The German government just announced that 20 Leopard 1A5 with fully trained crews have already been delivered to Ukraine. New crews are constantly beeing trained by Denmark (commander, gunner, loader) and Germany (driver and platoon level training).
Yep !! 🇫🇷 True they delivered ONLY 20 leo1 from germany !!! Others comes from others country they prépare 15 Leo 2 for 2045... Total from germany = 20 units ... no comment may be we should have send 15 Leclerc 😂 i wait to see the 14 super heavy Challengers detroying everything while the Leo and Abrams stay in préparation ...😮
@@IchhabezuvielUA-camgegucktO_o so why is Zelinski and ministers are crying after ? Germany promises not fullfilled at all much too SLAW see German answer when he asked for TAURUS... GB/FR don't make advertising when they we will, it's already done. Yep Germany gives more tonnage, of helmets and useless Gepards and 150000 155mm " training ammo" sure it's great....we should all have given MORE and FASTER, 1 year lost with mud and winter coming soon.
In the Ukraine war, we rarely see tank duels. So the 105 is great for clearing bunkers and trenches. I'm glad we have started production on the M10 Booker in America, because these lighter, faster and 105mm tanks still play a big roll in modern warfare.
I completely agree with you about the importance of lighter and faster tanks in contemporary battlefields, especially in possible scenarios like the Indo-Pacific and the Far East. But I would like to underline also the need, on tanks, for modern solutions against drones. M10 Booker in America or Centauro 2 in Italy, even if they are quite different, seem to be already outdated: indeed, the projects didn’t require drone countermeasures. However, the war in Ukraine tells us that the principal threat that tanks will have to face in the future are drones. How does the old Leopard 1 behave against drones? I know this is the eternal fight between the sword and the shield but I think we must reflect on this..
@@mauromancini7923 Yes, I agree. We have so many anti drone programs going right now, but I don't see any old style AAA gun concepts. We should bring back something like the M163 vads with modern sights, radar and tracking. Look how well the geapord works. We need something like that, that can travel with our armor and engage on the move. Türkiye has developed the Sahin, that uses the 40mm grenades, and it looks to be very capable. It seems we need several systems.
@@philchristmas4071 yeah, but i guess gun based aa systems vs have limited range, and drones being small will mean it could be easily missed by bullets :/
It's the opposite. The 105mm isn't particular great at clearing out bunkers or trenches, cause it don't have a proper HE frag round. It is however good for taking out armored vehicles and Soviet tanks, like T-62 and T-55(Not so much T-72 and up).
@@Orcawhale1 Considering the 105mm HE rounds the US uses are HESH (called HEP by the US) and not HE, they are very effective against fortifications. Trenches are a lot harder to deal with when tanks are doing the fighting anyways, the only real way to effectively clear a trench is with infantry. Which is why a tank not supported by infantry is usually a dead tank. The M35 gun on the M10 Booker uses the exact same ammuniton (105x617mmR) as the older M68 (used in the Patton, for example), the M10 can fire a large selection of projectiles, but of course it's likely only going to use the limited selection of American made and designed 105mm rounds.
The only thing I worry about? Crew survivability. With a thinner armor and probably higher vulnerability to artillery (which will be their biggest threat), I worry about qualified tank crews, if they end up in a deadly situation, not seeing the other side of it. The Leo 1’s speed is only going to do it some good when they’re not carefully traversing a minefield.
Those Leo 1s will not be used for attack, they are used in defence and infantery support. Any tank is endangerd by drones this days so it does not make a big difference if there is a Leopard 2, Chellenger or Leo1. Those more modern tanks have to be saved until there is a breakthrough. As you say artillery is the main problem. we should have started production on 155m in larger numbers last year. Those ammo is cheap and ukraine got modern artillerie so they were able to do much more counter battery and forcing russia to other tactics then flatten all citys until they do probing attacks if there is still some resistance. 1 cruise missle costs as much as 10000 arti rounds.
Artillery kills any tank, no matter what. A direct hit with a 155mm artillery is impossible to survive in any tank. Mines and anti tank missiles are the problem.
The good part about any maintenance: a well-trained maintenance troop can remove and install a Leo2 eninge in roughly 45 minutes, total; dito for the Leo1. The engines themselves take virtually anything that is even moderately flamable as fuel. Sure, the output is going to drop if it's not high grade diesel, but it won't kill the engine. The engines are also fairly standardized so you can put in fairly off-the-shelf replacement parts to repair them should they break down. A tank crew with even moderate mechanical skills can perform minor engine repairs themselves without calling out a maintenance vehicle. With only a hammer and an adjustable wrench you can within a mere 15 minutes or so take off the limiter on the diesel engine to force it to overclock and take the tank easily beyond the 70km/h usual top speed limit. But don't ask about comfort, or even longevity in that case. THIS definitely will kill the engine in the long run, damage treads and suspension, and the maintenance crews will chew your ear off for it. But if you really need speed you CAN get it; for a short period, just to get to safety instead of being blown out of the landscape by a more mobile, better armed enemy.
Yes, all of that is great, but the Leopard 1 is not at all suited for the modern battlefield. It has basically no armor. Any sort of old RPG will go right through it, let alone the modern AT weapons. It may be reliable, but what is that worth to the Ukrainians when it will probably get knocked out the first time it gets hit? Maybe they should just use this as mobile artillery, like what the Russians did with the T-55. At least the Russians realised the T-55 is not suitable for the frontlines.
@@MaxCroat it's not gonna be used as a frontline MBT anyway. The Ukrainians aren't stupid. That L7 has a good range, high precision and the tank is highly mobile. It's gonna be worth a lot as fire support, as an ambush vehicle and as additional fire power on the flanks of lighter battalions
@@MaxCroat most vehicle losses are inflicted by mines and/or artillery. In both cases armour doesn’t really matter. Plus, it’s still better armoured than many IFVs and those are still sent to the front line. Having a highly mobile and easily maintained gun with night vision in the field is an asset, no matter the chances in a direct duel. In fact the Leo1A5 has a fire guidance system on par with the Leo2A4 made to fight T72A/B. It’s not a slouch at all.
I think the recce Veh we’re the process of replacing would be as valuable an asset…though apparently the replacement is problematic and might be why where holding onto them. Be an real asset if the ew game cranks up (it will) and Hellen Keller’s all the commercial drones.
@@Jimmythefish577 That's funny, as a military brat living in Germany I saw Canadian Centurion Mk V tanks (a mechanized brigade of them in fact) and Canada had Leopard 1's in Southern Germany right up to the end of the cold war. The cold war may not have been a shooting war but the forces in Western Europe kept the Soviets at bay and Canadian Tanks were a big part of that. So yeah, Canadian military personnel deserve our thanks for their service.
Dammit. Canada here. We had a lot of old Leopard 1’s that were replaced with 2’s awhile back and we couldn’t give away the old 1’s when we tried to sell them off… I think our military ended up using them for target practice 😞
With a drone these would be perfect in the indirect fire role, they can also protect the newer MBT´s on their flanks, after seeing the wrecks of Leo2´s used by the Turkish Army wrongly you can see what happens when you deploy even the best tanks incorrectly with no flank protection. Obviously the weight is a huge difference, but these are similar in speed to CVR(T) but with much more firepower. Basically a very fast moving Recce MBT. Once the Ukrainians break through the minefields, they´ll be in Crimea soon. Might be a good idea to remove the trackpads, on all tanks for combat, they just tend to make the tracks slide on mud and lose grip, I used to crew on Chieftain, they tended to literally dig themselves in when stuck. They were designed to save German roads from their steel tracks, nothing else.
Trained on the Danish Leopard 1A5DK. Really fast in terrain. And our versions had quite good IR sights. Probably better than most of what the Russians have available in Ukraine today 🤷
@@HellRazr-ii9lwLoitering munitions can take out literally ANY tank in the world, if operated correctly and with some luck. It has NOTHING to do with what the poster said, but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t speak English. Educate yourself and stop trolling.
@@HellRazr-ii9lw There are no Leo 1s in Ukraine yet you poor excuse of a joke. So far there are 2 confirmed losses of 2A6s and 6 2A4s, all to mines or artillery. Compare that to the estimated 4000+ lost russian T-models. Spamming emojis does not make you appear smarter either.
There's not a single video showing a Lancet destroying a MBT. And I've seen all of them. Oh btw, why is it that almost 40% of the Lancet hits are misses or almost non-damaging to the intended target?@@HellRazr-ii9lw
About Ukrainian Leopard 1: 96 from Danmark in city Flensburg 96 from Switzerland/Italy in Ring change with Greek 30 from private owner in Belgium (now to Rheinmetall) 88 from storage of Rheinmetall = 310 Leo1 soon in Ukraine
@@limedickandrew6016 Quote: The Armed Forces of Ukraine have overcome the first layer of Russian minefields, tank traps, trenches and bunkers, - The New York Times. At the same time, according to Forbes and Oryx estimates, out of the 71 German Leopard 2 delivered, only 5 were destroyed during the entire counteroffensive. About 10 more were damaged, but such equipment can be repaired, and almost the entire crew of the destroyed vehicles was able to survive. End of quote. 70 more leopard 2 will arrive (at all 143) plus 31 Abrams in September and 150 T-72/80.
@@marcbush2796 nice quote. Want to hear what happened without goebbels redacting of westard massmedia? They just de-mined half of the village by BODIES of its own soldiers under heavy artillery fire to show something instead of a result to Biden's crones. They did it not first time to make artillery destroy their own trenches russians left as a trap (one of such trap villages left and re-captured ~7 times and buried ~1000 of ukies). And most hillarius - this village is 10 km away from first line
It makes sense. Russia has no reason to send a t90 when it can send dozens t62 in place, which will be far more effective and create more pressure. For Ukraine leo1 are their best bet for high numbers to counter Russian tank numbers.
The leopard 1 tanks are great for breakthrough mop up operations securing regions . where the heavy tanks break through and the leo 1s sweep behind and secure the region supporting river crossings , and engineering corps.
As far as I am aware the USA is developing an armored support tank, that is supposed to give heavy fire support to infantry, and that platform looks a lot like a Leo 1 specwise. The Leo 1 might not be an MBT anymore, but with huge numbers it will be great as a fire support system for all those infantry fights going on.
@@denislemieux4915 They stopped categorizing tanks into light, med, heavy after WW2. Thus, outside of games, I got no real idea how light tanks were used in WW2.
