Why Leopard 1 is ideal for Ukraine now!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 май 2024
- Why the Leopard 1 makes so much more sense for Ukraine now than various other tanks like the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 etc. as so often it comes down to logistics. Additionally, although the Leopard 1 is rather dated and relatively weakly armored main battle tank, it is still equipped with a powerful gun and better armored and armed than most other vehicles and non-vehicles it faces.
DISCLOSURE: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2023.
/ daspanzermuseum
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» RUclips Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
»» SOURCES ««
our brains
00:00 Intro
00:22 Leopard 1 Chassis
01:34 Maintenance & Spare Parts
02:05 Personnel
02:23 Logistics
03:41 Training
04:11 Gun & Ammo
04:45 World-wide
05:11 Ammo Availability vs NATO Textbook
07:01 Lots of Targets
08:58 Summary
09:47 Leopard 2
#leopard1 #ukrainewar #leopard2
Paraphasing a quote here :"The tank you have available to you in the field in working order is far better that the tank that you saw in the Sears catalog"
Sure but only if the enemy has no tanks... the Russian have yet to use the T-14s and they have T-80s and T-90s in the field... Also the Leopard 1 was meant for highly mobile engagements(Which it woud need to flanks modern Russian tanks to pen.) but the Ukirnain-rusain war is now very WW1 like and not mid cold war gone hot... Is it useless no it's just a heavy light tank in a heavy medium tank world.
Not necessarily. The imaginary or unavailable tank in the catalog won't burn, won't embarrass you when it goes up in smoke, won't kill its crew when it does go up in smoke, and won't cost taxpayers any money.
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Leo 1 was highly mobile in the 60's - for which it sacrificed gun and armor. It's not particularly mobile by modern standards, and the gun and armor are now even weaker by modern standards.
It was a bad idea 60 years ago. But it's "ideal" now lol.
T-14 is none factor really, not really any for combat, the only ones around are test beds for future development. The T-90s/80s and T-72s are the ones to watch out for though.@@GreenBlueWalkthrough
Ukraine annexed the Czech region of Carpathien Rus in 1945 and does not want to return it !!!
It is a country of 13,352 km2 (5,155 sq mi) which is about the same size as Crimea. Historically, this territory never belonged to Ukraine. But Ukraine has only been growing for the last 300 years, occupying lands that do not belong to it.
Didn't realize how tall the Gepard is. Good to see it side by side.
well it is a Gepard 1a5 which is on a Leopard 1 Chasis so its a tiny bit bigger
Was my first thought too. That thing is huge.
Is it bigger than the Shilka ?
The Leopard 1 is "ideal".
The Leopard 2 is "unavailable".
Leopard 1 is ideal because Germany would rather keep the best tanks and donate the obsolete ones.
@@eighthelementGermany didn't own any Leopard 1 for decades. They buy refurbished ones back. It's not like they are delivering their scraps they don't need. They are actually buying and refurbish them for Ukraine.
On the Leopard 2: They don't have that many anymore since they gifted a lot of stuff to new NATO allies since the 90s. All the tanks they currently have are needed for training and the one division they assigned to Lithuania.
@@walli6388 >They actually buy and refurbish them for Ukraine.
This is correct. They buy Leopard 1 so that they can fulfill the donation quota. Smart move!
WW2 tank is even better.
Absolutely crazy thing is the leopard one has roughly what were ww2 medium tank armor and its gun would’ve been competitive for the 1950s.
Just before someone else comments, Tobias several times seems to say "Belgisch", which is the German word for 'Belgian'.
Thats a problem when you speak 2 languages - continualy throwing in a word of the wrong language. As an Englishman its embaarasing when I accidentally use a German word but unfortunatly I do it continiously. I also accidentally throw in lots of english words when speaking German but there are 80 million others doing that as well so its not so embarasing.
4:11 he said "and also, what's not to forgetten"
@@jonathanwebb8307 - But isn't it nice to see nowadays so many people around the world speaking fairly well one or two foreign languages and even understanding a great share of several others, even if they don't dare speak them ? Today we earthlings are connected more widely than ever before, and a lot of it must be credited to the Internet.
Which is the most widely spoken language in the world? - Bad English
@@Bakaroo-lo7rg- Sure, Shakespeare would be horrified, but languages evolve all the time adding new words "stolen" from bordering countries.
Here in Ukraine we don't need superior tanks in small numbers, we just need any tanks but in huge numbers.
Here, have these Renault FT-17.
@@radarradarovic2076you missed the "huge numbers" part. Museum exhibits dont count.
The lessons of WW2 are being relearned. High intensity conventional war chews up men and equipment like crazy, no matter how good. The Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams are great tanks, but they are complicated and expensive, the WWII equivalent of the German Tiger. And despite their enormous capabilities, they are still highly vulnerable. The older Leopard 1 isn't as well protected and its 105mm gun doesn't have as much punch as the 120mm, but it still hits hard. It is the M4 Sherman in this regard. The M4 Sherman in its day was a long way from being the best tank on the battlefield. But what made it great was its simplicity, reliability and the fact that we could build them in HUGE numbers. The trend for the future will be much less heavily armored tanks relying on advanced active protection systems to deal with side and top attack threats.
The Leopard 1 is the perfect tank because it was recently buffed and is now the best sniper MT at tier 10
😂
Wait the Leo was buffed?!
How???
If you play on a decent team and you don't have to spot your own target.... leo1 is OP.
Imagine playing world of tanks and not warthunder
In wot blitz it was buffed
The dpm goes crazy 5,5 sec for 360 alpha without adrenalin!@@BENNO117
"Why the Leopard 1 is perfect for Ukraine"
- Lancet Operators, propably.
Gotta get their numbers up somehow
Part standardization is an order of magnitude improvement in terms of efficiency and logistics. I once talked to an old Wehrmacht mechanic who said that repairs and even basic maintenance became a complete nightmare fairly early on in the war, whereas the Russians and especially the Americans not only far superior logistics but also had an endless supply of interchangeable spare parts, which made their mechanics' lives incomparably easier.
Does the Leopard 1 carry dedicated HE shells for its 105mm L7 gun? Since the vast majority of tank usage in this war is infantry support its probably the biggest metric if a tank is ideal for Ukraine now or not. As far as i know only the French and Swedes made 105mm HE shells for their L7's and that was in the late 60's. HEAT or HESH is nowhere near as good as dedicated HE for dealing with fortifications and strongpoints.
It can carry pretty much any type of NATO 105x617mmR ammo you choose to supply them with. Maybe not WP (WP has soecific storage requirements), but I don't think anyone really uses WP in tank guns anymore.
