Stefan Kotsch

Meine Einschätzung der Unterlagen. Nur einige Gedanken. Manche Dinge wurden in Eile beurteilt? Die negative Einschätzung der Beobachtungsmöglichkeiten für das TC des T-72 kann ich nicht teilen. Die Kuppel des Kommandanten mit den Periskopen fand ich ganz gut. Auch wenn nicht optimal (zu wenige Periskope). Mit der Sichtbarkeit des TC im LEO1A5 war ich überhaupt nicht zufrieden. Die TRP Peri des TC kann nur im Stehen verwendet werden. Und nach links ist die Sicht durch die Ladeluke eingeschränkt. Es heißt, es dauert 15 bis 20 Sekunden, bis der T-72 wieder feuern kann. Weil die Sicht so lange eingeschränkt ist. Das ist mir völlig unverständlich! Es wird geschätzt, dass die schlechte Bewertung der Waffenstabilisierung ein genaues Schießen nur bis zu 1500 Meter ermöglicht. Das ist sehr übertrieben. Ja, flankierende Ziele sind in größerer Entfernung ein Problem. Die Panzerung des LEO1A5 ist deutlich viel schwächer. Eigentlich gibt es nichts, was einer Panzerkanone standhalten kann. Der Fahrer des T-72 müsste übermäßige Kraft aufwenden, um zu lenken und zu bedienen. Ich verstehe das nicht. Beim Ziehen eines Lenkhebels wird nur ein Hydraulikventil gedreht. Die Kraft wird von einer Feder erzeugt, sodass künstlich ein Widerstand erzeugt wird. Diese Feder können Sie selbst einstellen. Den Hauptkritikpunkten muss ich mich anschließen: Das FCS des T-72 ist veraltet. Nachtsicht ist eine Katastrophe. Und ein Ausweichen nach hinten kann nur mit Schneckengeschwindigkeit erfolgen. Das ist ein grundlegendes Verfahren der Bundeswehr. Schießen - schnell ausweichen - in einer anderen Position wieder auftauchen - und so weiter. Position niemals an einer Stelle halten! @edit Something else about the efective range of the tank gun. We shot while moving at 15-20 km / h (target in 11-13 o'clock) at distances between 1600 and 1800 m with a high probability of being hit. And that with HE-FRAG! How the report comes to a maximum of 1000 meters is questionable. Ok, shooting over the flank in moving is of course more difficult without 2-Axis LOS stabilization.

Document 2 Page 1 ... (He also has no device for it) ... Page 2 ... Its armor protection is only marginally better than that of the LEO 1A5 ... Page 3 ... (1) T-72 + no ability to assess battlefields - limited night vision see also center of page 5 (2) LEO 1A5 , that means gunner and TC see through a common lens (thermal imager) [TC through the GPS of the gunner during day / night] ... page 5 (2) Target assignment and target monitoring ... Page 7 [cross out "mit"] set: "for one" ... (like the T-72) + ergonomically it does not meet the requirements of the Bundeswehr (95 percentile) x) see dead room 3 a.m. to 8 a.m. page 3 number 3.a (1)

The handwritten in Document 1 Page 1 1. ... (He also has no device for it) ... Page 2 2. Its armor protection is marginally better than that of the LEO1A5 ... Page 3 5. that is crucial! Advantages of the T-72 essentially - small silhouette = little recognizability - Availability in battle = due to the high shock resistance of the optics - excellent ammunition By the way: We would get if we used the T-72 - by observing modified operational principles and - as a result, different training for troops and leaders a 2-class armored force; that cannot be wanted

That's right, the Mk4 periscope was developed by the Polish engineer Rudolf Gundlach. For lightly armored vehicles, these vision ports are certainly pretty good. The armor doesn't hold up much more than the vision ports. In battle tanks, however, there are ballistic weak points.

No. The Soviet constitution stipulated that differently. But for leftists, a constitution is not worth the paper on which it was printed.

No! No, it is not. It used to be part of the Soviet Union. But Ukraine was never part of Russia (the formerly RFSSR). You refuse to acknowledge your own history. The Kremlin writes history in new and different ways as it sees fit and depending on the politics of the day. But Ukraine was an independent country and people according to the constitution of the USSR. The Constitution! The law of all laws in a state. But, as you know, the Russian government changes the constitution as needed. Because the Kremlin is above the law.

You don't drive to your neighbors with tanks and cannons and then shoot at them. You shouldn't do that.

That is completely irrelevant. The Kremlin makes politics. You are only allowed to wave the colored pennants ..

Is that amazing? After all, the Kremlin is unwilling to grant Ukraine full political sovereignty. In addition, the Kremlin is only willing to negotiate peace with other states on one condition. And this prerequisite is: Ukraine, as part of the Russian world, is not a sovereign state. And the successes or failures of the Ukrainian government are a matter for the Ukrainians. Not the Kremlin.

Putin is probably hoping to reach an agreement JALTA V.02. A red pen on the world map - you can do what you want here and we can do what we want to these states.

30 years ago I would probably have believed that too.

Seriously. You describe Russia as an uncontrollable nuclear power. THAT is extremely dangerous on an astronomical scale. If it were really like that.

😆 Roman, this is Karl Eduard von Schnitzer. He hung us the noodles on ears in East Germany.

Roman, so please. Do you want to "hang noodles on our ears"? As they say in Russia. The Kremlin is known for its absolute claim to power. And you tell us that the Kremlin is watching as some ominous Russian citizens wage a private war in Ukraine and behind the back of the unsuspecting Kremlin. The army command was already powerless 2014 when many many soldiers were on vacation in Ukraine. They were even allowed to take their AKs and tanks with them. Impunity! In Russia, you come to the GULAG if you photograph your bare ass in front of a church. I laugh myself limp.

That is why many of Russia's neighbors want to join NATO.