>

Oh, no, but good on you remembering that story!
That was the Myasishchev M-4, a spectacular disappointment in range and payload that mostly was converted to aerial tankers. In 1955 the Soviets flew 10 of them for a crowd, then lapped around again, and again... even with 2 of them having to drop out... until the observers saw 28... and "extrapolated" from that, that the Soviets must have about 800 of them total.
The F-14 and F-15 were inspired by the appearance of the MiG-25 interceptor, with too many analysts believing it was a high-speed, highly-maneuverable air superiority fighter... when it was really a massive radar and two massive engines with a bunch of stainless steel in the shape of an airplane holding those together, that measured turning radius in miles. So the US built the two most dominant air superiority fighters ever to counter it (until the F-22 came along), with the F-15 to this day having never having been shot down in air-to-air combat with the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Qatar and Singapore. And the F-14 came out with a radar + missile system that could lock up and fire on 6 separate targets at once, from beyond where the enemy might even know the US fighter is in the air, then exit the combat area while the missiles tracked on their own, OR move in to engage with shorter-range missiles and its gun as an excellent dogfighter that could match planes that had half of its massive weight.
How many is a company? >

According to German media it's a company. 14 tanks. >

Same as Poland then. Poland will send their 30-40 year old 2A4s instead of their modernized ones tho (the german ones are 2A6s, which is the version build in the 2000s). >

The A6 have the newer L/55 gun..
Massive firepower upgrade + new optics >

"Normally, if it's old but it works wonderfully, you tend to keep the same model.
This does not include weaponry. You always want to shoot the shiny new gun when the opportunity presents itself." >

Hey, tank guys: I'm tech, but not up on military. What's the significance of the Leopards? >

If you want to get the best tanks that are available, you either buy the American M1 or the German Leopard 2. How good they are now exactly depends on the exact versions but they are generally the best of the best of a certain age bracket of tanks.
With a few nations sending stuff, Ukraine is getting 30 M1s and around 45-50 Leopard 2s or so. Some of those are the older Leopard 2A4 standard, which was up to date in the late 80s and some are the newer A6 standard from the late 90s/early 2000s.
The big thing is that heavy tanks like these are indispensable offensive weapons. If Ukraine uses them well, they have the capability to go on serious offensives and retake territory much more effectively than before. >

You add the British Challenger and the French Leclerc and you got the big four >

Leclerc is a lighter tank than the other three though is it not? Lighter armour but more mobile? >

It is marginally more mobile but just as armoured. While French doctrine indeed emphasizes speed over protection, the Leclerc is a full mbt nonetheless, unlike the AMX 10 RC >

German media outlets are reporting that the US might send Abrams aswell (along with MTBs from other nations). If so Scholz got what he wanted. >

So you're telling me that since Russia won't be holding their own tank biathlon this year that Ukraine will be holding them instead with the Challengers, Leopards, and Abrams all competing? >

Yeah will be interesting against the "t-72" team. Micheal bay will be happy. Vs. the t-90 will be a rare sight probably. >


t-90 will be a rare sight probably

Never a better opportunity for real world trials... >

The T-90 has been in service since 1992. It's just a next gen T-72, including the abysmal 4 km/h back up speed that's proven to be so completely lethal.
If the maybe 20 T-14s that exist are actually combat ready, then that'd be a neat thing to capture without a fight when it throws a track. >

In Russia tank only go Forward, no Back. >

Russia must really be holding on to order 227 >

NOT ONE STEP BACK, err TREAD
-Stalin I think >

Potato, po-vodka, same difference >

Oh tank of the lake, what is your wisdom? >

Panzer of the Lake turned out to be somewhere in Hungary iirc. Nearby at least! >

Well that about seals the deal for russia being totally fucked. Yeah it's "just" 14 tanks but that's not the big news, it's that this opens the flooddams for everyone. Just like how everyone was trepid to even send artillery at the start whilst now everyone is sending tons of it, this basically leaves very few things of the table for Ukraine.
And modern tanks vs non-modern tanks is a nightmare for the non-modern, more so than any other field of equipment bar airplanes >

Artillery quickly went from a few pieces to a goddamn competition. >

Everyone in the arms business wants to real-world test their wares. >

Except Russia for some reason. >

Russia: "We have a hypersonic cruise missile that can destroy the decadent west without warning. Don't test us. No, you can't see it. No, it didn't blow up, that's just propaganda."
The US: "Want to see our new hybrid turbojet/ramjet switch modes in a windtunnel?" EDIT: volume warning >

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

The US is the sort of entity that freaks the fuck out when their enemies MIGHT have a weapon at their disposal that can hurt them, and goes full R&D on a massively superior weapon to crush it......and then learn that the aforementioned weapon doesn't actually exist. >

Literally the F-14/F-15 development cycle, yup. >

Was that the plane that was built because the communists (Soviet or Chinese, I can't remember which) flimed a grand total of like 14 nuclear-ready planes twice (to make it look like it was 28 planes in total), and then the US responded with developing hundreds or thousands of superior planes of their own?
I mean I don't think it is, but I can't remember how exactly I learned this.