No because theres no 105 HE/HE-Frag in storage for that
@@geodkyt except NATO countries dont produce HE for the 105 ... my point still stands. Too lightly armored for tank on tank combat, too usless as a infantry support tank without HE
Infantry can be supported by ammunition that is not HE, too.
That's not ideal, but sufficient.
HESH is still very effective as a general purpose HE shell and has its advantages in some cases. It's not as black and white as you present it.
Regarding the Biber Bridge. There was an interview in ESUT some time ago in which the CEO of the producer of the bridges for Biber said that the uprated the bridge so that it can now officially carry Leo2 and similar vehicles. Turned out that back in the day they build the bridges so sturdy that they can take the extra weight. Which is something we now know because of modern computer modelling.
@@baronvonslambert There's also cumulative damage from overload, which means a lot of stuff won't break immediately when overloaded but regularly overloading it will shorten its service life i.e. make it wear down sooner rather than later. But in active combat situations, obviously, the durability over years is much less of a concern than it woud be during peace time.
For the logistics of the tank, a ton of parts just aren't in production anymore and is limited. Restarting production for a limited run is expensive. I guess if you run out of leopard Is before that happens it won't be a problem.
Or if Ukraine will plan use them in long therm, it will make more sense start proudciotn again, even other contries, who operate them might be intrested in this production of parts.
Except that even nato armies still use the leo 1 and there is no shortage of spare parts.
@@T.efpunkt Army of Greec and Turkey, opereted by mandatory service soldiers and be know for having big part of weapons in non operational conditions lol.
Greece still uses about 502 Leopard 1A5GR and a dozen or so Leopard 1A4. Turkey also has about 170 upgraded Leopard 1T "Volkan" and another 184 Leopard 1A4. Brazil and Chile also still use the main battle tanks, while Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and Romania still use the ARV or AEV variants. As such ammunition is still produced from various suppliers, and spare parts are pretty abundant.
@@DOMINIK99013 you mean... like russia?
Leppard 1s, T62s. It’s like a retro fancy dress party
Just when I thought the hopium couldn't get any worse.
Wait few months! It will be like 1945 in Germany!
you really think russia will win with dwindling BMP-stocks, as of now they are only using BMP-1s in high numbers aswell. Seeing BMP-3s and 2s are sooo rare to see.@@tomk3732
Any tank is a good tank when you don't have one!
😂
Since when is the 105 mm so available every country in nato uses the 120 mm. I can’t imagine countries keeping stock ot the 105 while they don’t have the guns for it let alone still manufacturing them
Well, NATO have 105mm gun - Striker MGS and another "wheeled tanks".
Especially HE rounds which are mostly used in Ukraine...
105mm is everywhere...
@@Leo80310 Yes, but different ammo than Leo 1.
Ac130 still have 105mm
This Leo 1 is going to be cracked open like a can of Sardines with FPV.
Let's get to the real point. European countries DON'T want to give up their Leo 2's. in case they need them. The Leo 1's is obsolete & therefore Europe is willing to give them to the Ukrainians.
They'll need them when Ukraine can't hold Russia off with obsolete tanks.
No tank can hold off a Lancet@@MutatedPizzaBoi
Far from obsolete, maybe more accurate term would be obsolescent.
@typorad obsolete is the correct term... it's underarmored & undergunned for any task it's going to be assigned as Armor. Radically different than when Russia is using modernized T-64s which are also obsolete as Armor BUT Russia isn't using them as MBT instead as basically IFVs to support Infantry as a main gun (cause it's gun actually isn't obsolete unlike the Leo-1.)
@@nationalsocialism3504the L7 105 is still one of the better guns out there...
Lancet food. Then again they're mainly using them as extra gun tubes for artillery.
Do you realize how many Lance's are failing....the vast majority
cope@@lukeamato423
@@lukeamato423 ”the vast majority“
Lol where are you are you getting your info from, 30 sec RUclips shorts made by american mutts? What is a percent of “vast majority”? 50%, 80% failure rate? I think if you knew the percentage for western missiles failures you would find that the discrepancy between western dud rates and Russian is probably not as drastic as you are trying to say. Regardless, Ukraine is losing just like they always have been and this fake and ghey war was just another money laundering operation for the military complex and the liberal media to enrich themselves off of. And when the next fake war psy op comes around, which will probably be with Iran, the braindead public will all be waiting to lap up the lie vomit from the media again.
@@lukeamato423 And?
Do you realize how many more Lancets russia has than ukraine has tanks?@@lukeamato423
My country, Australia, had over 100 leopard 1s but they were all retired and scrapped in the early 2000s. Only a small number still exist and none are operational, except maybe 1 or 2 in museums.
This video must be a joke. Comparing Leopard against BMP? That's just wonderful. A MBT is more armoured than an IFV. Wonderful news.
Well, a leo1a5 is more armored, but not much more, than a bmp3. With era in the equation, the leo1 is actually worse, armor wise.
If that's all you got from that video, yeah, definitively a joke, carry on.
The point is that IFV operate on the front line just as MBTs. Still, an MBT with more armor than an IFV is considered "useless" for some reason...
Tank on tank combat is the exception anyway. So having a tank vs tank comparison isnt really more useful. Seems like the joke is your comment.
The Leopard has very thin armor for an MBT. It was designed during a completely different era. There's 30mm APFSDS that can pen the UFP
Logistical advantages of the Leopard I may be considered only when a sufficient quantity of Leopard I (at least over 200) are supplied to Ukraine. There won’t be much “logistical good” from several dozen of them.
That's basically what's being supplied
You do realize that right .They're getting hundreds of them over time
@@lukeamato423The comment section is entertaining, isn't it?
Precisely, that's why the logistics are going to provide some advantages that could outweigh the benefit of 'better' tanks supplied in their dozens. In a war where most tank work is infantry support against poorly armed, poorly supplied and often poorly trained fodder, the Leopard 1 is ideal and the fact that hundreds of them (and their variants) are being supplied to Ukraine is a big deal. Heavy armour rarely meets on the battlefield and even then, the Leopard 1 has advantages over many of the tanks in Russian service. We'll see if that changes next year but for now, most mechanised Russian forces consist of old, outdated and often unimproved armour or modern, lightly armoured vehicles.
In many areas where the Leopard 1 is currently serving, it is rare for the trenches staffed by Russian 'volunteers' and conscripts to have something as simple as an RPG-7 available. It's just the nature of war between two poorly prepared forces. Ukraine often lacks modern armoured hardware of its own and Russia overstretched is forces after wasting too many vehicles / personnel around Kyiv and Kharkiv. Sadly, for Russia, the kit of infantrymen tended to stay with their bodies and many caches were overran or destroyed. It all leads to a war dominated by poor, often mismatched and inconsistent logistics where old equipment is worthwhile if it's numerous and good enough to get the job done.
