The Leopard 1 will be perfect for secondary units as a fire support vehicle. Mixed in with M113s and NLAW teams and you get an aggressive mechanised infantry unit with sufficient anti armour equipment, to defend itself against isolated enemy armour pockets.
Hi Tank museum, I know that Australia has promised the Australian Bushmaster AFV. Can you do a video of all other AFV's that have been promised to Ukraine.
@@johnwelton6554 I'd love to, when I was growing up I lived near Duxford and we used to go to Yorkshire and visit the armories every year. But the tank museum is still very much on my bucket list 👍
Agreed. I think alot of museums have a "slightly look down attitude" to the internet and particularly RUclips. I'm happy the tank museum has completely embraced it and even created their own RUclips personalities. Staying relevant and educating people on RUclips is still education
@@sammni I mean it's alot of work for museums that often have quite limited resources, but I think the guys at the tank museum and of course Johnathan Ferguson at the armories are really creating a model for other museums to follow 👍
Worth mentioning that Poland so far has provided Ukraine with well over 300 tanks (T72 and PT91) - before the donation of more modern western models (like Leos) was even considered.
When considered that it was done with western replacement, restitution and the rapidly nearing end of their service life in mind that quickly sounds a tiny bit less selfless.
@@tacomas9602 Since the invasion. No tanks were provided or sold to Ukraine by Poland before. As for the tanks that have been provided, it's worth mentioning that Twardy also has commander's and gunner's thermal vision, and that thermal vision has been added to the otherwise unmoernised T-72s Poland has given to Ukraine, and after they were delivered, Ukraine also added reactive armour to some of them.
@@Lykyk Yes and no. Yes, because the war broke the political argument wether these tanks should be replaced for what and how soon. No, because all of the replacement is bought for quite large sums of money, and the immediate effect of the donation is substantially weakining the Polish Army. I don't think our effort is even in top 5 given absolute numbers, but given relation to our GDP it is enourmous. Then of course you can argue that Ukraine winning is in our best interests so then even if it's radical, it's also a rational solution.
@@piotrmalewski8178 I don't think mostly giving away old Soviet equipment you want to get rid of soon anyway in exchange for western equipment and money from the west is quite the same as giving away western equipment you actually want to use. That doesn't mean it's not very useful in Ukraine, it just makes the aid by GDP a meaningless metric.
Just for the record, it is more appropriate to say "Ukraine" instead of "The Ukraine." It's a common way to say it, but "The Ukraine" is related to them being a territory of the Soviet Union. They certainly don't want that, so would prefer it to be said as "Ukraine." That said, thanks for the video. I love tanks. I'd love to make my way to this museum some day.
Just want to add some reasoning behind it - given Russian rhetoric, history, and etymology of the word “Ukraine”, including “the” suggests that Ukraine is merely an outlying region of a larger entity - namely, Russia, Russian Empire, USSR, etc
@@preserveourpbfs7128Nope. "The Ukraine" IS a geographic area with a historic meaning not implying anything about its status as a part of any political entity. "Ukraine" is currently the political entity with its capital in Kiev/Kyiv which, when the Ukraine SSR existed, was the capital of that SSR and continued as the capital of the same geographic area up until 2014. After 2014 the new government's remit never really ran in the Donbas or Crimea, so there's that complication. If there were a political entity ("country") called "Caucuses" that wouldn't mean that "The Caucuses" wouldn't have a separate, correct, meaning, even if the mountain chain were a different geographic area than the political entity which, in fact, it would almost certainly would. edit: The narrator's use of the term is at 0:05, and is obviously wrong. But "The Ukraine" CAN be correct, just not as he uses it. The Donbas is part of "The Ukraine" even though it is largely no longer (and unlikely to resume being) part of Kievan-ruled "Ukraine". Crimea, on the other hand, was never part of "The Ukraine", though it was for a while transferred to rule from Kiev/Kyiv.
@@gandydancer9710 Donbas is part of Ukraine, some of Donbas has been out of Ukrainian control since 2014, but not all. Crimea is also part of Ukraine, occupied by Russia since 2014.
The UN: “these regions belong to Ukraine” The vast majority of countries: “these regions belong to Ukraine” Weird pro-Russian trolls: “um, actually, international law is wrong because Daddy Putin says so”
All the fighting in in the south east tho, why would put most of your tiny tank allocation hundreds of miles from the frontline? I suppose atleast they wont get destroyed so quick sat idle 1,000k from the action. Some of these comments really make me wonder what planet people are on.
@@r200ti The Russians have already attacked from Belarus so there is a need to defend the border still to prevent another attack. Russians do tend to repeat themselves even if it is a mistake.
@Jason Davis What planet are you on? You don’t send everything to the front because the Russians can open new fronts and come through where you don’t have forces posted. They’re still guarding the capital, for example, even though that’s not where the “front” is right now.
Well done everyone at the Tank Museum - this is such a relevant way to show that a museum is not just a collection of history, but of knowledge and its application to life, both past and present. Huuuuge thumbs up, thanks.
Well, the tanks that are being sent have been upgraded over the years and are more technically sophisticated than what Russia is using right now, from all I have seen. The targeting system, thermals, not having ammunition under the turret, and so many other things.
I still haven't been and I don't think anyone that I know is that interested in going unfortunately, but I'll have to make them want to go. There is something that I DEFINITELY want to do and that's for me to ride in 131.
When you see David Willey you know it's gonna be a great video. I know that applies to all their presenters but Mr. Willey was in the very first video I watched that introduced me to this channel. Well technically it was The Great War with Indy when they were showing off a Landship but I think it still counts.
As i served initially with Leopard 1A5, i can say, yes, they are mobile, accurate in firing, have low armor, are not too comfortable and should be seen here as a supporting role. Still very good for armored recon if no other system is available, but the passive heat radiation based night vision of the optics is powerful to spot enemies at quite a distance. Not related to battle: Leopard 1 has the best engine sound and the driver with the Canadian version driving it during tank fest above hatch was reckless....we had a switch blocking fully stabilized weapon movement, when the driver was up, as the later installed add-on armor could have harmed his head. I think Bundeswehr had it, because one driver got killed.
I suppose given that most tanks in Ukraine don't see tank-on-tank combat, but instead are used in a fire support role, then Leopard 1s should be able to perform that role very admirably. While the more modern MBTs partake in the offensives.
What an awful accident to have to learn from. Couldn't imagine being a family member getting a letter saying their loved one was killed by a preventable accident.
@@dense_and_dull I cannot say, that this story of a dead driver is true, it is just, what we were told during training. Eventually it was a really bad coincidence of several factors. Later, at our Armoured Corps Training Center (Panzertruppenschule) the civil (!) drivers we had for training sometimes secretly bipassed that switch as we often felt some air flow from the driver through the tower, but on intercomm the driver would always confirm to us young guys, that everything is alright. I guess, he was so old, he hated using below hatch the night vision during excercise.
According to wikipedia The Leopard 1A5 can be fitted with the same 120mm gun that the Abrams and Leopard 2A5 and 2A4 use and there's also a reactive armor package for it. How much a difference would it make if the tanks Ukraine receives get those two upgrades?
@@tessjuel The armor upgrade i know and this helps, still mobility might be affected. About the 120mm i am not sure, maybe at the expense of the coaxial MG? The Leopard 1 with the 105 mm is already quite tight and i see problems with storing and handling the larger ammunition in battle. An advantage: You do not have the bronze shell casings so quickly fill up the case behind the gun, in which those fell. Still, would be interested to see a solution for that. Regarding the fire controls the 1A5 was more modern than the late 2A4, of course not the 2A5 anymore or its Swedish version.
@aryanmalik2390 When you think you are a superior species because you live in North America or Western Europe.. and everything is the best. Sometimes, a reality check is needed to keep you grounded.
Canadian Leopard 2's along with Canadian tank crews, have already been in Poland for a little while now training Ukranians to operate them. First Canuck Leo was sent over on Feb 4, 2023. It was announced on Feb 25, 2023 that Canada would be sending over four more Leopards bringing the total to eight from Canada.
Canada is set to buy replacement tanks for those they sent over. Also, as we saw with Canada's deal of selling the Canadian Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia, Canadian politicians are all too happy to do whatever it takes to boast their stocks in General Dynamics, who made the armored cars we sent there as well. Don't be surprised if we end up with Abrams as replacements when this is all said and done.
Perfectly timed video. This is solid information for anyone who isn't a track head, but wants to know what the tank supply deal for Ukraine is all about. A superb example of why museums are important.
Its a combination of KMW und Rheinmetall, they build them bothe. KMW Does Bild moste of the Chassi, moste of the Firecontroll, gun and Electronics is build by Rheinmetall
@@gandogarsilberbart3528 Rheinmetall only upgrades older versions, but it's not the only other German company to do so. KMW is in charge of actually building all new tanks, currently 50 per year but according to an interview recently given that could be ramped up to 600 per year in 1-2 years since KMW made sure to never get rid of its old capabilities and actually expanded them in the last 20 years despite the reduced production numbers. Perks of being a family owned company that doesn't have to show the highest possible profit every financial year.
What's not clear is why Rheinmetall owns an inventory of Leopard 1s. Did they buy them back from the Bundeswehr (etc?) to accumulate a junkyard to supply parts to repair L1s owned by other countries?
@@Lonewolfmike No it doesn't. The S Tank is sitting very quietly in the corner, trying not to attract attention and hoping no one has noticed how it's been cheating at driving backwards. 😀
@@exharkhun5605 Not "cheating" they were only supposed to have a two man crew, but they decided to have a third one in it for the radio and keep the other two from killing each other. LOL
@@Lonewolfmike Ha ha! Great argument. I imagine that when you're racing backwards through the Swedish forest with half of the Red Army hot on your heels it can be quite distracting to have your commander keep unloading his 9mm on you for that remark you made last week about his sister.
Glad that you mentioned the importance of availability of ammunition and spare parts. Other considerations not mentioned are weight capacity of Ukrainian bridges and trains.
Weight capacities (and dimensional) of Bridges and trains are pretty standard across the world and are dictated by the terrain they cross. In a combat environment bridges are expected to be compromised so it becomes an issue for Combat Engineering. With regard to logistics the range of weaponry is normal across various troops, Squadron, Regiments, Brigades, Divisions, Corps etc. So the logistics support train for a Squadron of one type of tank would similar to that of say, Heavy artillery, light artillery, mortars, UAVs, AT weapons etc in the same operating unit, the sort of problem that Loggies are trained to overcome. Fuel is a perennial problem and why all vehicles tend to run on as common grade of diesel.
@@denisrobertmay875 All that is totally correct. To add to that, the US already has fuel tankers and AVLB's (armored vehicle-launched bridge´s) in Ukraine. They received 36 AVLB´s at first and then another 50 of them as they have a multi role to play, even for Infantry with the many destroyed bridges around where they would Usually ford! Logistics wont be the problem for these beasts once they begin the offensive. Yes, I know you already know this bro...just added for those that think the US is in the business of shipping unsupported armor.... just not a thing, really!
Ukraine military left the tanks in a minefield,some of the Leopard 2, Bradley fighting vehicles and Challenger 2 tanks were captured by the Russians. NATO countries can give Ukraine the best military equipment available but they also need to be deployed correctly to be effective. Going full bore into a minefield then abandoned to be captured by the Russians was not good.
Don’t think any challengers and Abrams have been in action yet. Though, if they do see action, I believe they’d just end up like the Leopards… Destroyed and stuck, not being effective.
From all, I have heard all of the former Soviet countries made the improvements that Russia didn't to all of the tanks they had. They made them better than what Russia has on the battlefield right now.
@@Lonewolfmike Russia made all sorts of improvements to their Soviet-era tanks, but that doesn't apply to the ones kept in their retired-tank-parks, which they are refurbishing now to an unknown (to me) degree. So now you've "heard" different.
