I can confirm, my colleague; an experienced shell stocker who's worked at our supermarket (Hoogvliet) for 3 years, was blown up by an FPV drone sent by Jumbo during work, there are no game changers.
crazy how the javelin was the game changer to take down tanks early in the war and then drones came into play making it super low cost and extremely effective
Its not a petty sight seeing a complete brown out on the toilet tissue aisle - I served in the Tesco regiment as a young man, it was hell out there💩all gave some, some gave all💩
Danish artillery officer here. There's no such thing as a game changer in war. Tanks are important, so is infantry, artillery, pioneers, logistics etc. What wins wars both today and historically, is the ability to put these different pieces together and combine their advantages in order to minimise their respective set backs.
You are right, off course. However, it seems, that the war itself has been a gamechanger for the tank. The traditional role as a tool to break through enemy lines seems long gone, when faced with a battlefield littered with deep minefields, heavyhitting drones and AT-missiles - and in particular longrange precision artillery. Tanks seems forced into more defensive and supportive roles - not spearheads for the attacker. The ukrainian forces tried that briefly, which accounts for many of the losses of western tanks.
I beg to differ, the GMLRS rockets and launch platforms were, I think, the biggest "game changer." Also the ATACMS rockets forced Russia to remove their attack helicopters from the theatre. Also the Sea Babies reset Ukraine's ability to export wheat. Also the refinery attack strategy has had an impact on Russia's finances second only to "Western" sanctions.
@@MultiCappiei re beg to differ 😅😅 some advantages doesn't mean a game changer. To say game changer there must be a final winner. Let's wait who wins then we can say this or that is a game changer 😅🎉😅.capish 😅
We need to create a new troops tranporter vehicle, anti-mines, anti drones, anti artilery, no guns outside, full safe turtle, to allow only engine needs breathing weak spots, and air conditioning hardware, that simple and strong.
Former praetorian here, without support from legionaries in testudo formation and strategically placed caltrops any ballista or artillery platform is doomed to be overrun by the barbarian hordes and will fail to become a game changer.
Former clone commander of an armored unit here. There isn't such a thing as a game changer in war. Even the best AT-TE unit needs support from troopers, turbo laser artillery, starfighters and some well positioned orbital bombardment. Even a 1000 Jedi knights would struggle against a trillion clankers. See what happened at the Battle of Geonosis before we arrived.
Former US Army armor officer here. No tank is a "game changer" if it's not used correctly. Infantry support, artillery support, air superiority.These are what makes a tank a game changer.
The Ukrainians facing the entire brunt of the Russian armed forces. You yanks are more better suited to fighting impoverished sandal wearing religious fanatics who have but a fraction of the training equipment and logistics supporting them
I am assuming, since I am no Miltary expert.....what he said is from his experience, the USA tank doctrine is the tank is used in conjunction with other war making assets. My understanding is any given soldier can carry a tank killer rocket....so you need support from other war making assets to allow tanks to shine.
What? Strapping a Coleman stove to the front of your APC (trim vane), using a C-ration can to heat the water, and the instant coffee isn't consider "perfectly roasted premium coffee?" Sacrilege, I say!
I think you'll find that a hot cup of tea is the real game changer, you can create the biggest empire the world has ever seen, fuelled up on that brew.
Retired underwater basket weaver here. No tank is a "game changer" if it's not used correctly. Infantry support, artillery support, air superiority.These are what makes a tank a game changer.
Former ballet dancer here. No tank is a "game changer" if it's not used correctly. Infantry support, artillery support, air superiority.These are what makes a tank a game changer.
@@resileaf9501 I dated someone who worked in social media optimisation services. Intentional typos/verbal errors were definitely a utilised method of boosting interaction at least 3 years ago, nothing gets more interaction than irritating pedants
He doesn't put together anything, he just sells his voice and face to whoever and ends up saying a bunch of nonsense. Really, it is a mark of poor quality if you see this guy presenting the subject.
Norwegian here, If Norway say it is pledged it is already inn Ukraine hands. Norway don't announce any support before it is already sent, this is because of potential sabotage.
@@samryan180you obviously don't know how wealth works. Just because they have trillions doesn't mean it's all in cash. Most of it is in investments and bonds.
You said something that caught me off guard. "Post war" is a phrase that I haven't herd many people talk about. It seems like such a distant future, but there will be an "after the war" eventually.
The question is not "which tanks are better". The question is "how to use and modify this vehicle class to make it useful again on a battlefield that is dominated by drones". Cheap and expandable drones are the most important thing that popped up since the last major conflict...
@@Warren_PeaceProbably a bigger danger than FPV drones because they can take advantage of higher volumes of fire (though drones directing such assets can make them even more dangerous).