@@xeon39688 Not really at the start of the war all tanks were breakthrough assault vehicles by the end there weren't many light tanks most were converted to Hetzer TD or AA platforms
If works, can be used in battle. In a attrictional war, one needs the max number possible of military equipment. Also, the russians are using old tanks too.
I know this this seems like a minor thing but it's incredibly important - please don't say "the Ukraine", it's just Ukraine. "The Ukraine" is soviet language to refer to Ukraine as part of it's imperialistic territory, and is pretty derogatory. Ukraine is an independent country and deserves to be referred to as such.
In proper UK English, it's acceptable to say “… to go to the Ukraine…”. At no time did he say (or imply) Ukraine was a _“former “region” of the USSR.”_
added correction, might be insignificant to content but Ukrainians would highly appreciate: its Ukraine, not “The” Ukraine. The former refers to a unique sovereign state, the latter refers to it being a vassal state of the russian empire. Credit goes to Ryan McBeth for pointing this out in his education video for volunteers heading to Ukraine.
I loved the Leo 1. I spent 3ish years in the tank. The L7A3 can pen anything out there with the right ammo and it is an accurate (out to 4000m in ammo tests I ran shooting up a bunch of T-72m's from East Germany) fast loading gun. The modular engine is super fast to disconnect from the drivetrain and replace. The support vehicles based on the chassis are excellent.
What are you actully talking about? It litterally can't pen anything, except T-62's and some early T-72's. (T-72M are downgraded export variants, so you firing and shooting at them, don't mean a thing).
A base T-72 is much, much worse than an upgraded Leopard 1. Leopard 1 is massively more accurate and with much better electronics, IR etc. Both are going to be mincemeat if hit by artillery, another tank, heavy kamikaze drones etc, the 2000+ T-series tanks already destroyed in Ukraine show that.
It's not an Abrams since the Abrams has progressed quite a bit since they were siblings, but with it the cost and weight did too. It also uses a lot less fuel and uses the same maintenance supplies as many other pieces of equipment. They use standard NATO ammunition. The tanks come with a car-dealership-like network, with a warranty. You can buy more of them, which is a quality all its own because you can be more places at once, it's lighter so it can go more places, which created volume sales, which brings down the cost of components and funds development, so it has developed a synergy. In war, there are always surprises and everything is a gamble. If they go with it, It's a good bet. They are getting Abrams also, so making up teams with an Abrams and Leopards might optimize the survivability of both.
The biggest issue with the Abrams is maintenance when compared to diesel tanks like Leopard or Challenger. It's not a problem for the USA as they've built up a huge support capability for these vehicles. But it is a problem for countries like Ukraine.
@@elliott7531 I agree more or less. Nothing is more reliable than a turbine. The downsides are it requires entirely different maintenance training and caliber of personnel, different oil, more fuel under most circumstances. The upgraded Abrams with the new armor are far heavier than the originals, thus also makes it now far heavier now than the German tank. Like any engine, to be efficient, it needs high pressure. Diesel is pretty efficient all around because the pressures are always pretty high. Gasoline is most efficient at maximum torque and falls off on either side. Turbines are really only efficient under high load and it falls off rapidly when they are not, even with a heat recovery system. Now add to that the average power to move the Abrams is higher due to the additional weight, and since it can outrun just about anything, it often cannot sustain the high power settings for the efficiency. The Abrams M1A2 upgrade added an APU that can run everything while the tank is in an over-watch position. This saves a ton of fuel, noise, and optimized for minimal heat signature. It doesn't end there. A C-5 can only carry two, and a C-17 can only carry one. There will be a some bridges that an support the German tank that cannot support the Abrams. Next, when you add the cost of new armor of the new Abrams, you now can buy significantly more of the German tanks so you can be more places at once. If you can get Abrams in volume to the fight, and logistically support it, it would be a one-sided slaughter. Perhaps they can use a combination to where the Abrams can bust through, and the German tanks can run through the gap and exploit. The Abrams has a lot more going for it than simply armor and mobility. It has systems that can keep threats off the backs of other tanks. However, to make all of this work, they need aviation that can provide localized superiority.
@@elliott7531Ukraine operates some captured T-80's and some old folks still know T-80's maintenance from soviet time. I'm sure they can handle gasturbine powered tanks good enough.
The Leopards are probably simpler to maintain, that would be the trick over the Abrams. It might not protect as well as the M-1 or Challenger, but it as long as it gets steel on the enemy's forehead first it doesn't matter too much. As long as it boomstick can win against T-99's with some maneuvering, it will be fine.
@@goforbroke4428you honestly believe they will send them as is no they are adding era and this can be used in similar roles as the bmp 1 both sides use them but the leopard is way more effective just because it’s a 105 doesn’t mean it can’t obliterate t72s
@@AugustBebelX Its sad you name yourself after August Bebel. He knew exactly the difference between a defence war and one of agression. Especially after beeing prosecuted under the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm and Bismarck, its crazy to take his name and use it to support the russian regime. Shame on you! And not only that! you took the name of the founder of the german social democratic movement and watch proofen far right radical COMPACTTV on youtube. So whats up with you? Gaslighting or split personality?
The leopard 1 might not be well armored for a tank but it is still better armored than any old Russian BMP that both sides use and that is something one shouldn`t forget. It is better armored than a BMP and has a bigger cannon, therefore still better than that.
So, you know Russian have also tank, like the T90 which is far more modern than the Leopard I don't you ? Or are you saying Russian will send BMP ( and not use their tank) against the German tank because they re only Moujik and stupid people ? Maybe you didn't watch the new but Russian forces destroy Leopard II, Challenger and others far more modern tank...
@@ChristopheA-dd5we Who said here that Leos are indestructible? The point is that the crew is alive in the most of the Bradleys and Leos destroyed in Ukraine. And by the "most" I mean 80-90% ratio. T-90s, however, don't leave survivors once penetrated. And yes, ruzzians send their BMPs against tanks.
@@ChristopheA-dd5we What a nonsense comment. First of all Russia only has a couple hundred T90s and only one out of 10 tanks used in the Ukrainian war is a T90 at most, so 90% of the time you will face a T72, T80 or T62 therefore and second: The leo2s were destroyed because Ukraine drove them into a minefield, because they drove in a straight coloumn into enemy minefields without scouting nor artillery cover and after the tracks got disabled by the mines they were targeted by enemy artillery. A 155mm shell is going to destroy your T90 just as well as a Leo1, absolutely no difference there and an anti tank mine will also disable both tanks. How do you think war works? Have you even seen actual combat footage from the war? T72 tanks are the majority of tanks used by the Russians, not T90s and even T80s are rare. So please tell me the purpose of your comment, what are you trying to say with that? Because Russia has a few rare modern tanks Ukraine shouldn`t use the Leo1? Then shouldn`t Russia also stop using the T72s when Ukriane has Leo2s, Challengers and soon to be M1 Abrams tanks? That is literally your logic...
So, the Leo 1 is almost as old as the later T-55 models... However, the main difference between the Russians bringing T-55's back and the Ukrainians getting Leo 1's, is that the Leo 1's have all been upgraded (or produced) with advanced fire control systems with laser range finders and thermal optics. Since tank on tank duels in Ukraine are exceedingly rare, the fact that it has a 105 mm gun or light armour won't make much of a difference, but the fact that it can conduct night operations and has excellent first shot accuracy and long range accuracy does.
@@huntergatherer7796 Actually, most of the Leo 1's donated to Ukraine are the 1A5 model, which is fully upgrade with the EMES 18 fire control system, which includes laser range finder and thermals. Also, small arms fire is stuff like rifles and pistols... not RPG's, but I assume that's what you meant... not that they'll be knocked out by AK-74's... right? You can't honestly believe that, no matter how pro-russian you might be.
@@huntergatherer7796 Meh. It all depends on the situation. The Leo 1 has an inferior gun to the T-72+ and it has waaaaaaaaay less armour. But if you're in a Leo 1 and you're not facing an enemy tank, but an infantry platoon, that won't matter much. Because modern ATGM's will kill a T-80 just as easily as a Leo 1, so that armour won't matter. And a 105 will blast the living daylights out of infantry just as well as a 125mm gun. So, unless there happens to be a tank-on-tank incident (which have been exceedingly rare in Ukraine), it won't matter that it's inferior to the T-72 and later models (which I never claimed it wasn't). EDIT: Also, we've seen that many T-72's and T-80's fighting for Russia in Ukraine have been without Thermal optics, so they're already inferior in that part. Especially for night operations and anti-infantry operations.
Good summary, but misleading title. The Leopard 1 will never be Ukraine's primary tank, not even close. That would be the T-64, followed by the T-72. It will be a number of years still before any one model of western tank overtakes ex-Soviet models in Ukrainian service, and that will probably be something newly built.
The Leo 1 is more on the order of a medium tank on the modern battlefield. In numbers along with mechanized infantry they're still quite deadly. That L7 gun has probably destroyed more soviet era armor than. Any other gun in history.
Russa sends upgraded tank from the 60s to war - "its pure junk, it will be destroyed easilly and only shows that russia is out of equipment" Ukraine sends upgraded tank from the 60s to war - "oooh it will be a great asset for ukraine because it can be used against infantry, and add more power to the armored formations"
Ukraine is set to eventually receive a couple hundred Leopard 1a5's, but they will NEVER be Ukraine's "primary tank." Ukraine has 1,000 modernized T-72's and several hundred T-64's and T-80's that would all be ahead of them on the front lines!!! Not to mention the roughly 100 more modern Western tanks they'll have by this fall!
Granted, but in English the use of the definite article where it is not grammatically necessary (like saying "The UK") carries political connotations: it diminishes the object of the sentence to the status of a region or territory, rather than an independent, sovereign nation state with all the rights and privileges pertaining, thereto.
They could be used as mobile guns,just like T-54/55. The question is,how much Leo 1 can the west supply to Ukraine? Russia has thousands of T-54/55,and tons of the 100mm ammunitions. They are the most produced tank in the world after all. And the 100mm gun has longer range than 105mm gun too.
@@donflamingo795 greece and turkey still have them in active service, italy in deep storage and dozens are scattered around in hands of arms dealers Recently germany announced they negotiated transfer of 100 grom greece and reihmnetal bought few dozens from private owner from belgium
@@donflamingo795Hard to say but one can asume only Brasilian and Chilean ones are kept in a decent working condition. Turkey and Greece kept them stored mostly in rather poor conditions. Just read a german news articel today about problems getting the tanks battle-ready even in Germany.
