In the war of our time, air supremacy is crucial. Iraq's road of death has vividly illustrated the consequences of losing air supremacy. If both air supremacy is lost and there is no reliable field air defense system, then there is no difference between land forces and targets.
And less than a month after the outbreak of the war, the Ukrainian Air Force was already left with only three or two big cats and kittens; Ukraine, which originally had a reliable and mature air defense system, also because of the high-intensity consumption in the war, the number and reliability of air defense systems were greatly reduced, and field air defense was reduced to almost nothing. So what is the difference between NATO's tanks and targets for Ukraine?
At the same time Russian-European tanks, European tanks do not dominate, Ukraine does not yet have air supremacy and field air defense
The T-80U tank has a combat weight of 46 tons, the T-90 has a combat weight of 46.5 tons, the T-14 has a combat weight of 48 tons, the Challenger has a combat weight of 62.5 tons, and the M1A2 has a total combat weight of 69 tons; Leclerc has a combat weight of 53 tons, and the Leopard-2A6 has a combat weight of about 62 tons. The weight difference between Soviet and NATO main battle tanks is so large, but there is no essential difference in performance between the two.
Both have a 120MM-class main gun and heavy armor, but the Russian tank is quite low, resulting in a poor driving experience, and the electronic equipment used by the Russian tank is not good, resulting in the Russian tank's strike accuracy is not as good as its European and American counterparts. And the monkey version of the tanks exported by Russia was cut too hard, resulting in poor performance of Russian tanks in most wars.
But in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the advantages of Russian tanks have been greatly amplified, and the disadvantages of NATO tanks have also been greatly amplified. This year tanks were closer to moving pillboxes, so the frequency of tank-to-tank encounters dropped significantly. As soon as there was a large-scale activity of tanks, the helicopter gunships on both sides immediately became energetic. That is, the problem of insufficient accuracy of Russian tanks was covered up.
There are many pits in the muddy land of Ukraine, and Germany experienced it well in World War II. The total combat weight of the Tiger tank was only 56 tons. It is clear that the full combat weight of the tanks supplied by NATO to Ukraine is much heavier than that of the Tiger. The muddy ground that could stump the tiger back then could naturally stop the leopard. And Soviet-style tanks pay considerable attention to passability, so the same road Russian tanks can go, but NATO tanks cannot. That is, there are very few alternative paths for NATO tanks equipped by Ukraine.
And in terms of air defense, what does NATO compare with Russia? But where the effectiveness of the Patriot's air defense is really as good as NATO's boast, Turkey will not rather buy the S-35 without the F-400 ... In terms of field air defense, NATO field air defense will not really be found for a while, and Doyle and Pantsir are typical field air defense systems. Medium and long-range air defense systems such as beech, S-300, S-400 also have quite strong passability, and if the money is enough, they can still be used for field air defense.
And NATO? Can IRIS-T and the Patriots drive into the mud? In terms of accompanying air defense, can NATO get its hands on it? Is it still how many years of old Cheetah air defense or Erlikon air defense? That is to say, more than a year after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the decline in the air defense capability of Ukraine's key areas may not be very serious, but the accompanying air defense has basically returned to zero.
That is, the armored forces of Ukraine can only dry stare at Russian gunships. And when Russia's armored forces face the remaining Ukrainian gunships, the accompanying Doyle and Pantsir will begin to be threatening. Therefore, when there is also no air supremacy, the Ukrainian armored forces will definitely perform worse than Russia.
The Ukrainian Air Force lost air supremacy not long after the outbreak of the war, and soon after lost most of its aircraft, and now Ukraine's aircraft have basically been emptied, if not for this, Ukraine would not have repeatedly prayed for the F-16. And although the Russian Air Force also has losses, the number of losses is much less than that of Ukraine. The Russian Air Force is still able to calmly eliminate the slippery Ukrainian tank troops.
What's more, although NATO has provided Ukraine with tanks, it is already good that Ukraine at this stage can run and shoot, and it is inevitable to pay tuition fees with unfamiliar weapons. In addition, NATO, of course, provided tanks to Ukraine, but not even mine-proof rolls and minesweeping shovels, so that Ukrainian tanks could only advance along a narrow path that was determined to be mine-free. Isn't this a long snake array to deliver vegetables to the vortex?
Therefore, after NATO supplied tanks to Ukraine, the busting of the myth of NATO tanks was also inevitable. It's just that some examples of war in the past, because the videos that broke out are not accurate enough, so the European and American media will try all means to cover up, not to admit that European and American tanks have been destroyed. But at this stage, Russia has released a video with sufficient clarity, so NATO has to admit that a Leopard 2A6 in Ukraine was completely destroyed, a Leopard 2A6 was abandoned, and a number of American M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles were destroyed ...
This is also the reason why Germany has been reluctant to provide Leopard 2 to Ukraine before, after all, the Germans are also very clear that with the situation in Ukraine, sending any tank is a head. When the Leopard 2 did not perform as well as the T-72 and T-90 in the war, and the price of the Leopard 2 was far more expensive than the T-90, the sales of the Leopard 2 would be greatly affected. But Germany still did not resist the pressure of the United States and supplied Ukraine with the Leopard 2. The word of mouth of the product has been smashed ...