@@aymonfoxc1442 very
There is a Leopard 1 parked up in a park in Jerilderie outback NSW Oz static display , Ukraine take note if want to buy it . . the town was the furthest the Ned Kelly gang went north & they held up the entire town literally
There is one in Seymour, Vic, Australia 🇦🇺 I think the Australian army took the power pack out of them.
@@barrythatcher9349 correct, all the M113 and Leo AS1 on public display are missing the powerpacks
@@ravenof1985 which means the Aussie should still have the powerpacks. They could supplied the powerpacks and the Aussie Leo's AS1's could go to the Ukrainians.
@@barrythatcher9349 depends on the condition, if the 60 remaining AS1's have sat outside since 2007 they will be in poor condition, they would be a good source of parts
From " The leopard 2 will be the gamechanger that will win that war!" to "Why the leopard 1 is ideal for Ukraine now!"
Incredible.
Yeah… how corrupt and evil these people are to change their lies every time their masters changes tune.
This is just like Mr. Stache in the bunker 1945, zero connection to reality.
they dont want the WORLD to see the new LEOPALD II exploding, just like the CHALLENGER. 😂 otherwise nobody will the LEOPALD II again.
#humiliation
@@buravan1512 That do not matter, ANY tank is but a expensive heavy coffin if not used right, if used just a little wrong it is for sure a coffin, or at least a empty hull just sitting there.
Russian tanks as we have seen again and again, well they for sure are coffins.
I am sure any Uranian driving a old Russian POS tank would gladly change it for the L1A5, just for the thermal optics alone.
If he dont, well he is Russian mindset and they should ditch his ass ASAP.
Total cope, LOL! Soon we see "Why T-34/85 is great!"
@@pliashmuldba didn't UK ask UKRAINE not to use the CHALLENGER in risky areas? What does that mean 😂
This channel was way better before "the thing".
What thing?
We went from laughing at the russians for using t-62's as spg's/indirect fire support to now justifying leo 1's as "ideal" for Ukraine, which the tank isn't ideal at all for Ukraine. Bad ammo stowage and poor armour that makes the leo1 very vulnerable to any anti tank weapon/fpv drone.
Same as t-55 and t-62, and the L1 can score hits from longer distances than the t-55/62 tanks with their sh*t optics.
Well Ukraine was never shouting that they are a second military in the world. Russians did, and seeing old T series tanks brought to fight is kinda funny.
@@juslitor The t-62m has an ok fcs, it can fire GLATGM's, a 115mm cannon and they have uncooled 2nd gen thermals, it wont have a problem sniping from far distances away. But that doesnt really matter as the t-62s/t-55's see little frontline action and act mostly as indirect fire support with drone correction against enemy positions and my point was leo-1's aren't ideal for Ukraine not which obsolete cold war tank is better in this conflict, what is ideal for ukraine is more t-64's, t-80s, t-72's and even t-62's lmao.
We don't know if leo-1's will be even used like t-55's/t-62's, the leo-1 has much better offensive capabilities then defensive and we've already seen a damaged and abandoned leo-1 that was immobilized by a artillery round from a failed Ukrainian counterattack. We can assume that the Ukrainians will use this tank for offensive operations which isn't good as I said before it has poor armour and will be vulnerable to anything, including mobilik Ivan with his rpg-7. Even the older t-series have better armour and have added composite armour/era.
@@punish01 The Russians are still producing and modernizing tanks such as the t-90m, t-80bvm,t-72b3, t-62m/t-55 and of course other military vehicles/aircraft. They are capable of producing massive amounts of artillery rounds, producing drones such as lancets, fpv drones and gerans. The Russians have outproduced the West and Ukraine in terms of quantity, that we've seen Russian artillerymen use shells from the 1990's while Ukrainians have to use shells sparingly from its western allies or from foreign exports.
But yes its very funny because Russia deployed old tanks that only see very little frontline combat and act as mostly artillery and muh 2nd military power in the world as if Nato could last as long as Russia in Ukraine. There is a very real chance of Russia winning this war and absorbing Ukraine becoming a even bigger superpower and being a bigger threat to Europe/Nato.
@@romanelite4121 I would not call russians a superpower considering it takes them this long to take a country, well not an entire country a part of it.
"t-90m, t-80bvm,t-72b3, t-62m/t-55" why not Armata?
"They are capable of producing massive amounts of artillery rounds" not a big suprise since they switched their economy from peacetime to war. Same thing would happen in the West, and West works on peacetime economy.
"old tanks that only see very little frontline combat and act as mostly artillery" so an army which is known for artillery does not have enough artillery and has to use old tanks as fire support? Ah alright
"as if Nato could last as long as Russia in Ukraine" remember Iraq? Remember air superiority? Russia cannot achieve air superiority. Ukraine war with NATO would end significantly faster.
"becoming a even bigger superpower" superpower which cannot conquer a neighbouring state, losing a vessel to navy less country is not a superpower to begin with
"and being a bigger threat to Europe/Nato." without air superiority? ahhh yeah sure
Well yes you can use APFSDS against people, but its a bit of a waste to fire 1 x APFSDS round against 1 x person, esp. if you have several thousand rounds of 7.62mm coax nearby.
Problem being if you are actually close enough to engage them with coax, they can engage you with even RPGs. Not sure if LEO 1 can survive older RPG7 much less the newer iterations
@@erwinvalken154 no way Leo 1 can survive any RPG shoot even from 1960. Armor comparable to PZ4 and earlyer panthers from 1944 can be beaten even from t-34 from any proection.
who about m60s and m48a3. The both use 105 mm ammo like the Leopard.
Harder to find. Otherwise I'd say your spot on.
Maybe They Can Buy It From Vietnam
So much enthusiasm for Ukraine.That is very political !
because we go from
"Ukraine is winning and NATO armored brigades will reach sea of Azov in a month" "support ukraine as long as it takes"
to
"we underestimated Russia" "why the counter offensive failed?" "support ukraine as long as we can"
and YES tank is better than NO tank
The only people claiming the counter-offensive failed are Germans and Austrians, who also happen to be somewhat allied with Russia.
@@ArchOfficialIn wich universe it was successful ? It was a big failure man .
@@ArchOfficial brother here is still living in the alternate universe, someone help him wake him up 😭
@@5co756 30:1+ operational structure destruction ratio, 10:1+ platform destruction ratio and 3:1+ infantry casualty ratio is a big failure?
Not to forget accompanying parts of the counteroffensive in the Black Sea and on the logistical chain.
