团需要几年时间。不能单独培训，这是一件需要制度性重组的事情。
@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 不是吗? 几乎西方给乌克兰的每一件武器都很容易使用、射击和遗忘。乌克兰在豹式坦克方面没有任何经验，组建一个合适的预备军官团需要几年时间。不能单独培训，这是一件需要制度性重组的事情。
Nick
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.
非常正确。不过，我不认为乌克兰人有足够的时间来达到标准。另一方面，乌克兰的地形非常适合射击和机动战术。
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.
非常正确。不过，我不认为乌克兰人有足够的时间来达到标准。另一方面，乌克兰的地形非常适合射击和机动战术。
something like that
@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 你说的对。我们只需看看乌克兰空军的例子，就能知道他们的军队是如何迅速成功地适应了所谓的西方战争方式，并取得了多么大的成功。
在我看来，低估这场战争的持续时间也是一个错误，我们不想就乌克兰人需要多久才能适应北约武器系统的使用展开同样的争论，如果这个时间是3-6个月，那他们本可以奔赴前线，并带来改变。
@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 你说的对。我们只需看看乌克兰空军的例子，就能知道他们的军队是如何迅速成功地适应了所谓的西方战争方式，并取得了多么大的成功。
在我看来，低估这场战争的持续时间也是一个错误，我们不想就乌克兰人需要多久才能适应北约武器系统的使用展开同样的争论，如果这个时间是3-6个月，那他们本可以奔赴前线，并带来改变。
something like that
@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 多少还是有用的吧？当然不会像几十年前使用它的澳大利亚或者德国坦克车组用它时那么有效，但多少是有用的坦克，肯定比没有坦克有用，即便它被用在这场战争的次要战场。
@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 多少还是有用的吧？当然不会像几十年前使用它的澳大利亚或者德国坦克车组用它时那么有效，但多少是有用的坦克，肯定比没有坦克有用，即便它被用在这场战争的次要战场。
Local drug seller
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.
坦克的任务远不止与敌人的装甲单位争雄(事实上，我认为与敌人的装甲竞争并不是它们的优先任务)。用火力支援步兵，摧毁地堡和建筑物，提供火力支援，提供机动性等等。这是大多数“完全不是《坦克世界》玩家的坦克专家”无法理解的。在现代混乱的战争中，坦克对坦克的交战很少发生过。
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.
坦克的任务远不止与敌人的装甲单位争雄(事实上，我认为与敌人的装甲竞争并不是它们的优先任务)。用火力支援步兵，摧毁地堡和建筑物，提供火力支援，提供机动性等等。这是大多数“完全不是《坦克世界》玩家的坦克专家”无法理解的。在现代混乱的战争中，坦克对坦克的交战很少发生过。
majungasaurusaaaa
And aren't they all claiming MBTs can now be taken care of by other things and that they're obsolete?
难道他们不都声称主战坦克现在可以用其他东西对付，而且已经过时了吗?
And aren't they all claiming MBTs can now be taken care of by other things and that they're obsolete?
难道他们不都声称主战坦克现在可以用其他东西对付，而且已经过时了吗?
John reaper
30mm modern sabot can pen this tank
30毫米现代穿甲弹可以穿透这辆坦克。
30mm modern sabot can pen this tank
30毫米现代穿甲弹可以穿透这辆坦克。
E D
@John reaper in Russia, tank penetrates you.
@John reaper 在俄罗斯，坦克会穿透你。
@John reaper in Russia, tank penetrates you.
@John reaper 在俄罗斯，坦克会穿透你。
Local drug seller
@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辆坦克。它可以打穿半人马坦克，半人马坦克是意大利军队中最现代化的装甲车。装甲单位被高估了。这是继机动性和火力之后的第三个计划。现在已经不是二战了。
首先击中敌人的坦克赢得交战。这就是为什么北约将首发命中的可能性列为最优先事项。即使不能穿透，也会伤害或恐吓敌人，使他们放弃。
@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辆坦克。它可以打穿半人马坦克，半人马坦克是意大利军队中最现代化的装甲车。装甲单位被高估了。这是继机动性和火力之后的第三个计划。现在已经不是二战了。
首先击中敌人的坦克赢得交战。这就是为什么北约将首发命中的可能性列为最优先事项。即使不能穿透，也会伤害或恐吓敌人，使他们放弃。
Lucas Vieira
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……战场上的任何东西都能把它炸飞。无论是另一辆坦克，还是某个随机的士兵带着二战时期的反坦炮。对我来说，这是一个巨大的棺材。
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……战场上的任何东西都能把它炸飞。无论是另一辆坦克，还是某个随机的士兵带着二战时期的反坦炮。对我来说，这是一个巨大的棺材。
Yong Li
Wouldn’t that be the job of an ifv?