@@pclayton5063 I think tanks will always have a place but its not going to be as dramatic as it once was. I hear the Ukrainians actually are loving the bradleys as they are fast relatively well protected well armed against things like bmps and other equivalent russian vehicles and can even knock out tanks on occasion though I for sure wouldn't want to be in one around any tanks but its great for infantry support and its hard to knock out for infantry except at long range it also has fair protection from drones much better than russian equivalents also if knocked out the crew tends to survive which is simply not the case with russian vehicles the russian soldiers themselves will admit that. I think exosuits will be the new thing soon I know the US has been messing with them for over a decade mechs sadly will probably never be a thing though they just aren't practical in real life though I'm sure someone will try lol. really what is needed are better drone counter measures particularly for small ones
Just imagine him reading this, then -- "The Leonard tank was purportedly a superior product to the Pamela and Tyler tanks fielded by Nancy Germany during World War II."
Was a cavalry/armor officer in combat. This is the normal civilian thought process. Lazy thinking. Success requires the whole spectrum. Good equipment, well trained Soldiers, great doctrine, outstanding logistical support (including maintenance!), and superb leadership at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Nothing is easy. Or simple.
I agree and it must be a joint effort utilising assets to work together in order to maximise attrition and good knowledge of what assets are at hand and how to utalise there ability to have superiority on the battlefield.
Actually, one commentator made a good observation on attritional wars. Throughout major wars, including WW1 & WW2, the initial troops were the very well trained ones. As they become casaulties, the question becomes how well trained are the follow-on draftees? Both Ukraine and Russia lost their highly trained troops in the first year. In WW2 it took the draftee Allied Armies to the end of 1943 to become proficient. This was part of the reason for America to attack in North Africa before tackling the Atlantic Wall. So the big question for NATO is: how good are NATO reserves?
Loving the change in tone from a year ago, where there were published expectations of superior western game, change your weapons, the tanks in particular leading to capture of Crimea within just three weeks. But I can tell you, I knew this would never happen because I play a lot of Pokémon so I understand type matchups. Just as electric, Pokémon dominate water types in the game, in real life, the Russian type dominates the Nazi type!
Former armor corps soldier here - the mishmash of gun calibers, track types and support vehicles is a nightmare. I'm fairly certain that all these vehicle abandonments could have been reversed with good combat support infrastructure - a tank brigade is useless for more than one sortie if you don't have the equipment, man power and training to recover a tank that ran into problems.
That has been very obvious problem from the start. There is reason why modern armies are uniformed, from literal uniforms to uniform vehicles, guns, weapon systems etc. because it's much more efficient and convenient that things work together and are compatible as much as possible. E.g. if you lose a vehicle/it needs maintenance, the next one will be as similar as possible so you e.g. do not suddenly under stress (e.g. in war) forget how things operate, where are important switches and levers etc. Having army build around mixed bag of everything; this weapon system is from here, this weapon system is over there and this is 5 years old, this is 30 years old etc. it is a logistic nightmare and also nightmare to operate and build logistics and maintenance around it.
The number of tanks sent by Poland could be highly misleading. Since the start of the war, there have been many rumors of mysteriously missing tanks from warehouses. As much as 200 mentioned here and there, could be old Soviet equipment, could be something else. We'll never know.
The IFVs have been much more valuable than the tanks. The war is mainly an artillery and small scale infantry affair now and the ability to safely move groups of soldier around the front is much more important than the firepower and maneuver a tank can deliver.
and who is winning? -> ⬜🟦🟥 all arrows points to that. no woke article in some western 'newspaper' can tell me otherwise. i may be wrong. but i think i am right
That's just an assumption you arrived at by watching combat footage. But combat footage is always propaganda, both sides only release what they want to show. Unless you're either at the front or in the command center, you can not know how and where tanks are deployed.
@@UnfollowYourDreams Or watching interviews. Russia withdraws any tanks in the area that the unit of challenger 2s are deployed to, and plant large minefields and artillery, and so the Challengers end up being mobile artillery platforms.
Overall that is true, especially for the Bradley. However, tanks have still been a very useful addition in certain places and situations where their big guns are needed.
@@noreply-7069 Slow your roll, Funk & Wagnalls. You’re ruining the joke and the mood. Sometimes it’s okay to just not comment, if you have nothing good to add. I mean, I get it, I used to do the grammar nazi thing. But I have since reformed, realizing it rarely does any good except make people feel dumb, make people dislike you, make people less happy and derail the conversation away from anything useful. I do make an exception for comments directed at actual Nazis and other hate group members.