May as well just make a Tracked IFV with a turret mounted closer to the back, a compartment for 6 to 8 troops, mine protection and mine clearing tools. No i am not talking about the stryker or m10 booker. Maybe something more like the Merkava? But after reading these comments... Maybe the MIC and industrialists should just go back to manufacturing older designs with updated parts.
Amazing how many armchair generals, War Thunder weekend warriors, and Ruskies in the comment section know more than the curator of the worlds largest tank museum.
@@JK-oq9cl There is nothing "subjective" about what a tank is. "an armoured vehicle with a large calibre main gun and secondary coaxial machinegun with a design focussed on front line combat primarily against other tanks"
Problem with the leopard 1 is that it is a Cold War era tank, it has thinner armor than early Cold War era soviet tanks and it is severly outgunned with just having a 105 mm gun. Another problem is logistics, because now you have to send parts for the leopard 1 along with 105 shells designed and made for the leopard 1. You cannot stick a 105 howitzer shell into the leopard's gun breach and call it a day.
Why would you want a howitzer shell in the gun breach we have tons of ammo for these things and maintenance is simple once they get these on the front a counter offensive is alot more probable
@@vengeance1614 Leopard 1's would have to face a multitude of threats too like Anti-Tank Mines, and since it has somewhat thinner armor than most MBT's now then that is a problem because they're going to be more easily destroyed. Then they have 105mm guns which would in a sense be effective but then again it's quite a small gun compared to the guns of the Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger 2, and T-72/T-80/T-90. How I would see the leopard be effective is that they engage from a further distance while being concealed.
Leo 1s might struggle against T80/90s but will still be lethal against light BMPs/BTRs etc. Plus if the Russians are now dragging out same generation T62 and possibly T55s then Leo 1s should do ok.
@@tellyboy17 Now the age of drones and indirect fires cause problems for tanks. That doesn't mean the tank is going away, it's just who can outsmart each other.
The main idea is that it can move faster than anything else and out manoeuvre the Russian army. They are going to be used mainly as FSV and reconnaissance tanks. The same thing we used them for during the 80's and 90's replacing the AMX-13.
You guys are honestly nuts to think this is somehow better then the T-64s and 72s Ukraine was using more commonly at the start. Even with the upgrades, the 1A5 still has a worse gun and armor than the tanks fielded by both sides. It’s only really good against the T-62s and BMPs in terms of AFV combat.
When Germany reunited, their army ended up with a mixed fleet of Leopard 1s and T-72s so they did some extensive comparasion tests. The conclusion was that although both had their pros and cons, overall they were roughly equal. The Germans were a bit biased towards their own Leopard but not that much. If the T-72 had been significantly better, they would have kept them and they didn't. So that's probably what we should expect, not a better tank than the T-72 but not a worse one either.
Tier X German Medium Tank in World of Tanks... Pros: >accurate gun with decent balance of rate of fire and damage per shot >fast acceleration and fast turning speeds Cons: >squishy armor
During the late 1980s, a single Leopard 1A6 prototype was tested with additional turret armor and the 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun. Unfortunately, the Leopard 1A6 project was shelved in favor of the Leopard 2. How feasible would it be to upgrade any of these old Leopard 1s with the same 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun used by both the Leopard 2 and Abrams?
it really doesnt need the 120mm. the role would be fire support of advancing infantry. 90mm HE shells are much better then 30cal - 20mm for supressing and covering. the costly upgrade to a 120mm would add more versatility (for tank against tank combat), but not improve the main fire support role by a lot. the best upgrades to make it better at main role, if easily done, would be a better targeting system, a stabilizer (some leo 1 have it, some not), battlefield integration by adding modern computers and information links and modern communication systems and a climate system for crew comfort to increase readiness
@@certaindeath7776 costly not real, as the LP1A5 turret is designed to take it and has the EMES 18 fire control system, just the cost of the new gun, put it in plug and play
@@1BigBen this is probably incorrect. the only version of the leo1 with 120mm gun is the A6 variant, with only 2 technology demonstrators ever produced (Versuchsträger 2 und Versuchsträger 5). There are not even fotos online. Renderings suggest a overhaul of the turret, inluding a strap on, to distrubute the weight of the cannon. but no sources listed. and as a german speaker, i can also search german archives, thers nothing about it on the internet, that can be asserted true.
More "ALLIGATORS" have been lost than Leopard 2 (3 total losses, 5 damaged and retrieved). Soon there will be no alligators left, while Ukraine has still over 75 Leopard 2 and thats not counting the ones still coming.
The video is part of a video of the tank museum UA-cam channel. the MBT is the Tank you have the most of. at the moment that would be collection of 400-ish "T-72", but as we stand the total number going to Ukraine is about 246 Leopard 1, Leopard 2 95, but so far 1 LP2A4 hull lost 4 damages and 9 damaged LP2A6, 31 M1A2 base model with ERA and not any depleted uranium armor components, 28 M55S and 14 Challengers MBT = Main Battle Tank
they could use a non "obsolete tank just pulled out of mothbal"l for that as well, and they would have better capabilities for everything else, as well.
Ukraine should add ERA, this would increase the protection against simply RPGs. Mines, direct Artillery-Hits and modern ATGMs destroy/disable much more modern Tanks with ease, so this veteran may be not so useless like it seems, because mobility,firing-control, gun stabilization und the gun itself are not so bad.
Most of the Leo 2 regardless of version. have been knocked out or at least significantly damaged by drones. This doesn't bode well for any western tanks that have been deployed to Ukraine. They were not designed for such attacks. Under armoured Leo's 1 will be knocked out by small arms fire..
Drones russians use are quite capable, we have seen numerous hits on Leo2 with, so to say, consequences. Lancet kamikaze drones will claim many of these tanks that's for sure. Leo 1 is an obsolete vechile which doesn't have an edge anymore. T-72, T-80 are far better, not to mention T-90MS. Not so long time ago people were waiting for Leo2 to make a critical impact, did not happen. In the case with Leo 1 it's s far less probable. People simply do not understand how both sides use armor in this confilct, tank vs tank combat is very rare as well as high speed maneovers and max range gunnery. In the most cases tanks are being used as field artillery and assault support, utilizing hit and run tactics.
Thank you for completely flushing the Russian argument that adding hundreds of T55s to the battle was a great idea. Tsar Puny will not be amused with you.
Jordan phased out of service about 400 Challenger 1s last year. UK try to get some of them back and give them to Ukraine, but I haven't heard any news about it lately.
In 2023 It’s basically like that wheeled French AMX 10. I think that this will be very useful as a fast and lightly armored mobile 105mm gun platform. By the way, it’s “Ukraine” not “the Ukraine.”
It's not like the AMX-10RC at all. For one this can actually fire on the move and has a much more powerful gun. (AMX-10's is only a medium pressure 105)
@@Retrosicotte it can only fire on the move when moving slow over even ground. it does only have a 1960´s two axis gyroscopic stabiliser and a stabilised gunners sight. its nothing like 1980´s gun stabilisers. even though the L7 is more powerful, it still lacks the firepower to frontally engage T-Series MBT´s like T-72b3
The title is misleading! Its Leopard 2. Anyway until now Tanks seem not to have been a Gamechanger. The Ukrainians are fighting it out with their Blood and Courage, clever strategies involving focused artillery, drones and infantry.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 turkey sells a heavily upgraded m60 variant with modern optics, mondern computing, a new engine, extra heavy machine gun, and whats the best feature for ukraine trench warfare: a grenade machine gun.
Sending Leo 1s after Leo 2s failed does not seem like a solution - esp after the failure of the Summer Offensive left so many Western tanks burning in the fields.
Are you sure you got the title of this video right? The discussion was primarily all about the Leopard 2 tank, but the title is about how the Leopard 1 will dominate the selection?
Well, the T-55 is from the 1960‘s the Leopard 1A5, which they consider sending to Ukraine, is from the 1980‘s… and by far more effective, man. Even against T-72‘s it poses a significant threat. Tho it‘ll probably be used for clearing trenches anyways. It‘s way more modern and at least will be provided with mostly shells not from the 50‘s… The comedic part about Russia there is how many thousands tanks they had lost up to that point and why they had to bring their T-55‘s out of storage in the first place. Ukraine didn’t really have any from the beginning
@@vnkmythe leo1 entered service in the 60s, not 80s. And it has worse armor, optics, and gun then any russian tank t72 and up while on par with the t62. Russia is not using the t55 in ANY significant number. And when they do use them it's for fortified positions or kamikaze vehicles (Also would an army running out of tanks use them as such) Btw, ukraine had at least 1500 tanks at the start of the war. So too say ukraine basically started with no tank force compared to russia is so unbelievably wrong is kinda funny
@@pierceplaysstudios245 bro, the Leopard 1A5 is from the 80’s, which I clarified well enough. That one’s on you. The basic optics of the Leopard 1A5 was worse compared to later variants of the T-72, which were produced a short while later. The Leopard 1 optics were, as you stated correctly, on par with the T-62, a tank from its on time. So who would’ve thought that, a later produced tank has this or that better part? What a coincidence. How do you know how many T-55’s Russia uses? They’ve already lied before on their deployment overall. They lie, get used to it. Looking at the state, losses and corruption in the Russian army - during and before the war - and on all those T-55’s on trains, you can’t really hold to that “argument”. I’ve not even seen Kamikaze T-55’s yet, so that’s something weird to state. So, how many of those 1.500 Tanks were operational tho? Ukraine didn’t really produce much spare parts for it and they don’t maintain themselves. Plus you’re saying 8.000-10.000 vs 1.500 (actually 858) Tanks is not a significant difference - even considering that Russia has lost more than double that amount - is kinda funny. Ngl I didn’t say “basically started with no tank force”. Considering the difference in numbers of *operational* tanks makes my statement pretty solid honestly. Edit: Your obviously quick searches number of 1.500 is also wrong btw. Better read through the first article. It was 858.
The article in front of countries is common. In French we also say "the Japan" and "the Brazil" but some countries without an article. The Ukraine was already used before Russia existed.
@@RandomGuy9 The Gambia would be correct. Only "the Gambia". Regardless of how other languages work, this is English and the term is archaic and insulting to Ukrainians.
Thats what I was telling my colleagues at work a couple months ago! It was never about a view of Lepord 2 going to Ukraine! It was a sham discussion so they would have no problem sending 100 upon 100 Leopard 1 to Ukraine!
