Can T-72 outgun Leopard 1 Tank?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лют 2023
- Can T-72 outgun Leopard 1 tank?
► Subscribe to Grid 88: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Can T-72 outgun Leopard 1 tank?
The T-72 and Leopard 1 tanks are engineering marvels armed with brute force, possessing their own set of lethal abilities and potential flaws. These war machines have made their mark in combat history as two of the most formidable tanks to ever roll into battle. While the T-72 is favored for its agility and firepower, the Leopard 1 is renowned for its gun's accuracy and performance in tough environments. In this episode, we will compare the latest T-72B3M variant against the Leopard 1A5 and determine: can Russia’s T-72 outgun the Germany’s Leopard 1 tank? So, buckle up and get ready to experience the unrelenting firepower of these battlefield legends. First introduced in early 80s, this Soviet-era tank quickly became a workhorse of the Russian and several other armed forces worldwide. Over the years, 25,000 units of different variants have been produced. The latest variant of the tank T-72B3M is approximately 31ft in length, 12ft in width, and 7ft in height. On the other hand, the Leopard 1 was first introduced in 1965 and was quickly recognized for its sensors, accurate gun, and crew protection capabilities. Over 4,700 units have been built for German and multiple NATO forces. Throughout its history, the Leopard 1 has undergone several upgrades and modifications, incorporating the latest technology and weaponry. The widely used latest variant of the tank is the Leopard 1A5, which is approximately 31ft long, 11ft wide, and 7.8ft tall. The T-72 tank is powered by a V-12 diesel engine, which delivers a power output of 1,130hp. With a top speed of 47mph, this tank can quickly close the gap on enemy targets, delivering devastating firepower. The tank has an operational range of around 300mi, which allows it to cover significant distances without needing to refuel. With a weight of around 49tons, the T-72 has a power-to-weight ratio of around 23 hp/ton, providing it with a high level of responsiveness. In terms of mobility, the Leopard 1 is known for its excellent cross-country performance and longer range, making it well-suited for a variety of missions and environments. The tank is powered by a 10-cylinder multi-fuel engine, which delivers up to 830hp. This allows the tank to reach speeds of up to 40mph to cover a distance of around 373mi before refueling. With a hefty weight of 47tons, the Leopard 1 has a power-to-weight ratio of about 18 hp/ton. The T-72 tank packs a powerful punch, with a variety of weapons at its disposal to take on any target. The primary weapon of the T-72 is its 125mm smoothbore gun, which provides high levels of firepower. The T-72 is also armed with a 7.62mm machine gun to take on infantry and lighter armored targets. While a 12.7mm machine gun is perfect to engage aerial threats. On the other side, the German tank is armed with a 105mm rifled gun that packs a killer punch. The Leopard 1 is also armed with two 7.62mm machine guns, one of which is mounted beside the primary cannon for shooting in a similar direction, and another machine gun is placed on the roof for anti-aircraft defense. For detailed conclusion watch the complete video.
FOLLOW us on Social Media:
► Facebook: thegrid88
► Twitter: grid_88
► Become a Patreon: www.patreon.com/grid88
Playlists
► Military, Army, Navy & Air force
• Military
►Tanks
• Military Tanks
►US Army
• Playlist
► SUBSCRIBE so you never miss another video: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Credits
1)Bundeswehr
2)Exercitooficial
3)Минобороны России
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
All content on Grid 88 is presented for only educational purposes. The appearance of Bundeswehr, Exercitooficial and Минобороны России don’t imply or constitute the respective entities or this channel’s endorsement.
#T72 #Leopard1 #Tank - Розваги
I love how this guy is the only non political military content maker
Thank you for the recognition.
I believe that the tank that fires and hit the enemy first, most likely will win. T-72 has the weakness of auto loader, which is known for ripping of hands. Leopard 1 is a good tank, but not designed to fight against t-72.
@@hyp77 It is Made for early versions of t72.
Because we give a damn to politics, we only appreciate these engineering marvels by whichever country. This is our motto.
@@hyp77 The A5 upgrade was introduced in the mid 1980s. The roll-out ended during the early 1990s, until then 1200 Leopard 1 tanks were upgraded to version A5. That update contained increased armour, more modern optics including thermal imaging, ballistics computer (same as in the Leopard 2 of that era), including the well known gun stabilization from the Leopard 2, laser distance measuring. The last Leopard 1 in service in the German army were phased out in 2003. So actually that version is designed to fight T-72.
But one thing was not mentioned in this video: The better agility of the Leopard. The T-72 can only drive 4 kph in reverse. The Leopard tanks can drive in reverse almost as fast as forward. So they have a higher agility due to this. The T-72 usually turns the vehicle around instead of driving in reverse, because driving reverse only at that low speed makes you a nice target.
What has been forgotten in this video is the reverse speed. The leopard has 2 gears with a maximum speed of 24Kmh in reverse. The T72 has only 1 gear and has a speed of 4Kmh in reverse. In battle the reverse speed is as much as important as the forward speed !
true story
Any motion forward actually starts by reversing
Not one step backwards, comrade.
The T-72 has a smaller transmission, which limits the reverse gears.
French company designed a better transmittion for T-72 and T-90 which allows it to increase its reverse speed up to 33km/h. They are selling it with Scania engine as a powerpack, which allows to replace the engine and transmission of T-72 in under an hour. Can anybody remind me how long does it take to replace engine in T-72?
Most of T72 do NOT have 1.130 HP engines - but only 780 HP. 1.130HP engines have only T-72 B3/B3M versions.