@@notcompletelynormal It's good in my opinion to try to help others correct their mistakes, especially when they are mentioning someone else's themselves. Also what a sacred task you are doing by commenting to "hate group members", it's such an important job for humanity. Thank you for your service!
I read a recent analysis that the overall impact of western tanks to the success of the Ukrainian offensive efforts in particular is and will continue to be very limited. The greatest factor that limits their ability to make a significant impact is their weight. These 70-75 tonne monsters are simply too heavy to cross most bridges in Ukraine, since most Ukrainian bridges are limited to about 60 tonnes. This, however, doesn't present an issue for Russia since the T-72, T-80 and T-90 are all around 45-46 tonnes. Another issue is that in most of Ukraine the ground in the spring is far too soft for any tank to operate on anything but prepared roads. But as the mud starts to dry out it becomes firm enough to take a T-72 long before a Challenger 2 or Abrams dare try to cross a field lest they sink up to their turrets in the muck. The result is that Russian knows exactly which bridges western tanks can cross and thus knows where to station their observation drone in order to target them with long range drones, artillery, guided rockets and missiles. And by destroying those few bridges that can carry the weight of a western MBT, they can cut off the Ukrainian western tanks from being able to advance to the line of engagement, or even cut off their escape routes and trap them as Russia advances. And then in the spring offenses, the Russians are able to leave the highly predictable routes of prepared roadways and into the fields much earlier than Ukraine's western MBTs can. I wonder if that isn't why earlier this year we saw a lot of 25-30 tonne Bradley IFVs being used in ways where it would seem better to have deployed an MBT. It may have been that all of the western MBT were still highly restricted in their movements and that the Bradleys were the only western vehicle that could cross the bridges and not sink in the mud.
Ground weight is a far bigger factor than the bridges. Bridges is one part, you can build temporary ones. Not being able to even drive at all a tank for some months while your enemy can? We saw that happen multiple times and is one reason why Russia maintains momentum and advantage more and more.
"a significant impact is their weight." Nope. It's their quantity. Sorry bro. But 60 of tanks in such big war is just NOT ENOUGH. Just so you understand - RU forced lost from 80 to 150 tanks during seige of Avdeevka only.
You only lightly mentioned logistics, but that is a *huge* factor. When you have many different kinds of tanks from many countries, it becomes much harder to maintain, repair, and train crews to use them effectively. If you need to drag a damaged tank from Eastern Ukraine all the way to Poland or Germany to repair it, it's likely not going to happen. Tanks also have to be used in coordination with the entire military such as with air support and artillery. This is why no "wonder weapon" makes much difference by itself. I highly recommend former NATO officer Jacques Baud's analysis of the Russian Art of War for more detail on the combat zone.
"Ingeniørpanservogn" is a three in one; Ingeniør = Engineer, Panser = Armored, Vogn = Wagon So it's a literal "Engineer's Arnired Wagon", where "Stridsvogn" (Combat Wagon) would be a normal "Tank". Source: I've got that æ ø å
The issue is that ppl assumed that the quality of tanks was the problem. But the problem is a 15€ drone from eBay carrying an armor piercing bomb dropped exactly on a point no tank is designed to be particularly protected at.
That, and the Challenger 2, a 70 ton behemoth with zero traction on mud (or wet grass for that matter) and a gun with its own special ammo. And the Abrams, another 70 ton behemoth with a jet engine that requires 40 maintenance hours of MIT graduates for every hour on the battlefield. And the fact that Kiev has like 30 different battle tanks now, half of them were osolete in the 1980s, which makes maintenance and logistics a herculean task. And the fact that Kiev has to press-gang the tankers from the streets and send them to the front with only basic knowledge of how to operate or maintain the machines. And the fact that half of what the West sends is in near unusable condition with moldy interiors and fried electrics.
@tuurderom2017 why would they want to put it back togther again for equpiment they already have captured models for. Anything being captured now is going to be used in weapons tests
I recall one expert say that tanks (or F-16s) on their own won't make much difference; what makes all the difference is integration of forces which requires the presence in sufficient strength of air defense, air power, mobile artillery (tanks), "fixed" artillery (howitzers, etc.), "boots on the ground", and probably a bunch of other elements all working in co-ordination. If any of that is missing or in short supply, effectiveness is reduced.
It's not having them, it's feeling the absence of such systems that make the difference. If have weak air defense, then exploit the airspace with helicopters, CAS and bombing. If they have weak tanks or IFVs, then increase artillery and drones to do more damage to the unprotected soldiers. It's a constant game of rock paper scissors, except the side with the best intel knows what the other side is about to use and can send in the appropriate counter. If tanks fight tanks, or soldiers fight soldiers, a lot has failed before that point.