@@gandydancer9710 A lot of what we have found out about the Russian military since they invaded Ukraine has been a lot of smoke and mirrors on the part of Russia. So I take that with a grain of salt.
@@Lonewolfmike I take everything said by both sides with large chunks of salt, but the claim that Russia's active inventory is unimproved since the fall of the USSR is new news to me.
The Kingdom of Norway, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the Dutch must be doubly offended!), the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, the United States of America, the Swiss Confederation.
Leos were also built by other factories during the Cold War. Among others also in the MAK plant in Kiel. Rheinmetall took over this plant. Today, prototypes are developed and built there.
@Posi Troll KMW is the original designer of the Leopard and the hold sole right to it design, RM is just a subcontractor, any buisnees that took place 20 years ago stayed 20 years ago
Well done, but one comment from German speaking world: From the german Leopard-2 tanks at Reinmetall/Industry not a single one is in the concrete list of 'Send tanks' by now, because they are not in a 'drive away' state by now, but have to be rebuilt before you can send them. So, the '2 bataillions' now in training in Poland and Germany are just the beginning, more tanks will be send when the refurbishers are ready.(Same is true for most of the spanish Leo2A4s,.. because they are in a similar bad technical condition.
The video also forgot to mention the Leopard 2 tanks donated by Norway, Portugal and Finland and missed the ones from Sweden since those were only confirmed after the video was made.
I think Ukrainian tankers being trained now will be being trained in tanks active in the armed forces of Germany and or Poland now. The first 14 tanks are coming from tanks active in the the German Bundeswhare not Rhinemetall I believe but most of the rest will need to be ones taken out of storage. The Leopard 2A6 is pretty modern.
@@williamzk9083 They are probably being trained on the Abrams either there or here in the US. I know they have Abrams over in Europe for training purposes and war games purposes. The Ukrainian tankers will get a lot of good training for all of these tanks that aren't old Soviet-era tanks. As we have seen they have made great use of the artillery systems, both tracked/wheeled and traditionally towed. Just look at how well they have used the HIMARS systems that they have gotten. Hell, they even made fake HIMARS to fool the Russians.
@@williamzk9083 Germany and Poland is sending/send the Leos 2 from their active units. Polish ministry of defence confirmed yesterday that the polish leos were already delivered to the Ukraine.
Honestly it's shame for Europe for armed forces in such a bad state. The only garantee for European strategic independence from US is to accept Ukraine into NATO.
Thanks. Wikipedia: "PT-91M Pendekar (M for Malaysia) Production export variant for Malaysia with a Sagem Savan-15 fire control system..." Elsewhere, "The PT-91M Pendekar is an export variant deployed by Malaysia. It is equipped with an enhanced 125mm gun, S-1000 engine, French fire control system, communication system and hydropneumatic transmission."
As a former Abrams mechanic, I can attest to the validity of the intel put forth here on the Abrams. It, and the footage of the ice drifting Abrams tanks was a pleasant surprise to me! Thanks Tank Museum! It's been 24 years or more since I've been in an Abrams, but man, after watching this, I swear I can smell one!!
I kinda thought the m1 was pretty well tested at Eastings 73 against the T72. Anyhow the video of the m1 drifting in the ice is pretty fun to watch - lots of fun tank sounds as well.
They certainly did very well, yes. But it's extremely unlikely that the Iraqi tanks had the same weapon systems as the Russian ones. This is because of defections from countries that the Russians had sold their military stuff to. These defections meant that NATO got hold of top Russian tech. The Russians were obviously not keen on this, so they sold export versions of their stuff. These were not so well equipped * sightsetc ) as the ones Russia itself used. However, I expect all the western tanks ( with the exception of Leopard ones ) being sent will prove to be superior to the ones Russia is currently using. But of course, time will tell. And don't forget that the Ruskies have crap tons of heavy artillery. Which could make things awkward.
It is not against T 72 and it was not tested. 1. A tank is a platform the ammunition is the weapon. The Iraq had no modern ammunition and they had extremely downgraded versions as Arabs and soviets never really trusted each other. 2. The Iraqi army was badly trained not using weapons correctly as they fought only 70's armored Iran. So it was a professional boxer against a toddler in desert storm. 3. The tanks in Ukraine on both sides have the ammunition to destroy any tank and they can hide as it is not a desert. 4. Most important this war heavily depends on artillery and infantry no tank vs tank like in Video games. So any tank will see hard times
@@zednotzee7you are correct as a matter of fact capture tanks that ukrainians give to NATO probably stored in Ramstein Rheinland-Pfalz Air Force Base US Military waiting for shipment to the US or UK Salisbury Plain
True but never fight the last war. Gulf War I was 32 years ago. The weapons platforms and their subsequent weapons, ammunitions, armor, sensors, equipment, communications, electronics, digital, and analog systems have advanced into current gen 4.5 block updates. Then there are the cyber and active defense systems that are being integrated to be considered. These current 21st century systems didn’t even exist back in 91. This makes every MBT a completely different weapons platforms from what were essentially the last of the Cold War era technologies fighting each other. Every MBT block update has to prove itself again but that’s normal.
Not even in same ballpark. Iraq was basically stabbed in the back by US. In addition to that Iraqi tankers were not particularly well trained. Iraqi T-72s were not upgraded versions. They also lacked up to date ammunitions. Not to mention total aerial superiority by US. So on and so forth. Right now, all things considering, Russian T-72s are about 15-20% worse than any of those western MBTs and T-90s are considered to be ~30% better. Of course its not a game and you do not get +30% more damage, pretty much all of those engagements will be purely situational. Western MBTs have better armor, but Russian tanks are more agile and are smaller. They both can detect and kill opponent on roughly same ranges with a well-placed shot. Almost everything will depend on how experienced crews will man tanks and pure luck. And Ukrainians will be at huge disadvantage there. Proper training for Abrams for example, takes 2 years. They can be blitz trained in a few months, 14-16 hours a day 7 days a week, but they will still be nowhere near properly trained crews. Plus this smorgasbord of tanks is also a very bad idea. You cant train on Abrams and then just hop into Leopard. This whole thing looks more like publicity stunt, rather than any real attempt to make a difference. Enough tanks being send for it to be news, but not enough to make any real difference. And those that are being sent are not even of same type. Overall, considering low number of those tank that will be sent, i dont think they will make much of a difference. Especially with Russians controlling the skies and mercilessly pounding with artillery everything that moves.
@@alexpush Наверное, места мало, так как уже 200 000 россиян удобряют прекрасные равнины Украины. Но вы должны сделать нам всем одолжение и пойти удобрять другую часть Украины. 😂 Иди прочь, русский тролль!
@@JFHeroux только под Бахмутом сдохло более 50 тысяч нацыков. 6-я волна мобилизации не спасёт последышей СС. Гореть вам всём в аду солнцепëков. И да, если 200 тысяч наших из 600 погибло защищая Родину, то почему ваша полутора миллионная армия не сомнëт оставшиеся 100 тысяч (ведь наших раненых должно быть не менее 300 тысяч) ? Где ваш контрнаступ?
@@alexpush 😂Продолжайте пить свой местный аромат пропаганды и жить в своей альтернативной вселенной, той, где вы считаете себя величайшей нацией на Земле, в то время как ваш диктатор грабит вашу страну. Наслаждайтесь, пока еще можете. Вы больше не сможете притворяться. Через пару лет, как только вы, наконец, избавитесь от своего диктатора, будет слишком поздно спасать свою страну от разорения, а все народы, которым вы причинили зло в прошлом, придут просить возмездия. Тогда вы поймете, что на самом деле означает быть не на той стороне истории. Как ты думаешь, кто на этот раз пожалеет тебя? Мы все учились на своих ошибках. На этот раз мы будем рады видеть вашу страну в руинах. Когда вы упускаете самые элементарные вещи, а ваши границы размываются, мы все будем смеяться над тем, насколько жалкими были ваши заблуждения. А теперь уходите раз и навсегда, мне больше некогда тратить на вас время. Гни в своем воображаемом мире до конца своей жалкой жизни! 🤣😂
I think they had a height requirement for tankers and it still might be in place. I have a brother-in-law who was an Abrams driver and he is well over 6'.
I like the way the UK army thought. Excellent cross country ability (probably the best), strong track protection, good acceleration, emphasis on supporting infantry. It's pretty much still got doctrinal roots in the Churchill tank (but free of rail gauge restrictions). The Leopard 2, M1A2 all have their niche areas. Having this diversity in European Military keeps everyone on their toes..
@@williamzk9083 I do think the Challenger 2 was designed for that kinda grit underdog style to war off-road armour also exactly like the Harrier jump jet it didn't need billions of pounds for a runway or a Aircraft carrier give it a tarmacked field 😂
@@williamzk9083 "Having this diversity in European Military keeps everyone on their toes." Mainly it's a logistic nightmare, but the theory is that any tank is better than no tank. We'll see.
I've seen a video of British tankers are working with and teaching Ukrainian tankers on how to operate the Challenger 2 and about the ammunition they will be using. From all I have seen of the Ukrainian military, they are picking up the information very quickly and making good use of what they learn. Look at how well they have been using the various artillery systems they have gotten.
One of my late Uncles was a WW2 veteran, drove a MK3 and a MK4 Panzer and finally a Panther in France. Wounded twice he explained, "we had the better tanks, they just had more of them." While our tanks are formidable they are not impervious to a determined enemy. We need more of them.
he said it like "we were better but there were more of them" but in essence he was right - having a better tank in small numbers is way worse than having an OK tank in plentiful numbers. tanks are useless unless you have a lot of them to expend
As a straight leg, there's nothing more comforting than the rumbling of the ground as you feel your 6 being covered by heavy steel. Along with the range and sights I for one would feel a lot better on the front line knowing Who's got superiority.
The way he said it works out, "This is one of the family of Patton tanks (this particular one the M48) that the Abrams ended up replacing." The way his tone of voice changes and sped through the parenthesis quote implies he added it in as an afterthought
As an extension, a Cold War doctrine, the Russian Tactical Battalion Group structure was renewed because it didn't meet the requirements of modern warfare. The organization was completely revamped according to the new doctrine. Unfortunately, the potential consequences of this move did not find any response in NATO headquarters. The counterattack was planned based on the old doctrine, and this has incurred a heavy cost due to the painful mistake.
3000 Abrams in storage yet the US can't supply them until the end of the year as it prefers to build brand new ones from scratch and apparently even building only a few of them takes a lot of time. Germany is not the only one that isn't keen on tank deliveries...
Manufacturing tanks is a bussines. They want to make a profit from that war. Didnt Germany reject sending tanks before the US did promise to send some too?
One of the reasons could very well be that it will be the export model. So, no DU in the armor and probably some other systems that wont be the same as those in US Army service. Nobody is really giving the latest model.
@@Ganiscol I seriously doubt all of those 3000 mothballed Abrams are the latest and greatest tech. From the start the US has had a disinformation campaign going citing may reasons why it couldn't possibly provide Ukraine with the only tank that really is available in decisive numbers and I suspect the reason is political. Rumor has it that there is some sort of deal with China not to supply *offensive* weapons if China refrains from sending weapons, which would explain a lot about US behavior.
@@Ganiscol Which were the 300+ ones left in Iraq? Anyway, last I heard the FY2023 planned purchase/manufacture was 22 (twenty-two) Abrams. It may be a bit late to make them with depreciated armor.
It should be noted that the Leopard 1A5 was designed to be able to be upgraded to the 120mm/L44 gun that was used on the Leopard 2. There are also other systems upgrades available to make this old warrior more formidable on the modern battlefield.
You really think they're doing it just to be altruistic? They are trading your lives for profit. The war in your country is just another way to make money.