Not true. T-72 original has 780hp engine. Then various upgrades have various engines. It is now far more likely for random T-72 engine to be more than 780 than actual 780.
the tank in this video is the B3 tho, your comment is useless
The Leopard 1 carries more ammo than its younger sibling, and can be very useful as a HE support tank to the Leopard 2, and together with the Gepards and Marders can take on lighter vehicles, while the Leopard 2 take out the MBTs. These 4 together in good numbers will be a deadly quartet.
exactly !!!!!!!!!!!
Meager few Leopards win with Russia. A joke.
Kinda reminds me of the cooperation between the panzer 3 panzer 4 and stugs of the Wehrmacht and it worked well for them
It's funny to read how the Nazis are trying to take revenge for a lost war. What, do you think that you will abolish Human Rights and this will remain unanswered?
I'm wondering in the Ukrainian's will use the Leopard's, Bradley's and Gephards the same way?
Ive seen plenty enough tank Biathlon videos to make up my mind.
And a bit more than 15 years as a LEOPARD1A5 tanker to think twice.
The accuracy, the way to operate it, the selections of munition etc.
Use her correct, and you will be on top.
You forgot to mention gun depression and reverse speed differences.
Yes, the Leopard 1A5 can get out of trouble much faster than any USSR-style tanks, and just look at the video. The T72B3 guns are jumping around when ever the tank moves even slowly off-road, while the 1A5 in most cases is completely stable even at high speed off-road, and only jumps under extreme circumstances.
@@mwtrolle Still, performance wise there is no comparison, T-72BM3 gun is wastly more accurate than old L7 on Leopard 1 A5. Plus T-72BM3 is virtually invulnerable to fire from L7 from the frontal arc, while 125mm smoothbore will fly modern ammo through at least 2 Leopards front to back. Sensors same thing. This is like comparing T-55 to M1A1.
Whats gun Depression ?
@@rafomic4210 Gun depression refers to the maximum angle that a tank's gun barrel can be depressed below the horizontal plane. It determines the extent to which a tank's main gun can be lowered to engage targets positioned at lower elevations or to take advantage of terrain features for cover
A tank is only as good as the crew that's in it.
Thats why the Poorly trained Ukrainians will have no chance.The Germans had to look for retired vets to train them on these. So the hastily trained threw translators . Ill remind you none of the trainers have any combat experience or anything that even has to do with what is happening on this modern battlefield.Meanwhile Russians have experienced tank crews and trainers and they get trained in their language and have full time to have been trained properly.On equipment that is battle proven , the leopard 1 doesn't. Show far the leopard 2 has done terrible in the hands of the AFU
The israeli`s used a lot of centurion tanks in 1973 on the Golan. They were armed with the same 105 L70 rifled cannon. And history shows clearly , they hammered T54 `s, 55`s and 62`s as well as T72`s later in Lebannon. Yes the T72`s have been upgraded, but so has the 105 L70 , in particular it`s ammunition.
History also shows Iraqis lost 60 M1A1 tanks to ISIS pickups. Clearly Abrams sucks.
I don't blame those tanks, i blame those Middle Eastern sucks at fighting.
No. Tsahal suffered huge casualties in terms of armour during the Kippour war. The Israelian army won the war mainly thanks to his airforce which was able to regain control over the sky.
Most of the Arab losses were due to airstrike and because due to their early success on the ground their tanks brigades began to advance with no more anti aircraft cover.
Not only did Tsahal lost many tanks but the survavibility of the tank crew was very low, nearly no crew members survived the destruction of their tanks.
It's Kippur war who decided Israel to create their own tanks with an emphasis on crew survavibility, the Merkava.
Tanks against tanks T62 was on pair or outmatched anything the Israeli had.
You have to wait for the early 80’s with the Leopard 2, the M1 abrams and Challenger 1 to have western tanks able to outmatch the T64 and T72 series who a had composite armour, when the previous western tank generation was made of steel.
@@BFOP15 Just to be fair, T-62 is also all steel. And T-64A is the worlds first composite armor tank.
You looking at Arab losses from Egypt side - where they out run their anti air umbrella (and later stopped). Syria took massive losses from actual tank combat due to simple stupidity / luck of training.
Yes, T-62 was a good tank, could match or surpass anything Israel had.
Also one has to highlight apparent luck of Arab coordination of the war effort.
@@tomk3732 Didn’t say the contrary.
Of course T62 was Steel armoured, but I made a wider comparison, fact is soviet armour was globaly superior to What western had for two decades from the 60’s to the early 80’s.
And the leo1 this video deals with belong to this western generation of inferior design, he is as old as the T64.
In 1991 the amx30 B2 was considered widely inferior to the T72 the Iraki had, nonetheless amx30B2 has a better armour(Thicker and more sloped) than Leo1a5 and a vastly superior firepower thanks to his OFL 105 F1 APFSDS round, maybe the best antitank round in his caliber for a rifled bore and its 20mm coaxial gun. (A unique feature)
Comparing a Leo1a5 to a T72B3 is quite...a joke.
What people seem to be missing is that the Leo 1 is gun platform that can be used to destroy any number of military vehicles - including other tanks. Keep in mind that Russia is fielding ever greater numbers of T62 units. It doesn’t matter whether the the Leo 1 is inferior to the T72 because Ukraine needs armored vehicles of any kind. They are mounting 50 cal machine guns on Toyotas which are also no match for a T72. Nevertheless - the weaponized toyota has utility.
But it's not, if used right the 1A5 is better then the T-72B3, and even more so against older or not fully upgraded T-72's. If Ukraine understands how to use them to their advantages, the 1A5 will outclass T-72B3 by miles. It will be better then at least 90% of Russias tanks, and against other smaller targets 120-125mm guns is simply over kill anyway. The 105mm gun with modern ammunition can penetrate almost any thing it can face.