What i actually noticed so far with the war on Ukraine, is that, Europe has great and efficient military technology, but the production numbers are not very good, a Leopard, Leclerc, Euro fighter, Gripen, and even ammunition, takes to long to produce, to many logistical and burocracy problems. Ukraine had to use much of European stock piles and even so are asking for more, things are not being produced fast enaugh.
You’re absolutely right.
I understand that video title is generally a clickbait, but BRUH
I mean, comment section perfectly completes the video 😂
I love ths channel and you guys are super knowledgeable. But this just seems like a coping video. But I agree with the premise that a tank is better than no tank, however.
Except it might not be. Because men diverted to provide difficult logistics for hella old obsolete and proprietary tanks might be taken away from artillery logistics support which WOULD detract from fighting power. So no tank would honestly be better.
@@TheStaniG artillery IS the defining weapon in this war. I completely agree
This is very much a cope video.
@@carlosthejackal87I’d rather have more 155 mm SPGs than Leopard 1s if I was Ukraine.
@@grahamstrouse1165 i agree
It's ideal because theoretically there should be lots of Leopard 1s in warehouses with ample spare parts and ammunition. It being an older tank also should make training and logistics easier and the FCS on the Leopard 1A5 is easily a match for late Soviet and most modern Russian ones.
Considering tanks are mostly used to provide direct fire support on the offense or defense it being under-gunned compared to the T-80 or T-72 isn't that important.
The only issue with the Leopard 1 is that it is relatively light on armor which may come back to bite when it comes under fire, especially artillery or air and drone strikes. Unless of course they mass produce MEXAS kits.
However, given Europe's lack of investment in its military the theoretical number that should be available is probably not the case. Germany itself had ~2500 Leopard 1s in the Budeswehr at the end of the Cold War, yet they only sent about 90 from this stockpile, barely more than the Danes sent.
So my suspicion is that most of Germany's Leopard 1s were parked in a warehouse in 1992 and then forgotten about until 12 months ago. So rather than 2000 available for Germany to send there might be only 300-400 in decent condition with the rest being spare parts donors.
Most of them are destroyed due to the KSE treaty. There is a facility in Germany owned by Krauße Maffei Wegmann in a small town named Roggensußra in Thuringia. At that place hundreds of tanks and thousands of other armoured vehicles were destroyed after the end of the Cold War. So no great stocks are available in Germany anymore.
Most of the dismantled tank parts were sold to Brazil
@@pzakp311 How far the glorious 1989 Bundeswehr has fallen.
It used to have 7,000 MBTs, thousands more AFVs, hundreds of planes, 500,000 men, and millions of reservists. If they'd kept all that equipment it alone probably would have been enough.
I'll never forgive Ursala von Der Leyen. She got every job through political connections and now after gutting the Bundeswehr to cut costs they decide she's the best person to run the EU into the ground.
Well their armour isn't going to make much difference when it comes to artillery and drones, as both weapons have already proven lethal to more modern and more heavily armoured tanks. A leopard 2 or leopard 1 that gets immobilised by 152mm shell fire are in the same boat.
And I've seen people argue that there are in fact no more spare parts, because the remaining users just cannibalize old tanks to keep their active fleet running.
We have all heard about those same 100 Leopard 1 tanks that were going to be refurbished and sent. How many total are available elsewhere and when are they coming??? Everything is on a slow roll for some reason.....
In total, there are about 300 leo 1 available, but there is a problem because so far, the vast majority of them are not accepted in Ukraine. that is, tanks after renovation are simply still not working. although as far as I know, 20-30 leo1 reached Ukraine.
Do we have any additional information on the Dutch contribution to the Leopard 1 consortium? From public reporting the confirmed donations are:
•"At least 100" Leopard 1A5, of which 80 are Leopard 1A5DK purchased by 🇩🇰🇩🇪 from FFG
•30 Leopard 1A5 (🇩🇪, RHM?) announced on May 13
•25 Leopard 1A5BE (🇩🇪, OIP/RHM) announced in July (+5 Bergepanzer 2 + 20 for spare parts)
•30 Leopard 1A5 (🇩🇰, RHM?) announced on Sep 19
Interestingly, Ukraine may also end up receiving a fourth variant. Those 96 Leopard 1A5IT in Italy may not actually be owned by RUAG according to more recent Swiss reporting, since the seller AID lacked the necessary export permits. So perhaps Rheinmetall or another company can refurbish and deliver these to Ukraine as well, once the legal ownership question is resolved.
Next video: "why panzer IV is perfect for Ukraine"
Well, they are already sporting M113
No, Sherman or T-34.
I served as a gunner on the Leo 1A5 back in the 90ies, so I might know what I‘m talking about. This bucket would not stand a chance on today‘s battlefields.
Thankfully its not fighting on a modern battlefield, but against a 3rd world country opponent.
@@nattygsbord Yeah, right. Look how gloriously the Wunderwaffe Leo 2 failed to have any impact. Just dream on!
@@SplendidMisanthropy Just western propaganda. In Ukraine all know leopard 2 and pzh2000 is piece of shit
@@nattygsbordyeah the "3rd world country" is destroying our western equipment with bombs dropping from 300 dollar drones
Wouldn't it make sense to fit the Leo1 with the MEXAS armor kit, like the Canadians did? No idea how costly or feasible that is, but AFAIK it adds a substantial amount of protection. Of course, that'd only makes sense if a sufficient number of those addon kits are available or could be made in a short time.
Makes no difference, Ukrainians have abandoned some undamaged Leo2 tanks in the middle of the field as they did not feal like using them, or safe, or something. This tin can is much worse.
@@MartinMaarva is that the ‘undamaged’ Leo2 that was mission destroyed by several remote detonated mines and then got hit by artillery about fifteen minutes later…?
That one?
Where the crew ran for it because they had nothing that could safely recover it before artillery would strike it and… where Ukrainian artillery then returned the party favour and shot the Russian artillery that destroyed the Leo2…
@@yannichudziak9942 Why did you stop only after two examples, there is plenty more. I meant the one in Kupiansk area abandoned in the middle of the field nor far from the frontline. Obviously Russians destroyed the tank afterwards but there was no apparent damage nor clear visible reason why it was abandoned. Anyway, driving Ukrainian tank is usually a suicide mission.
Maybe in 1973
T-55s and Leopard 1s lol
I used to watch this channel on a regular basis but this conflict has changed all that. Leopard 1? Are you kidding me? Get bent.
COPE !
Western 50-60 years old design is bestest ever, soviet era 50-60 year old design is considered junk. Flawless logic...