@@fuckinantipope5511 So because I have a different opinion than you, I'm a "Putinite". That's just childish, man. That said, nothing in life is free. Somewhere down the line someone is paying, and here it's western taxpayers, all of them having to carry this unwanted and unnecessary burden.
@@GerhardtRoos The tanks and equipment are already paid for, they are just in storage. No one is paying for it in taxes. Even if it did cost the average person money the overwhelming sentiment is in support of helpinh Ukraine so hardly unwanted or unnecessary.
@@Camcolito Mhm, yeah... When Putin will walk thru Ukraine, then Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, arrive to your country, start killing kids, elders, pregnant women, will destroy whole cities - we also ask you to shut up and not to escalate
I remember when my brother in law served in the National Guard in armor during the 70's NATO did joint exercises at Fort Bragg. He related that his commanders told them to, "Stay away from the Leopards, they'll eat you up." The Abrams is great, but it uses too much petrol with its turbine engine. What they really need is a bunch of A10 Warthogs, best anti-tank weapon we ever produced.
🇨🇭 has 94 Leo II A4 in reserve. They are stored underground in an air conditioned facility but electronics etc are not the newest. We cannot supply them to 🇺🇦 because of ‘neutrality’. Some of the more responsible politicians (PLR/FDP and PS/SP) are trying to find a workaround to ‘resell’ these to 🇩🇪. I pray they succeed.
@Enclave Soldier 🇨🇭has done and continues to do a lot for 🇺🇦. The government has approved another aid package of CHF 140m last week (there will be more). But for historical and legal reasons, weapons are a problem.
Timely, first four Leopard tanks gifted by Poland have arrived in Ukraine today. Well done to Poland for being the European powerhouse in support of Ukraine.
@@heavyweight6440 BBC news reporting Poland has delivered the first of four to Ukraine. I'd guess that means they've crossed the border, but unlikely to see action yet until training complete and the rest arrive.
@@briangreen6602 Can you give me a link to the article? Edit: found it, but cant share the link because RUclips is stupid. Search for "DW Poland delivers first Leopard tanks to Ukraine". Its from 3 hours ago.
I was a challenge 2 crewmen and loved my job for 1 RTR from 2006 2012 unfortunately looking at new weapons and tactics I dont think many armored vehicles stand a chance..
At this point, I think it's still true to say that the biggest donor of tanks to Ukraine is Russia. Those Ukrainian farmers and their tractors don't mess around.
This is a brilliant piece. My view is that Mr Willey presented each tank's narrative concisely from development to current state,. A bit of an update: I believe that Canada is adding an additional 4 tanks to its initial offer. As a former tanker, I must admit that the addition of Leopard 1 (A3,A4,A5) troubles me. A great tank but my view is that she is too old to cope with the modern digital battlefield and would require substantial refit. Spares will be a huge issue.
Even Ukraine's old T72s can cope with the modern, digital battlefield. Why shouldn't the Leo 1 be able to do that too. This tank is very maneuverable and has excellent aiming accuracy. These Leo 1s don't have to be in a tank battle MBT against MBT, but they are excellent for supporting infantry and rip up Russian IFV.
The only reason why the US agreed to deliver Abrams to Ukraine is: Germany made this a condition. It would only agree on the delivery of Leopard 2, if US would also deliver Abrams.
@@ralfhtg1056 That's what Biden says. But the video says they will have to be new production. And as of last July the FY2023 production of Abrams was reduced to 22 (twenty-two). Maybe that's changed but, I repeat: The US is ACTUALLY delivering how many Abrams WHEN? Maybe they can get them from Iraq, to which the US gave about 330, iirc. (/sarc)
I believe the “er armor mentioned is pronounced by naming the letters ‘E’ ‘R’ ‘A’, and stands for explosive reactive armor. The armor explodes outwards upon contact by a shell, basically attacking the shell before it can penetrate.
Love how almost everyone in the west ignores creeping NATO move towards the east, making Ukraine the Afghanistan of eastern Europe & ignoring the criminal blunder of their own leaders.... not asking what their role was in forcing Russia into a corner.
I was on the M1A1 Abrams for 4 years and know what it's capable of doing....I guarantee you that there isn't a Russian tank crewman that isn't absolutely terrified about what will be coming in their direction very soon..... Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger are going to absolutely annihilate any Russian armor they encounter, as long as the crews are competent and adequately trained.
This attitude is so typical of so many US vets. It shows incredible ignorance of what conventional war is actually like. You think this is going to be like when the US rolled on Iraqi T-72's. It's not. I was an FO in a BFIST, but I've also been watching the videos from this war. Tank-on-tank engagements are incredibly rare, so Russian tankers likely don't care. What's going to be the bane of these NATO tanks is artillery and mines. And since they're so damn heavy, and recovering disabled tanks in this war isn't anything like in Iraq, plenty of them are going to be abandoned during stalled attacks. We're about to get a serious ego check when the videos start rolling out of captured or destroyed Abrams, Challengers and Leopards.
Is there any point where the Abrams is better than the Leo 2A6? In competitions in tank comparison shooting, LEOs have always won, even the old 2A4 of the Austrians before the Abrams...
It’s extremely dangerous with Kornet has penetration 1300mm and can penetrate easily all western tanks. I hope the IFVs do a great job in the battlefield.
@@USN1985dos Not to mention the fact the Ukrainians can't even do a maneuver style doctrine that puts these vehicles in the best possible position to achieve anything. Not to mention they all have been probably neutered in some form before being sent. So what are they really getting? I'm not going to even go into training, or lack of. Or anything else.
How about updating this one in the light of the Ukrainian summer offensive? Also how about commenting on: 1. the performance of these tanks during the Ukrainian summer offensive. 2. The wisdom of using 70 ton tanks in the muddy conditions which last for 1/3 of the year in the Ukraine?. 3. The MOD's ban on using the Challenger 2s in risky attacks. Allegedly because it does not want to Challenger 2 tanks burning like the Leopard 2s have so readily. Just in case it hurts export sales. Ok I know that this might be problematic with he who pays the piper calling the tune. But it is of interest
I am not Polish by any metric. My respect for that country, it's people and what they have done has blown through any ideal I had of any country. (I'm not Ukrainian by any metric I know of either) Seeing what the Scandinavian countries have been preparing for, seeing how the Baltic countries have responded and helped. Gives me a hope for humanity that I never imagined I would have. My own country (U.S.) has absolutely disappointed me in almost ever military action since WW2. From my ignorant perspective I thought honorable wars were never going to happen again. I was absolutely wrong. I also knew nothing about Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania history. Russia invading Ukraine led me to look into all of this and I am still horrified that I had no idea. When so many countries have warned the world for decades and no one listens. I get it, because I would have done the same. Russia proved all of these countries fears were justified and that is what we have to understand. Russia proved itself to be the bad guy. (not the people, they have no power) The government system.
@@Cortesevasive I wasn't talking about media at all. I had never looked into the world of the post soviet countries or the history of Finland and Sweden. I am embarrassed that I never cared to look into history that wasn't taught in school 30 years ago.
Just a quick note, "The Ukraine" is how Russia refers to Ukraine as they see it as a Russian peninsula just like "the Crimea" To the Ukrainian people, it's just "Ukraine" 👍
Nonsense. "The Ukraine" is geography, like "the Caucuses". "Ukraine" is a political entity with its capital in Kiev/Kyiv. Whether it includes Crimea or the Donbas is open for argument. As is who is included in "the Ukrainian people".
so just to summing this all up , all of those tanks going to our meat grinder of ukranians are about the age and development as the T72 and the T80 are . and all those models need their own supply/repair train to follow them around the battlefield AFTER they learn how to do that . and all of those different models have spare parts and/or ammunition supply problems . and after they arrive at the front , the russians can still bring up about ten times that number of their oldest models that are about the same age or up to 15 years further in development BEFORE we start to mention the T90 [ about a 1000 pieces ] and newer ones . what in gods name could ever go wrong with that ?
By abundance (rough order since I can’t be bothered to crawl through detailed listings) 1. T72B3 2. T72A 3. T90A 4. T90 5. T90M And no I’m not a tank expert.
The Challenger is a classic British tank with emphasis on cross country ability, track protection and supporting infantry with a gun able to support HESH. The ability of a smart breech on the smooth 120mm bore gun able to program smart munition has meant the British Army has finally relented on rifled ammunition needed to fire HESH and quality HE rounds.
Good program. Remember that for the last 31 years the country's name has been Ukraine not the Ukraine. The whole point of the war is that Ukraine is no longer a region of the USSR/Russia.
Excellent video, though one thing to note is the use of the term 'The Ukraine', this kind of language, I've been told, alludes to Ukraine being just another region of Russia. You don't say 'The Estonia' or 'The France'. I'd just shorten it to Ukraine. That's the name of the country, not the region of the world.
But also, Ukraine showed in Kharkiv that mobile forces can break through Russian defensive lines and manoeuvre and capture territory. That’s where highly trained brigades are useful.
There were virtually no Russian forces deployed there and no fortifications or defences. If Ukraine try that again itll be a bloodbath - Russian forces are far more numerous and have setup defensive lines. They have now also eliminated the Ukrainian s300 systems so can use air support along with drones and artillery to take out any offensive forces. Best tactic is peace talks. Ukraine are just haemorrhaging men and equipment.
I enjoy the history and opinions of this channel and museum. Now, for a less positive comment. Europe likes to knock the M-1 turbine. They don’t seem to understand how incredibly flexible the turbine is. There is a reason why 90% of aircraft operate using turbines even the prop has planes use them. This is simplicity. A turbine is very easy to maintain and they operate even after heavy use. One of the mistakes made is the assumption the turbine will only run in jet fuel. The M-1 turbine will run on just about every liquid fuel available. Diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, mixed jet fuel and gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Ukraine won’t have trouble finding fuel for the M-1. In additon the turbine can be replaced rapidly in the field. The only weakness this tank has that might be an issue is weight. But then all western tanks are heavy. So, this isn’t an issue that isn’t gong to be faced by other tanks. The biggest single advantage of the M-1 is numbers. The US could send 1000 tanks within a year if it chose to do so. The Ukrainians cannot sustain heavy losses of soldiers. They simply do not have the manpower long term. Anything the west can give them that saves lives and adds lethality to their military is crucial. Now since Russia keeps promising it’s going to nuke the UK and anyone who helps Ukraine AND they continue to threaten using nukes in Ukraine, It’s time to believe that Russia, China, Iran, N Korea are conspiring to use nukes first in a all out decapitation attack on the U.S. and Britain. This means we better make sure not one single one of these will get away with such an attack. It’s time to modernize the nuke weapon delivery system and to disperse these nukes to nations that are free, responsive or responsible and capable In f maintaining and protecting these systems. My opinion is that Australia, Japan, an alliance of Norway, Sweden, Finland), Poland, Germany, Singapore, Italy should be offered membership into the purchasing of these proven weapons from England, US or France.
Add to that, at least twenty-one (21) Leopard 2 MBTs from the Nordic countries to Ukraine: 🇫🇮 Three (3) Leopard 2 mine clearing tanks from Finland (off. confirmed on 23 Feb), 🇸🇪 Ten (10) Stridsvagn 122 (Leopard 2 SE-variant) from Sweden (off. confirmed on 24 feb), 🇳🇴 Eight (8) Leopard 2 NO-variant + four (4) support vehicles for the Leopard 2 from Norway (off. confirmed on 14 Feb). In addition, they donate funds for Leopard parts and 120mm ammo via the European Peace Facility fund.
"European Peace Facility" is a locution that sounds very like very like "friendly fire". Does anyone remember that the US once had a Department of War? Too honest?
@@blackmantis3130 Speaking of trending: how is the Ruble doing, nowadays? Heard USD/RUB went exponential, What, is it 110 Rubles on a US Dollar, or still plummeting? Better for CBR to yank Russian key interest rates above today’s 12%, then, to make Russian citizens appreciate the cost of Putin’s barbaric and highly illegal war of aggression. Primitive.