@@AsunaYuukiSAO3 yeah but it would take 2 years to train someone on it at least >.> the f16s will just have to do much better than most of what russia flys anyway
Ukrainians would probably disagree and name a capability for precise indirect infantry-support fire with HE instead. This is as close to an "airforceless" war as one can realistically get; CAS is almost entirely absent and the VVS rarely crosses the borders of Russia proper these days. Even the Crimea squadrons are focusing more on ersatz ELINT/AEW than on attacking ground targets.
Tanks, like all weapon systems, are designed to work as part of a combined arms operation. If you take out factors that were assumed to be part of the calculation, like air support or engineering support vehicles, you need to recalculate the entire formula.
This is my thinking, too. As far as i understand NATO doctrine, apart from overwhelming air supremacy, it relies on medium sized formation (like at least a company) to be incredibly mobile, supported by infantry (in IFV's) to scoot around and cause havoc. The tactics Ukraine have to use, of one/two tank lumbering across a field towards and enemy trench isn't what they're designed for.
Think of the Greek Phalanx shield...but if the shield is missing some of its constituent parts, then the defensive effectiveness of the Phalanx shield is degraded. Former Armor officer & M1 tank commander.
Man, I must say that your channel is awesome and you look really good and talk in a way that I want to listen to you haha. This is the kind of content I'm looking for on YT. All the best and greeting from PL :)
I think the writer behind the teleprompter lost a fight with autocorrect and nobody bothered to fix it/ran out of time to reshoot. That said, I'd think a channel with this name would at least make sure they're getting the name of the tank right....
it is a secret 'Wünderwaffe' version of the Leopard 2 (the Germans have asked the ukies not to deploy it near the frontlines because it is embarrassing when it gets blown up and it may hurt weapons sales to other customers)
Ah, yes the Leonard 2, dubbed "The Big Len" by its crews. It was named for the vicious predator who would fall upon its prey from the branches of a tree. Many is the night we used to listen to the growling of a Leonard as it stalked through the darkness.
@@kingfish2703slowed it down to 0.5, he definitely said,”entered,” but he is British so the accent makes it difficult to hear the “R” in “entered.” This is why it sounds like he said “ended”
@@joeyhayes3137 Even on 0.25 hes saying ended. Idk how you can hear anything else. Plus even if that difficult to hear R was true , thers still an E missing. The difference between "ter" and "d" is pretty huge and again, even the subtitles agree with me on this.
I heard “entered” and learnt English through various International Schools prior to migrating to Australia. As for the captions, they’re automated and likely trained on mostly American accents.
It’s more that Tanks in general aren’t the same game changers they used to be. When a $700 drone can fly in and blow up a 5 Million dollar tank, there is a major problem. Between drones and ATGMS, it’s very different than WW2 and the Korean War.
The only reason Russian drones are working is because Ukraine is using drones from the same manufacturers so jamming would impact drones from both sides.
Tanks were only game changers in the past when supported by airpower, infantry and artillery. Drones can't take territory and can be denied coverage with appropriate electronic warfare. They are a new component but war will force adaptations.
@@JJ-dt9lo there isn’t one type of drone being used. They are being sourced from many different places. There are $500 drones, $1000 drones etc. Also the amount purchased comes into play also.
MBTs on their own cannot be a game changer, no matter how capable or advanced they are as they are but one cog in the machine. If everything else is in place, they could tip the scales, but they won’t unbalance them on their own.
The Ukrainians will also receive another Leopard 1 variant from Rheinmetal with a high tech Skyranger anti-aircraft and anti-drone gun installed on a Leopard 1 chassis. "Rheinmetall has announced it will mount its state-of-the-art Skyranger anti-aircraft system on Cold War-era Leopard 1 tank hulls, creating a new vehicle to bolster Ukraine’s defences."
Simplifies logistics, because many vehicles of the Leopard 1 -familiy are already in Ukraine. Ukrainian mechanics will have gained experiences with these vehicles in the last 2 years. For the conditions in Ukraine (mud period) old tracked chassis are probably better than wheeled bases.
it doesnt matter if then chally 2 was hit by a mine or arty, if it loses a track which the film backs up, i.e. its arse is facing the enemy and immobile, as most know when a tank loses a track it will spin round when it is attempted drive, then immobile, weak armour facing the enemy its gonna attract everything the enemy can send its way. So the only really interesting question is where did it get hit and by how much before it became a catastrophic kill?
The way they talk about advanced and better tanks but in limited numbers reminds me of complicated WW2 German tanks VS allied tanks that are simple but numerous.
The lesson here is that a tank designed for combined arms operations, however individually tough, won't be invincible. Should have been transferring F-16s at the same time.