It shoots faster then the 120mm NATO tank guns, is more precise and the smaller ammunition results in it being able to bring manny more rounds.
3 rounds within a 10second window- knocking on your amour, i bet any T-xx will think twice on that experience
@@mwtrolle LOL!
It's funny to read how the Nazis are trying to take revenge for a lost war. What, do you think that you will abolish Human Rights and this will remain unanswered?
you are mistaking it for a t-55
0:35 look at the 1A5's gun stabilization at that clip! :)
compare it to the T-72 clops where it moves over dodgy terrain! :P
For instance at 0:47
3:46 look at the gun even at almost level ground, it won't hit anything at any distance at all if moving. :P
I think the real winner here is the DRONES😂
You forgot the T-72s biggest weakness, its poor reverse speed
Sometimes in just comes down to who can take the first shot.
and that always would be the T72, simply because it can already fire at 4.5 kms
You mean the 1st hit dont you that is where Leo 1 probably has the advantage better optics and sights plus stabilization
...and other times what matters is who can get to the right position fastest or who can get out of a b bad position faster. 1A5 win's!
@@scuba36fun Maybe during the day, in clear weather, in completely flat terrain with no obstacles.
Even in the east of Ukraine where the terrain is more favorable for 125mm USSR-style tanks, you can mostly negate areas where the 4,5 Km range comes into play.
They need to find places where they can use the 1A5's advantage when flanking, or where the line of sight is less than 2 Km, as then the 1A5 can penetrate most maybe all Russian tanks with the newer AT rounds even from the front.
Anyway, if used as a sniper as we have seen Ukraine do a lot from bushes or forests while camouflaged the 1A5 will have the advantage against even the best Russian tanks. It just has to wait for the Russian tank to turn the side or rear to it before firing. Its subline muzzle velocity, accuracy, and targeting systems will make a kill at the first shot extremely likely, and from what we have seen it's unlikely the Russians will observe the direction of the threat and turn the front to it even after 2 or 3 shots. If the Russian tank should survive, or if there is more than one, and they should identify the 1A5's position. The 1A5 can get out of there fast as hell because of its super-fast reverse gear.
well, you forgot some things. For Example the reverse Speeds, Stabilazations, the age of the compared Tanks and the reliability
CORRECTION
Leo 1 doesn't have composite armor as you said, only steel plates and not very thick ones. And that's it. It can withstand autocannon fire and not much more.
Its 105mm gun will not punch through the front of later variants of T-72 frontally, especially if it is equipped with ERA. And in order to use its main gun to support infantry, Leo 1 must get dangerously close to the enemy, exposing him to fire from any weapon. Add weak armor on top of it all and you have a recipe for disaster, as we saw AMX-10 with similar armor getting slaughtered.
However, main tank killers have proven to be ATGMs, mines, drones, helicopters, artillery... Pretty much as always; the least number of destroyed tanks were taken out by other tanks. And with the footage of Leo 2 being torn to pieces, it doesn't look good for its older brother...
My all time favorite tank. 🇨🇦 Army Veteran
Wouldn't it be great if we could all pitch in, and get those mothballed leopard 1's in Europe up n running in top condition Sir? I think that'd be just tops!
The T-72's Armour really is a good egg. CRATE
Nice vid.
I noticed you did not mention the big advantage of the T72.
He has a big advantage,the very reliable and combat proven turret tossing system.
Sorry, I could not resist.
Посмотрите на фото турецких леопардов в Сирии в 2018 году. Их башни улетают ещё лучше, чем на Т-72!
It's funny that under equal conditions it turns out that the T-72 is much more stable in combat. Fools do not try to understand the details, so they look at total destruction. Only Western tanks are much more vulnerable.
@@user-ju7cf9iu8zlol
leo1 does too. no save armor storage in Leo1. the rounds are all scatttered in the fighting compartment
Da Comrade! Russian has always think 20 years in the future when designing things.
Leo 1 is a first shot first kill device. There is no armor worth mentioning but that old rifled gun is extremely accurate. Hit and run.
T72 is a take beating until you finally hit the target sort of tank, designed to be used in mass.
Considering how Ukraine 's troops fight, Leo 1 might be something usable for them. It beets throwing rocks for sure.
well, if they mount their Nizh ERA, it might get quite resilient.. Nizh ERA can actually protect the tank against APFSDS..
@@JaM-R2TR4Not enough to survive any APFSDS shot though. ERA works because there is still thick composite armor, a direct APFSDS hit, with the most common 3bm42 would still penetrate.
1A5 will be extremely useful for Ukraine, and if used correctly it will outclass T-72B3 by miles!
@@mwtrolle How? The T-72b3 is better in nearly every metric. Better FCS, better gun, better optics, and far better armor. But it does lag behind when it comes to speed.
@@voidtempering8700 It's not really better in every way.
Armor, yes the T-72B3 has got better armor, but if using the more modern 105mm AT ammunition it will still penetrate the T-72B3 from the front with no problem from 2000m and probably longer. From the sides and rear it can penetrate at any distance.
The 1A5's 105mm have got a much higher muzzle velocity, making it much easier to hit moving targets.
The 105mm is far more precise at any range than the Russian 125mm MBT guns, and even compared to the 120mm NATO MBT guns.
The 1A5's gun stabilization is around the level of the 2A4 while the gun is lighter actually maybe giving it an advantage over it. The T-72B3's is on paper comparable, but look at its driving off-road and how its gun is jumping around, it won't hit anything even at 500m distance if driving more than a few Km/h, while the 1A5's gun is completely stable even at max off-road speed unless there are huge bumps.
Then the fact that the 1A5 got a better targeting system, thermal, and all-round awareness of it's surroundings is a big advantage.