那不是步战车的工作吗?
Wouldn’t that be the job of an ifv?
那不是步战车的工作吗?
trololoev
if it was true, then su-122 was best ww2 tank, not t-34.
如果真是这样，那么最好的二战坦克是SU-122，而不是T-34。
if it was true, then su-122 was best ww2 tank, not t-34.
如果真是这样，那么最好的二战坦克是SU-122，而不是T-34。
Lucas Vieira
But if used wisely like those old tank destroyers i believe it should work
但如果像那些老旧的坦克歼击车那样明智地使用，我相信它会发挥作用的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
But if used wisely like those old tank destroyers i believe it should work
但如果像那些老旧的坦克歼击车那样明智地使用，我相信它会发挥作用的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Joseph Ahner
@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 二战就是这样。这就是火力和装甲看似不起眼的谢尔曼仍然大出风头的原因。
@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 二战就是这样。这就是火力和装甲看似不起眼的谢尔曼仍然大出风头的原因。
trololoev
@Lucas Vieira there is video where syrian tank hit 5 rpg shot and survive. Also tank is a giant snoper rifle.
@Lucas Vieira 有一段视频显示谢尔曼坦克被5枚火箭弹击中并幸存。坦克也是一门巨大的狙击步枪。
@Lucas Vieira there is video where syrian tank hit 5 rpg shot and survive. Also tank is a giant snoper rifle.
@Lucas Vieira 有一段视频显示谢尔曼坦克被5枚火箭弹击中并幸存。坦克也是一门巨大的狙击步枪。
pahtar
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.
听起来豹最适合在北方使用，因为那里的森林和山丘使得接触距离比平常短。然后乌克兰人就可以把他们的T-72坦克送到东边，开阔的地形意味着遭遇距离很可能会变长，但乌克兰的无人机将非常有效地发现俄罗斯车辆。
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.
听起来豹最适合在北方使用，因为那里的森林和山丘使得接触距离比平常短。然后乌克兰人就可以把他们的T-72坦克送到东边，开阔的地形意味着遭遇距离很可能会变长，但乌克兰的无人机将非常有效地发现俄罗斯车辆。
CyberRabid
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.
我不太确定豹1是否做好了战斗准备，但它看起来是一台很吸引人的机器。
如果能有一辆停在我的车道上，我会很自豪的。
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.
我不太确定豹1是否做好了战斗准备，但它看起来是一台很吸引人的机器。
如果能有一辆停在我的车道上，我会很自豪的。
Jim 99west
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，很像美国基于斯特瑞克的105毫米MGS（机动火炮）。英国衍生的高爆弹药对步兵和炮位非常精确和有效。大多数战场目标不是坦克，而是IFV、APC等，对付那些目标，它将是毁灭性的，而且比用标枪等对付它们更便宜、更快。
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，很像美国基于斯特瑞克的105毫米MGS（机动火炮）。英国衍生的高爆弹药对步兵和炮位非常精确和有效。大多数战场目标不是坦克，而是IFV、APC等，对付那些目标，它将是毁灭性的，而且比用标枪等对付它们更便宜、更快。
Ruhrpottpatriot
You know that the Leopard1 has 200mm armour at the thickest spot? And less than 100 at any other?
你知道豹1装甲最厚的地方只有200mm吗? 而且其他任何地方都小于100?
You know that the Leopard1 has 200mm armour at the thickest spot? And less than 100 at any other?
你知道豹1装甲最厚的地方只有200mm吗? 而且其他任何地方都小于100?
1chish
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.
我这里只是提醒一句:豹1用的是百夫长1946年的105毫米炮，所以我不确定是否有很多这样的炮弹。自从酋长以来，英国就一直使用120毫米膛线炮。
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.
我这里只是提醒一句:豹1用的是百夫长1946年的105毫米炮，所以我不确定是否有很多这样的炮弹。自从酋长以来，英国就一直使用120毫米膛线炮。
lol1803
@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 用的对就没问题，如果机组人员缺乏训练，我们就会遇到土耳其人那样的问题。土耳其人因为缺乏训练而失去了豹豹。
@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 用的对就没问题，如果机组人员缺乏训练，我们就会遇到土耳其人那样的问题。土耳其人因为缺乏训练而失去了豹豹。
CorePathway
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.
仅仅因为120mm更大并不意味着105不能对付俄国人现在的任何装备。此外，历史上超过80%的坦克炮火不是针对其他坦克的。
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.