The amount of ground to cover between trenches (no man's land) would have you spotted 3 miles out. Before you're even able to get in a tactical position. Ukraine is all open fields, and farm land. Stealth and speed would be more beneficial than brawn and power. When clearing trenches.
@@whiskey4o4 Which is why they should have more IFVs with ATGMs. Faster, can deal with armour and infantry, and carries your buddies back when you're rotating off.
Did you at 5:11 say that Ukraine have no strv 122? You better check with the 21 Mechanized Brigade, the elite spearhead brigade equipped with ex-Swedish strv 122 and CV-90 - they are quite proud of their strv 122 and posts many clips on it. Sometimes informally called "the Swedish brigade" due to equipment and renegade volunteers, the 21 Mech is the among the first to bring fight to russian ground (and yeah, I always spell russia/russian with a non capital letter).
In 2030 when the new Leonard Nimoy A9M7 Tank is in full production, the rail gun, tractor beam and Klingon Cloaking package will make all other tanks useless.
Tank corp sergeant in my friend's unit: "Gents! What you see behind me is an armored fighting vehicle called a 'tank'. The piece of equipment that is destroyed within 5 minutes of any engagement!"
The M1A1 and the M1A1-SA which was sent are two different variants, the later is from the 2010s so 14 years old at the most, half that of the newest Leopards that were sent...
The M1A1 is STILL world class. Who else but the USA would put a gas turbine in a tank!!! After how many decades since it's design and, the B-52 is still world class! And to think, the B-52 was designed with..... SLIDE RULES!!! If I'm not mistaken, the sale of AM General by Chrysler saved there ass.
This guy seemed a bit biased against the Abrams. Barely any coverage compared to the European counterparts, considering the amount of action the Abrams has seen in Ukraine compared to the challenger.
@@Volodymyr_SVD second point. Some of them simply did not have time to inflict any damage as these were wiped out prior they have even reached combat line....
@robertp457 Russia performance is funny facing the largest country in Europe with one of the biggest militaries in Europe prior to 2022 that is receiving help from 40ish countries with tens of thousands of weapons systems, logistics, global intelligence, planning and training? FYI Russia broke through fortifications that Ukraine built up for 8 years. The fact is NATO was in Afghanistan for 20 years fighting an enemy with almost no weapons and no outside support but could never conquer all of Afghanistan, we are talking about dozens of countries. Imagine if Russia, China, Iran, India, North Korea, South Africa, ect gave billions in weapons to the Taliban such as drones, ATGMs, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense, radars, jammers, mines, small arms, night vision, artillery, MLRS, tanks, ect. Now imagine the Taliban also got training, help with logistics and targeting information. Imagine how much worse NATO would have suffered. It’s always easy fighting no bodies….. Or Imagine if a single NATO country would have to fight in a country like Ukraine with lots of thick forests, dense cities, underground factories, fortifications, millions of mines, thousands of rivers, lakes and marshes making it almost possible to quickly breakthrough plus mud, fog and snow making it even more difficult. Now imagine if this lone NATO country had to face dozens of other countries.
@@robertp457Yeah because it’s not a 1v1 like you make it out to be. Without any aid from any other country, this was would’ve been over by now. Instead we insist on sending more young men to die
They are doing just fine, but some people finally figured out that no tank is immune to anti-tank mines. Well, at least no tanks are immune to them for now
The western AFVs sent to Ukr are the same ones in service (modernized versions of original vehicles that were not cannibalized for parts). And age is irrelevant as long as a $500 quadcopter drone can destroy it.
In my humble opinion, the Challenger struck a mine which immobilised it, most likely by the loss of a track or tracks. Once immobilised, the crew had no choice but to abandoned it whereupon it was used as target practice. The Challenger is much more vulnerable when its crew hatches are open.
Challenger 2 has Dorchester armour which is an upgraded version of Chobham. The one knocked out in Ukraine initially hit a mine, a track was damaged and the crew abandoned it and once the Russians saw it with a drone they brought down artillery/rocket fire onto it until they were happy it was well fucked up.
Challanger 2 has Chobham composite armour as standard . The Dorchester armour is the add on armour that was placed on the challanger 2 when deployed to Iraq.
Quite impressive that they have only lost 1 Challenger out of 14. So the crews must have been well trained in UK on how to get the best out of them! Didn’t the crew survive as well so the design worked well! Will be even better as Russia is now having to bring 1950s tanks onto the frontline
2 have been lost. I'm not sure why not many people noticed the second. But then again probably not everyone has a special interest of finding tank videos on telegram 20 hours a day like me
Although it should be kept in mind that it also matters a lot where and how often the tanks are actually used, i.e. what risks they faced how often. I've heard that Ukraine at first kept the Challengers in the second line as their heavier weight considerably affects cross-country mobility, and then there were reports that Ukraine didn't deploy them at all for several months in mid 2023 -- though an article on Business Insider later suggested they were just rotated out and now back in as the Ukrainians retroactively added some more protection to fix weak spots on the glacis. They seem to be more confident about putting the Challenger into heavier line of fire now, but with this of course there also comes a higher risk of losing them.