@@rickycoverrubias6176 I am sure the Russians are trying as hard as they can to make footage of every destroyed Leopard 2 public everywhere. So if you count the existing images of destroyed tanks (very likely posted multiple times from multiple angles for propaganda purposes) then yes, you can get a pretty decent estimation of how many were taken out of combat.
They should buy Trophy defense system from Israel for tanks and mount it externally back on turret . With geometric modifications it would work even on incoming drones and not just RPGs and anti tank missiles. Mounted external cage .
@@off6848 There is even a solution for artillery barrage . Projectiles 30-40mm with axis inductive laser propelled by gas generator which contra rotates jacket of projectile that rotates opposite thanks to rifling . Laser beam is directed in radial direction by optical prism on jacket . That would intercept incoming projectiles and cut their jackets and induce combustion of explosive charge or other damage (combustion , not explosion ; Sidney Alford method of de-mining non-exploded bombs and shells) . Only problem is effective radius of laser beam . 5-10m would be great . And cost of course... Firing with such projectiles in a "window" would cut anything incoming . Artillery shells 152mm or rockets.
Leopard 1 will do just as well as sending newer, more expensive tanks. The Leopard 2s are being taken out by drones. That is probably how the Leo 1s will be destroyed as well. Very little tank on tank combat so the smaller gun is not a disadvantage.
Australia phased out its Leopard ones decades ago. Used up all the spares, and now they are static displays or in museums. Australia never went with Leopard 2 instead going for the Abrams M1A1 originally upgraded to M1A2 recently. Leopard 2 was deemed too difficult to maintain logistically as spares out of Europe a weak link and too expensive.. Only have a small number or tanks in the arsenal for training purposes.
This is not a very meaningful post in this context. And I have to doubt the validity: "Leopard 2 was deemed too difficult to maintain logistically as spares out of Europe a weak link and too expensive." - This was not a problem for the Indonesians I think the main reason is: - Australia doesnt have a tank force - just training crews - They need to ship in tanks for those crews "on demand" - The only country willing to do so were the Americans
@michaelrenper796 Australia does own the tanks, but the arrangement was that the overhaul of the turbine engine/transmission power packs was performed in the USA. So powerpacks were routinely cycled to the States for maintenance. The M1A1S were traded up or traded in for M1A2 recently. Also, the US may allow Australia to ovehaul the gas turbines and transmission power packs in Australia it was anounced some time ago. This may also be an advantage in the Southeast Asian region for the US military. Everyone gets hung up over the gas turbines in the Abram's but they work with a wider range of fuels than the Leopard 2 with its diesel power pack which can run with a number of different grades of fuel also. The critical thing with fuel for the diesel engine fuels is the flash point of the fuel, when it ignites in the compression phase of the engine cycle. Australia does not need large tank formations. The Leopard 1s were retired from service without firing one shot in anger, pretty well much like the Leopard ones in Europe.
@@michaelrenper796Yes, the Australian tanks are only in name Australian tanks. They are tanks of the US, integrated into the US logistic .... but paid by Australia .
In this stage and era, the Leopard 1 would probably be categorized as light tank, but probably too large to be light tank and too fragile to be the main battle tank against the Russian equivalent of MBT.
in a defence role its still not bad. in cold war/modern tank combat its usualy about who gets the first shot out. While we know that russian tanks have a big lack of IR sights, i think leos will perform well. At least if not commanded by a idiot.
Forgiving terrorists, neo NAZI extremists and traitors is God's business. The duty I have assigned to the Russian Army in Ukraine is to send them to him! Vladimir Putin.
The German government just announced that 20 Leopard 1A5 with fully trained crews have already been delivered to Ukraine.
New crews are constantly beeing trained by Denmark (commander, gunner, loader) and Germany (driver and platoon level training).
Yep !! 🇫🇷 True they delivered ONLY 20 leo1 from germany !!! Others comes from others country they prépare 15 Leo 2 for 2045...
Total from germany = 20 units ... no comment may be we should have send 15 Leclerc 😂 i wait to see the 14 super heavy Challengers detroying everything while the Leo and Abrams stay in préparation ...😮
@@frednoname3714Germany still sent way more to Ukraine than France
@@IchhabezuvielUA-camgegucktO_o so why is Zelinski and ministers are crying after ? Germany promises not fullfilled at all much too SLAW see German answer when he asked for TAURUS... GB/FR don't make advertising when they we will, it's already done. Yep Germany gives more tonnage, of helmets and useless Gepards and 150000 155mm " training ammo" sure it's great....we should all have given MORE and FASTER, 1 year lost with mud and winter coming soon.
@@frednoname3714 Challengers are allread destroyed a lot so not so good tank huh?!?!🤡🤡🤡
@@frednoname3714french Clown
In the Ukraine war, we rarely see tank duels. So the 105 is great for clearing bunkers and trenches. I'm glad we have started production on the M10 Booker in America, because these lighter, faster and 105mm tanks still play a big roll in modern warfare.
I completely agree with you about the importance of lighter and faster tanks in contemporary battlefields, especially in possible scenarios like the Indo-Pacific and the Far East. But I would like to underline also the need, on tanks, for modern solutions against drones. M10 Booker in America or Centauro 2 in Italy, even if they are quite different, seem to be already outdated: indeed, the projects didn’t require drone countermeasures. However, the war in Ukraine tells us that the principal threat that tanks will have to face in the future are drones. How does the old Leopard 1 behave against drones? I know this is the eternal fight between the sword and the shield but I think we must reflect on this..
@@mauromancini7923 Yes, I agree. We have so many anti drone programs going right now, but I don't see any old style AAA gun concepts. We should bring back something like the M163 vads with modern sights, radar and tracking. Look how well the geapord works. We need something like that, that can travel with our armor and engage on the move. Türkiye has developed the Sahin, that uses the 40mm grenades, and it looks to be very capable. It seems we need several systems.
@@philchristmas4071 yeah, but i guess gun based aa systems vs have limited range, and drones being small will mean it could be easily missed by bullets :/
It's the opposite.
The 105mm isn't particular great at clearing out bunkers or trenches, cause it don't have a proper HE frag round.
It is however good for taking out armored vehicles and Soviet tanks, like T-62 and T-55(Not so much T-72 and up).
@@Orcawhale1 Considering the 105mm HE rounds the US uses are HESH (called HEP by the US) and not HE, they are very effective against fortifications. Trenches are a lot harder to deal with when tanks are doing the fighting anyways, the only real way to effectively clear a trench is with infantry. Which is why a tank not supported by infantry is usually a dead tank. The M35 gun on the M10 Booker uses the exact same ammuniton (105x617mmR) as the older M68 (used in the Patton, for example), the M10 can fire a large selection of projectiles, but of course it's likely only going to use the limited selection of American made and designed 105mm rounds.
Always love to see some tank content, especially from the Tank Museum
Its stolen.
@@obsidianjane4413 Who stole what?
wot blitz
The evil clowns from th tank museum are stupid propagandists - they commit mass murder
The answer to most general questions is '42' (according to HHGTTG).
The answer to most military questions is 'logistics'.
42 is only the answer to the very specific question of life, the universe and everything, not to most general questions. Jeez.
@@jeroenarendsen exactly 🙂
The only thing I worry about? Crew survivability. With a thinner armor and probably higher vulnerability to artillery (which will be their biggest threat), I worry about qualified tank crews, if they end up in a deadly situation, not seeing the other side of it. The Leo 1’s speed is only going to do it some good when they’re not carefully traversing a minefield.
Those Leo 1s will not be used for attack, they are used in defence and infantery support. Any tank is endangerd by drones this days so it does not make a big difference if there is a Leopard 2, Chellenger or Leo1. Those more modern tanks have to be saved until there is a breakthrough. As you say artillery is the main problem. we should have started production on 155m in larger numbers last year. Those ammo is cheap and ukraine got modern artillerie so they were able to do much more counter battery and forcing russia to other tactics then flatten all citys until they do probing attacks if there is still some resistance. 1 cruise missle costs as much as 10000 arti rounds.
I'm sure they'll drill the Ukrainains with the sentences, 'keep your distance, don't go toe to toe', 'shoot and scoot'.
@@mirola73That didn’t work with Leo 2s though
Artillery kills any tank, no matter what. A direct hit with a 155mm artillery is impossible to survive in any tank. Mines and anti tank missiles are the problem.
Tanks should be remote controlled.
Trained alongside 1 Armd Regt Leopard 1s back in the 80s when l was in the Australian Army. The crews loved them.
This is 2023. They will be destroyed by drones and small arms.
During the 90ties we used the Leopard 1 as a heavy scout/reccy. A really robust vehicle you could rely on.
The good part about any maintenance: a well-trained maintenance troop can remove and install a Leo2 eninge in roughly 45 minutes, total; dito for the Leo1.
The engines themselves take virtually anything that is even moderately flamable as fuel. Sure, the output is going to drop if it's not high grade diesel, but it won't kill the engine. The engines are also fairly standardized so you can put in fairly off-the-shelf replacement parts to repair them should they break down.
A tank crew with even moderate mechanical skills can perform minor engine repairs themselves without calling out a maintenance vehicle. With only a hammer and an adjustable wrench you can within a mere 15 minutes or so take off the limiter on the diesel engine to force it to overclock and take the tank easily beyond the 70km/h usual top speed limit. But don't ask about comfort, or even longevity in that case. THIS definitely will kill the engine in the long run, damage treads and suspension, and the maintenance crews will chew your ear off for it. But if you really need speed you CAN get it; for a short period, just to get to safety instead of being blown out of the landscape by a more mobile, better armed enemy.
I've seen an engine being switched out completely in less than half an hour on a 2A5.
Yes, all of that is great, but the Leopard 1 is not at all suited for the modern battlefield. It has basically no armor. Any sort of old RPG will go right through it, let alone the modern AT weapons. It may be reliable, but what is that worth to the Ukrainians when it will probably get knocked out the first time it gets hit? Maybe they should just use this as mobile artillery, like what the Russians did with the T-55. At least the Russians realised the T-55 is not suitable for the frontlines.
@@MaxCroat it's not gonna be used as a frontline MBT anyway. The Ukrainians aren't stupid. That L7 has a good range, high precision and the tank is highly mobile. It's gonna be worth a lot as fire support, as an ambush vehicle and as additional fire power on the flanks of lighter battalions
Lancet goes brrrrr
@@MaxCroat most vehicle losses are inflicted by mines and/or artillery. In both cases armour doesn’t really matter. Plus, it’s still better armoured than many IFVs and those are still sent to the front line. Having a highly mobile and easily maintained gun with night vision in the field is an asset, no matter the chances in a direct duel. In fact the Leo1A5 has a fire guidance system on par with the Leo2A4 made to fight T72A/B. It’s not a slouch at all.