仅仅因为120mm更大并不意味着105不能对付俄国人现在的任何装备。此外，历史上超过80%的坦克炮火不是针对其他坦克的。
MrTreacletime
@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毫米弹药可用。还有有人提到的豹豹的装甲……豹式的灵感来自于地狱猫对黑豹的行动! 一些设计规范团队在45年就看到了这一点。有些人脑壳有坑……他们总是一遍又一遍地认为坦克vs坦克才是一切争论的终结。但是坦克vs坦克的情况非常罕见，我们在乌克兰很少看到。在所有攻击武器中，我认为轻快的豹豹用于打击装甲运兵车和卡车等目标非常理想。
@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毫米弹药可用。还有有人提到的豹豹的装甲……豹式的灵感来自于地狱猫对黑豹的行动! 一些设计规范团队在45年就看到了这一点。有些人脑壳有坑……他们总是一遍又一遍地认为坦克vs坦克才是一切争论的终结。但是坦克vs坦克的情况非常罕见，我们在乌克兰很少看到。在所有攻击武器中，我认为轻快的豹豹用于打击装甲运兵车和卡车等目标非常理想。
Jim 99west
@1chish British Army and the US Army have huge stockpiles of it.
@1chish 英国陆军和美国陆军都有大量库存。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@1chish British Army and the US Army have huge stockpiles of it.
@1chish 英国陆军和美国陆军都有大量库存。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Jim 99west
@Ruhrpottpatriot don't use it as a tank. Use it as a SP gun for fire support.
@Ruhrpottpatriot 别把它当坦克用。用它作为自走炮提供火力支援。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@Ruhrpottpatriot don't use it as a tank. Use it as a SP gun for fire support.
@Ruhrpottpatriot 别把它当坦克用。用它作为自走炮提供火力支援。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
1chish
@CorePathway I was not suggesting a 120 was 'better' than a 105. My point was to question availability of usable rounds.
@CorePathway 我不是说120炮比105炮“好”。我的意思是质疑可用弹药的可用性。
@CorePathway I was not suggesting a 120 was 'better' than a 105. My point was to question availability of usable rounds.
@CorePathway 我不是说120炮比105炮“好”。我的意思是质疑可用弹药的可用性。
1chish
@Jim 99west So thats OK then ....
@Jim 99west 那就没事了……
@Jim 99west So thats OK then ....
@Jim 99west 那就没事了……
Roger Pennel
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的装甲很差，机动性很好，光学设备很好，炮也很好。问题是，乌克兰并没有这种武器在服役，所以他们不会有零部件供应、训练、弹药，而且它的通信设备可能与他们已经在使用的武器不兼容。我宁愿看到前华约国家清空他们的军械库，向乌克兰供应他们已经在使用的装备。
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的装甲很差，机动性很好，光学设备很好，炮也很好。问题是，乌克兰并没有这种武器在服役，所以他们不会有零部件供应、训练、弹药，而且它的通信设备可能与他们已经在使用的武器不兼容。我宁愿看到前华约国家清空他们的军械库，向乌克兰供应他们已经在使用的装备。
something like that
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.
对苏联装备的准备情况不是有疑问吗? 在一个完美的世界里，华约装备将是最好的，但如果其中很多不是真的，而且战争持续一段时间，更多的北约装备将发挥重要作用。
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.
对苏联装备的准备情况不是有疑问吗? 在一个完美的世界里，华约装备将是最好的，但如果其中很多不是真的，而且战争持续一段时间，更多的北约装备将发挥重要作用。
Wilfred Darr
We need to be careful that we're not burdening them with all our old garbage. What we're giving them needs to work.
我们需要小心，不要让我们的旧垃圾给他们带来负担。我们给他们的东西需要发挥作用。
We need to be careful that we're not burdening them with all our old garbage. What we're giving them needs to work.
我们需要小心，不要让我们的旧垃圾给他们带来负担。我们给他们的东西需要发挥作用。
Barry Gregory
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)
我似乎记得瑞典人在训练105毫米L7坦克时也有类似的体验。
他们用经验丰富的车组驾驶百夫长(105mm L7)，在对抗他们自己的新豹2(我想可能是Strv 121)时取得了很好的成绩。
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)
我似乎记得瑞典人在训练105毫米L7坦克时也有类似的体验。
他们用经验丰富的车组驾驶百夫长(105mm L7)，在对抗他们自己的新豹2(我想可能是Strv 121)时取得了很好的成绩。
Gert Bonk
The Swedes went from the Centurion, to the "S" Tank, to the Leopard.
瑞典人先用百夫长，然后是S坦克，再到豹式。
The Swedes went from the Centurion, to the "S" Tank, to the Leopard.