People will never realize that crew that manages to get out of tank, are getting killed by follow up drones to finish them. It will be to late before you realize the reality of modern warfare.
There's interviews with Ukrainian tankers who survived their Western tanks being hit and they got out unhurt. They were much happier to be operating western tanks than Russian built ones, due to survivability.
Its pretty funny how people feel the need to argue over how a tank is destroyed when they have literally no context to work with other than what they are told, we wont ever know how that challenger got destroyed but honestly it doesent matter. I do like to see though that none of the western made tanks have lost their turrets or have had ammo detonations that destroyed the whole tank, the point is that the crew can actually survive and the troops can walk away and it appears that is the case in most of these.
When hit, being able to disembark and return to base to get inside a new tank, allows you to absorb the lessons learned, and keep the same tankers in the fights - who will become even better tankers as a result. Beats violently exploding with a turret toss 30 meters or more into the atmosphere.
@alexpayne2662 you act like having burnout panels somehow translates to the crew is immortal. If a goober with an ATGM or a APFSDS or HEAT penetrates the fighting cabin the crew is still going to die.
@@dirtysniper3434 lol bozo cry about it, they aren't guaranteed survival and you know I didnt say that, so trying to make it seem like I did makes your worthless comment even more pathetic
@@dirtysniper3434 Not only that but it's incredibly common for crew to be double tapped if they disembark in combat. Often there is surveillance drones watching, who then inform other drones to strike the crew fleeing on foot.
@@-Zevin- Well China pays real good mone~~~ehhhh gives you lots of golfcarts for recovered Western tanks. So yeah. Softkill the tank, hardkill the crew. It's not like Ukraine has much equipment that can get 60 tons of heavy metal with thrown traks unstuck. The usual Soviet-era recovery equipment is for tanks of 50 tons max. Russia had to design novel recovery vehicles for Armata, and they can handle Leo2/Challenger/M1. And it's not like they are needed for recovering Armatas.
What I took from the Challenger 2 stories. No tank is indestructible, but both stories seem to indicate it takes a shit ton ordnance to take one out. LOL
I find your content to be top-shelf. I do wonder if there are listeners who like your rapid fire presentation style. I don't. Please slow down. People with authority do not have to speak fast
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Petition to rename the Leopard the Leonard to correct my embarrassing mistake? Sign here: rb.gy/uvqkbi
😊
Just.. how? How do you make that mistake?
Also, is there a McCoy variant? 😅
Leonard strikes fear into the hearts of his enemies.
@@jameshartman6177😂
@@jameshartman6177 "Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a main battle tank!"
Supermarket shelf stacker here. There is no game changer. Even the most high tech grocery restocker is easily disabled by a cheap FPV drone.
Fookin clown! LOVE IT… 🎉😂😂😊
@inkandfish555 😂😂😂😂😂 which aisle do you cover freezer section or the tinned goods??? 🎉❤
I can confirm, my colleague; an experienced shell stocker who's worked at our supermarket (Hoogvliet) for 3 years, was blown up by an FPV drone sent by Jumbo during work, there are no game changers.
crazy how the javelin was the game changer to take down tanks early in the war and then drones came into play making it super low cost and extremely effective
Its not a petty sight seeing a complete brown out on the toilet tissue aisle - I served in the Tesco regiment as a young man, it was hell out there💩all gave some, some gave all💩
Danish artillery officer here. There's no such thing as a game changer in war. Tanks are important, so is infantry, artillery, pioneers, logistics etc. What wins wars both today and historically, is the ability to put these different pieces together and combine their advantages in order to minimise their respective set backs.
@FS-vz9hz Didn't your girl boss prime minister give away all your arty to the Ukrops?
You are right, off course. However, it seems, that the war itself has been a gamechanger for the tank. The traditional role as a tool to break through enemy lines seems long gone, when faced with a battlefield littered with deep minefields, heavyhitting drones and AT-missiles - and in particular longrange precision artillery. Tanks seems forced into more defensive and supportive roles - not spearheads for the attacker. The ukrainian forces tried that briefly, which accounts for many of the losses of western tanks.
I beg to differ, the GMLRS rockets and launch platforms were, I think, the biggest "game changer."
Also the ATACMS rockets forced Russia to remove their attack helicopters from the theatre.