No matter who gets hit first it's most likely going to be catastrophic, or at least do enough damage that the tank that got hit is out of the fight or of limited operation capacity.
The Leopard 1A5 simply has an advantage in discovering the danger first, targeting it, and hitting it. Most likely it can even shoot 2-3 shots before the T-72B3 get off one.
Then there are the fact that Russian tanks getting hit in the engine most often start burning while the 1A5 have a fire suppression system that often can prevent that from happening.
Then when the Russian tanks get hit in the Turret they often result in a 'jack in a box' effect aka turret launch. The same can happen to the 1A5 as it do not have the blast door system of more modern western tanks, but it's less likely to happen. So even though a hit almost surely will penetrate a 1A5 it's less likely to be catastrophic.
The danish army did tests on Leopard 1A5, with running engine and fully stocked ammunition. They were surprised at how resilient it was. It received many shots before getting fully disabled.
Just to correct some of the confusion that seem to be, regarding the Danish version of the 100 Leopard 1 that are being donated to Ukraine, then Denmark purchased 110 German Leopard 1A3 and 1A4 in 1991 that then were upgraded to Leopard 1A5 DK standard, to be ready for service in 1993, and except for the turret, the changes and add-ons for the Danish version of the Leopard 1A5 were not done in Germany but upgraded to 1A5 DK by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993. So the 1A5 DK is not quite the same version but different than the German Leopards 1A5 in some aspects.
They were pretty much stripped of everything inside when upgraded and equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision. The commanders forward periscope and panoramic sight were extended and the gun received a thermal sleeve and a muzzle reference collimator at the end of the barrel.
36 of them that were participating in the UNPROFOR/SFOR operation in Bosnia were further upgraded by Falck-Schmidt to Leopard 1A5 DK-1 in 1994-95, with air-condition, new fire-suppression system, Honda generator, GPS, RAMTA mine ploughs, roof mounted "fast fittings" for close defence work and a rear mounted turret ammunition rack, among other things.
Unlike the German 1A5, the two Danish 1A5 DK versions have a welded turret, so welded plates of rolled steel, much harder than casted steel, so rolled steel is stronger than casted steel with same thickness, but more complicated to make, slower to produce and more expensive than casting.
The Leopard 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK-1 were all out-phased in 2005 and in 2010 they were handed over to German company FFG in Flensburg who keep, upgrade and sell older tanks and armored personnel carriers from both the Danish and German military, and who are responsible for their battle ready maintenance-upgrade, before they are handed over to the Ukrainians.
Is it permissible to detonate an underwater nuclear bomb in order to wash away fascist Denmark?
@@MultiNike79 .. It's a myth and Russian propaganda fairy tale that you can flood a country by the blast of underwater nukes, because the water is liquid and would simply absorb such an explosion, no matter how big a nuke that you use, most likely the submarine itself would be lost in such a blast.
@@MultiNike79 ... btw, define "fascist", because you do not seem to have a clue about what being fascist is. In fact, Denmark is the complete opposite of fascism.
@@agffans5725 Simple question. Do you understand that there is no freedom of speech and opinion in Europe? This is not the most ultimatum totalitarianism, but close to it?
Can you imagine how many war crimes Zelensky committed?
Do you understand that Hollande and Merkel themselves confessed to the preparation of the war?
These are all simple public facts, are you ready to admit them?
Crazy such old tanks are fighting in modern times.
The leopard one is to be used during night attacks to perform better than T-72.
That 105 is no joke ask the Iraqi army
Your question will soon be answered: Ukraine will receive, a minimum of 178 Leopard-1A5 with upgraded fire-control systems, from Germany/Denmark/Netherlands, of which 105 units to be delivered in 2023 and 73+ units in 2024. The total number will likely increase by another 50 Leopard-1A5 from Belgium, and 96 additional units from Germany (retired Swiss stock being negotiated) + another 10 units for spare parts. So somewhere between 227 and 324+ units of Leopard-1A5 MBT´s will join the fight! Additionally, a minimum of 134 Leopard-2 and 14 Challenger-2 will arrive in 2023. That equates to abt. 472 effective MBT´s donated to Ukraine, long before the US pledged 31 Abrams M1 will arrive. This on top of the 513 T-72´s donated by: Poland/Czech/N. Macedonia/Bulgaria/Romania/Slovakia/Morocco.
A grand total of 1.016 MBT´s so far + the estimated 308 T-72´s captured from Russia, means that Ukraine will have added a minimum of 1.324 Main Battle Tanks to their fleet, by the end of 2024. That is a significant number!
Romania never had T72's But T55's
Mobile crematoriums.
Bro did not just say the Leo 1 was known for protection
It has thin armor.
Regardless of how well armored your tank is - sending it out without proper infantry support means it will fall prey to anti-tank missiles.
During The Battle of Berlin in WWII - The Russians discovered that even their JS-II aka IS-II Heavy Tank was easy prey for The German Panzefaust (Literally Tank Fist.) Firing from rubble and windows - those using Panzerfausts were able to target 🎯 the thinner armor on top of the turret - or the rear of the tank.
Comparing The T-72 and Leopard I will come down to who gets the first shot off.
I agree
I'm even scared to face T-72 in it's tier. :3
These comparisons are always somewhat imprecise. The Leo1 was never built to go face to face with a T-72 like a duel in a western.
In principle, in the event of an attack, we had the same strategy as Ukraine. Dodge the enemy, constantly attack from ambushes, quickly evade from the enemy and destroy his supplies. The Leo1 is perfect for this. Frontally he will certainly have problems with the strong armor of the T-72, while he himself has almost none, but with BMP, BMD or BTRS he can easily cope and the Leo1 hits if he shoots. Nothing goes wrong with his fire control computer.
