Russian special military operation in Ukraine #36

Reminds me of the "nuclear proliferation threat" of the 90´s. All western MSM talked about poor russian scientists leaving for
Iran or NK or selling them a nuclear bomb. Then Pakistan build the bomb and sourced all needed parts from western countries. Laughing

... while both Iran and North Korea came out with solutions based on the ones that the Ukraina had at it's disposal. A whole NK SLBM program is a direct evolvement of Juzhnoye work, and both Iran and NK cruise missiles are development of Ch-55 ...
But nobody would waste such a good opportunity to put some shit on Russkie anyway.

The Turks sent them in, without aps or armor packages which they had.
They where used wrong, that doesn't make them bad just the morons who sent them into agtm lines, no tank on earth would fare any different in that situation

You are taking one variable from the quotation and trying to advocate for it.
Sure that bad training of the 1994/1995 Russian conscript can be a factor for T-80 performance, but you are missing all the other variables.

First, it was a conflict carried on an equal technical level. Chechen insurgents not only had a weapon on pair with the Russian army, but what is more important, the forces constituted a waste number of soldiers who had much, much better training in the Soviet army.

Being trained in a Soviet army and Soviet times meant a very good knowledge of AT warfare. Each Soviet trooper knew how to operate a waste array of AT weapons, the weak spots of the targets, etc.

Last but not least, it was the technical features of the T-80 that made it vulnerable to urban conflict, and the well-trained and armed Chechen AT teams used that advantage - operating from the basements, they attacked the sides of the tanks where the ammo carousel was located.
That combined already TWO technical issues of T-80, one being restriction in lowering the gun, which makes it problematic to target basements, and the second, of the carousel construction, making it a target twice the size of T-72s ones.

So only a combination of all of that finally made the T-80 perform worse (still it can be disputed) than T-72, but it was effectively used in a conflict anyway.
The second Chechen campaign proved that with all bells&whistles, as only some 20 tanks were irrevocably lost.

Quite the same for Leopard 2.
It clashed for the very first time with an opponent relatively well-armed in ATGMs, and de facto all the L2s losses there were due to ATGMs.

Yet, and that is the funny part, a technological gap was still much in favor for the L2 if we combine its performance with T-80s in 1994-1996 Chechen campaign. The saturation of AT weapon was not even close to the Chechen theatre, the technological gap was bigger, and the missiles were of much lower quality.
If Leopard will face a battlefield full of Konkurs, Kornets, Stugnas, tandem warhead 7PGMs, RPG28&30&32s, it will fly high.

On of the first things you learn about operating a tank is simple "Do not drive it near buildings"

Tried to tell that to the Syrians and Israelis? They deserve a good laugh.

and the syrians stopped doing that after getting popped, so did the isrealis.

Because they realized just how dumb it was

No, they have not.
What's more, tanks were used in this role for all the wars we witnessed in the last 70+ years.
In WW2, Korea, Vietnam, 1991, 1994, 1999, 2003, 2008, 2012, 2014, and ... now.
Go&share your wisdom with them all, they will be sure impressed