Also the Sea Babies reset Ukraine's ability to export wheat.
Also the refinery attack strategy has had an impact on Russia's finances second only to "Western" sanctions.
@@MultiCappiei re beg to differ 😅😅 some advantages doesn't mean a game changer. To say game changer there must be a final winner. Let's wait who wins then we can say this or that is a game changer 😅🎉😅.capish 😅
We need to create a new troops tranporter vehicle, anti-mines, anti drones, anti artilery, no guns outside, full safe turtle, to allow only engine needs breathing weak spots, and air conditioning hardware, that simple and strong.
Former praetorian here, without support from legionaries in testudo formation and strategically placed caltrops any ballista or artillery platform is doomed to be overrun by the barbarian hordes and will fail to become a game changer.
Good answer 👍
Thank you for your service.
Klingon here, Russia rules the world!
ruclips.net/video/v03kva5zKd0/видео.html
@@Haffschlappe
Russia is romulaani
Former clone commander of an armored unit here. There isn't such a thing as a game changer in war. Even the best AT-TE unit needs support from troopers, turbo laser artillery, starfighters and some well positioned orbital bombardment. Even a 1000 Jedi knights would struggle against a trillion clankers. See what happened at the Battle of Geonosis before we arrived.
The republic thanks you for your service.
The 'Leonard'? I think you'll find that it's proper military designation is the 'Nimoy'.
🤣😂🤣😂Brilliant, almost as good as your channel
Lindybeige on a Simon whistler channel, the internet is a smaller place then I sometimes think.
Should’ve known that a new video about ‘TANKS!’ would attract the Beige.
BIG FAN LINDY!!!
So what do we call a kill shot by the Nimoy?
Ah yes, the Leonard 2 tank, backed up by the Sheldon IFV, the Wolowitzer-2000 and defended by the Koothrapali air defence system.......
This wins the Internet today
Wololowitzer: coming soon to an Age of Empires mod near you....
This combined arms package is called the "Big Bang Theorum".
To get into any of these vehicles you just have to knock and say 'penny' 3 times
Sheldon would be a recovery vehicle lmao
Former US Army armor officer here. No tank is a "game changer" if it's not used correctly. Infantry support, artillery support, air superiority.These are what makes a tank a game changer.
🎯🎯🎯💯 facts!!
The Ukrainians facing the entire brunt of the Russian armed forces. You yanks are more better suited to fighting impoverished sandal wearing religious fanatics who have but a fraction of the training equipment and logistics supporting them
thats lame.. you are pretty much saying that its only a game changer if the enemy only throws rocks...
Allons!
I am assuming, since I am no Miltary expert.....what he said is from his experience, the USA tank doctrine is the tank is used in conjunction with other war making assets. My understanding is any given soldier can carry a tank killer rocket....so you need support from other war making assets to allow tanks to shine.
Former Leopard here. My tank is a name-changer, and is now called Leonard.
Not the only thing he got wrong.
Well shit, guess I’ve been deadnaming you this entire time, sorry about that 😞
Former Tim Hortons manager here, the only real game changer is a cup of perfectly roasted premium coffee.
@@Uzeil21 where would you suggest I get such a cup of coffee 😉
…but not in Tim Hortons. 😂
What? Strapping a Coleman stove to the front of your APC (trim vane), using a C-ration can to heat the water, and the instant coffee isn't consider "perfectly roasted premium coffee?" Sacrilege, I say!
And fresh Tim Bits!
I think you'll find that a hot cup of tea is the real game changer, you can create the biggest empire the world has ever seen, fuelled up on that brew.
Retired underwater basket weaver here. No tank is a "game changer" if it's not used correctly. Infantry support, artillery support, air superiority.These are what makes a tank a game changer.
Former ballet dancer here. No tank is a "game changer" if it's not used correctly. Infantry support, artillery support, air superiority.These are what makes a tank a game changer.
BINGO!
The Leonard tank is purportedly a superior product to the Taylor tank fielded by Nancy Germany during World War 2.
I laughed way to hard at "Nancy Germany"
Take my like good Sir, Madame or Other
At least they're not the dreaded Bob Semple tanks.
@@Lord_Foxy13cell, Ernst Röhm was a Nancyboy😂
I think the German tanks were called Tina and Pamela 😂
Tyler tanks
Leonard and Leopard, sometimes both used in the very same sentence. Now you’re just taunting us.
I caught that too. He just said Leopard 3 words ago and then he said Leonard. wtf!?!?!?!
Have you considered that sometimes you just make a verbal mistake and don't notice it?
@@resileaf9501I'm of the opinion it's to farm viewer interaction in the comment section. Which helps with the algo.