@@norsenomad lolx . Bro you seem hurt by my statement. But honestly at the rate of losses of western equipment and manpower this offensive is pretty much dead.From what I know alot of people travel to Russia still and compared to Ukraine Russian seems to offer alot more to the world. Facts don't lie , do they?
@@blackmantis3130 Aw, that’s so sweet… worrying about my emotions. Don’t. So, go home now, start worrying about your future and your personal economy - not least, your childrens’ future economy and lost opportunities. Interest rates will rise, there will be foreclosures, jobs will vanish. Better plan well, and act sooner than later. Think. Bye, bye now.
Thank You David, for a very good overview of the tank debate. What is your view of the comment that the Leopard 2, being a lighter tank plus more ammunition available in European stocks make it more suitable for Ukraine than the Abrams?
At least by prouducer of armarment, the Abrams and the Leo use the same Kannon (Rheinmetall L44 120mm) and the Leo has a combat weight of 62 tonns... so its not that huge of a difference to the abrams (i know im bot David, but i hope i dont bother you)
The ammo isn't the problem - spare parts are. Any replacements for Abrams would need to be shipped over from America, whereas Leopard parts are being produced just a few hundred miles away. And the Abrams is a thirsty boi, sure it'll take anything but it'll take everything you have and want more.
Abrams and 2A4/2A5 use the same gun as Silberbart stated. Their ammo is fully cross compatible. The 2A6/2A7 have the 120mm L55 (longer barrel), and I'm not sure if ammo designed to take advantage of that longer barrel would be "backwards compatible" with the L44 version but I believe the ammo designed for L44 would work in the longer barrel, just not taking full advantage of the length. Fuel isn't as much as a concern. They'll almost certainly get SEP v3, which comes with an APU. That means that the turbine only needs to start up when the Abrams is about to move out, and if they'll be stopped longer than a certain amount of time, they can turn off the turbine. Plus, despite adding 11ish tons to the design, the SEP v3 IIRC has very similar MPG to the M1/M1A1 (the shorter range is mostly due to reduced fuel capacity). And yeah, the turbine is multifuel, so they can dump diesel into it all day long without an issue. The bigger issue is what andromidius notes - Leo 2 factory is in Germany. Abrams factory is across the Atlantic and then a quarter of the way across the country after that. Leo 2s have a much shorter round trip in the event they need to be sent back to the factory for repair/replacement. And spare parts have a much shorter travel time from Germany.
The L55 on the 2A7 was further upgraded with new metallurgy to allow operation at higher pressures. The later versions have a smart breach so that programmable ammunition can be configured. For instance a round can be air burst, contact burst or delayed burst after penetration into a building. The British reluctance to move to smooth bore till recently was due to their focus on infantry support and predicated on the poor ability over smooth bore to fire HESH or HE.
Hello Tank Museum. Just for the record. PT-91 operated by Polish Army are equipped polish made FCS Drawa-1T and Israeli thermal cameras, and some of them now have polish thermal cameras Asteria. Only PT-91 M Pendekars made for Malaysia got equipped in French Savan 15 FCS made by Sagem.
The interesting thing to see is how effectively Ukrainian units can use these different tanks. No modern army has tried to make use of such a varied collection of vehicles like this.
Yep. In some ways they would have been smarter to have settled on Leo 2 - the US keeping their M1's and same with the poms and paying to crank up the production lines at KMW to produce new build Leo2A7's for Germany so the older Leo2's could have been released from stocks for Ukraine.
@@gandydancer9710 No idea. But it is possible to ramp up production - which I'm guessing KMW has been doing for the last year. All the countries that bought recent soviet equipment such as T72's, T80's etc will be looking to replace them toot sweet given how their turrets have a disturbing propensity to go 'pop'.
@@marclagalle1486 Not unless they wish to afford to and can source the replacements. Let me run what I said by you, again: The US FY3023 productions of Abrams was REDUCED to 22 last JULY (iirc). The invasion of Ukraine was last FEBRUARY. FEB is well before JULY. This isn't to secret stuff. The appropriations get debated in public. See the German debates over finally getting new fighters, which hasn't translated into actual contracts that I've heard, though I could be wrong. MY guess is that KMW has done no such thing.
As an American, of course the Abrahms is the bestest tank! However, that thing is rated in gallons per mile, not miles per gallon 😂 It doesn't so much "guzzle" gas as Thanos snap it out of existence
Could there be a possible number 6? There has been speculation that Jordan's recently retired Challenger 1 tanks could somehow get to Ukraine. What's going for the Challenger 1 is the numbers: Jordan got 402 of them back in 2002. Of course, probably not all of them are operational. Given the tank's age, there could be similar problems to the Leopard 1, but one of them won't be the ammunition, because the Challenger 1 uses 120mm ammunition. But, the Challenger 1 also has a rifled gun, like the Challenger 2, so it trades the Leopard 1 ammunition problems for the Challenger 2 ammunition problems. Though, there has also been speculation that the Challenger 1's could be refurbished to use 120 mm smooth bore guns, so there won't be any more ammunition problems. I just hope Jordan can be somehow convinced to send them to Ukraine, somehow.
well if the US offered Abrams to Jordan, and Jordan sent (say 200) Chally 1s to Ukraine that'd be nice By the way - is Chally 1 120mm rifle ammo compatible with Chally 2 120mm rifle ammo?
Would be nice to see tanks operating with real air support from A-10s, AC-130s, Apaches, even fighter jets. The U.S. military gets things done on the ground due to unparalleled firepower in the air.
Hi Tank Nuts, let us know what you think about this weeks content.
Interesting. For the Polish T-72, the name for the augmented armour isn't something as simple as ERA is it? ie just Explosive Reactive Armour?
You missed out the incident where a blue on blue incident with challenger 2 resulted in the deaths of 2 crew members
The Leopard 1 will be perfect for secondary units as a fire support vehicle. Mixed in with M113s and NLAW teams and you get an aggressive mechanised infantry unit with sufficient anti armour equipment, to defend itself against isolated enemy armour pockets.
@@СусаннаСергеевна yes we hate Putler...the biggest modern NAZI.
Hi Tank museum, I know that Australia has promised the Australian Bushmaster AFV. Can you do a video of all other AFV's that have been promised to Ukraine.
Brilliant video, I swear British museums are at the cutting edge of staying relevant and accessible in the age of the internet. 👏😎👍
It is a great day out visiting there.
@@johnwelton6554 I'd love to, when I was growing up I lived near Duxford and we used to go to Yorkshire and visit the armories every year. But the tank museum is still very much on my bucket list 👍
Agreed.
I think alot of museums have a "slightly look down attitude" to the internet and particularly RUclips.
I'm happy the tank museum has completely embraced it and even created their own RUclips personalities.
Staying relevant and educating people on RUclips is still education
Must be good uni for this kind of stuff there
@@sammni I mean it's alot of work for museums that often have quite limited resources, but I think the guys at the tank museum and of course Johnathan Ferguson at the armories are really creating a model for other museums to follow 👍
Worth mentioning that Poland so far has provided Ukraine with well over 300 tanks (T72 and PT91) - before the donation of more modern western models (like Leos) was even considered.
Are you talking since the invasion or previous to it?
When considered that it was done with western replacement, restitution and the rapidly nearing end of their service life in mind that quickly sounds a tiny bit less selfless.
@@tacomas9602 Since the invasion. No tanks were provided or sold to Ukraine by Poland before.
As for the tanks that have been provided, it's worth mentioning that Twardy also has commander's and gunner's thermal vision, and that thermal vision has been added to the otherwise unmoernised T-72s Poland has given to Ukraine, and after they were delivered, Ukraine also added reactive armour to some of them.
@@Lykyk Yes and no. Yes, because the war broke the political argument wether these tanks should be replaced for what and how soon. No, because all of the replacement is bought for quite large sums of money, and the immediate effect of the donation is substantially weakining the Polish Army. I don't think our effort is even in top 5 given absolute numbers, but given relation to our GDP it is enourmous. Then of course you can argue that Ukraine winning is in our best interests so then even if it's radical, it's also a rational solution.
@@piotrmalewski8178
I don't think mostly giving away old Soviet equipment you want to get rid of soon anyway in exchange for western equipment and money from the west is quite the same as giving away western equipment you actually want to use.
That doesn't mean it's not very useful in Ukraine, it just makes the aid by GDP a meaningless metric.
Just for the record, it is more appropriate to say "Ukraine" instead of "The Ukraine." It's a common way to say it, but "The Ukraine" is related to them being a territory of the Soviet Union. They certainly don't want that, so would prefer it to be said as "Ukraine." That said, thanks for the video. I love tanks. I'd love to make my way to this museum some day.
Just want to add some reasoning behind it - given Russian rhetoric, history, and etymology of the word “Ukraine”, including “the” suggests that Ukraine is merely an outlying region of a larger entity - namely, Russia, Russian Empire, USSR, etc
@@preserveourpbfs7128Nope. "The Ukraine" IS a geographic area with a historic meaning not implying anything about its status as a part of any political entity.
"Ukraine" is currently the political entity with its capital in Kiev/Kyiv which, when the Ukraine SSR existed, was the capital of that SSR and continued as the capital of the same geographic area up until 2014. After 2014 the new government's remit never really ran in the Donbas or Crimea, so there's that complication.
If there were a political entity ("country") called "Caucuses" that wouldn't mean that "The Caucuses" wouldn't have a separate, correct, meaning, even if the mountain chain were a different geographic area than the political entity which, in fact, it would almost certainly would.
edit: The narrator's use of the term is at 0:05, and is obviously wrong. But "The Ukraine" CAN be correct, just not as he uses it. The Donbas is part of "The Ukraine" even though it is largely no longer (and unlikely to resume being) part of Kievan-ruled "Ukraine". Crimea, on the other hand, was never part of "The Ukraine", though it was for a while transferred to rule from Kiev/Kyiv.
@@gandydancer9710
Donbas is part of Ukraine, some of Donbas has been out of Ukrainian control since 2014, but not all.
Crimea is also part of Ukraine, occupied by Russia since 2014.
The UN: “these regions belong to Ukraine”
The vast majority of countries: “these regions belong to Ukraine”
Weird pro-Russian trolls: “um, actually, international law is wrong because Daddy Putin says so”
@@Jakob_DK "Donbas is part of Ukraine...
Crimea is also part of Ukraine..."
Your saying it does not make it so.
Leopard 1 is even pretty useful for freeing up more capable tanks from the least important areas.
Belorussian border would be a decent area.
and knowing Ukrainian ingenuity they will find a way to bolt Kontakt1 to the chasis and turret of Leopards 1 to somewhat improve their armor.
All the fighting in in the south east tho, why would put most of your tiny tank allocation hundreds of miles from the frontline? I suppose atleast they wont get destroyed so quick sat idle 1,000k from the action. Some of these comments really make me wonder what planet people are on.
@@r200ti The Russians have already attacked from Belarus so there is a need to defend the border still to prevent another attack. Russians do tend to repeat themselves even if it is a mistake.
@Jason Davis
What planet are you on?
You don’t send everything to the front because the Russians can open new fronts and come through where you don’t have forces posted.
They’re still guarding the capital, for example, even though that’s not where the “front” is right now.
Yes, Slovenian T-55S already there
6:40 It s incredible how Czechoslovakia united just so it could modernise tanks for Ukraine. True display of unity.
😄
there is no more Czechoslovakia. There is Czech and Slovakia.
Czech are making tanks for Ukraine. Slovakia is making Howitzers Zuzana 2 for Ukraine.
@@peterkorman9368 nehovor
@@MrTony-kd4es mi vypalilo sarkasticky senzor...
