Leopard 2 MBT hit by Kornet ATGM in Syria

[tflash]

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article161078829/IS-Kaempfer-zerstoeren-den-deutschen-Panzer-Mythos.html

[Toxic]

high incompetent leopard crews + anything can be penetrated.

[razo+r]

don't forget how they de-iced an airliner, so imagine what they could have done with the leopard...

[The M]

That's what happens if you use a vehicle in a way it is not supposed to be used.

It is known that the side of those tanks are weak. On the new versions, the front half (A7) of the side or the whole side (A7+) is equiped with an upgraded armor package.

But even with all those upgrades, no tank should be used and positioned like they did

[Mike5560]

It's also difficult to keep the frontal armor pointed at the enemy 100% of the time when the enemy can blend in with the local populace, and flank with little indication of being hostile.

[Hummingbird]

The old A4 is only really well protected from the front, as most western tanks, but aside from that I don't believe any tank in the world can withstand a Kornet missile to the side as it can penetrate 1200mm of armor.

 

Piss poor deployment by the Turkish forces, nothing else.

 

The new A7 is probably the best protected tank in the world:

Edited January 17, 2017 by Hummingbird

[AlphaOneSix]

This is what happens when you try to use a tank as an immobile bunker.

[probad]

where is confirmation the leopards were hit by kornet?

[DarkFire]

This is what happens when you try to use a tank as an immobile bunker.

 

This. Apart form excellent armour in the A7 version, the Leopard has always relied on maneuverability for protection somewhat more than other similar western designs such as the M1A1HA or Challenger 2.

 

Using a tank as a fixed turret can work under certain conditions, but using one as a fixed emplacement against insurgent forces isn't it.

 

Foolish use of a modern tank.

[Kuky]

The old A4 is only really well protected from the front, as most western tanks, but aside from that I don't believe any tank in the world can withstand a Kornet missile to the side as it can penetrate 1200mm of armor.

 

seriously? 1.2m thickness of metal armour? Sure you didn't mean 120mm?

EDIT: wow, looks like you're right, informational videos of this missile note 1200mm also.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Kuky

[QuiGon]

As Hummingbird already said: Turkey is still using old A4 Leopards. They have far inferior armor than modern A6/A7 ones.

 

[probad]

1.2m is the claim, but remember that is equivalent penetration, as tank armor these days isn't made of a solid slab of metal and can provide effective armor thickness beyond their actual thickness.

[MAD-MM]

Even old T-80 Tank provide up to equivalent of 600-800mm frontal Ammor on the Turret, build out of Metal and sandwich layers of depletet Uran ceramic and different hardness of Steel Plattes to protect from HEAT and cinetic Penetrators...

Our DCS Vikhr from the Ka-50 was able to Penetrate 1000mm RHA with his tandem HEAT in the first Version 16 Years ago now...

[Hummingbird]

Remember these tanks were hit on the sides, and the Kornet missile will defeat any tank here unless said tank it equipped with modular addon armor specifically to defeat HEAT rounds.

 

The difference between an old Leopard 2A4 a newer version with modular armour:

Edited January 19, 2017 by Hummingbird

[The M]

And they don't have the tactical sunnshade :D

[DarkFire]

1.2m is the claim, but remember that is equivalent penetration, as tank armor these days isn't made of a solid slab of metal and can provide effective armor thickness beyond their actual thickness.

 

This. Missile penetration values are quoted as being against RHA - rolled homogeneous armour which is just steel plate essentially - not the composite armour modern tanks have. The frontal armour of an M1A1HA or a Challenger 2 with the Dorchester applique packs could very easily be way in excess of 1000mm RHA equivalent.