One trial Leopard 1 was fitted with the 120mm 44 calibre gun first used in the Leopard II.
Tanks without infantry = dead tanks! Tanks vs. AGTM = dead tank! Tanks vs. suicide drones = dead tanks! Tanks vs. artillery = dead tank! So much for the invincibility of tanks!
Most of the Leopard's targets won't be other tanks. That's good because its armor is a bit lacking. 105 HESH or even HE is great for enemy pillboxes , atgm crews, IFVs, artillery etc.
obviously yes, how is this a discussion?
the T-72 have thicker armor and more penetration, the T-72 can penetrate from 3000m while the Leopard 1 can't penetrate nearly any part of the T-72 from 700m.
Ukraine soldiers have complained the 105mm cannon shell of German Leopard 1 tank is not able to penetrate T72 tanks and so they ask South Korea to supply the most powerful South Korean 105mm shell to penetrate the 550mm defence steel of the T72.
You forgot to mention that the ukrianians complained that the leopards get stuck in the mud therefore not good for winter fighting. Maybe it's too heavy and big compared to the 72?
The short sequence of a loader stiffing the 105mm Leopard gun, around 6min, seems wrong - usually the loader is located on the left side, wrong...?
Talk about a worn out argument the leopard 1 is more than capable of dealing with a t72.the leopard 1 l7 105mm with modern depleted uranium or tungsten sabot rounds I'm quite sure the t72 is going to have problems.
This was tested in early 1990s by Germany and it was found that Leopard 1 is no longer adequate thus it was removed from service.
The T 72 throws its turrent into the air
Battlefield awareness and Crew training will be the most important in the matchup. You can be theoretical all you want about the outcome, but these are the main things. Ukraine has a massive edge in both. However, I would use the old German tank as an Infantry support in general.
I hope you understood that Ukraine has no advantage and never had? The offensive attempt showed it perfectly) Almost 100 tanks were destroyed in a week)))))
As the Counter offensive has shown.. Training a thousands of men freshly kidnapped of the streets in 40 foreign countries threw interpreters , taking 6 months minimum training and shorting it to a 4 to 6 weeks. Has ended up being a complete failure. The fact you think Ukraine has any advantage, is the reasoning that has gotten 400k Ukrainians dead or limbless.Leopard 2 tanks in the hands of Ukrainian noobs burn like matches on the stepps
Long ago before the Abrams M1 was sent to Iraq it was upgraded from the 105mm it originally had .
"Rifled gun is more accurate than smoothbore gun" is a bad take
The T72 has composite armor, not just steel plates. This highly increases the armor protection.
and the Leopard 1A5 has now got new and better ammunition with much higher penetration against composite armor then back in the days!
@@mwtrolle It's funny to read how the Nazis are trying to take revenge for a lost war. What, do you think that you will abolish Human Rights and this will remain unanswered?
The 1A5 is better than 90% of the Russian tanks at least.
It does obviously have its limits, but if Ukraine learns to use it right, it will be an absolutely crazy good asset for Ukraine.
They need to use it as a sniper as we have seen Ukraine do with its own tanks, waiting in positions while camouflaged. Waiting for the right time to strike, take a few shots, and then use its ability to move backward to get out of there. Its backward speed is many times faster than any Ukrainian or Russian tank.
They need to use it for ambushes, it is fast and light so it can get in advantageous positions super fast.
They need to use them for flanking attacks, where their speed again is an advantage as so is their low weight. They have super good gun stabilization and con hit moving targets while driving at max speed.
Or they can use them as force multipliers supporting heavier western tanks or USSR-style tanks from the back. Should they get in trouble then they can get out of there fast.
I don't get why people don't see this is a super good choice to send to Ukraine.
LOL!
a T-72 can fold a leopard 1, and the T-72 is already scrappy metal compared to the T-90, and the T-90 is nothing special by modern standards.
@@Galomortalbr You do know that T-90 is just heavily upgraded T-72, right?
T-90M is a decent tank, but it is true that it is nothing special at all. It is a stop gap measure before T-14 can come online.... and given the price of T-14 we will see T-90M and upgrades for a while still.
@@tomk3732 the T-90 has way thicker armor than the T-72, specially in the Turret and front Hull.
@@Galomortalbr Depends on version - T-90A has actually cast turret in many cases. Only later on they upgraded to wholly welded turret. T-90 cannot be much more armored than T-72 as weight is similar. Shape is similar etc. The turret concept is supposedly from T-80. Hull is identical to T-72.
Kommt drauf an wer zuerst trifft, der Leo 1 ist nicht besonders dick gepanzert und war für die Verteidigung der norddeutschen Tiefebene gedacht, der Kampf in der Ukraine erinnert mich ein bisschen an den Kampf in der Normandie Felder mit Wald Umrandung, also keine Sicht auf Kilometer weite
It'll mostly come down to how they're deployed. Leopard 1 by design sacrificed armor protection for better mobility, so it really can't take a hit, even from a lot of the older tanks russia is starting to use. It could still do a good job taking out other vehicles like bmps bmds and other soft targets. It can also still lay down good suppressive fire for infantry. Too, if it manages to get shots in the side or rear of a russian tank, it'll still most likely punch right through and toss the turret. In theory, some of the more powerful ww2 tank guns could penetrate the sides or rear of a modern mbt, because they focus the vast majority of the armor on the front of the hull and turret, leaving the sides and rear much weaker.
right,
so the leo1 function would be more an infantry fire support vehicle than a tank against a tank.
thats the same usage of the t62m on russian and lpr/dpr side, ehere some dozent were deployed.