Soviet scrap iron has crap optics, you cant shoot what you cant see,
Indirect fire enters the chat@@juslitor
@@juslitor soviet old tanks have much better armor protection. 30mm autocannon on bmp-2/3 can go through side armor of leo1. Not so much on T-55/62. Some modernised versions of T-55 can launch ATGMs. All of these old tanks (west and soviet) were modernised in 80s/90s, so they are up-armored and have 2nd gen thermal sights, so they are on same level and can be useful
@@usiak13 And some of those upgrades were sold off by corrupt soldiers.
@@contentsdiffer5958 that is possible, but there are literaly thousands of these old tanks. There is no issue in picking most complete ones. If I recall correctly, there is even whole factory in Siberia, that is repairing and upgrading T-62Ms...
Love how everybody and his gamer friend was saying how Leopard 1 was the worst ever a couple of month ago and now, everybody is an even bigger expert saying "Leopard 1 is the best! People "know it all" i guess.
That's because they don't ever have to sit in one on the actual battlefields
That's because this is a propaganda channel... they say whatever the regime wants then to say at that exact moment.
The real question is Will Leopard 1A5 be able to handöe FPV drones.
T Series tanks have had issues with FPV drones whilst Leo 2A5+ seems to be able to handle them better.
One does wonder if STRV103 Would fare better than a Turreted tank does?.
Best regards.
Truly logistical nightmare with all these different types of vehicles that are not the same.
Great Information guys.
I was thinking, seeing as you have a experienced tanker you should review WW2 German tanks, Tiger , Panther.
I think it would be fascinating to see a modern tanker review a older vehicle and talk about the differences , advantages disadvantages ?.
I'm certain this won't be seen, but a significant number of Leo ones, and a couple of companies or hopefully divisions/brigades obviously division would be better but brigades would be okay, would be the best option. Honestly I think Leo ones, would be sufficient if given in large enough numbers for the whole mission, though I still would like to see better main battle tanks used as well
NAFObots had been clowning on Russia for using old tanks, which they have vast stockpiles of, and looky looky now they’re trying to market their own ancient tanks as gamechanging wonder weapons. The critics of NATO/AFU had warned about the logistic and training issues with a hodgepodge of weapons systems, but they were deemed as Russian bots.
You'll notice that none of the NAFO keyboard warriors are volunteering to operate one of these antiques on the Ukrainian battlefields.
@@PatRiarchy-qw6cp yup, they’ll just say, “well, it’s actually great because…”
They have sent their stocks of Leo 2's so now they are pulling Loe 1's to put into action, sounds like a winning strategy.
Yea, like sending t-62s and t-54/55s.
I remember you made a video about the Leopard 2 and it being very heavy and saying how the vehicle being a fat cat might sound a bit familiar to your regular channel viewers.
The logistics advantage makes no sense because they still need to be shipped out of Ukraine for repairs like the rest of the NATO vehicles
The only advantage is weight, and it's about as much of a T-90M
Otherwise the weaker HE, lack of fragmentation HE
technically decent APFSDS
outdated FCS (depends on variation)
Even the NV spotlight would set off laser warning receivers (inherited of all IR spotlights)
It's also much more vurnerable to Autocannons and light RPG's
I cannot see this as more advantageous to a Leopard 2, they just share the same issues
Let alone against drones, and artillery
Also, Russian FCS systems are actually superior to NATO vehicles, abiet minorly
I do not know where you got the idea that the FCS system of a T-72B3 is trash
T-72B3 FCS has automatic tracking and leading
It's had it since the B3 upgrade
Russian FCS superior to their western counterparts? Don't make me laugh.
If that were the case, please explain why soviet designed tanks still stop to fire like it's 1943... Or why Ukrainian tankers who received western tanks unanimously praise the vastly superior FCS.
@@Hurricane2k8 Dog, where are you getting this there's evidence literally everywhere
Fuck I've been inside a T-80u when I served
Regarded hunter killer isn't as effective on T-72's bc the commander sight is unstabilzed but on a T-90M it is
Sosnua-U and it's modern renditions certainly are about the same in practice against a NATO FCS, it just has a slightly better edge on targeting faster targets
There's even videos of looking directly through a T-72B3's thermals and it working
It's not hard to find
Edit: Ukrainians are used to old T-64 FCS ofcourse a Leo1A5's fcs is better
Funny russia should have these wunderwaffen weapons systems, yet they fight with old soviet scrap iron@@handsomeivan1980
So... russians using old T-72s, T64s and T-55s as indirect artillery or TNT tanks was them being desperate, but ucranians using old Leopard 1s are not? Wow.
Bub, smoke less, sleep more, talk like Yoda you does.
lepard 1 has seen combat once in ukraine and it got destroyed after firing 4 times. it is crap
@@bolshevik1017 Well in that exact situation, a M1A1 would probably have been smoked too, any tank if you do not use it right are little more than a expensive heavy coffin.
But i will agree so far i have not seen much proper use of tanks by the Uranians, and dont get me started on the Russians.
But i have seen Uranians drive forward, fire a round then reverse a little, and this is not in and out of a depression in the terrain which would make sense
Of course mine fields ASO could easy make it impossible to traverse parralel with the front line and fire shots into it
As i have said MANY times before, compared to what the Russians are fielding, the L1A5 is more than enough, on many parameters it often is far ahead of the Russian stuff.
@@bolshevik1017
Could you show me the source that claimes which Western tanks are undistructable?
How desperate are you guys, if blowing up one tank is considered a propaganda victory?
Well, I guess the point was that even Russia does not have unlimited amounts of modern battle tanks. Basically saying that the Russian army is much weaker than they have let us believe.
Yeah now all of a sudden tanks from 1964 are perfect 😂 but russia was mocked for using t64 that werent even used as main battle tanks and even t72s
For those curious as to the logic here:
Ammunition stocks are more widely available for the cannon, from what I understand. Not all repairs require the tank to be sent back to NATO repair facilities, and even then, wider parts availability still means that vehicles can be maintained for longer both in Ukraine and back in NATO territory.
I think its odd that people are saying that it's terrible because for the purposes of dealing with enemy vehicles from IFVs to MBTs as its cannon is still effective enough to get a mission kill on an enemy in either case even on the most modern MBTs, if not a full knockout.
I think Russia's more advanced vehicles certainly have better FCS and other capabilities but those vehicles have been much rarer on the front... older, un-upgraded (dare I say outdated) T-72s and BMPs are being frontlined en masse. But there are plebty of other targets that a mobile cannon can be more effective at taking out. Artillery and rocket vehicles, transports, logistocs and support vehicles, etc.
Frankly, choosing between 20 of the most modern tanks and 100 Leopard 1s, I'd go with the greater number.
Fair argument considering the assumed shift into a defensive posture.
