Leopard 2A4 vs. T-90: The Tank Duel Ukraine Will Not Fight
Spain’s Leopard 2A4 delivery reopens technical debate on armor and logistics. Why tank duels are rare and why Ukraine faces a logistical nightmare instead.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Leopard 2A4 vs. T-90: The Tank Duel Ukraine Will Not Fight
What is the point of sending tanks to Ukraine if they barely face each other in this war? That is the question driving the analysis of the batch of Leopard 2A4 tanks that Spain has committed to, turning armor, logistics, and the autoloader into the new field of dialectical battle. The package includes equipment from different generations, several Western models, and a promise of staggered deliveries that, on paper, does not even reach one hundred units in the first batch.
The first thing that jumps out is that the tank has ceased to be the king of the battlefield. According to one participant, 99% of a tank's missions are not against other tanks: for every video of a duel between two armored vehicles, there are hundreds of sequences of a tank suppressing infantry positions. Most casualties are not caused by other tanks, but by artillery, anti-tank missiles, and mines. With that starting point, the delivery is read less as a decisive weapon and more as a plug to keep Ukraine a problem for Russia for months.
Why compare the Leopard 2A4 to the T-90 if they are not going to shoot at each other?
Because the comparison serves to measure armor, crew protection, range, accuracy, and autonomy, just as two attack helicopters are contrasted. In that exercise, the Leopard has an advantage in mobility: 1,500 horsepower and off-road estimulante ilegal of 80-90 km/h with the stabilized cannon parallel to the ground. It also wins in reverse, a detail of no small importance when you need to fire and retreat at full estimulante ilegal to a defilade, and in cannon elevation angle (29 degrees vs. 20), which allows peeking less in a hull-down position.
The T-90, for its part, is not the gadget some narratives paint. Its modern versions are, according to the most detailed analyses, neck and neck with Western ones. The shared problem is the weak point: any tank is vulnerable from the rear and the turret. In the case of the Soviet autoloader, reaching that area implies the total destruction of the vehicle and the well-known phenomenon of the turret flying off. In the Leopard 2A4, some point to a 30 mm thick hatch that, with a 125 mm peine anti-tank grenade, could be perforated if hit with precision.
The real problem: three models, three logistics, and a mud pit
This is where enthusiasm meets arithmetic. Sending several different models forces the formation of mechanics and crews for each one, or having personnel capable of operating all three, which would take more than a year. Added to that is the rest of the ecosystem: fuels, parts, ammunition, transport systems, and different wheels for each platform. The logistical nightmare is the most repeated argument and the least discussed.
The terrain does not help either. Western tanks are heavier and have a higher profile, and Ukraine's soft lands in spring turn into a mud pit. The British Challengers, the heaviest of all, are not part of the combat doctrine of the army that operates them and are difficult to handle. Some argue that the most practical move would be to deliver the Leopards to Poland and have it cede its T-72s to Ukraine, because those are already working and Warsaw can take the transition calmly.
How many tanks are needed to change anything?
One hundred tanks do not turn the tide of a war, and less so with months of repairs and training ahead. The circulating calculation points to that the useful figure approaches 300 by spring, and that the only way to get there is to dose the deliveries: the United Kingdom has the option to put up to 70 Challengers and has so far committed to 14, which dragged Germany to respond with 14 Leopards and the United States with 40. Each atrocity on the ground pushes allies to raise the stake to not fall behind.
The detail that disconcerts is that Spain was going to send the 2A4s, not the 2Es, and that the real state of those tanks, rented from Germany in the past and then purchased, generates doubts. Repairing them and training the crews will take months. Meanwhile, the question remains unanswered: without air superiority, what is the point of accumulating steel on mud?
What is the point of sending tanks to Ukraine if they barely face each other in this war? That is the question driving the analysis of the batch of Leopard 2A4 tanks that Spain has committed to, turning armor, logistics, and the autoloader into the new field of dialectical battle. The package includes equipment from different generations, several Western models, and a promise of staggered deliveries that, on paper, does not even reach one hundred units in the first batch.