@@tombaur8316 exactly. That's why I really don't understand why the Russians get made fun of for bringing out t62s while ukraine gets Leo 1s. Leo 1 and t62 came out in the early 60s. I'd say against a standard t62, a Leo 1 would knock it out due to a better fire control system. While nowhere near up to modern standards, the m1 upgraded t62 has a better fcs added armor, and can launch atgms. In that case, I'd say it would come down to crew competency, and whoever lands the first hit.
@@ConductorDon Actually T-62M has better fire control than Leopard 1 A5 - T-62M has just slightly worse system than M1 A2.
But there is one thing we should consider. There were almost no tank on tank battles yet. The main task of the Leopard will infantry support, and attack Russian positions. It will propably be used together with M113s that carry Javelins or something like that.
@@RandomGuy9 right, but a few tank duels are confirmed, mostly won by the russians, because of better armor protection and better tank ammo than ukros, still mostly using t64 or t72.
The question you really should be asking here is can a T72 out run a Leopard 1 cannon shell ? Well T72 tank crew , do you feel lucky punks ? 😉
Dirty Harry would ask !
t 72 have night vision too in new versions
The world is, unfortunately, a few months away from finding out the practical answer to this theoretical question.
The skills the crew?
Leo 1’s are equipped with leo 2 computers apparently I’m guessing for the later models
The Danish upgraded version of the Leopard 1, the 1A5 DK, of which 100 is being donated to Ukraine, were pretty much stripped of everything inside when upgraded by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993, and were, among other features, equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision.
T72 goes boom
Le T72 et supérieur sur de nombreux points malgré le défaut de conception pour les munitions
Leopard 1 gonna have to run over anti tank mines, out run Kamov 52, dodge artillery shells, shush kamikaze drones away before meeting a sigle T72.😂😂😂
Actually the T-72 all versions are a junk of a tank because when hit by TOW or Javelin the turret becomes airborne. That was a price to pay for a bad construction of a carousel of grenades underneath the crew and at a hit they fly to kindom come. Strange that this was not mentioned in the comparison!
With regards to the Leopard 1A5 ish, there was a test on an earlier version tested on the turret with an Armour piercing round from a Leopard 2. Sad to say the AP round made a nice hole in the turret! So not much protection there! The later 1A5 version has additional protection armour so one can count on better protection than on earlier versions!
Consequently the Leopard 1A5 is the better tank while the T-72 is junk, a rolling coffin.
Most couch commentators make the mistake of directly comparing these tanks. Understand, they will not fight one-on-one in an open field. This is not War Thunder or Battlefield. The telegram is now full of videos of how tanks are used in a real war, and here the Leopard -1 loses the T-72 almost clean. Booking a T-72 will help a lot against drones, while a Leopard can be punched with a cheap FPV drone. The same story with the ATGM, the T-72 has a chance to survive their attack, but the Leopard is no longer there. And the caliber matters, it's easier to destroy a house from a 125 mm cannon than from a 105. It's the same with the strong points.
Leopard one must defend dug-in trenches positions, and have artillery and speedy tanks in support, in order to overcome any threats posed by surprise attacks by t-72 or other means
It will probably be used together with M113s at the rear.
I think the T 72 has the problem that the munition is located at the tower.
El leopard 1 está mucho pero protegidos , imaginemos en un escenario a estos dos de frente , como terminaría ? Quien tiene más posibilidades de no ser desvaratado
Та танки не воюют друг против друга, танки это про разрушение укреп районов, про обстрел окопов, танки после поподания пзрк в основном в бывают из игры если это не Абрам Х или Пантера 51
Imposible....El Leo 1 no fué pensado para enfrentarse en un duelo frontal con tanques más grandes y mejor armados...Es un tanque liviano super rápido para usar en emboscadas, golpear con su artillería infalible y escapar. Hay que saber utilizarlo apropiadamente, de lo contrario no se tendrá éxito.
@@stargazer1744 en comparación con carros un poco modernos es una tortuga el Leopard 1, en Ucrania no se va a encontrar T72B3 , no puede traspasar la coraza frontal de un T72 base,menos los modernizados B3, su torreta todavía es de 105mm
Both are very good tanks ..wise to continue their use. Modern battlefields have so many weapons that when used and when accurate they will destroy the 5 million dollar tech wonder tanks in the same way they will kill the 1970s work horse.
Leopard is the best 💥👍
I am very curious about this since I believe the Australian government should send our stored leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine.
I would rather sit in a leo 1 then a t 72
Its not about the tank. Its about family
By armor the Leo 1 is inferior, by vision and other things superior. It is the wrong tank to compare with anyway. The benefit of the Leo 1 compared to Leo 2 is, that all the soviet bridges are made for the lighter soviet tanks. The western main battle tanks so as Leo 2, Abrams, Challenger etc are quite a bit heavier. Maybe too heavy for ukrainian infrastructure.
serious?
really a question if a 125mm can outgun a 105mm?
apart from that, the leo1 has a laughable armor protection, even the a5 versions compared to any t72 variant.
and compared to an t72b3m its obsolete, because the leo1 105mm canon can not penetrate the frontal armor of them even under 500m.
At least there is still someone speaking facts instead of keep coping on it.
obviously yes, riffled tank guns are outdated for a reason
Upgraded T-72 is one tough beast.
Tank on tank combat in Ukraine is rare so the lack of armour protection on the Leo 1 is a moot point. If attacking infantry and light vehicles, a tank is a tank with a big gun that can f*ck things up!
Leopards are disabled /burned and now 😎 Russians display those at their museum
I would choose between the two, the german made Leopard 1
LOL!
