Brazilian armed forces have Leopard 1s. It's the love of our tank units.
Yet, I recall when they compared to the Venezuelan T-72s, they have lower mobility, higher maintenance costs, smaller calibre guns, and a ridiculously short reach for a tank.
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
48 points (96.2% liked)
Death to NATO
1552 readers
83 users here now
For posting news about NATO's wars in Ukraine, Serbia, Kosovo, and The Middle East, including anywhere else NATO is currently engaged in hostile actions. As well as anything that relates to it.
Rules:
-
Follow Site Rules
-
No support nor defence of Western-backed governments, NATO or Western Imperialism
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And they were certainly bought overpriced, as the Brazilian army is corrupt to the bone.
Not like Brazil will need much more than Leo 1 for their neighbours.
Venezuela? Naval+air war and maybe infantry warfare on the rainforest? Not tanks, that is for sure. Also, fighting for jungla.
F Osório
EE-T1 Osório would still be a decent tank nowadays, judging by the data. It feels like one of these T-64 and T-72 mixed with Western tanks (usually M60 and Leopard 2) derivates that Iran and China made in the 90s and 2000s
it towed the beloved abrams, that is all the info we need
No wonder the gringos did all they could to sabotage Engesa. Nowadays, it'd likely work better - if they had a partnership with another bigger power like Pakistan or India did with China and Russia, respectively. Or a government that's actually interested in self-preservation like the DPRK or Iran.
unless we had a socialist government, is very unlikely that brazil would sell top notch weaponry to drpk.
overall i agree, brazil doing defense partnership with global south would be nice
I didn't quite mean selling, but learning how to make what we need in-house without relying on others - something DPRK and Iran did. Iran specially has developed a tank named Zulfiqar that's a lot like the EE-T1.
But you're right; we'd need a socialist government for any such events to develop. And for closer ties with the rest of the South.
my bad, i read incorrectly
Sem problemas, camarada ^^
Elaborate, please? Do you mean towed as in was better? Or towed literally?
literally towed. something as a whacky race of tanks, the abrams engine caught fire and osorio towed it
Geez. Thanks for the explanation
What's that thing that happened in like, WW2 where some ancient slow moving airplanes were able to effectively fight some naval war ship because the radar guidance wasn't programmed for targets moving as slow as the planes?
Maybe that's what they're gong for?
The Sinking of the Bismark. As I understand it, them being biplanes made out of plywood helped, as the flak shells just punched through without exploding and the bullet holes were a mild inconvenience for what was already a burlap deathtrap.
You might be thinking of Royal Navy Swordfish attacking the Bismarck. While it's possible that the low speed of the swordfish were throwing off the Bismarck's firing solution, post war examination of the Bismarck's plans show that its AA guns were on non-stabalized platforms and were not centrally controlled or radar directed.
In other words, the Brits painted themselves as the plucky underdogs using their wits to turn the slow speed of their planes into an advantage but it's also very possible that the Bismarck's AA suite was just that shit and couldn't hit slow flying targets.
The biplanes also carried very heavy ordnance, meaning their payload could punch holes into the Bismarck. As others said the AA of the ship was notoriously shit, and these planes despite their speed, were still quite effective against lone ships like a battleship.
I see your point but the comparison just can't match, since leopard 1s are not fast, and modern tanks need to be since they're constantly under fire from AT weaponry, especially the introduction of drone warfare, which knocks out even the heaviest tanks. Leopards 1 are slow, weaponry is small, and their Armor is sub-optimal, they're far too expensive for their qualities too. Plus they're still heavier than Russian tanks which came out during that period. It's important to look at the strategy for these tanks, since they weren't supposed to be used in open fields like Ukraine, they were supposed be defending west Germany from an potential soviet attack. Meaning these tanks would be backed up with massive ordnance support alongside well supplied lines, that is the complete opposite of what you see in Ukraine.
The truth is there's just nothing to send, Germany's stockpiles are gone, all of western Europe are reluctant to send their best equipment. And the US doesn't want to upset the MIC conglomerates by showing their awful performance in Ukraine.
My comment was 99% meant to be a bit of dry humor.