Well done everyone at the Tank Museum - this is such a relevant way to show that a museum is not just a collection of history, but of knowledge and its application to life, both past and present. Huuuuge thumbs up, thanks.
Indeed! I wish the Museum of the US Army would get involved in this.
10:59 Correction, the Leopard 2A5 still has the L/44 gun. A6 was the first version with the L/55.
Yes. Thanks for pointing it out to others.
Just proves he's reading a propaganda script
@@jonathon5411 hey vatnik go back to the trenches
@@jonathon5411 -_-
Are they getting actual models or export models
A slightly more serious top 5 list than the usual on this channel, but an important top 5 list.
Well, the tanks that are being sent have been upgraded over the years and are more technically sophisticated than what Russia is using right now, from all I have seen. The targeting system, thermals, not having ammunition under the turret, and so many other things.
It's tragic that Ukraine is having to fight to be part of the 21st century
Yesterday Sweden pledged 10 of its strv122 wich is the Swedish version of the leopard 2a5.
Canada just pledged another 4 Leo2, total of 8 now. They will be "Amazon Prime" shipped to Poland like the first 4.
Good
😅
Proud to live just a few miles away from Bovington.. not only the finest museum of any type but also the finest RUclips content!
Lucky to have Bovington round the corner is more like it.
You lucky man. Planning to go this summer.
I still haven't been and I don't think anyone that I know is that interested in going unfortunately, but I'll have to make them want to go. There is something that I DEFINITELY want to do and that's for me to ride in 131.
When you see David Willey you know it's gonna be a great video. I know that applies to all their presenters but Mr. Willey was in the very first video I watched that introduced me to this channel. Well technically it was The Great War with Indy when they were showing off a Landship but I think it still counts.
As i served initially with Leopard 1A5, i can say, yes, they are mobile, accurate in firing, have low armor, are not too comfortable and should be seen here as a supporting role. Still very good for armored recon if no other system is available, but the passive heat radiation based night vision of the optics is powerful to spot enemies at quite a distance.
Not related to battle: Leopard 1 has the best engine sound and the driver with the Canadian version driving it during tank fest above hatch was reckless....we had a switch blocking fully stabilized weapon movement, when the driver was up, as the later installed add-on armor could have harmed his head. I think Bundeswehr had it, because one driver got killed.
I suppose given that most tanks in Ukraine don't see tank-on-tank combat, but instead are used in a fire support role, then Leopard 1s should be able to perform that role very admirably. While the more modern MBTs partake in the offensives.
What an awful accident to have to learn from. Couldn't imagine being a family member getting a letter saying their loved one was killed by a preventable accident.
@@dense_and_dull I cannot say, that this story of a dead driver is true, it is just, what we were told during training. Eventually it was a really bad coincidence of several factors. Later, at our Armoured Corps Training Center (Panzertruppenschule) the civil (!) drivers we had for training sometimes secretly bipassed that switch as we often felt some air flow from the driver through the tower, but on intercomm the driver would always confirm to us young guys, that everything is alright. I guess, he was so old, he hated using below hatch the night vision during excercise.
According to wikipedia The Leopard 1A5 can be fitted with the same 120mm gun that the Abrams and Leopard 2A5 and 2A4 use and there's also a reactive armor package for it. How much a difference would it make if the tanks Ukraine receives get those two upgrades?
@@tessjuel The armor upgrade i know and this helps, still mobility might be affected. About the 120mm i am not sure, maybe at the expense of the coaxial MG? The Leopard 1 with the 105 mm is already quite tight and i see problems with storing and handling the larger ammunition in battle. An advantage: You do not have the bronze shell casings so quickly fill up the case behind the gun, in which those fell. Still, would be interested to see a solution for that. Regarding the fire controls the 1A5 was more modern than the late 2A4, of course not the 2A5 anymore or its Swedish version.
Don't forget the advantages of having fantastic fire control systems on the M1, Leopard 2, and Chally 2.
the modern Cold War relics from the 80s.. 😂 Hey, let's laugh at the Russians for using the t72
Meanwhile Leopards are getting their turrets blown out ! So much for Europe's best tank ! 🤣🤣
@aryanmalik2390 When you think you are a superior species because you live in North America or Western Europe.. and everything is the best. Sometimes, a reality check is needed to keep you grounded.
Canadian Leopard 2's along with Canadian tank crews, have already been in Poland for a little while now training Ukranians to operate them. First Canuck Leo was sent over on Feb 4, 2023. It was announced on Feb 25, 2023 that Canada would be sending over four more Leopards bringing the total to eight from Canada.
Do you know when the training of ukranian crew started ?
Yes, they sent all our tanks over there. All eight.
wow
the ukrainian counter attack will be spectacular when it will start...one day😂😂😂
oh my, 30 countries against one s quite something
Canada is set to buy replacement tanks for those they sent over. Also, as we saw with Canada's deal of selling the Canadian Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia, Canadian politicians are all too happy to do whatever it takes to boast their stocks in General Dynamics, who made the armored cars we sent there as well. Don't be surprised if we end up with Abrams as replacements when this is all said and done.
@@chriskitchen4772 They are cited with having about 70 Leopard 2's actually, in total.
Perfectly timed video. This is solid information for anyone who isn't a track head, but wants to know what the tank supply deal for Ukraine is all about. A superb example of why museums are important.
I still cant figure out the meaning of the order of 1 through 5.
this is not information but propaganda.
@@paulramsey1255 In what way?
@@paulramsey1255 Your real name is Ivan, isn't it? Do you hum the Soviet anthem in your sleep and dream of the "good old days"?
@@paulramsey1255 No, claiming you blew up the entire Ukrainian Air Force 6 times over is propaganda. This is just info.
⚠️ Correction: the Leopard 2 tanks are built by Krauss - Maffei - Wegman, and not Rheinmetall, however, the main gun IS produced by Rheinmetall.
Its a combination of KMW und Rheinmetall, they build them bothe. KMW Does Bild moste of the Chassi, moste of the Firecontroll, gun and Electronics is build by Rheinmetall
There's also a host of other manufacturers, the Swedish Stridsvagn 122 for example is built by Hägglunds and Bofors.
@@gandogarsilberbart3528
Rheinmetall only upgrades older versions, but it's not the only other German company to do so. KMW is in charge of actually building all new tanks, currently 50 per year but according to an interview recently given that could be ramped up to 600 per year in 1-2 years since KMW made sure to never get rid of its old capabilities and actually expanded them in the last 20 years despite the reduced production numbers.
Perks of being a family owned company that doesn't have to show the highest possible profit every financial year.
@@gandogarsilberbart3528
KMW is the general contractor for the Leopard. Rheinmetall is a subcontractor. Small but important difference.
What's not clear is why Rheinmetall owns an inventory of Leopard 1s.
Did they buy them back from the Bundeswehr (etc?) to accumulate a junkyard to supply parts to repair L1s owned by other countries?
Showing that Leopard 2 driving backwards at speed is such a flex
The Swedish S Tank might want to have a word with you. LOL
The bigger "flex" was drifting an Abrams on snow and ice, lol.
@@Lonewolfmike No it doesn't. The S Tank is sitting very quietly in the corner, trying not to attract attention and hoping no one has noticed how it's been cheating at driving backwards. 😀
@@exharkhun5605 Not "cheating" they were only supposed to have a two man crew, but they decided to have a third one in it for the radio and keep the other two from killing each other. LOL
@@Lonewolfmike Ha ha! Great argument. I imagine that when you're racing backwards through the Swedish forest with half of the Red Army hot on your heels it can be quite distracting to have your commander keep unloading his 9mm on you for that remark you made last week about his sister.
Glad that you mentioned the importance of availability of ammunition and spare parts. Other considerations not mentioned are weight capacity of Ukrainian bridges and trains.
Weight capacities (and dimensional) of Bridges and trains are pretty standard across the world and are dictated by the terrain they cross. In a combat environment bridges are expected to be compromised so it becomes an issue for Combat Engineering.
With regard to logistics the range of weaponry is normal across various troops, Squadron, Regiments, Brigades, Divisions, Corps etc. So the logistics support train for a Squadron of one type of tank would similar to that of say, Heavy artillery, light artillery, mortars, UAVs, AT weapons etc in the same operating unit, the sort of problem that Loggies are trained to overcome. Fuel is a perennial problem and why all vehicles tend to run on as common grade of diesel.
@@denisrobertmay875 All that is totally correct. To add to that, the US already has fuel tankers and AVLB's (armored vehicle-launched bridge´s) in Ukraine. They received 36 AVLB´s at first and then another 50 of them as they have a multi role to play, even for Infantry with the many destroyed bridges around where they would Usually ford! Logistics wont be the problem for these beasts once they begin the offensive. Yes, I know you already know this bro...just added for those that think the US is in the business of shipping unsupported armor.... just not a thing, really!
Every video from the Tank Museum is interesting and informative! Thank you!
And I am looking forward to the next one.
As ever. 🙂
... It should read Tankyou 🤭
Thanks for your support, though it's Ukraine, not the Ukraine. Sorry to nit pick :)
I came for this
404
"It" is both. What was the sentence in question?
This is a vital time to get your words as correct as your data: it's not "THE Ukraine", the Soviet Era provincial designation. It is simply Ukraine!
Glad you enjoyed the video
THE United States of America; THE United Kingdom; THE United Arab Emirates.....
@@johnharrison6745 But not THE Canada, THE Great Britain, THE Dubai, etc; or THE Ukraine, because they don't use the word 'United'.
@@johnharrison6745 So confident, yet so irrelevant.
@@johnharrison6745 Yes, and it's Ukraine, not "The Ukraine". What a stupid comment.
Ukraine military left the tanks in a minefield,some of the Leopard 2, Bradley fighting vehicles and Challenger 2 tanks were captured by the Russians. NATO countries can give Ukraine the best military equipment available but they also need to be deployed correctly to be effective. Going full bore into a minefield then abandoned to be captured by the Russians was not good.
Не идти с оружием проотив оперативников предлогалось ещё в прошлом году.
I was unaware that the Challengers had been used
Don’t think any challengers and Abrams have been in action yet. Though, if they do see action, I believe they’d just end up like the Leopards… Destroyed and stuck, not being effective.
The only reason we don't see destroyed Challenger-2s is they never were deployed on the battlefield...Unlike Leo-2A6/4, PT-91, T-72AE or others
about that! XD
That Polish PT-91 actually sounds like quite a nifty piece of kit!
From all, I have heard all of the former Soviet countries made the improvements that Russia didn't to all of the tanks they had. They made them better than what Russia has on the battlefield right now.
@@Lonewolfmike Russia made all sorts of improvements to their Soviet-era tanks, but that doesn't apply to the ones kept in their retired-tank-parks, which they are refurbishing now to an unknown (to me) degree. So now you've "heard" different.
@@gandydancer9710 A lot of what we have found out about the Russian military since they invaded Ukraine has been a lot of smoke and mirrors on the part of Russia. So I take that with a grain of salt.
@@Lonewolfmike I take everything said by both sides with large chunks of salt, but the claim that Russia's active inventory is unimproved since the fall of the USSR is new news to me.
Probably the best T-72 variant besides the T-90A, but nothing more.
Thank you from “The Germany” to “The Great Britain”.
And The Netherlands and die Schweiz
The Kingdom of Norway, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the Dutch must be doubly offended!), the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, the United States of America, the Swiss Confederation.
I'm pretty sure OP was making a comment on the curators constant addition of 'the' before saying Ukraine. It's just Ukraine. No 'the' required.
@@olanordmann2743and The Republic of Poland
Little error KMW is the manufacturer of the Leopard 2, but Rheinmetall is an important contractor
Yeah RM is building the gun and major systems which are integrated in the Leo
Actually, 20y ago RM bought a company that had produced about 40% of all GER Leo2s. So it can be argued both ways.