I put my money on a T72
keep on going!👍
136,880 russian soldiers have been eliminated in Ukraine, 3,267 russian tanks destroyed, 6.474 russian armored combat vehicles, 2,270 russian pieces of artillery destroyed, 463 russian Multiple launching Rocket systems (MLRS) Destroyed, 234 Air defenses destroyed, 295 Fighter jets and 286 attack helicopters destroyed.... and the list is way too long, I do not have the time to place it here, and you still think the russia can still win this "3 days" war??
I'm not convinced the T72BVM has worse thermals or fire control. Thats the most common T72 in Ukraine.
... Also Leo 1 can be fitted with modular armour supplements and use modern modified ammunition to add fire power
yes its possible.
so?
than you can boost the armor of an leo1 from totaly laughable to only laughable for todays comparisons.
and no matter what type of round you load into the 105mm leo1 canon, it still will not be able to penetrate the frontal armor of any t72b3m, t80um or t90m.
but ok, the leo1 is still better than nothing and can be usefull, not as a tank against tanks, but as mobile infatry fire support, ifv and afv hunter or as a dug in defense unit.
@@tombaur8316
add a TOW system possibly, plus better armour, and you have a tank that kicks the piss out of the T-62 and T64s which the Russians are starting to use and has the ability to knock out T72s. The Bradleys with TOW in Iraq knocked out more armour than Abrams. Regardless (as you stated), Leo 1 (2.0) would not be used as a MBT.
Always with piercing ammunition.
Is it really that difficult to include metric? It simply sucks to always pause the video, grab a calculator and transform this unintelligable gibberish into something I understand.
All our new videos include both metric and imperial systems.
How Ukrainians use this tank in battle will settle all questions and what ifs.
Defend allways attack at night!.
The problem is the most widely used advanced leopard is the Leopard 2... Which is the one being sent to Ukraine as well as probably some old 1's...
The Danish upgraded version of the Leopard 1, the 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK1, of which 100 is being donated to Ukraine, were upgraded by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993 and some even further in 1994-95, and were, among other features, equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision.
Unlike the German 1A5, the two Danish 1A5 DK versions have a welded turret, so welded plates of rolled steel, much harder than casted steel, so rolled steel is stronger than casted steel with same thickness, but more complicated to make, slower to produce and more expensive than casting.
The Leopard 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK-1 were all out-phased in 2005 and in 2010 they were handed over to German company FFG in Flensburg who keep, upgrade and sell older tanks and armored personnel carriers from both the Danish and German military, and who are responsible for their battle ready maintenance-upgrade, before they are handed over to the Ukrainians.
Leopard 1 + Lancet = T72 wins
The vast majority of the T72's has a much weaker engine than the LeoI, if anything the LeoII is (also because of the transmission and suspension) the more mobile of the two (it had the same engine throughout its production run). In combat the difference may not be significant.
The T72 does have a stronger gun.
Both tanks hitting each other will result in penetration though. Whoever hits first will have the advantage.
The difference is, as it was in WWII, command/control and air support.
With the West preventing Ukraine from acquiring modern aircraft the T72 will prevail by default. That is the true contribution of the US and Germany, a decisively weakened Ukraine while pretending to help.
Beware: By 2035 Germany‘s tanks will be electric ⚡️⚡️
Shocking news!
T72 is a newer tank, and it is much better in terms of armour and shape, and also carries bigger gun. Only thing where Leopard is better is better range and acurracy. Leopard should be compare to T64.
early t72's which are all that are left were no match for Leo 1's
@@alpearson9158 This is just propaganda, no one knows what is left and what is destroyed. We all know how American propaganda is good. And of course that latest upgraded Leopard is better then basic version of T72.
No, the Leo I still is good against all T Tanks the Russians use …
the Leopard is a Porsche and the T-72 a tractor. If you can handle the Leopard 1 still with his high mobility and in version A5 with full stabilized gun.... it is a very good support for ukraine. But... dont fight frontal and static against modern T-Tanks. If you use the advantage of Leopard 1.... the russians get kicked asses.
and then u woke up XD
Leopard it’s the king of games every time
T72 has Orcs inside 😅🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂
Under a thousand meters the 105 mm can kill a T-72 first shot
Not even point blank can penetrate, i.e. unless you hit weak zone T-72BM3 cannot be penetrated from even 50m.
Germans did tests on older T-72s in early 90s and withdrawn remaining Leo 1 from service.... b/c L7 could not do the job.
it can't from even from 700m, what are you talking about
Leopard 1 was made obsolete by T-72.... So why even compare? And this is basic T-72.
Why compare to modernized T-72? This is like comparing Fiat to Ferrari.
yes
In real life every instance of East vs West tech being used against each other on the battle field the West wins. What matters more here is if the Ukrainians can use it the way it was meant to, to be successful. So far they have seemed to be much more adaptive to new realities/tactics than Russia.
In WW2, the nazis have superior technology, they have tiger tanks, V-2 rocket, and other futuristic weapons, but they still get their asses kicked by the Soviets. It's not about having superior technology; it's about having an army that is flexible and can adapt easily despite having low tech weapons. Ukraine being so dependent on western tech, tactics, and donations, is doomed. The main mistake of ukraine is, when they spent all of their soviet tanks and aircraft in tactics formulated by woke US and NATO generals which are incompatible to the core design of the soviet tanks and aircraft itself.
And your statement "In real life every instance of East vs West tech being used against each other on the battle field the West wins" is a very stupid lie, uttered by idiotic people who probably skipped history classes in grade school.
Really, in real life Russian made way more durable!
Yeah that is proved in Vietnam war😆
@@Deathproof-Zero1 Judging by what you write here, you seem to have gotten some fundamentals of WW2 wrong.