It seems that if Ukraine is to shift to the offensive, it'll either need to be with surprise (like Kharkiv) or after getting a sufficient fire advantage (both arty, long range strike, and ideally air power)
"after getting a sufficient fire advantage (both arty, long range strike, and ideally air power)"
They are at all three types in the disadvantage
@@jetfighter200 both of them are never going to happen
@jetfighter200 lmao that's never gonna happen Ukraine just gonna get more fabs dropped on them in thier defense position has well
@jetfighter200 if one smokes enough crack, one begins to believe Ukraine will have that advantage
I think what would make an actual difference would be long range artillery, drones and electronic drone counter-measures.
Tanks are sitting ducks now
The problem is mine detection and clearing and counter-drone operations. Come up with a solution to those 2 problems and you will have a massive advantage. Its much like the battle of the atlantic; british technological innovation eventually got one step ahead of the german u boats and methodically eliminated them until they couldn’t move out of port without being immediately attacked and sunk. But its worth remembering that by the end of ww2 the germans had created genuine submarines, capable of operating at speed underwater for very long periods of time. Unfortunately for the germans the destruction of their industries meant only a handful were ever built, but they illustrate the point that military problems require innovative thinking. Perhaps small remote controlled land drones - akin to remote controlled toy cars - could be developed to identify and mark mines for targeting by airborne drones swarms. I dont know. But some form of more effective, wider coverage signal jamming is probably the solution to airborne drones. I dont know. But my point is, the solutions are technical and require innovation - which is what took place in ww1 and ww2 on both sides, but especially on the winning side.
Always thought the idea of shipping so many different armored vehicles was a bad idea.
This also should be an eye opening experience for all of the EU/NATO. Standardization of not just ammo, heavy equipment should be vitally important for their future procurement plans.
Agreed.
Leo 1 is build for an environment where it can hide and only show the turret to fire then get the f.. out to another position. From what I have seen of Ukraine on video, it might not be ideal for the job....
Big open fields lol
It’s not ideal, but FPV’s and ATGM’s are making mince meat of basically every armored vehicle on the battlefield that comes under concentrated fire. Crew survivability probably won’t be as good as a Leo 2, challenger 2, or Abrams. But the lighter weight may make a big difference in mud and snow. The 105 and the A5’s fire control should be fine for 98% of engagements with the higher round count making up for the smaller round in the fire support role that has been the overwhelming use of tanks in Ukraine. Finally, like uncle Joe said, quantity has a quality all its own.
@@TJ24050 Not a good time to be a crew members...
Seldom is, when fighting begins in earnest@@deejaylucolivier5955
The t-54, t-55, T-64, t-72, t-80, t-90 are pretty shit too.. so there's that.
Well when NATO will run out of Leopard 1s too, you'll probably make a video on "Why Panzer 4 is ideal for Ukraine now!"
They'll probably start buying whatever they can from third world countries, T-55s and its Chinese and NK copies, T-72s, M47s, M60s...
😂 right?
correct.
This idiotic videos.
Lmfao best comment so far 🤣
@@hedwigugla8836 no doubt
How well does it take an FPV drone or a lancent?
About as well as a t-72
They use FPV drones as lancet can over penetrate ;)
I think it's laughable that people were putting down the T-64 with it's perfect 125mm gun for destroying soft targets with HE and actually has armor, and now Leo 1 makes sense for Ukraine.
Where previously cheap FPV drones had to aim for a vulnerable part of a tank to achieve penetration, now the whole tank is their target.
In reality, they just have nothing else and no ammo either.
If it has a gun and available ammo and is useless to anyone else, it will have to do, but let's make it sound like it's the best idea ever.
Right until you would have to send your own countrymen to fight in one of them, not hapless Ukrainians in a proxy war, then it's maybe no longer such a good idea.
Nice try though
Amen brother 😢
The leopard 1 is way better than t64
You're not intelligent at all
Can a t64 shoot accurately on the move ....no it can't. It can barely shoot accurately standing still
@@lukeamato423 nice try :D but it`s definetly not.
Ukraine is like Germany in winter of 43-44, and the Leo 1 is the Pz IV.
Yeah, but the Pz IV was a medium tank + - on par with vehicles of a similar class from other countries on the battlefield. Leo 1 was a strange "tank" at the time of its creation.
@@Scrap_Lootaz How is the leopard 1 strange? M60, AMX-30, Centurion, Type 74 were all similar. Steel tank with 105mm.
@@BloodyCrow__ , Well, for example, missing tank armor? 70 mm in the forehead is not serious, thin side armor that can be penetrated by automatic cannons. I know that the decision to neglect the reservation was conscious, because the designers then thought that it was impossible to defend against HE-AP ammunition. However, they forgot that weapons with HE-AP ammunition are not the only ones on the battlefield and, for example, this greatly reduces survivability against artillery fire. The very tactics of using Leopards 1, from ambushes where only a tower sticks out from cover, and so on. Don’t you think that this will remind you not of tanks, but of anti-tank self-propelled artillery guns, like the M10 or M36?
@@Scrap_LootazReal life isn't world of tanks. Standard Nato doctrine is firing from defilade. Modern MBTs can be penetrated by autocannons in the side. Modern MBTs are just as vulnerable to artillery.
@@BloodyCrow__ Ha ha, what a joke (not).
Well, yes, the NATO Doctrine is crap? But we are talking about the tank, not why it is like this. Tanks are needed to stand in ambush, acting as a cannon, and not to develop an offensive (sarcasm).
The problem is that the side armor of Leo 1 is 2 times thinner than, for example, that of the T-62. Do you know what this means? That the explosion and fragments of an artillery shell are more dangerous for Leo 1 at a greater distance from the explosion. And so with literally everything, the question is the degree of vulnerability. A direct hit from a 150 mm shell will destroy anyone, but how often do shells hit the target exactly? and not at 5 meters or 10 meters and will the armor withstand, and Leo’s armor is 1, cardboard. This imposes a bunch of other problems, for example the inability to use ERA normally.
I had a similar idea for the M 60 pattern battle tank. The United States has thousands of these tanks in storage. Sure they would have to be refurbished, but this could be done relatively inexpensively, as well as mounting them with that new turret. The Turkish military came up with modernizing their own fleet of M-60s
The later m-60s were very good tanks. Ukraine could make good use of them. The 105mm cannon is more than adequate for the vast majority of missions. Ukraine needs numbers and the M-60 would be a great addition. There were proposals from US manufacturers to create a modern turret for them, but honestly it probably isn't needed in Ukraine when they are facing off against refurbished T-55's,
Honestly I don't know how much of these we really have in storage. A lot of them have been sent abroad and the ones that are still in the States have been sent to be Lawn ornaments on Military posts and for VFW's. But man I love the M60....All it takes is for you to climb on top of one and you are "This is a tank"
To the best of my knowledge, like the Leopard I, most M-60 tanks were sold or donated to allies in the 80s and 90s. The only tank that any western military has in substantial reserves are older Abrams. The Ukrainian military doesn't need tanks by the dozens, but by the hundreds. Bradleys are apparently performing quite well.