The Leopard 1 can still be a potent infantry support tank.
Was trained on these in 1990 in the cdn army as a driver. Impressive machine. The suspension is like a Cadillac.
Thank you for your service.
The Caddy is heavier though.
I think the recce Veh we’re the process of replacing would be as valuable an asset…though apparently the replacement is problematic and might be why where holding onto them. Be an real asset if the ew game cranks up (it will) and Hellen Keller’s all the commercial drones.
@@planetalkerwhat service? Canada hasn’t deployed any MBT’s since Korea, this guy most likely never left Canada.
@@Jimmythefish577 That's funny, as a military brat living in Germany I saw Canadian Centurion Mk V tanks (a mechanized brigade of them in fact) and Canada had Leopard 1's in Southern Germany right up to the end of the cold war. The cold war may not have been a shooting war but the forces in Western Europe kept the Soviets at bay and Canadian Tanks were a big part of that. So yeah, Canadian military personnel deserve our thanks for their service.
Dammit. Canada here. We had a lot of old Leopard 1’s that were replaced with 2’s awhile back and we couldn’t give away the old 1’s when we tried to sell them off… I think our military ended up using them for target practice 😞
That's what you get with diversity hire defense ministers
What a pity.
A 105mm gun on a highly mobile platform with a little bit of armor will be useful fire support for infantry units.
i swore a lot of people said almost the same thing about the Bradleys and look how that turned out
i swore a lot of people said almost the same thing about the Bradleys and look how that turned out
Turned out just fine.
42ton + the new ERA, it will be fine
@@cherrypoptart2001Nothing wrong with the way the Bradley turned out.
With a drone these would be perfect in the indirect fire role, they can also protect the newer MBT´s on their flanks, after seeing the wrecks of Leo2´s used by the Turkish Army wrongly you can see what happens when you deploy even the best tanks incorrectly with no flank protection.
Obviously the weight is a huge difference, but these are similar in speed to CVR(T) but with much more firepower.
Basically a very fast moving Recce MBT.
Once the Ukrainians break through the minefields, they´ll be in Crimea soon.
Might be a good idea to remove the trackpads, on all tanks for combat, they just tend to make the tracks slide on mud and lose grip, I used to crew on Chieftain, they tended to literally dig themselves in when stuck.
They were designed to save German roads from their steel tracks, nothing else.
Trained on the Danish Leopard 1A5DK. Really fast in terrain. And our versions had quite good IR sights. Probably better than most of what the Russians have available in Ukraine today 🤷
LMAO is that why lancet drones are taking them out? Thousand dollar drones taking million dollar tanks out... please 🤔😂😂🖐️🤣🤣🤣
@@HellRazr-ii9lwLoitering munitions can take out literally ANY tank in the world, if operated correctly and with some luck. It has NOTHING to do with what the poster said, but you wouldn’t know that because you don’t speak English.
Educate yourself and stop trolling.
@@HellRazr-ii9lw There are no Leo 1s in Ukraine yet you poor excuse of a joke. So far there are 2 confirmed losses of 2A6s and 6 2A4s, all to mines or artillery. Compare that to the estimated 4000+ lost russian T-models. Spamming emojis does not make you appear smarter either.
@@HellRazr-ii9lw Answering with tons of smilies, the hallmark of the online idiot.
There's not a single video showing a Lancet destroying a MBT. And I've seen all of them. Oh btw, why is it that almost 40% of the Lancet hits are misses or almost non-damaging to the intended target?@@HellRazr-ii9lw
Leo ones are fast beasts that run smooth in all terrain
they are turkey shoots for the russians ...
About Ukrainian Leopard 1:
96 from Danmark in city Flensburg
96 from Switzerland/Italy in Ring change with Greek
30 from private owner in Belgium (now to Rheinmetall)
88 from storage of Rheinmetall
= 310 Leo1 soon in Ukraine
Russians have just built 310 new land mines.
@@limedickandrew6016
Quote:
The Armed Forces of Ukraine have overcome the first layer of Russian minefields, tank traps, trenches and bunkers, - The New York Times.
At the same time, according to Forbes and Oryx estimates, out of the 71 German Leopard 2 delivered, only 5 were destroyed during the entire counteroffensive. About 10 more were damaged, but such equipment can be repaired, and almost the entire crew of the destroyed vehicles was able to survive.
End of quote.
70 more leopard 2 will arrive (at all 143) plus 31 Abrams in September and 150 T-72/80.
@@marcbush2796 nice quote. Want to hear what happened without goebbels redacting of westard massmedia? They just de-mined half of the village by BODIES of its own soldiers under heavy artillery fire to show something instead of a result to Biden's crones. They did it not first time to make artillery destroy their own trenches russians left as a trap (one of such trap villages left and re-captured ~7 times and buried ~1000 of ukies). And most hillarius - this village is 10 km away from first line
In your dream😅😅😅😅
I think they said that last year🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 100+
With Ukraine getting Leopard 1s and Russia rolling out T-62s, pretty soon going to have the most intense LARP of a cold war tank battle.
It makes sense. Russia has no reason to send a t90 when it can send dozens t62 in place, which will be far more effective and create more pressure. For Ukraine leo1 are their best bet for high numbers to counter Russian tank numbers.
@@justadude8716And how many have you seen the T-62 in Battles?
@@GenaMatogen I'm not gonna bother beyond pointing out the fact that the t90m is the best t72 in the world.
T-62 are not used for battle tank but as artillery support for infantry.
Nah, just improved. Moderna is the best version
Seeing vatniks fuming in the comments is so enjoyable.
Like those tanks with the tankers in the "not-too-distant" future😁?
The leopard 1 tanks are great for breakthrough mop up operations securing regions . where the heavy tanks break through and the leo 1s sweep behind and secure the region supporting river crossings , and engineering corps.
So the RC-10s was even better in this aspect.
It didn't work.
It's a good-looking, good-sounding, and effective western tank that rivals the T-72.
Hardly so, and it won't enter the battlefield without a 1.5 tonnes of Kontakt-1 slapped all over it
Leo1 rivals T-55/T-62 not T-72
Paid by Blackrock - for MASS MURDER
As far as I am aware the USA is developing an armored support tank, that is supposed to give heavy fire support to infantry, and that platform looks a lot like a Leo 1 specwise. The Leo 1 might not be an MBT anymore, but with huge numbers it will be great as a fire support system for all those infantry fights going on.
The M10 Booker. They're light tanks essentially.
@@denislemieux4915 They stopped categorizing tanks into light, med, heavy after WW2. Thus, outside of games, I got no real idea how light tanks were used in WW2.
@@theskilllessgamer5795flankers and scouts
@@xeon39688 Not really at the start of the war all tanks were breakthrough assault vehicles by the end there weren't many light tanks most were converted to Hetzer TD or AA platforms
If works, can be used in battle. In a attrictional war, one needs the max number possible of military equipment. Also, the russians are using old tanks too.
even tho its armor is rather lacking, leopard 1 is still really dangerous tank with good crew.
Complete NONSENSE - you don't know what you are talking about ...
I know this this seems like a minor thing but it's incredibly important - please don't say "the Ukraine", it's just Ukraine. "The Ukraine" is soviet language to refer to Ukraine as part of it's imperialistic territory, and is pretty derogatory. Ukraine is an independent country and deserves to be referred to as such.
fake n gay Ukraine means borderland of Russia literally so accept and move on clown
It is just "Ukraine" not "the Ukraine". Please be mindful, Ukrainians appreciate not being labeled as a former "region" of the USSR.
They ARE a former region of the UdSSR. Ukraine was never a country, is not a country - it's a 100% corrupt cleptocracy.
In proper UK English, it's acceptable to say “… to go to the Ukraine…”.
At no time did he say (or imply) Ukraine was a _“former “region” of the USSR.”_
But is was/is
To bad The Ukraine is correct because it literally means borderland of Russia lol
Rus Ukraine
added correction, might be insignificant to content but Ukrainians would highly appreciate:
its Ukraine, not “The” Ukraine. The former refers to a unique sovereign state, the latter refers to it being a vassal state of the russian empire. Credit goes to Ryan McBeth for pointing this out in his education video for volunteers heading to Ukraine.
fake n gay. Ukraine means borderland (of russia) no getting around it. Accept and move on.
I loved the Leo 1. I spent 3ish years in the tank. The L7A3 can pen anything out there with the right ammo and it is an accurate (out to 4000m in ammo tests I ran shooting up a bunch of T-72m's from East Germany) fast loading gun. The modular engine is super fast to disconnect from the drivetrain and replace. The support vehicles based on the chassis are excellent.
What are you actully talking about?
It litterally can't pen anything, except T-62's and some early T-72's.
(T-72M are downgraded export variants, so you firing and shooting at them, don't mean a thing).
the base T-72s will make mincemeat of these obsolete Leopard 1s. At this level of risk, they're worse than steel coffins
A base T-72 is much, much worse than an upgraded Leopard 1. Leopard 1 is massively more accurate and with much better electronics, IR etc.
Both are going to be mincemeat if hit by artillery, another tank, heavy kamikaze drones etc, the 2000+ T-series tanks already destroyed in Ukraine show that.
T=@@Orcawhale1 This isn't WW2 where tanks are engaged from the front. ( They weren't even engaged from the sizes that much anyway in WW2 )
@@Cyril_2009 I don't take weebs serious.
this was uploaded 7 days ago after a load of leo's was destroyed. what has this man been watching
It's not an Abrams since the Abrams has progressed quite a bit since they were siblings, but with it the cost and weight did too. It also uses a lot less fuel and uses the same maintenance supplies as many other pieces of equipment. They use standard NATO ammunition. The tanks come with a car-dealership-like network, with a warranty. You can buy more of them, which is a quality all its own because you can be more places at once, it's lighter so it can go more places, which created volume sales, which brings down the cost of components and funds development, so it has developed a synergy. In war, there are always surprises and everything is a gamble. If they go with it, It's a good bet. They are getting Abrams also, so making up teams with an Abrams and Leopards might optimize the survivability of both.