瑞典人先用百夫长，然后是S坦克，再到豹式。
Generic Person X
@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 瑞典人使用百夫长一直用到2000年，不过在1992年左右正式被豹2取代。购买S-坦克是因为价格更便宜，运行成本更低，而且由于其优越的机动性，可以去到更多地方，但现有的百夫长被认为是瑞典的重型战斗部队。换句话说，S-坦克是用来支持百夫长的廉价坦克，而不是用来取代它们。
@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 瑞典人使用百夫长一直用到2000年，不过在1992年左右正式被豹2取代。购买S-坦克是因为价格更便宜，运行成本更低，而且由于其优越的机动性，可以去到更多地方，但现有的百夫长被认为是瑞典的重型战斗部队。换句话说，S-坦克是用来支持百夫长的廉价坦克，而不是用来取代它们。
Morahman7vnNo2
Some might consider the Leopard 1 as "Legacy".
Some others might the Leopard 1 as "Essential".
有人可能把豹1当做“遗产”。
其他人可能把豹1当做“必需”。
Some might consider the Leopard 1 as "Legacy".
Some others might the Leopard 1 as "Essential".
有人可能把豹1当做“遗产”。
其他人可能把豹1当做“必需”。
Nick Stone
I say the Leopard 1 is not Essential.
It is Necessary.
我认为豹1号不是必需的。
而是必要的。
I say the Leopard 1 is not Essential.
It is Necessary.
我认为豹1号不是必需的。
而是必要的。
Paul Suprono
@Nick Stone A very Valued opinion. Do you have any experience in said weapons system ?
@Nick Stone 一个很有价值的选项。你对这种武器系统有任何体验吗？
@Nick Stone A very Valued opinion. Do you have any experience in said weapons system ?
@Nick Stone 一个很有价值的选项。你对这种武器系统有任何体验吗？
Nick Stone
@Paul Suprono You did NOT catch the reference.
@Paul Suprono 你没懂我在说啥。
@Paul Suprono You did NOT catch the reference.
@Paul Suprono 你没懂我在说啥。
Taylor C
I consider it the best looking tank since the Panther.
我认为它是继黑豹之后最好看的坦克。
I consider it the best looking tank since the Panther.
我认为它是继黑豹之后最好看的坦克。
Capt. Mc Devil
Oooooohhh a WOT PLAYER
Noice
哎呀，一个坦克世界玩家。
聒噪。
Oooooohhh a WOT PLAYER
Noice
哎呀，一个坦克世界玩家。
聒噪。
Neion8
@Taylor C 'Hey Ivan, there's an enemy tank there, shouldn't you be shooting it?
'No comerade, for it is art!'
@Taylor C “嘿伊万，那里有一辆敌军坦克，你难道不打吗？”
“不，同志，因为它是艺术！”
@Taylor C 'Hey Ivan, there's an enemy tank there, shouldn't you be shooting it?
'No comerade, for it is art!'
@Taylor C “嘿伊万，那里有一辆敌军坦克，你难道不打吗？”
“不，同志，因为它是艺术！”
Emmano
Here in Brazil the Leo 1 A5 is the backbone of armored units...and it does it's job :)
在我们巴西，豹A5是装甲部队的骨干……而且它很称职。:)
Here in Brazil the Leo 1 A5 is the backbone of armored units...and it does it's job :)
在我们巴西，豹A5是装甲部队的骨干……而且它很称职。:)
Norm McRae
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.
如果需要的话，它们可以挖坑埋了，当做“便携式”碉堡。适合伏击。德国人在二战时在意大利就用黑豹炮塔这么干过……去掉坦克车体。
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.
如果需要的话，它们可以挖坑埋了，当做“便携式”碉堡。适合伏击。德国人在二战时在意大利就用黑豹炮塔这么干过……去掉坦克车体。
edi
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.
那时候RPG还很少见……然而，如果能对软目标发射一些高爆弹，肯定还能派上一些用途……如果他们有一些威力更大射程更远的家伙，比如155mm榴弹炮，或者240mm迫击炮，那就更好了。
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.
那时候RPG还很少见……然而，如果能对软目标发射一些高爆弹，肯定还能派上一些用途……如果他们有一些威力更大射程更远的家伙，比如155mm榴弹炮，或者240mm迫击炮，那就更好了。
Moritami Kamikara
Russians did this too at Kursk, digging in their T-34s all the way to the turret.
It was surprisingly effective.
俄罗斯人在库尔斯克也是这样做的，挖坑把T-34埋到只剩炮塔。
效果惊人。
Russians did this too at Kursk, digging in their T-34s all the way to the turret.
It was surprisingly effective.
俄罗斯人在库尔斯克也是这样做的，挖坑把T-34埋到只剩炮塔。
效果惊人。
很赞 1
收藏