1. The Germans had been stopped by the Red Army in front of Moscow, because the US pumped thousands of tanks, airplanes and logistics equipment into them (not even starting about insane amounts of food, winter clothing, boots, etc.), otherwise they would have been slaughtered there just as they had been slaughtered on the way to Moscow. Lend/Lease saved the Red Army and summed up to around one third of all equipment the Red Army had until the end of the war.
2. The Germans did not build high-tech tanks and still lost the war and they did not suck in logistics either. You gotta imagine how tiny Germany is, and they still made it happen to support multiple HUGE frontlines against much bigger countries with their logistics and against resistance movements in countries such as Poland, etc. Obviously at some point it broke down as they did not have a lend/lease sponsor, but anyway. Back to the tanks: The German tanks such as Panther and Tiger had been over-engineered and such prone to break down, but they had been insanely efficient in destroying Soviet armor. Lots of historians state that if the Germans would have just built a lot more Panzer 4 instead of Tiger and Panther, it would have been better, but that is wrong. There is one simple reason why Tigers and Panthers were needed: Germany is tiny and very limited in population, and industry had been bombed constantly. They had absolutely no way to out-produce Soviet and US-industry creating average tanks, THUS they needed tanks where they would need a lot less to do the same damage. Quite simple logic. And it worked. Even in battles like Kursk where the war was actually already decided and Germany fate was signed, the Germans still destroyed five times as many Russian tanks as they lost themselves, even though the Soviet army had more infantry, many many more tanks and an insane amount of artillery.
Looking at the total losses that the Soviet army had it gets very obvious they paid the highest price of all allied forces to crush Germany, but that their tactics, their material and their armor was not up to the tasks. They won through their numbers.
That does not take away anything of the ingenuity of Russian engineers which e.g. created the T-34, which was a great tank for the purpose it was built for and it did inspire the creation of the Panther tank as well.
Also I do not want to be the thief of any fame or something: It is wrong what a lot of Russians always claim that they had in fact beaten Nazi Germany alone, but it is a proven fact that the main battle units, the most experienced soldiers and units and most of the better equipment was at the Eastern front, where the Red Army managed to defeat them. However, as said, it is also part of the truth they would have not been able to stop the Germans without lend/lease.
Leopard 1A5 will esy meg a T72 crue in to astronats in 1 shut out to 4000 meters ...... Isral destryo sovet tank on thes rang wet a 105 mm gun in 1973
Israelis defeated arabs with shermans.
and centurions
T72 can 1 shot a Leo 1 no contest
The T72 has thousands of u tube videos of it getting blown to fuck the turret interior is a coffin rack of ordinance
Ukraine also have thousands of video of their tanks getting blow up by Russian tanks so much that they ran out of tanks and have to ask Nato/US to send them more.
Why you need a fast reverse where you can simply spin and drive the tank at a safer distance.
Interesting point.
Western Tanks are designed to only show their front where the armor is strongest. After shooting they go in reverse to prevent getting shot (Hit and run).
The leopoard 1 is more of a IFV with a canon mounted on it. The armor on this thing will get a crew killed if they operate it like a traditional tank. It's outclassed by the T-72.
Depends if Ukrainians can use the Leo 1 to it's best ability which could easily outclass a T 72
The Danish upgraded version of the Leopard 1, the 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK1, of which 100 is being donated to Ukraine, were pretty much stripped of everything inside when upgraded by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993 and some even further in 1994-95, and were, among other features, equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision.
Unlike the German 1A5, the two Danish 1A5 DK versions have a welded turret, so welded plates of rolled steel, much harder than casted steel, so rolled steel is stronger than casted steel with same thickness, but more complicated to make, slower to produce and more expensive than casting. The Leopard 1A5 has a maximum reverse speed of 24Kmh, while in comparison a Russian T-72 apparently only has a maximum reverse speed of 4Kmh, which I suspect is more important that the thickness of armor, just as it's Leopard 2A4 features mentioned.
The Leopard 1 would win of course, no question about it.
Leo1 wins because he shoots and hits first. He usually recognizes the T72 earlier than the other way around and hits reliably even while driving.
You!
are you a bot?
The Leapord 1 looks weird as hell
Your "Leapord" as well!
does any of this shit matter.....NO...because when you don't have any tanks....any tank is a good tank......so yes the Leopard 1 is a fine tank for Ukraine.....
t 72 blow up the leopard all day
136,880 russian soldiers have been eliminated in Ukraine, 3,267 russian tanks destroyed, 6.474 russian armored combat vehicles, 2,270 russian pieces of artillery destroyed, 463 russian Multiple launching Rocket systems (MLRS) Destroyed, 234 Air defenses destroyed, 295 Fighter jets and 286 attack helicopters destroyed.... and the list is way too long, I do not have the time to place it here, and you still think the russia can still win this "3 days" war??
Leopard I Tank is NO LONGER IN SERVICE!! Compare the T-72 russian tank against the powerful LEOPARD 2 A6 or A7 then We can talk. T-72?? Please don't make me laugh.
@@alpharedwolf yesss...where you learn that CNN......HAHA..YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT..NONSENSE..
THATS WHY ALL DAY ASK FOR WEAPON...
@@alpharedwolf AND 16-20 THOUSANDS IS THE DEAD RUSSIAN....YOU CONFUSE THE RUSSIAN CAUSALITY'S WITH THE UCKRANIA..
@@vangelisevangelou4545 You Go learn some English first, then stop using your country’s soup operas TV shows to get “information” and talking about tanks that were obsolete long time ago, Leopard 1 is NO LONGER in service, Leopard 2 A6 and A7 are in service and are a lot better than the russian sardines can T-72 tank. 😆😂🤣
I can't argue with German engineering. It truly is the best on the planet.
LOL! Buy German car then ;))))
T72 wins
Throw enough soviet junk in the pot and you have goulash