But these spare parts are not made anymore right? You can only get the spare parts as other Leopard 1s can be cannibalized. How long can that be sustained for?
Those Gepard's are huge compared to there replacements. That kinda firepower is irreplaceable. Too bad they still don't make them, especially the 35mm cannons
Would have been appropriate to transfer engineering documentation and tooling for Leopard I to Czech or Polish companies, that already have a sizable operation repairing and refitting armored vehicles for Ukraine. Companies in Western Europe still run pretty much peace time operations, that are too expensive and too time consuming for a major war on the eastern border of Europe.
Those peace time reistraints should have gone out the window by now in the EU.
I mean, turning to a full war economy sounds like a bad idea too, but so is the current way of military production.
Theoretically that could have worked. In practice though it would be cheaper to buy tanks manufactured elsewhere as production costs in the EU are through the roof.
Personally I don't see why the US didn't overhaul part of it's vast M-60 Patton tank fleet and have them sent to the Ukraine instead. The Turks and Israelis offer excellent upgrade packages for those, and they could have had hundreds of them in the field by now.
@@alexeishayya-shirokov3603 Most of the M60s in American storage are M60A3 from eighties so they don't even have to be modernized, because they are roughly comparable to modernized T-72s from the same time period and those are still widely used by Russians on Ukraine in frontline duties.
@@dusanbolek8004 I'd put the M-60A3 closer to the T-62M as they're both II generation tanks that have been upgraded with additional armor packages and optical suites to bring them as close as possible to III generation tanks. The T-72 "Ural" from the mid-70s would technically fit into the II generation despite having a more powerful smoothbore gun than the M-60A3 and T-62M.
That being said, T-72 "Ural" tanks were phased out by the late 1980s and replaced by T-72B tanks, which belong to the III generation (composite armor, digital fire control systems, more powerful engines etc.). The Russian army later modernized most of these to T72B3/B3M standards (new ERA suite, upgraded engine, upgraded thermal imagers and fire control systems etc.).
A proper III generation M-60 upgrade would be the Turkish-Israeli Sabra Mk-II currently operated by the Turkish ground forces; it boasts a proper 120mm smoothbore gun and an ERA suite that gives it excellent firepower and protection, en par with most III generation tanks.
Just imagine what the Ukrainians could have done with some 1000 of these as opposed to the largely insignificant numbers of Leopard-II, Challenger-II and M1A1 Abrams tanks that they ended up receiving. In retrospect it looks more like a PR stunt gone wrong and less like an actual military aid package.
@@alexeishayya-shirokov3603 If hundreds of M60's could be fielded, when the ground conditions are good, it would be a war changer. Quantity has a quality of it's own, and having that much firepower could prove to be a game changer.
Are they still making the Leopard I though? Are the production lines even intact still? The way the war is going the existing stockpile from various countries will probably drain up rather quickly.
No armor, no spare parts, no engine that can support additional protection, no new generation systems installed in it. Yes it is ideal tank for the Russians. Perfection.
The war is over. The Leo 1 failed to impress anyone from either side.
last i checked, they are still shipping home russians in boxes.
And 8x that many on the Ukrainian side.
@juslitor *Ukranians
Quite infantile to imagine the ukrainians would be taking 8x casualties with a smaller army to begin with. One would imagine the russians would have won even before they invaded with such marvellous statistics@@dudeonyoutube
@@juslitor
I see that you are an enthusiastic consumer of propaganda.
The Russian army's strength is defense. So basically they have been playing defense for about 1 1/2 years now using their notorious "meat grinder strategy". In a nutshell, this means building a tripwire line backed up by three real lines. The attackers then gradually destroy themselves from just attacking the first two lines. They never pierce the 3rd and 4th lines. Russian artillery plays a key role in the 8:1 KIA ratio. Its infantry gets to just watch the massacre.
The attacker invariably suffers more casualties than the defender.
Looks like you haven't noticed that it's been Ukraine on the attack for well over a year. They have lost so many men that now the average age in its army is 43 and they are recruiting women into combat. Talk about proof for my position that Ukraine 's army has been destroyed.
Read last month's Time article on the war. They interviewed high up Ukrainian officials who admitted Ukraine has lost not only the war but an entire generation of young men.
Here's my advice to you: follow some serious military channels to understand what has happened.
Finally, the Ghost of Kiev is a great example of propaganda too. Don't fall for it either.
it would be good if Ukraine received all pledged Leopards 1 in time, not around 20-30 for almost year
cry more
@@Sv5YpWTwd9otTA4So83f despite you being filthy human being i still hope you wont be castrated by some russian unit in future global war
So the crew can die instead of being able to bail out like when they are with Leo 2.
A. yes. 'Military times'. may 19 '23. ' for example , of the approx 300 tank systems pledged - such as leopard 2 promised.... only about 100 have arrived.' hard to run a war with that situation. France has I read 180 LeClerc in Storage, and France is like 15 th in transfer to Ukr, behind Slovakia ( not a strong result, Yahoo finance, Kiel) thou they have transferred about half their light tanks. the larger 120 mm gun would be useful as a substitute for the artillery fiasco, assuming there are lots of that ammo around. WHO is gonna invade France ?
I heard a Russian Wagner unit who's radio was being over heard "we only have on t72 left call in the grenadiers or more vehicles,there's two leopards running around behind our lines fn us up,were under constant fire it's urgent.
So the leopard 2 does have a place just logistically.even the tools have to be special,you have to have German diesel tools,which is hard to keep and save when constantly withdrawing or depots under drone stack etc
Plus the Leo 1A5 is a damn handsome tank.... Just saying
Just for accuracy the National Guard is a part of the US army, they’re not separate (the Air National Guard is the same for the Air Force) in any meaningful way for him
Ok, just to be accurate. The various state National Guards are not part of the US army. The US Army standards, training, etc. are approved but the US army. It it possible to have a NG rank that is not recognized (usually state politics) by the US Army. Doesn't happen a lot.
@@airborneranger-retyep, the "National Guard" is the worst-named organization(s) in history. Should go back to being called the State Militia, or better yet county militias, as they existed prior to the Civil War
@@airborneranger-ret I’m specifically referencing the Chieftain since that’s what he said in the video prompting my comment
@@looinrims so it's "anecdotal"? Lol
Russia is getting t-80s and t-90s out now, the latter ones being newly produced units. Ukraine had needed these tanks in may 2022, not now.