Leos were also built by other factories during the Cold War. Among others also in the MAK plant in Kiel. Rheinmetall took over this plant. Today, prototypes are developed and built there.
@Posi Troll KMW is the original designer of the Leopard and the hold sole right to it design, RM is just a subcontractor, any buisnees that took place 20 years ago stayed 20 years ago
This video was very relevant and shows how in touch The Tank Museum is with current global events. Excellent job!
Thanks for this up-to-date summary! That´s what museums do - look into history to help thinking on present problems
Well done, but one comment from German speaking world: From the german Leopard-2 tanks at Reinmetall/Industry not a single one is in the concrete list of 'Send tanks' by now, because they are not in a 'drive away' state by now, but have to be rebuilt before you can send them.
So, the '2 bataillions' now in training in Poland and Germany are just the beginning, more tanks will be send when the refurbishers are ready.(Same is true for most of the spanish Leo2A4s,.. because they are in a similar bad technical condition.
The video also forgot to mention the Leopard 2 tanks donated by Norway, Portugal and Finland and missed the ones from Sweden since those were only confirmed after the video was made.
I think Ukrainian tankers being trained now will be being trained in tanks active in the armed forces of Germany and or Poland now. The first 14 tanks are coming from tanks active in the the German Bundeswhare not Rhinemetall I believe but most of the rest will need to be ones taken out of storage. The Leopard 2A6 is pretty modern.
@@williamzk9083 They are probably being trained on the Abrams either there or here in the US. I know they have Abrams over in Europe for training purposes and war games purposes. The Ukrainian tankers will get a lot of good training for all of these tanks that aren't old Soviet-era tanks. As we have seen they have made great use of the artillery systems, both tracked/wheeled and traditionally towed. Just look at how well they have used the HIMARS systems that they have gotten. Hell, they even made fake HIMARS to fool the Russians.
@@williamzk9083 Germany and Poland is sending/send the Leos 2 from their active units. Polish ministry of defence confirmed yesterday that the polish leos were already delivered to the Ukraine.
Honestly it's shame for Europe for armed forces in such a bad state. The only garantee for European strategic independence from US is to accept Ukraine into NATO.
Pt-91 had Polish FCS Drawa. French FCS was used in PT-91M -export version for Malaysia.
Thanks.
Wikipedia: "PT-91M Pendekar (M for Malaysia) Production export variant for Malaysia with a Sagem Savan-15 fire control system..."
Elsewhere, "The PT-91M Pendekar is an export variant deployed by Malaysia. It is equipped with an enhanced 125mm gun, S-1000 engine, French fire control system, communication system and hydropneumatic transmission."
Leopard 2 & M2A2 Bradley: comming soon in Kubinka !
A a retired lecturer, i know a fine disseminator of knowledge when I hear one. A riveting exposition of tank abilities. Thank you.
As a former Abrams mechanic, I can attest to the validity of the intel put forth here on the Abrams. It, and the footage of the ice drifting Abrams tanks was a pleasant surprise to me! Thanks Tank Museum! It's been 24 years or more since I've been in an Abrams, but man, after watching this, I swear I can smell one!!
What you aren't saying is that the Ukrainians are removing the Western reactive armor and replacing it with the Russian system as it actually works.
I kinda thought the m1 was pretty well tested at Eastings 73 against the T72.
Anyhow the video of the m1 drifting in the ice is pretty fun to watch - lots of fun tank sounds as well.
They certainly did very well, yes. But it's extremely unlikely that the Iraqi tanks had the same weapon systems as the Russian ones. This is because of defections from countries that the Russians had sold their military stuff to. These defections meant that NATO got hold of top Russian tech. The Russians were obviously not keen on this, so they sold export versions of their stuff. These were not so well equipped * sightsetc ) as the ones Russia itself used. However, I expect all the western tanks ( with the exception of Leopard ones ) being sent will prove to be superior to the ones Russia is currently using. But of course, time will tell. And don't forget that the Ruskies have crap tons of heavy artillery. Which could make things awkward.
It is not against T 72 and it was not tested.
1. A tank is a platform the ammunition is the weapon. The Iraq had no modern ammunition and they had extremely downgraded versions as Arabs and soviets never really trusted each other.
2. The Iraqi army was badly trained not using weapons correctly as they fought only 70's armored Iran. So it was a professional boxer against a toddler in desert storm.
3. The tanks in Ukraine on both sides have the ammunition to destroy any tank and they can hide as it is not a desert.
4. Most important this war heavily depends on artillery and infantry no tank vs tank like in Video games. So any tank will see hard times
@@zednotzee7you are correct as a matter of fact capture tanks that ukrainians give to NATO probably stored in Ramstein Rheinland-Pfalz Air Force Base US Military waiting for shipment to the US or UK Salisbury Plain
True but never fight the last war.
Gulf War I was 32 years ago. The weapons platforms and their subsequent weapons, ammunitions, armor, sensors, equipment, communications, electronics, digital, and analog systems have advanced into current gen 4.5 block updates. Then there are the cyber and active defense systems that are being integrated to be considered.
These current 21st century systems didn’t even exist back in 91. This makes every MBT a completely different weapons platforms from what were essentially the last of the Cold War era technologies fighting each other.
Every MBT block update has to prove itself again but that’s normal.
Not even in same ballpark. Iraq was basically stabbed in the back by US. In addition to that Iraqi tankers were not particularly well trained. Iraqi T-72s were not upgraded versions. They also lacked up to date ammunitions. Not to mention total aerial superiority by US. So on and so forth.
Right now, all things considering, Russian T-72s are about 15-20% worse than any of those western MBTs and T-90s are considered to be ~30% better. Of course its not a game and you do not get +30% more damage, pretty much all of those engagements will be purely situational. Western MBTs have better armor, but Russian tanks are more agile and are smaller. They both can detect and kill opponent on roughly same ranges with a well-placed shot.
Almost everything will depend on how experienced crews will man tanks and pure luck. And Ukrainians will be at huge disadvantage there. Proper training for Abrams for example, takes 2 years. They can be blitz trained in a few months, 14-16 hours a day 7 days a week, but they will still be nowhere near properly trained crews.
Plus this smorgasbord of tanks is also a very bad idea. You cant train on Abrams and then just hop into Leopard. This whole thing looks more like publicity stunt, rather than any real attempt to make a difference. Enough tanks being send for it to be news, but not enough to make any real difference. And those that are being sent are not even of same type.
Overall, considering low number of those tank that will be sent, i dont think they will make much of a difference. Especially with Russians controlling the skies and mercilessly pounding with artillery everything that moves.
Thumbs up and support!
NOTE: We (in Canada) are actually providing Ukraine with 8 Leopard 2 tanks plus one Leopard 2 chassis-based service vehicle.
Great. Can I ask? Do Canada have CAESARS or ARCHERS or similar in your arsenal?
Канадцев тоже присылайте! У нас много земли, в которой их можно похоронить
@@alexpush Наверное, места мало, так как уже 200 000 россиян удобряют прекрасные равнины Украины. Но вы должны сделать нам всем одолжение и пойти удобрять другую часть Украины. 😂 Иди прочь, русский тролль!
@@JFHeroux только под Бахмутом сдохло более 50 тысяч нацыков. 6-я волна мобилизации не спасёт последышей СС. Гореть вам всём в аду солнцепëков.
И да, если 200 тысяч наших из 600 погибло защищая Родину, то почему ваша полутора миллионная армия не сомнëт оставшиеся 100 тысяч (ведь наших раненых должно быть не менее 300 тысяч) ? Где ваш контрнаступ?
@@alexpush 😂Продолжайте пить свой местный аромат пропаганды и жить в своей альтернативной вселенной, той, где вы считаете себя величайшей нацией на Земле, в то время как ваш диктатор грабит вашу страну. Наслаждайтесь, пока еще можете. Вы больше не сможете притворяться. Через пару лет, как только вы, наконец, избавитесь от своего диктатора, будет слишком поздно спасать свою страну от разорения, а все народы, которым вы причинили зло в прошлом, придут просить возмездия. Тогда вы поймете, что на самом деле означает быть не на той стороне истории. Как ты думаешь, кто на этот раз пожалеет тебя? Мы все учились на своих ошибках. На этот раз мы будем рады видеть вашу страну в руинах. Когда вы упускаете самые элементарные вещи, а ваши границы размываются, мы все будем смеяться над тем, насколько жалкими были ваши заблуждения. А теперь уходите раз и навсегда, мне больше некогда тратить на вас время. Гни в своем воображаемом мире до конца своей жалкой жизни! 🤣😂
OMG I never realised how small Russian tanks are. I was amazed how small the T-34 was at the tank museum but never thought this would continue
I think they had a height requirement for tankers and it still might be in place. I have a brother-in-law who was an Abrams driver and he is well over 6'.
A small tank has MANY advantages.👍🏿
yeh Russia took a very different approach to tank design. They have good reason, but from what i gather its not the advantage it was supposed to be.
@@magnummax78 and also many disadvantages
@@r200ti indeed it isn't - because they forogt that humans aren't robots and need space to work
God the Challenger 2 is a beast
Also god am i lucky for having this youtube channel ive been to the museum twice cant wait to go again
I like the way the UK army thought. Excellent cross country ability (probably the best), strong track protection, good acceleration, emphasis on supporting infantry. It's pretty much still got doctrinal roots in the Churchill tank (but free of rail gauge restrictions). The Leopard 2, M1A2 all have their niche areas. Having this diversity in European Military keeps everyone on their toes..
@@williamzk9083 I do think the Challenger 2 was designed for that kinda grit underdog style to war off-road armour also exactly like the Harrier jump jet it didn't need billions of pounds for a runway or a Aircraft carrier give it a tarmacked field 😂
@@williamzk9083 "Having this diversity in European Military keeps everyone on their toes."
Mainly it's a logistic nightmare, but the theory is that any tank is better than no tank.
We'll see.
I've seen a video of British tankers are working with and teaching Ukrainian tankers on how to operate the Challenger 2 and about the ammunition they will be using. From all I have seen of the Ukrainian military, they are picking up the information very quickly and making good use of what they learn. Look at how well they have been using the various artillery systems they have gotten.
@@Lonewolfmike You think the "various artillery systems" are all being operated by Ukrainians?
Informative, concise an interesting. Another great video. Keep up the good work!
One of my late Uncles was a WW2 veteran, drove a MK3 and a MK4 Panzer and finally a Panther in France. Wounded twice he explained, "we had the better tanks, they just had more of them." While our tanks are formidable they are not impervious to a determined enemy. We need more of them.
Laserpig would tell you you're wrong.
he said it like "we were better but there were more of them" but in essence he was right - having a better tank in small numbers is way worse than having an OK tank in plentiful numbers. tanks are useless unless you have a lot of them to expend
When watching the Leopard 2A5 and beyond, I am reminded of the line by John Keats: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."
As a straight leg, there's nothing more comforting than the rumbling of the ground as you feel your 6 being covered by heavy steel. Along with the range and sights I for one would feel a lot better on the front line knowing Who's got superiority.
Sounds like you haven’t heard US has exhausted its’ 155mm shells.
Sorry David it's Ukraine, not "the Ukraine", which is how it was referred to when part of the USSR. Ukraine is a country now.
Exactly. No one says “the Russia”.
How about getting a hobby, instead of splitting hairs.
M1 Abrams did not replace the M48 Patton, it replaced the M60
The way he said it works out, "This is one of the family of Patton tanks (this particular one the M48) that the Abrams ended up replacing." The way his tone of voice changes and sped through the parenthesis quote implies he added it in as an afterthought
It’s something to watch so many Leopards and Abrams burning on the battlefield.😳🐸
David is such an amazing speaker for all the tank museum, naturally gifted to captivate and hold your attention.