The first thing that jumps out is that the tank has ceased to be the king of the battlefield. According to one participant, 99% of a tank's missions are not against other tanks: for every video of a duel between two armored vehicles, there are hundreds of sequences of a tank suppressing infantry positions. Most casualties are not caused by other tanks, but by artillery, anti-tank missiles, and mines. With that starting point, the delivery is read less as a decisive weapon and more as a plug to keep Ukraine a problem for Russia for months.
Why compare the Leopard 2A4 to the T-90 if they are not going to shoot at each other?
Because the comparison serves to measure armor, crew protection, range, accuracy, and autonomy, just as two attack helicopters are contrasted. In that exercise, the Leopard has an advantage in mobility: 1,500 horsepower and off-road estimulante ilegal of 80-90 km/h with the stabilized cannon parallel to the ground. It also wins in reverse, a detail of no small importance when you need to fire and retreat at full estimulante ilegal to a defilade, and in cannon elevation angle (29 degrees vs. 20), which allows peeking less in a hull-down position.
The T-90, for its part, is not the gadget some narratives paint. Its modern versions are, according to the most detailed analyses, neck and neck with Western ones. The shared problem is the weak point: any tank is vulnerable from the rear and the turret. In the case of the Soviet autoloader, reaching that area implies the total destruction of the vehicle and the well-known phenomenon of the turret flying off. In the Leopard 2A4, some point to a 30 mm thick hatch that, with a 125 mm peine anti-tank grenade, could be perforated if hit with precision.
The real problem: three models, three logistics, and a mud pit
This is where enthusiasm meets arithmetic. Sending several different models forces the formation of mechanics and crews for each one, or having personnel capable of operating all three, which would take more than a year. Added to that is the rest of the ecosystem: fuels, parts, ammunition, transport systems, and different wheels for each platform. The logistical nightmare is the most repeated argument and the least discussed.
The terrain does not help either. Western tanks are heavier and have a higher profile, and Ukraine's soft lands in spring turn into a mud pit. The British Challengers, the heaviest of all, are not part of the combat doctrine of the army that operates them and are difficult to handle. Some argue that the most practical move would be to deliver the Leopards to Poland and have it cede its T-72s to Ukraine, because those are already working and Warsaw can take the transition calmly.
How many tanks are needed to change anything?
One hundred tanks do not turn the tide of a war, and less so with months of repairs and training ahead. The circulating calculation points to that the useful figure approaches 300 by spring, and that the only way to get there is to dose the deliveries: the United Kingdom has the option to put up to 70 Challengers and has so far committed to 14, which dragged Germany to respond with 14 Leopards and the United States with 40. Each atrocity on the ground pushes allies to raise the stake to not fall behind.
The detail that disconcerts is that Spain was going to send the 2A4s, not the 2Es, and that the real state of those tanks, rented from Germany in the past and then purchased, generates doubts. Repairing them and training the crews will take months. Meanwhile, the question remains unanswered: without air superiority, what is the point of accumulating steel on mud?
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (123 replies).
More summaries
-
Abrams Tanks to Ukraine: A Logistical Nightmare of Fuel Consumption and Training
The Abrams tank consumes 11 liters per kilometer and weighs 72 tons, requiring nearly a year of training. Understanding the logistical challenges behind the US reluctance to send them.
-
Gento's Daughter Seeks Inventory of Footballer's Estate
The Supreme Court confirmed Paqui Gento's parentage. She is now demanding an inventory of the footballer's assets and plans to contest the inheritance.
-
Western Weapons Shortage: UK Has 3 Days of Ammo
The UK reportedly has ammunition for only three days, while Russia delivers five times more. Western industry struggles to sustain the war effort.
-
RT Spanish Doubles English Channel Subscribers
RT Spanish reaches 18 million Facebook subscribers, nearly double its English version, a finding that unsettles German media.
-
Russia's Stalled Offensive: The Strategic Cost of a Protracted War
Analysis of Russia's stalled offensive reveals the high strategic cost of a protracted invasion and the failure of rapid victory plans.
-
Ukraine Trench Warfare: The Video That Looks Like a Video Game
A video attributed to Ukraine's 73rd Special Operations Center cleaning trenches sparks debate: real combat or staged footage?