Better than nothing, but there will not be a breakthrough with these
they could have had them in May 2022 they still would have been clapped
@@zeffy._440The only thing being clapped is your bum cheeks.
lol countless good youtubers about tanks shown log time ago how bad this tank is, especially his armor... It's more or less like an AMX-10 but on caterpillars...
The title alone has me choking on my cornflakes. NAFO types are always laughing themselves stupid about Russia bringing sixty-year-old "museum pieces" out of storage to send to the war, but when it's Ukraine's turn, they're "ideal". Can't wait for the day they start touting the advantages of the Patton tank against Russian armor.
Agreed. The double standards are hilarious. NAFO types sound like a cult.
More or less irrelevant, since russia doesnt have any tanks to field except the old soviet scrap iron.
Well it is kinda funny when a nation that proclaims itself a second military power in the world brings up museum pieces into a fight
@@punish01 But it's really funny when a bloc of more than 30 first world countries (including the world's _first_ military power) does it.
@@KrazyIvan69 has to do what? Send them or fight with such equipment?
Not sure about that mentioned wide ammo availability, because from what I read there is actually rather severe shortage of 105×617mm ammo for Ukraine, because while this ammo was indeed widely used and manufactured around the world in the past , those manufacturing lines were closed long ago and remaining supply is dwindling, because no one actually planned that tanks with 105 mm gun still have another intensive conflict in front of them as they were mostly already decommissioned, moved into the reserves or scheduled to head into those directions very soon.
Yes, this is indeed true. These obsolete vehicles are logistical nightmare for Ukraine, contrary to what video says.
Being a much more lite tank then the newer models may also be a significant benefit in bad weather and mud.
Maybe but the ground pressures of the Leopard 1 and 2 are actually almost identical. The Laopard 2 has longer tracks and one more roadwheel so the weight is distributed over a bigger area.
When they get stuck though- the Leo 1 is easier to recover@@tessjuel
A big benefit of leo1 is the weight with 40t. The leo2 has 64t.
So bridge crossing much more possible and tow away much easier.
Compared to what the Russians are offering, the Leo1 is equivalent and in some cases superior in terms of combat range, night vision and always better in reversing speed.
And on Drones and AntiTank Weapons it dissable every Tank, no matter how new and good it is.
@@stefans.3940 How many times has a tank fought against a tank during this conflict? Something like 10 times in 2 years. I'm not sure that it matters at least how well a tank destroys other tanks today.
@@InvalidDrivermore than that but Russia doesn't pump out endless videos trying to do propaganda... your point is essentially correct though that Tank v Tank is rare with Drones & Artillery dominating the battlefields. Ukraine can't field tanks and when they do then they get targeted by Lancets and/or Artillery... Russia is using their tanks to support armored colums to push fortified positions in Infantry support.
Leopard 1 is a nice second linie tank.
Fire support and as light artillery.
An you make a video on the large stockpile of Leopard 1 in Italy?
We need to step up out support of Ukraine. Either way.
None of NATO's introduced 'wonderweapons'(HIMARS,HARM,JDAM,switchblade,Patroit,-youname it,Leopards,Challengers) thus far hasn't made a sigificant difference
Stopping the russian advance is a pretty damn significant difference, bub.
HIMARS and Patriot, as well as 155 mm artillery actually made a huge difference in turning this "3 day special operation" into two year affair and counting.
Not without air support.
@FalconekL2
You’re still falling for that 3day lie?
@juslitor
They haven’t done anything. Just more chubs for the grinder.
Refreshing video to what you normally post. I like both real life and video essay styles though 👌🏻
Leo 1s are lighter for running in Ukraine on the back roads. Another reason is that there are very few tank on tank battles in Ukraine. Russia is now using T-54/55 in Ukraine.
Sure buddy, RUSSIA do has military complex factories that can repair or produce 100 tanks a month, let see if britain or Germany can Match RUSSIA military complex, because russians are running out of missiles, tanks, drones 😂😂😂😂
Lancet operators are salivating right now.
Now that's the funniest thing I've seen for a long time! Seriously - would you buy a used tank from these shady dudes?
I've always been impessed by the Leo. It was designed perfectly for the environment it was expected to fight in, which was Germany.
It's also what the E-series from WW2 was going for...modular systems that work for several types.
The older tanks usually lack just two thigs which are armor capable of defending against shaped charge munitions like rpg and thermal optics which are absolotely necessary
they have thermals
"The Leopard 1 is ideal for Ukraine!"
-Russians, probably
It gives Ukraine mass and firepower so yes it's ideal for them
@@lukeamato423 the gamechanger is finally here!!!!!!!
Read the comments of the russian trolls in the comments. They all try to argue the leo1 is shit. But a tank is a tank is a tank. It can do the same job as any other tank, some things even better due to it's lower weight and higher mobility.
@@T.efpunktso what's the big deal with Russia using T-34's? A tank is a tank right?
@@T.efpunkt yep and it's actually stabilized and accurate .unlike russian tanks of the era
Without air superiority there isn’t a tank in existence that makes sense. Credibility is deserving of more respect.
Don't get me wrong air superiority still matters but with how common drones are in these modern conflicts even with "air superiority" many heavy vehicles still get knocked out by these inexpensive drones with a mortar round duct taped to it.
India has thousands of British designed made in India VIJANTA 105mm tanks. Designed for among other to defeat anti-tank crews.
Interesting video
There is a reason why M1 does not have the L7 gun anymore....so why do you keep making the point that this poor thing can deal with T-72 as equal?
They are doing "cope".
Germans in 1990s tested L7 against East German T-72s - T-72M1 and decided to take Leo 1 out of service.
This is a joke, right??
Some 30 years ago on a combined military exercise there were 3 Gepards i was attached to, that in turn were supposed to protect tanks and other vehicles that were also in the column. 2 of them broke down in the first hours leaving their depots. Then on an open stretch an American A10 got sight of the column and started attacking runs. The 3rd Gepard went into action tracking it, it's barrels swooped up aiming and....it broke down too. Were it real everything would have been in ashes.
I really wonder if the mechanical reliability ever became less shameful then that.....
can this be used by the Leopard 1 ? Falarick 105 Gun Launched Anti Tank Guided Missile (GLATGM)
Leopard 1 is ideal for Ukraine, as it is cheap and you don’t mind it 😁
aged like milk.... lol
Does Leopard 1 gets reactive armour? Without it, it can be used only as a dug in self-propelled gun, since sny attack on prepared position with modern anti tank weapons would be a suicide.
EVERYTHING gets ERA in Ukrainian service
@@ravenof1985 That explains price tag...
Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.