The biggest issue with the Abrams is maintenance when compared to diesel tanks like Leopard or Challenger. It's not a problem for the USA as they've built up a huge support capability for these vehicles. But it is a problem for countries like Ukraine.
@@elliott7531 I agree more or less. Nothing is more reliable than a turbine. The downsides are it requires entirely different maintenance training and caliber of personnel, different oil, more fuel under most circumstances. The upgraded Abrams with the new armor are far heavier than the originals, thus also makes it now far heavier now than the German tank. Like any engine, to be efficient, it needs high pressure. Diesel is pretty efficient all around because the pressures are always pretty high. Gasoline is most efficient at maximum torque and falls off on either side. Turbines are really only efficient under high load and it falls off rapidly when they are not, even with a heat recovery system. Now add to that the average power to move the Abrams is higher due to the additional weight, and since it can outrun just about anything, it often cannot sustain the high power settings for the efficiency. The Abrams M1A2 upgrade added an APU that can run everything while the tank is in an over-watch position. This saves a ton of fuel, noise, and optimized for minimal heat signature.
It doesn't end there. A C-5 can only carry two, and a C-17 can only carry one. There will be a some bridges that an support the German tank that cannot support the Abrams. Next, when you add the cost of new armor of the new Abrams, you now can buy significantly more of the German tanks so you can be more places at once.
If you can get Abrams in volume to the fight, and logistically support it, it would be a one-sided slaughter. Perhaps they can use a combination to where the Abrams can bust through, and the German tanks can run through the gap and exploit. The Abrams has a lot more going for it than simply armor and mobility. It has systems that can keep threats off the backs of other tanks. However, to make all of this work, they need aviation that can provide localized superiority.
@@elliott7531Ukraine operates some captured T-80's and some old folks still know T-80's maintenance from soviet time. I'm sure they can handle gasturbine powered tanks good enough.
The 1A5 is a good tank!
Not only does Ukraine provide an unique opportunity to utilize people, but also old western weaponry. This is ridiculous.
Old soviet stock and remaining Russians getting disposed to. Fair trade?
Why ? Blackrock paid a lot of Money for the land.
@@empe3332 more so old Western, Ukraine have hardly an army left last I heard.
The Leopards are probably simpler to maintain, that would be the trick over the Abrams. It might not protect as well as the M-1 or Challenger, but it as long as it gets steel on the enemy's forehead first it doesn't matter too much. As long as it boomstick can win against T-99's with some maneuvering, it will be fine.
They are going to get blasted bro
@@goforbroke4428you honestly believe they will send them as is no they are adding era and this can be used in similar roles as the bmp 1 both sides use them but the leopard is way more effective just because it’s a 105 doesn’t mean it can’t obliterate t72s
@@vengeance1614 nobody said that homie
Very rarely is there a tank on tank warfare, therefore, any tank is good because it’s primarily used against entrenched positions
@@mh-ht2fp its true though. Thats an artillery, AT missile war mainly
the crappy old Leopards are good enough for MASS MURDER - right ?
@@AugustBebelX Its sad you name yourself after August Bebel. He knew exactly the difference between a defence war and one of agression. Especially after beeing prosecuted under the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm and Bismarck, its crazy to take his name and use it to support the russian regime. Shame on you! And not only that! you took the name of the founder of the german social democratic movement and watch proofen far right radical COMPACTTV on youtube. So whats up with you? Gaslighting or split personality?
@@AugustBebelX yes they will send russians to decomposition straight away
@@AugustBebelXRussian bot
The leopard 1 might not be well armored for a tank but it is still better armored than any old Russian BMP that both sides use and that is something one shouldn`t forget. It is better armored than a BMP and has a bigger cannon, therefore still better than that.
Its a very old crappy tank. I used it OVER 40 years ago - it was old and crappy then ...
It’s better armed than any world’s IFV
So, you know Russian have also tank, like the T90 which is far more modern than the Leopard I don't you ? Or are you saying Russian will send BMP ( and not use their tank) against the German tank because they re only Moujik and stupid people ? Maybe you didn't watch the new but Russian forces destroy Leopard II, Challenger and others far more modern tank...
@@ChristopheA-dd5we Who said here that Leos are indestructible? The point is that the crew is alive in the most of the Bradleys and Leos destroyed in Ukraine. And by the "most" I mean 80-90% ratio. T-90s, however, don't leave survivors once penetrated. And yes, ruzzians send their BMPs against tanks.
@@ChristopheA-dd5we What a nonsense comment. First of all Russia only has a couple hundred T90s and only one out of 10 tanks used in the Ukrainian war is a T90 at most, so 90% of the time you will face a T72, T80 or T62 therefore and second: The leo2s were destroyed because Ukraine drove them into a minefield, because they drove in a straight coloumn into enemy minefields without scouting nor artillery cover and after the tracks got disabled by the mines they were targeted by enemy artillery. A 155mm shell is going to destroy your T90 just as well as a Leo1, absolutely no difference there and an anti tank mine will also disable both tanks. How do you think war works? Have you even seen actual combat footage from the war? T72 tanks are the majority of tanks used by the Russians, not T90s and even T80s are rare. So please tell me the purpose of your comment, what are you trying to say with that? Because Russia has a few rare modern tanks Ukraine shouldn`t use the Leo1? Then shouldn`t Russia also stop using the T72s when Ukriane has Leo2s, Challengers and soon to be M1 Abrams tanks? That is literally your logic...
Any Tank is better than No Tank 👍 🇺🇦
Leopard 1 is a death trap
@@AugustBebelX up against a squad of BMP 2's the Leopard 1 with destroy the lot ......end of 💥
@@simonwood1402 it is nothing less then MASS MURDER - and YOU are one of the MURDERERS
So, the Leo 1 is almost as old as the later T-55 models...
However, the main difference between the Russians bringing T-55's back and the Ukrainians getting Leo 1's, is that the Leo 1's have all been upgraded (or produced) with advanced fire control systems with laser range finders and thermal optics.
Since tank on tank duels in Ukraine are exceedingly rare, the fact that it has a 105 mm gun or light armour won't make much of a difference, but the fact that it can conduct night operations and has excellent first shot accuracy and long range accuracy does.
Most of the Leo 1s donated to Ukraine will be without any upgrades. So basically 1970s tech. They will be easily knocked out by small arms fire.
The Leo 1 is inferior to the T62 and especially T72, T80 and T90. Forget any major upgrades to those systems.
@@huntergatherer7796 Actually, most of the Leo 1's donated to Ukraine are the 1A5 model, which is fully upgrade with the EMES 18 fire control system, which includes laser range finder and thermals.
Also, small arms fire is stuff like rifles and pistols... not RPG's, but I assume that's what you meant... not that they'll be knocked out by AK-74's... right? You can't honestly believe that, no matter how pro-russian you might be.
@@huntergatherer7796 Meh. It all depends on the situation.
The Leo 1 has an inferior gun to the T-72+ and it has waaaaaaaaay less armour.
But if you're in a Leo 1 and you're not facing an enemy tank, but an infantry platoon, that won't matter much. Because modern ATGM's will kill a T-80 just as easily as a Leo 1, so that armour won't matter. And a 105 will blast the living daylights out of infantry just as well as a 125mm gun.
So, unless there happens to be a tank-on-tank incident (which have been exceedingly rare in Ukraine), it won't matter that it's inferior to the T-72 and later models (which I never claimed it wasn't).
EDIT: Also, we've seen that many T-72's and T-80's fighting for Russia in Ukraine have been without Thermal optics, so they're already inferior in that part. Especially for night operations and anti-infantry operations.
Good summary, but misleading title.
The Leopard 1 will never be Ukraine's primary tank, not even close. That would be the T-64, followed by the T-72. It will be a number of years still before any one model of western tank overtakes ex-Soviet models in Ukrainian service, and that will probably be something newly built.
Those are being wore out
@@tomhenry897 The Czechs are actively refirbushing them, as we speak.
In a number of years there will be no Ukraine on the map
@@tomhenry897there is still too much of them compared to number of any vehicles given to Ukraine
I'm expecting Ukraine to start either developing its own armour, or licence-build an extant design, within a few years.
The Leo 1 is more on the order of a medium tank on the modern battlefield. In numbers along with mechanized infantry they're still quite deadly. That L7 gun has probably destroyed more soviet era armor than. Any other gun in history.
Russa sends upgraded tank from the 60s to war - "its pure junk, it will be destroyed easilly and only shows that russia is out of equipment"
Ukraine sends upgraded tank from the 60s to war - "oooh it will be a great asset for ukraine because it can be used against infantry, and add more power to the armored formations"
Leo 1's gonna be penetrated by machine canon, ATGMs are gonna be a waste on them.
Fenacope overdose
Ukraine is set to eventually receive a couple hundred Leopard 1a5's, but they will NEVER be Ukraine's "primary tank."
Ukraine has 1,000 modernized T-72's and several hundred T-64's and T-80's that would all be ahead of them on the front lines!!!
Not to mention the roughly 100 more modern Western tanks they'll have by this fall!
They lost almost all of that already but keep coping
@off6848 🤣 This war has been going on for a year and a half, and you apparently STILL aren't aware that there are people who track these things!
Just "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine"😊
Its "die Ukraine" in german too.
@@distrologic2925Yes. Many countries have an article in French too like Japan and Brazil.
They hate 'the Ukraine ' i have been told. Just don't
Granted, but in English the use of the definite article where it is not grammatically necessary (like saying "The UK") carries political connotations: it diminishes the object of the sentence to the status of a region or territory, rather than an independent, sovereign nation state with all the rights and privileges pertaining, thereto.
@@lukedogwalker I think that is a subjective interpretation. I think it does refer to the region but I don't think it has a diminishing connotation
Wish Canada kept there Leopard C1A7. 🇨🇦 Veteran
They could be used as mobile guns,just like T-54/55. The question is,how much Leo 1 can the west supply to Ukraine?
Russia has thousands of T-54/55,and tons of the 100mm ammunitions. They are the most produced tank in the world after all. And the 100mm gun has longer range than 105mm gun too.
We are talking potentialy about houndreds of tanks
@@petrsukenik9266 'potentially'? How much working Leopard 1 does the world possess?
@@donflamingo795 greece and turkey still have them in active service, italy in deep storage and dozens are scattered around in hands of arms dealers
Recently germany announced they negotiated transfer of 100 grom greece and reihmnetal bought few dozens from private owner from belgium
@@petrsukenik9266 So the west is going to literally throw everything it has at Russia in this war its "not involved in"? lol
@@donflamingo795Hard to say but one can asume only Brasilian and Chilean ones are kept in a decent working condition. Turkey and Greece kept them stored mostly in rather poor conditions. Just read a german news articel today about problems getting the tanks battle-ready even in Germany.