As an extension, a Cold War doctrine, the Russian Tactical Battalion Group structure was renewed because it didn't meet the requirements of modern warfare. The organization was completely revamped according to the new doctrine. Unfortunately, the potential consequences of this move did not find any response in NATO headquarters. The counterattack was planned based on the old doctrine, and this has incurred a heavy cost due to the painful mistake.
I bet the Challengers boiling vessel will be popular with Ukrainian tank crews during the cold weather.
@@elliotyourarobot ... the AIR-BURST of the "Russian anti-tank missiles" getting WASTED by the Challenger's anti-missile systems. 😏
By the time they get there the weather probably won't still be cold.
A small fridge might be more appreciated.
3000 Abrams in storage yet the US can't supply them until the end of the year as it prefers to build brand new ones from scratch and apparently even building only a few of them takes a lot of time. Germany is not the only one that isn't keen on tank deliveries...
Manufacturing tanks is a bussines. They want to make a profit from that war.
Didnt Germany reject sending tanks before the US did promise to send some too?
One of the reasons could very well be that it will be the export model. So, no DU in the armor and probably some other systems that wont be the same as those in US Army service. Nobody is really giving the latest model.
@@Ganiscol I seriously doubt all of those 3000 mothballed Abrams are the latest and greatest tech. From the start the US has had a disinformation campaign going citing may reasons why it couldn't possibly provide Ukraine with the only tank that really is available in decisive numbers and I suspect the reason is political. Rumor has it that there is some sort of deal with China not to supply *offensive* weapons if China refrains from sending weapons, which would explain a lot about US behavior.
@@Ganiscol Which were the 300+ ones left in Iraq?
Anyway, last I heard the FY2023 planned purchase/manufacture was 22 (twenty-two) Abrams. It may be a bit late to make them with depreciated armor.
Thanks for the overview. I only wish those tanks get here faster and in more numbers!
It should be noted that the Leopard 1A5 was designed to be able to be upgraded to the 120mm/L44 gun that was used on the Leopard 2. There are also other systems upgrades available to make this old warrior more formidable on the modern battlefield.
I can't wait for my next visit. I live about 30 minutes away. David has promised a free tour!. ;-)
I am Ukrainian and i thank United Kingdom! Also all other nations who help!
I only wish we could have done more, sooner. We Brits all hope for your freedom and liberation soon. Slava Ukraini.
You really think they're doing it just to be altruistic? They are trading your lives for profit. The war in your country is just another way to make money.
@@GerhardtRoos screw of, Putinite. These tanks are all donated. There is no money being made with zhem
@@fuckinantipope5511 So because I have a different opinion than you, I'm a "Putinite". That's just childish, man.
That said, nothing in life is free. Somewhere down the line someone is paying, and here it's western taxpayers, all of them having to carry this unwanted and unnecessary burden.
@@GerhardtRoos The tanks and equipment are already paid for, they are just in storage. No one is paying for it in taxes. Even if it did cost the average person money the overwhelming sentiment is in support of helpinh Ukraine so hardly unwanted or unnecessary.
Just today Poland revealed that the first Leopard 2 tanks have arrived in Ukraine. Good news.
That's right. 4 first Leopards 2 arrived today to Ukraine. Let serve them well.
Yeah, let's escalate to a nuclear war as soon as possible. Great stuff.
I can't wait to see the Russians return the favor of putting destroyed Polish and German tanks on display in front of their embassies.
@@Camcolito Mhm, yeah... When Putin will walk thru Ukraine, then Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, arrive to your country, start killing kids, elders, pregnant women, will destroy whole cities - we also ask you to shut up and not to escalate
@@marekkuran4956 1946 called and wants their strategic concerns back.
That Leo 1 with the grey paintjob and the Bundeswehr iron cross is a vibe.
What was all that “never again” stuff, Germany?
I remember when my brother in law served in the National Guard in armor during the 70's NATO did joint exercises at Fort Bragg. He related that his commanders told them to, "Stay away from the Leopards, they'll eat you up."
The Abrams is great, but it uses too much petrol with its turbine engine.
What they really need is a bunch of A10 Warthogs, best anti-tank weapon we ever produced.
🇨🇭 has 94 Leo II A4 in reserve. They are stored underground in an air conditioned facility but electronics etc are not the newest. We cannot supply them to 🇺🇦 because of ‘neutrality’.
Some of the more responsible politicians (PLR/FDP and PS/SP) are trying to find a workaround to ‘resell’ these to 🇩🇪. I pray they succeed.
Sell them to FIN while it's still technically neutral...
@Enclave Soldier
🇨🇭has done and continues to do a lot for 🇺🇦. The government has approved another aid package of CHF 140m last week (there will be more).
But for historical and legal reasons, weapons are a problem.
Timely, first four Leopard tanks gifted by Poland have arrived in Ukraine today. Well done to Poland for being the European powerhouse in support of Ukraine.
Where do you got that info from? They were supposed to arrive in Ukraine at the end of march. Training aint even finished yet.
@@heavyweight6440 BBC news reporting Poland has delivered the first of four to Ukraine. I'd guess that means they've crossed the border, but unlikely to see action yet until training complete and the rest arrive.
@@briangreen6602 Can you give me a link to the article? Edit: found it, but cant share the link because RUclips is stupid.
Search for "DW Poland delivers first Leopard tanks to Ukraine". Its from 3 hours ago.
It's a shame you guys don't have the leopard 2 in your collection. It just so happens to be my favorite tank!
Yes, they don't have much.
I was a challenge 2 crewmen and loved my job for 1 RTR from 2006 2012 unfortunately looking at new weapons and tactics I dont think many armored vehicles stand a chance..
At this point, I think it's still true to say that the biggest donor of tanks to Ukraine is Russia. Those Ukrainian farmers and their tractors don't mess around.
Great video. Just as an FYI its not "The Ukraine". It's just Ukraine.
You wrong, its 404
This is a brilliant piece. My view is that Mr Willey presented each tank's narrative concisely from development to current state,. A bit of an update: I believe that Canada is adding an additional 4 tanks to its initial offer. As a former tanker, I must admit that the addition of Leopard 1 (A3,A4,A5) troubles me. A great tank but my view is that she is too old to cope with the modern digital battlefield and would require substantial refit. Spares will be a huge issue.
Even Ukraine's old T72s can cope with the modern, digital battlefield. Why shouldn't the Leo 1 be able to do that too. This tank is very maneuverable and has excellent aiming accuracy. These Leo 1s don't have to be in a tank battle MBT against MBT, but they are excellent for supporting infantry and rip up Russian IFV.
The only reason why the US agreed to deliver Abrams to Ukraine is: Germany made this a condition. It would only agree on the delivery of Leopard 2, if US would also deliver Abrams.
And??
Our current loser POTUS and the orgasuming left running the country should have taken the lead with this..
And the US is actually delivering how many Abrams when?
@@gandydancer9710 in the news it was said 31 Abrams tanks will be delivered.
@@ralfhtg1056 That's what Biden says. But the video says they will have to be new production. And as of last July the FY2023 production of Abrams was reduced to 22 (twenty-two). Maybe that's changed but, I repeat: The US is ACTUALLY delivering how many Abrams WHEN?
Maybe they can get them from Iraq, to which the US gave about 330, iirc. (/sarc)
I believe the “er armor mentioned is pronounced by naming the letters ‘E’ ‘R’ ‘A’, and stands for explosive reactive armor. The armor explodes outwards upon contact by a shell, basically attacking the shell before it can penetrate.
He's talking about ERAWA, the polish domestically developed ERA
Love how almost everyone in the west ignores creeping NATO move towards the east, making Ukraine the Afghanistan of eastern Europe & ignoring the criminal blunder of their own leaders.... not asking what their role was in forcing Russia into a corner.
I was on the M1A1 Abrams for 4 years and know what it's capable of doing....I guarantee you that there isn't a Russian tank crewman that isn't absolutely terrified about what will be coming in their direction very soon..... Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger are going to absolutely annihilate any Russian armor they encounter, as long as the crews are competent and adequately trained.
This attitude is so typical of so many US vets. It shows incredible ignorance of what conventional war is actually like. You think this is going to be like when the US rolled on Iraqi T-72's. It's not. I was an FO in a BFIST, but I've also been watching the videos from this war. Tank-on-tank engagements are incredibly rare, so Russian tankers likely don't care. What's going to be the bane of these NATO tanks is artillery and mines. And since they're so damn heavy, and recovering disabled tanks in this war isn't anything like in Iraq, plenty of them are going to be abandoned during stalled attacks.
We're about to get a serious ego check when the videos start rolling out of captured or destroyed Abrams, Challengers and Leopards.
Is there any point where the Abrams is better than the Leo 2A6?
In competitions in tank comparison shooting, LEOs have always won, even the old 2A4 of the Austrians before the Abrams...
It’s extremely dangerous with Kornet has penetration 1300mm and can penetrate easily all western tanks. I hope the IFVs do a great job in the battlefield.
@@USN1985dos Not to mention the fact the Ukrainians can't even do a maneuver style doctrine that puts these vehicles in the best possible position to achieve anything. Not to mention they all have been probably neutered in some form before being sent. So what are they really getting?
I'm not going to even go into training, or lack of. Or anything else.
@@USN1985dos Have you ever heard of Battle of 73 Easting?? Look it up and learn something.
Great work as usual. Thanks for the quality content and information.
How about updating this one in the light of the Ukrainian summer offensive?
Also how about commenting on:
1. the performance of these tanks during the Ukrainian summer offensive.
2. The wisdom of using 70 ton tanks in the muddy conditions which last for 1/3 of the year in the Ukraine?.
3. The MOD's ban on using the Challenger 2s in risky attacks. Allegedly because it does not want to Challenger 2 tanks burning like the Leopard 2s have so readily. Just in case it hurts export sales.
Ok I know that this might be problematic with he who pays the piper calling the tune. But it is of interest
I am not Polish by any metric. My respect for that country, it's people and what they have done has blown through any ideal I had of any country. (I'm not Ukrainian by any metric I know of either)
Seeing what the Scandinavian countries have been preparing for, seeing how the Baltic countries have responded and helped. Gives me a hope for humanity that I never imagined I would have. My own country (U.S.) has absolutely disappointed me in almost ever military action since WW2.
From my ignorant perspective I thought honorable wars were never going to happen again.
I was absolutely wrong. I also knew nothing about Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania history. Russia invading Ukraine led me to look into all of this and I am still horrified that I had no idea. When so many countries have warned the world for decades and no one listens. I get it, because I would have done the same. Russia proved all of these countries fears were justified and that is what we have to understand.
Russia proved itself to be the bad guy. (not the people, they have no power) The government system.
Please indulge into more varied sources of information... You do understand that western media has the same narrative right ?.
@@Cortesevasive I wasn't talking about media at all. I had never looked into the world of the post soviet countries or the history of Finland and Sweden. I am embarrassed that I never cared to look into history that wasn't taught in school 30 years ago.
The Abrams gun is much modified that in fact only the calibre is the same as the German counterpart. Thanks for covering PT-91 Twardy tank!
Just a quick note, "The Ukraine" is how Russia refers to Ukraine as they see it as a Russian peninsula just like "the Crimea"
To the Ukrainian people, it's just "Ukraine" 👍
Nonsense. "The Ukraine" is geography, like "the Caucuses". "Ukraine" is a political entity with its capital in Kiev/Kyiv. Whether it includes Crimea or the Donbas is open for argument. As is who is included in "the Ukrainian people".
so just to summing this all up ,
all of those tanks going to our meat grinder of ukranians are about the age and development as the T72 and the T80 are .
and all those models need their own supply/repair train to follow them around the battlefield AFTER they learn how to do that .
and all of those different models have spare parts and/or ammunition supply problems .
and after they arrive at the front , the russians can still bring up about ten times that number of their oldest models that are about the same age or up to 15 years further in development
BEFORE we start to mention the T90 [ about a 1000 pieces ] and newer ones .
what in gods name could ever go wrong with that ?
Great video! I would like to see an analysis of the top 5 Russian tanks likely to be seen used in the Ukraine.
That would be a useful video. We do know that T - 72 and its variants has been most used ( and most captured ).
By abundance (rough order since I can’t be bothered to crawl through detailed listings)
1. T72B3
2. T72A
3. T90A
4. T90
5. T90M
And no I’m not a tank expert.
The Challenger is a classic British tank with emphasis on cross country ability, track protection and supporting infantry with a gun able to support HESH. The ability of a smart breech on the smooth 120mm bore gun able to program smart munition has meant the British Army has finally relented on rifled ammunition needed to fire HESH and quality HE rounds.
Good program. Remember that for the last 31 years the country's name has been Ukraine not the Ukraine. The whole point of the war is that Ukraine is no longer a region of the USSR/Russia.
Excellent video, though one thing to note is the use of the term 'The Ukraine', this kind of language, I've been told, alludes to Ukraine being just another region of Russia. You don't say 'The Estonia' or 'The France'.
I'd just shorten it to Ukraine. That's the name of the country, not the region of the world.
But also, Ukraine showed in Kharkiv that mobile forces can break through Russian defensive lines and manoeuvre and capture territory. That’s where highly trained brigades are useful.
There were virtually no Russian forces deployed there and no fortifications or defences. If Ukraine try that again itll be a bloodbath - Russian forces are far more numerous and have setup defensive lines. They have now also eliminated the Ukrainian s300 systems so can use air support along with drones and artillery to take out any offensive forces. Best tactic is peace talks. Ukraine are just haemorrhaging men and equipment.
Worth to mention. The Leo2 got is upgrade with the L/55 with the A6 variant and not the A5 one. Anyway very cool video!
The gps on the challenger 2 tank is amazing.Not one person in a challenger 2 has gotten lost. Amazing.
I enjoy the history and opinions of this channel and museum.
Now, for a less positive comment. Europe likes to knock the M-1 turbine. They don’t seem to understand how incredibly flexible the turbine is. There is a reason why 90% of aircraft operate using turbines even the prop has planes use them. This is simplicity. A turbine is very easy to maintain and they operate even after heavy use. One of the mistakes made is the assumption the turbine will only run in jet fuel. The M-1 turbine will run on just about every liquid fuel available. Diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, mixed jet fuel and gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Ukraine won’t have trouble finding fuel for the M-1. In additon the turbine can be replaced rapidly in the field.
The only weakness this tank has that might be an issue is weight. But then all western tanks are heavy. So, this isn’t an issue that isn’t gong to be faced by other tanks.
The biggest single advantage of the M-1 is numbers. The US could send 1000 tanks within a year if it chose to do so.
The Ukrainians cannot sustain heavy losses of soldiers. They simply do not have the manpower long term. Anything the west can give them that saves lives and adds lethality to their military is crucial.
Now since Russia keeps promising it’s going to nuke the UK and anyone who helps Ukraine AND they continue to threaten using nukes in Ukraine, It’s time to believe that Russia, China, Iran, N Korea are conspiring to use nukes first in a all out decapitation attack on the U.S. and Britain. This means we better make sure not one single one of these will get away with such an attack. It’s time to modernize the nuke weapon delivery system and to disperse these nukes to nations that are free, responsive or responsible and capable
In f maintaining and protecting these systems.
My opinion is that Australia, Japan, an alliance of Norway, Sweden, Finland), Poland, Germany, Singapore, Italy should be offered membership into the purchasing of these proven weapons from England, US or France.
1:22 Aaaargghhh, stop saying "THE Ukraine", where does the "THE" come from? The Germany? The Japan?, The Australia?, The Canada?! stop it!!
Add to that, at least twenty-one (21) Leopard 2 MBTs from the Nordic countries to Ukraine: 🇫🇮 Three (3) Leopard 2 mine clearing tanks from Finland (off. confirmed on 23 Feb), 🇸🇪 Ten (10) Stridsvagn 122 (Leopard 2 SE-variant) from Sweden (off. confirmed on 24 feb), 🇳🇴 Eight (8) Leopard 2 NO-variant + four (4) support vehicles for the Leopard 2 from Norway (off. confirmed on 14 Feb). In addition, they donate funds for Leopard parts and 120mm ammo via the European Peace Facility fund.
"European Peace Facility" is a locution that sounds very like very like "friendly fire".
Does anyone remember that the US once had a Department of War?
Too honest?
Damn I guess those mine clearing vehicles trending on Twitter
@@blackmantis3130 Speaking of trending: how is the Ruble doing, nowadays? Heard USD/RUB went exponential, What, is it 110 Rubles on a US Dollar, or still plummeting? Better for CBR to yank Russian key interest rates above today’s 12%, then, to make Russian citizens appreciate the cost of Putin’s barbaric and highly illegal war of aggression. Primitive.
@@norsenomad lolx . Bro you seem hurt by my statement. But honestly at the rate of losses of western equipment and manpower this offensive is pretty much dead.From what I know alot of people travel to Russia still and compared to Ukraine Russian seems to offer alot more to the world. Facts don't lie , do they?
@@blackmantis3130 Aw, that’s so sweet… worrying about my emotions. Don’t. So, go home now, start worrying about your future and your personal economy - not least, your childrens’ future economy and lost opportunities. Interest rates will rise, there will be foreclosures, jobs will vanish. Better plan well, and act sooner than later. Think. Bye, bye now.
@9:20 Leopard 2 is not from Rheinmetall but Kraus Maffei (now Kraus Maffei Wegmann), only the gun is made by Rheinmetall
The number of people involved in the credits at the end is nuts. Really impressed with The Tank Museum. Really well researched.
I think that is the list of Patreon supporters.
Thanks editors for making custom chapters and not leaving it to the inaccurate auto generated ones! 👍
Go Ukraine! The world supports you. With love from Asia
Thank You David, for a very good overview of the tank debate. What is your view of the comment that the Leopard 2, being a lighter tank plus more ammunition available in European stocks make it more suitable for Ukraine than the Abrams?
At least by prouducer of armarment, the Abrams and the Leo use the same Kannon (Rheinmetall L44 120mm) and the Leo has a combat weight of 62 tonns... so its not that huge of a difference to the abrams (i know im bot David, but i hope i dont bother you)
The Leopard 2 and the Abrams use the same gun so the ammunition is not an issue here.
The ammo isn't the problem - spare parts are. Any replacements for Abrams would need to be shipped over from America, whereas Leopard parts are being produced just a few hundred miles away. And the Abrams is a thirsty boi, sure it'll take anything but it'll take everything you have and want more.
Abrams and 2A4/2A5 use the same gun as Silberbart stated. Their ammo is fully cross compatible. The 2A6/2A7 have the 120mm L55 (longer barrel), and I'm not sure if ammo designed to take advantage of that longer barrel would be "backwards compatible" with the L44 version but I believe the ammo designed for L44 would work in the longer barrel, just not taking full advantage of the length.
Fuel isn't as much as a concern. They'll almost certainly get SEP v3, which comes with an APU. That means that the turbine only needs to start up when the Abrams is about to move out, and if they'll be stopped longer than a certain amount of time, they can turn off the turbine. Plus, despite adding 11ish tons to the design, the SEP v3 IIRC has very similar MPG to the M1/M1A1 (the shorter range is mostly due to reduced fuel capacity). And yeah, the turbine is multifuel, so they can dump diesel into it all day long without an issue.
The bigger issue is what andromidius notes - Leo 2 factory is in Germany. Abrams factory is across the Atlantic and then a quarter of the way across the country after that. Leo 2s have a much shorter round trip in the event they need to be sent back to the factory for repair/replacement. And spare parts have a much shorter travel time from Germany.
Leo 2s are ideal logistically because everything you need to service it will be right in Europe and basically next door to Ukraine.
I am pretty sure the Leopard 2A5 has retained the L44. It is the 2A6 that has the L55 120mm.
The L55 on the 2A7 was further upgraded with new metallurgy to allow operation at higher pressures. The later versions have a smart breach so that programmable ammunition can be configured. For instance a round can be air burst, contact burst or delayed burst after penetration into a building. The British reluctance to move to smooth bore till recently was due to their focus on infantry support and predicated on the poor ability over smooth bore to fire HESH or HE.
@@williamzk9083 I was only referring to the 2A5 vs the 2A6.
@@rogerkidd2121 yes, of course, just adding information.
Another fabbo video from the acclaimed British Tank Museum. Kudos and my thanks, for your video.
Hello Tank Museum. Just for the record. PT-91 operated by Polish Army are equipped polish made FCS Drawa-1T and Israeli thermal cameras, and some of them now have polish thermal cameras Asteria. Only PT-91 M Pendekars made for Malaysia got equipped in French Savan 15 FCS made by Sagem.
Good point 👍
The interesting thing to see is how effectively Ukrainian units can use these different tanks. No modern army has tried to make use of such a varied collection of vehicles like this.
With no air cover
Yep. In some ways they would have been smarter to have settled on Leo 2 - the US keeping their M1's and same with the poms and paying to crank up the production lines at KMW to produce new build Leo2A7's for Germany so the older Leo2's could have been released from stocks for Ukraine.
@@marclagalle1486 What IS the L2 production rate?
Last I heard (July '22?) the M1 rate was being reduced to 22/YEAR.
@@gandydancer9710 No idea. But it is possible to ramp up production - which I'm guessing KMW has been doing for the last year. All the countries that bought recent soviet equipment such as T72's, T80's etc will be looking to replace them toot sweet given how their turrets have a disturbing propensity to go 'pop'.
@@marclagalle1486 Not unless they wish to afford to and can source the replacements. Let me run what I said by you, again: The US FY3023 productions of Abrams was REDUCED to 22 last JULY (iirc). The invasion of Ukraine was last FEBRUARY. FEB is well before JULY. This isn't to secret stuff. The appropriations get debated in public. See the German debates over finally getting new fighters, which hasn't translated into actual contracts that I've heard, though I could be wrong. MY guess is that KMW has done no such thing.
As an American, of course the Abrahms is the bestest tank! However, that thing is rated in gallons per mile, not miles per gallon 😂
It doesn't so much "guzzle" gas as Thanos snap it out of existence
It still can be used in many ways even as fuel hungry tank, better this than nothing
Could there be a possible number 6? There has been speculation that Jordan's recently retired Challenger 1 tanks could somehow get to Ukraine. What's going for the Challenger 1 is the numbers: Jordan got 402 of them back in 2002. Of course, probably not all of them are operational. Given the tank's age, there could be similar problems to the Leopard 1, but one of them won't be the ammunition, because the Challenger 1 uses 120mm ammunition. But, the Challenger 1 also has a rifled gun, like the Challenger 2, so it trades the Leopard 1 ammunition problems for the Challenger 2 ammunition problems. Though, there has also been speculation that the Challenger 1's could be refurbished to use 120 mm smooth bore guns, so there won't be any more ammunition problems. I just hope Jordan can be somehow convinced to send them to Ukraine, somehow.
well if the US offered Abrams to Jordan, and Jordan sent (say 200) Chally 1s to Ukraine that'd be nice
By the way - is Chally 1 120mm rifle ammo compatible with Chally 2 120mm rifle ammo?
Imagine hanging around tanks all day and talking about it. I think I found my future dream job
Would be nice to see tanks operating with real air support from A-10s, AC-130s, Apaches, even fighter jets. The U.S. military gets things done on the ground due to unparalleled firepower in the air.
It's 'Ukraine', not 'the Ukraine'. The latter treats it as part of Russia/the Soviet Union.
*sigh*