May as well just make a Tracked IFV with a turret mounted closer to the back, a compartment for 6 to 8 troops, mine protection and mine clearing tools. No i am not talking about the stryker or m10 booker. Maybe something more like the Merkava?
But after reading these comments... Maybe the MIC and industrialists should just go back to manufacturing older designs with updated parts.
Where'd all the leo 2s go???
Really? Its April 024. So far no western tank has done well in the Ukraine.
Short answer: They lost most of their Soviet armour.
Yeah, that’s the point…
When you’re trying to move across your country, a few hundred reliable old trucks are more important than a few dozen state of the art trucks.
Amazing how many armchair generals, War Thunder weekend warriors, and Ruskies in the comment section know more than the curator of the worlds largest tank museum.
Why would size of the museum make their curator more or less competent?
Why would being the curator of the largest tank museum make them more competent than your average UA-cam commenter? Is that your question?
@@JK-oq9cl There is nothing "subjective" about what a tank is.
"an armoured vehicle with a large calibre main gun and secondary coaxial machinegun with a design focussed on front line combat primarily against other tanks"
@JK-oq9cl Is a Bradley a tank? Is a BMP a tank? How about an M109 or PzH2000? What about an armored bulldozer with a gun on it?
@JK-oq9cl Got it. So even you don’t believe your definition.
Problem with the leopard 1 is that it is a Cold War era tank, it has thinner armor than early Cold War era soviet tanks and it is severly outgunned with just having a 105 mm gun. Another problem is logistics, because now you have to send parts for the leopard 1 along with 105 shells designed and made for the leopard 1. You cannot stick a 105 howitzer shell into the leopard's gun breach and call it a day.
Why would you want a howitzer shell in the gun breach we have tons of ammo for these things and maintenance is simple once they get these on the front a counter offensive is alot more probable
@@vengeance1614 Leopard 1's would have to face a multitude of threats too like Anti-Tank Mines, and since it has somewhat thinner armor than most MBT's now then that is a problem because they're going to be more easily destroyed. Then they have 105mm guns which would in a sense be effective but then again it's quite a small gun compared to the guns of the Leopard 2, M1A2, Challenger 2, and T-72/T-80/T-90. How I would see the leopard be effective is that they engage from a further distance while being concealed.
Leo 1s might struggle against T80/90s but will still be lethal against light BMPs/BTRs etc. Plus if the Russians are now dragging out same generation T62 and possibly T55s then Leo 1s should do ok.
Tank on tank battle rarely happen anyway in Ukraine, it's all about having some support for storming trenches.
@@tellyboy17 True
@@tellyboy17
Now the age of drones and indirect fires cause problems for tanks.
That doesn't mean the tank is going away, it's just who can outsmart each other.
@@lokisg3 Yes, I would say these Leo1 really need some good anti drone cages and smoke grenades.
The main idea is that it can move faster than anything else and out manoeuvre the Russian army. They are going to be used mainly as FSV and reconnaissance tanks. The same thing we used them for during the 80's and 90's replacing the AMX-13.
278 Leo1a5s confirmed so far for Ukraine
You guys are honestly nuts to think this is somehow better then the T-64s and 72s Ukraine was using more commonly at the start.
Even with the upgrades, the 1A5 still has a worse gun and armor than the tanks fielded by both sides. It’s only really good against the T-62s and BMPs in terms of AFV combat.
When Germany reunited, their army ended up with a mixed fleet of Leopard 1s and T-72s so they did some extensive comparasion tests. The conclusion was that although both had their pros and cons, overall they were roughly equal. The Germans were a bit biased towards their own Leopard but not that much. If the T-72 had been significantly better, they would have kept them and they didn't.
So that's probably what we should expect, not a better tank than the T-72 but not a worse one either.
Tier X German Medium Tank in World of Tanks...
Pros:
>accurate gun with decent balance of rate of fire and damage per shot
>fast acceleration and fast turning speeds
Cons:
>squishy armor
8.0 battle rating warthunder
Pro: good speed and horse power has apds and heatfs
Cons: ammo is in the front and most shells will penetrate
It is nice looking tank.
and YOU are EVIL !
Panther Panzer 5 was more aesthetic
Nice report, waiting for more 👏👏👏
With respect, it is no longer "the Ukraine." It is "Ukraine."
Didn’t know Graeme Souness was such an expert on tanks 😂
During the late 1980s, a single Leopard 1A6 prototype was tested with additional turret armor and the 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun. Unfortunately, the Leopard 1A6 project was shelved in favor of the Leopard 2. How feasible would it be to upgrade any of these old Leopard 1s with the same 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun used by both the Leopard 2 and Abrams?
it really doesnt need the 120mm.
the role would be fire support of advancing infantry. 90mm HE shells are much better then 30cal - 20mm for supressing and covering. the costly upgrade to a 120mm would add more versatility (for tank against tank combat), but not improve the main fire support role by a lot.
the best upgrades to make it better at main role, if easily done, would be a better targeting system, a stabilizer (some leo 1 have it, some not), battlefield integration by adding modern computers and information links and modern communication systems and a climate system for crew comfort to increase readiness
@@certaindeath7776 costly not real,
as the LP1A5 turret is designed to take it and has the EMES 18 fire control system,
just the cost of the new gun, put it in plug and play
@@1BigBen this is probably incorrect. the only version of the leo1 with 120mm gun is the A6 variant, with only 2 technology demonstrators ever produced (Versuchsträger 2 und Versuchsträger 5).
There are not even fotos online. Renderings suggest a overhaul of the turret, inluding a strap on, to distrubute the weight of the cannon. but no sources listed. and as a german speaker, i can also search german archives, thers nothing about it on the internet, that can be asserted true.
They still upgraided some to the Leo 1A5A1 Version.
@@certaindeath7776
A, "strap on"?
Why is nobody talking about the title of the vid not fitting what is said in it.
Dudes, make haste, another wunderwaffe just dropped!
I hear they had to take theme out from the front cuz they were being crushed by the ALLIGATOR 😅
More "ALLIGATORS" have been lost than Leopard 2 (3 total losses, 5 damaged and retrieved). Soon there will be no alligators left, while Ukraine has still over 75 Leopard 2 and thats not counting the ones still coming.
From that video, I didn’t get the impression that Leopard 1, is going to become the primary tank?
The video is part of a video of the tank museum UA-cam channel. the MBT is the Tank you have the most of.
at the moment that would be collection of 400-ish "T-72", but as we stand the total number going to Ukraine is about
246 Leopard 1, Leopard 2 95, but so far 1 LP2A4 hull lost 4 damages and 9 damaged LP2A6,
31 M1A2 base model with ERA and not any depleted uranium armor components,
28 M55S and 14 Challengers
MBT = Main Battle Tank
With many won tank duels as a commander of Leopard 1 -tank in World of Tanks, I can say this is a good tank
It will be a infantry support piece and more likely for a second line of attack.
they could use a non "obsolete tank just pulled out of mothbal"l for that as well, and they would have better capabilities for everything else, as well.
They burn very well ...
"Sending a museum piece to the front line" this thing is more outdated than a T 62
Leopard 1’s are still more modern than the average Russian tank in Ukraine
no they arent lol
Oh yes they are .
@@MANNYzZThe RuSSian tanks with vodka abusers inside will still lose.
@@Pointi69You know literally nothing of tanks at then and shouldn't be even talking. Lol
@@Pointi69 even t55 will literally dominate Leo 1 and they were made around the same time
Because everybody who has it wants to get rid of it?..
and also save on recycling costs?...
Ukraine should add ERA, this would increase the protection against simply RPGs. Mines, direct Artillery-Hits and modern ATGMs destroy/disable much more modern Tanks with ease, so this veteran may be not so useless like it seems, because mobility,firing-control, gun stabilization und the gun itself are not so bad.
And I think they need to add these anti drone cages (formerly known as "cope cages" when the russkies thought they would help against Javelins ;p)
I think you are right. Useless against javelins, but maybe useful against smaller drones and their ordnance@@Damathus
they did put Explosive Reactive Armor and the EMES 18 has also gotten a new updated sensors
Ukraine already lost the war chump.
@@KededianWhy do you support Russian annexation of Ukrainian land?
Without air superiority they're just targets
exactly
Russians have complained about accurate tank fire hitting their positions at night. They think it's the Leopards
Most of the Leo 2 regardless of version. have been knocked out or at least significantly damaged by drones. This doesn't bode well for any western tanks that have been deployed to Ukraine. They were not designed for such attacks. Under armoured Leo's 1 will be knocked out by small arms fire..
So far there has been exactly one L2 deemed irreparable. Stop watching the Moscow news.
Drones russians use are quite capable, we have seen numerous hits on Leo2 with, so to say, consequences. Lancet kamikaze drones will claim many of these tanks that's for sure. Leo 1 is an obsolete vechile which doesn't have an edge anymore. T-72, T-80 are far better, not to mention T-90MS. Not so long time ago people were waiting for Leo2 to make a critical impact, did not happen. In the case with Leo 1 it's s far less probable. People simply do not understand how both sides use armor in this confilct, tank vs tank combat is very rare as well as high speed maneovers and max range gunnery. In the most cases tanks are being used as field artillery and assault support, utilizing hit and run tactics.
Thank you for completely flushing the Russian argument that adding hundreds of T55s to the battle was a great idea. Tsar Puny will not be amused with you.
Anyone anticipating particular tanks to make critical impacts are living in a fools paradise (cough Armata cough).
@@awf6554true words at that point. Combined arms really became the reality
Any tank is better than no tank but these are no more than mobile fire support.
Where are those Challenger 1's at?
Belgium
@@OneMonster No CR1s in Belgium.
Jordan for the most part, who aren't much to part with them.
Jordan phased out of service about 400 Challenger 1s last year. UK try to get some of them back and give them to Ukraine, but I haven't heard any news about it lately.
Afraid to see the battleground due to looking like a burning fool like the Abrams and leopards 🖐️😂
Great video but it's just Ukraine not "the Ukraine"
404 soon
In 2023 It’s basically like that wheeled French AMX 10. I think that this will be very useful as a fast and lightly armored mobile 105mm gun platform. By the way, it’s “Ukraine” not “the Ukraine.”
It's not like the AMX-10RC at all. For one this can actually fire on the move and has a much more powerful gun. (AMX-10's is only a medium pressure 105)
And it is better armored. But the AMX10 is quieter and faster.
@@RandomGuy9It’s only faster on paved surfaces. It can’t move in poor conditions as it’s wheeled.
So the Leopard 1 will go on display in Moscow like the Leopard 2 and the AMX-10.
@@Retrosicotte it can only fire on the move when moving slow over even ground. it does only have a 1960´s two axis gyroscopic stabiliser and a stabilised gunners sight.
its nothing like 1980´s gun stabilisers.
even though the L7 is more powerful, it still lacks the firepower to frontally engage T-Series MBT´s like T-72b3
There's also the benefit of simply getting rid of old equipment.
Ah the T62 of the West, I love it
The title is misleading! Its Leopard 2.
Anyway until now Tanks seem not to have been a Gamechanger. The Ukrainians are fighting it out with their Blood and Courage, clever strategies involving focused artillery, drones and infantry.
What about M60?
basicly none left outside the middle east and turkiye.
All scrapped in the early 2000´s
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 turkey sells a heavily upgraded m60 variant with modern optics, mondern computing, a new engine, extra heavy machine gun, and whats the best feature for ukraine trench warfare: a grenade machine gun.
@@certaindeath7776 turkiye is not selling those but usng them themselves
Good joke
@wernerruf7761 funniest of this is laughing at Russians pulling in T62 and T55 while doing the exact same thing with Leo1 and M60 lol
Couple of Lancet will be enough for any target Let alone Leopard 1. Bears are smart!!!
Don't flatter yourself. Bears are being slaughtered by the 1000s
@@robert100xx yes, Crimea by summer right?
Sending Leo 1s after Leo 2s failed does not seem like a solution - esp after the failure of the Summer Offensive left so many Western tanks burning in the fields.
Are you sure you got the title of this video right? The discussion was primarily all about the Leopard 2 tank, but the title is about how the Leopard 1 will dominate the selection?
When you are dusting off Leo1s, maybe stop laughing at russians for sending their old tanks to the front.
Old Leos better then old Russian tanks
Well, the T-55 is from the 1960‘s the Leopard 1A5, which they consider sending to Ukraine, is from the 1980‘s… and by far more effective, man. Even against T-72‘s it poses a significant threat. Tho it‘ll probably be used for clearing trenches anyways. It‘s way more modern and at least will be provided with mostly shells not from the 50‘s…
The comedic part about Russia there is how many thousands tanks they had lost up to that point and why they had to bring their T-55‘s out of storage in the first place. Ukraine didn’t really have any from the beginning
@@vnkmythe leo1 entered service in the 60s, not 80s.
And it has worse armor, optics, and gun then any russian tank t72 and up while on par with the t62.
Russia is not using the t55 in ANY significant number. And when they do use them it's for fortified positions or kamikaze vehicles
(Also would an army running out of tanks use them as such)
Btw, ukraine had at least 1500 tanks at the start of the war.
So too say ukraine basically started with no tank force compared to russia is so unbelievably wrong is kinda funny
russia is the invader. so its like some guy who thinks hes tough, picking a fight and finding out...
@@pierceplaysstudios245 bro, the Leopard 1A5 is from the 80’s, which I clarified well enough. That one’s on you.
The basic optics of the Leopard 1A5 was worse compared to later variants of the T-72, which were produced a short while later. The Leopard 1 optics were, as you stated correctly, on par with the T-62, a tank from its on time. So who would’ve thought that, a later produced tank has this or that better part? What a coincidence.
How do you know how many T-55’s Russia uses? They’ve already lied before on their deployment overall. They lie, get used to it. Looking at the state, losses and corruption in the Russian army - during and before the war - and on all those T-55’s on trains, you can’t really hold to that “argument”. I’ve not even seen Kamikaze T-55’s yet, so that’s something weird to state.
So, how many of those 1.500 Tanks were operational tho? Ukraine didn’t really produce much spare parts for it and they don’t maintain themselves. Plus you’re saying 8.000-10.000 vs 1.500 (actually 858) Tanks is not a significant difference - even considering that Russia has lost more than double that amount - is kinda funny. Ngl
I didn’t say “basically started with no tank force”. Considering the difference in numbers of *operational* tanks makes my statement pretty solid honestly.
Edit: Your obviously quick searches number of 1.500 is also wrong btw. Better read through the first article. It was 858.
Any Tank is good rather than no tank
its true, but when the the modern tanks couldnt cut it, what hope does this old jalopy have?
@@operator9858
It's the moving 105 canon right behind your troops. It's a metal fire support. Any food is better than no food.
"Ukraine", NOT "the Ukraine" (insulting Ruscian it's-ours terminology)
mindbroken
Don't be so butthurt and cry me a river
The article in front of countries is common. In French we also say "the Japan" and "the Brazil" but some countries without an article. The Ukraine was already used before Russia existed.
@@RandomGuy9 The Gambia would be correct. Only "the Gambia". Regardless of how other languages work, this is English and the term is archaic and insulting to Ukrainians.
I thought there's no articles in Russian
Awesome 👍 way to step up Germany!!! Cheers 🍻 Glory to Ukraine 👊
"I'm so unique. You won't find anyone else like me. Slava Ukraine" 😂
There is no limit for STUPIDITY - right ?
Next news "Germany to send Tiger H1/E and Tiger 2 in Ukraine and it's a GAMECHANGER."
Paper thin armour would certainly help. These leopards can be destroyed by simple 30mm BTr 82 Cannon burst.
Source?
@@s.l.9309 ansys simulations here on youtube
I swear I saw a video of a leopard driving over a burning car then catching engine fire.
Thats what I was telling my colleagues at work a couple months ago! It was never about a view of Lepord 2 going to Ukraine! It was a sham discussion so they would have no problem sending 100 upon 100 Leopard 1 to Ukraine!
Leopard 2s got destroyed. Leopards 1 are trash
@@rickycoverrubias6176from 60 only 5 destroyed with 0 personnel dead..... Ask the Russians how good the trash is.... you brother of Truth 🤡
@@rickycoverrubias6176 5 destroyed, according to Forbes. Stop spouting your nonsense.
@@maxsuicide4767 you think they actually gave out the correct number?? Bro you're easily fooled.
@@rickycoverrubias6176 I am sure the Russians are trying as hard as they can to make footage of every destroyed Leopard 2 public everywhere. So if you count the existing images of destroyed tanks (very likely posted multiple times from multiple angles for propaganda purposes) then yes, you can get a pretty decent estimation of how many were taken out of combat.
They should buy Trophy defense system from Israel for tanks and mount it externally back on turret . With geometric modifications it would work even on incoming drones and not just RPGs and anti tank missiles. Mounted external cage .
Incoming 152
@@off6848
There is even a solution for artillery barrage . Projectiles 30-40mm with axis inductive laser propelled by gas generator which contra rotates jacket of projectile that rotates opposite thanks to rifling . Laser beam is directed in radial direction by optical prism on jacket .
That would intercept incoming projectiles and cut their jackets and induce combustion of explosive charge or other damage (combustion , not explosion ; Sidney Alford method of de-mining non-exploded bombs and shells) . Only problem is effective radius of laser beam . 5-10m would be great . And cost of course...
Firing with such projectiles in a "window" would cut anything incoming . Artillery shells 152mm or rockets.
@@off6848
Contra rotating is necessary for electric induction for powering the laser.
Leopard 1 will do just as well as sending newer, more expensive tanks. The Leopard 2s are being taken out by drones. That is probably how the Leo 1s will be destroyed as well. Very little tank on tank combat so the smaller gun is not a disadvantage.
This is a progress!!!
Australia phased out its Leopard ones decades ago. Used up all the spares, and now they are static displays or in museums. Australia never went with Leopard 2 instead going for the Abrams M1A1 originally upgraded to M1A2 recently. Leopard 2 was deemed too difficult to maintain logistically as spares out of Europe a weak link and too expensive.. Only have a small number or tanks in the arsenal for training purposes.
Leo 1 is a paper tank
This is not a very meaningful post in this context. And I have to doubt the validity:
"Leopard 2 was deemed too difficult to maintain logistically as spares out of Europe a weak link and too expensive." - This was not a problem for the Indonesians
I think the main reason is:
- Australia doesnt have a tank force - just training crews
- They need to ship in tanks for those crews "on demand" - The only country willing to do so were the Americans
@michaelrenper796 Australia does own the tanks, but the arrangement was that the overhaul of the turbine engine/transmission power packs was performed in the USA. So powerpacks were routinely cycled to the States for maintenance. The M1A1S were traded up or traded in for M1A2 recently. Also, the US may allow Australia to ovehaul the gas turbines and transmission power packs in Australia it was anounced some time ago. This may also be an advantage in the Southeast Asian region for the US military. Everyone gets hung up over the gas turbines in the Abram's but they work with a wider range of fuels than the Leopard 2 with its diesel power pack which can run with a number of different grades of fuel also. The critical thing with fuel for the diesel engine fuels is the flash point of the fuel, when it ignites in the compression phase of the engine cycle. Australia does not need large tank formations. The Leopard 1s were retired from service without firing one shot in anger, pretty well much like the Leopard ones in Europe.
@@iGhostrHa, ha.... 😊
@@michaelrenper796Yes, the Australian tanks are only in name Australian tanks. They are tanks of the US, integrated into the US logistic .... but paid by Australia .
So the same people who were mocking "old Russian tanks" now want to send Ukraine old German tanks of the same era, if not even older?
With much better optics, yes. The first tank to see the other usually wins.
In this stage and era, the Leopard 1 would probably be categorized as light tank, but probably too large to be light tank and too fragile to be the main battle tank against the Russian equivalent of MBT.
in a defence role its still not bad. in cold war/modern tank combat its usualy about who gets the first shot out. While we know that russian tanks have a big lack of IR sights, i think leos will perform well. At least if not commanded by a idiot.
Its a glorified Panther Panzer 5
It's not "the Ukraine", old boy; that's like saying "the England".
Forgiving terrorists, neo NAZI extremists and traitors is God's business.
The duty I have assigned to the Russian Army in Ukraine is to send them to him!
Vladimir Putin.
And why are you spouting a crazed dictators fantasy?
@@chrisbacon3071 Fantasy?
You must be reading only Washington's approved news! 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Says the fascist with an outstanding warrant for crimes against humanity hanging over him.