@@QoStoOds It feels rather conspirational thinking to claim that it's a purposeful typo.
@@resileaf9501 I dated someone who worked in social media optimisation services. Intentional typos/verbal errors were definitely a utilised method of boosting interaction at least 3 years ago, nothing gets more interaction than irritating pedants
The Leonard 2 is definitely a better name. It’s Leonard 2 now.
😂😂
Seconded!
😂
Just not Leonard Part 6
I thought I was crazy.. How tf did Simon not realise this massive gaffe lol.
Canadian museum volunteer here. Ukrainians rejected all the Canadian leo 1 donations since it is unmaintainable due to being a Frankenstein
Yes, I heard from an inside source they were obsolete junk and Canada was glad to get rid of them.
Leonard 😂
what happened there I wonder
Okay so I wasn't imagining it!
@@lanorothwolf2184script typos. Simon is just reading from a prompter
Here I was thinking that Brits just pronounced Leopard weird.
😂😂
Simon: puts out 1.5 hour long video presenting the comprehensive history of tanks.
Also Simon: Leonard.
I thought I heard it wrong the first few times. 😂
Abraham and Leonard went to bar…
It's 20 minutes long
@@angusmatheson8906he is talking about a different video
He doesn't put together anything, he just sells his voice and face to whoever and ends up saying a bunch of nonsense. Really, it is a mark of poor quality if you see this guy presenting the subject.
Norwegian here, If Norway say it is pledged it is already inn Ukraine hands. Norway don't announce any support before it is already sent, this is because of potential sabotage.
What is your view on how much Norway should be involved in Ukraine?
@@Rydonattelo a lot more, but nato general secretary is Norwegian so I believe he pushes our politicians hard on this.
Why doesn't Norway spend more money? They have trillions that could free Ukraine and make the world better
@@samryan180you obviously don't know how wealth works. Just because they have trillions doesn't mean it's all in cash. Most of it is in investments and bonds.
@@londonberry2180 It's public information, the vast majority could be liquidized cheaply inside a week. It's a very hot debate in Norway.
You said something that caught me off guard. "Post war" is a phrase that I haven't herd many people talk about. It seems like such a distant future, but there will be an "after the war" eventually.
This is called Armageddon or end of humanity…. 🤯 💥
@@Ceri_MacLighten up a little.
@@Ceri_Mac he means after THIS war, not all wars.
The question is not "which tanks are better". The question is "how to use and modify this vehicle class to make it useful again on a battlefield that is dominated by drones". Cheap and expandable drones are the most important thing that popped up since the last major conflict...
As well as the return of the "King of Battle", the humble artillery.... And of course, the improved glide bombs.
@@Warren_PeaceProbably a bigger danger than FPV drones because they can take advantage of higher volumes of fire (though drones directing such assets can make them even more dangerous).
Active Protection Systems might be reasonably effective against FPV drones. Outside of Israel, nations have been under-investing in them as of late.
You can buy a hell of a lot of drones for the cost of one tank. Tanks are probably at the end of being useful and game changers.
@@pclayton5063 I think tanks will always have a place but its not going to be as dramatic as it once was. I hear the Ukrainians actually are loving the bradleys as they are fast relatively well protected well armed against things like bmps and other equivalent russian vehicles and can even knock out tanks on occasion though I for sure wouldn't want to be in one around any tanks but its great for infantry support and its hard to knock out for infantry except at long range it also has fair protection from drones much better than russian equivalents also if knocked out the crew tends to survive which is simply not the case with russian vehicles the russian soldiers themselves will admit that. I think exosuits will be the new thing soon I know the US has been messing with them for over a decade mechs sadly will probably never be a thing though they just aren't practical in real life though I'm sure someone will try lol. really what is needed are better drone counter measures particularly for small ones
"Then there's the Leonardo 2, the Italian version of its German counterpart, which has seen action in art museums since the 16th century".
World of Tanks just finished a crossover with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I heard it's very similar to the Leonard 2eh Canadian variant.
🤣🤣🤣
Watch Ralf Raths' Video about Leonardo Da Vinci's Wooden Turtle
"I'm Simon Whistler?"
"Dammit, who put that on the teleprompter? You all know he only reads exactly what he sees!"
thats a good one. now try it in all caps
Leonard
came sprinting to the comments to leave this same comment. Happy to see it is the top comment. Im no longer worried for our future.
Just imagine him reading this, then --
"The Leonard tank was purportedly a superior product to the Pamela and Tyler tanks fielded by Nancy Germany during World War II."
Must have been that Leonard fellow.
You say “Leonard” so many times! Either you writers and editors are playing a prank on you or you’re playing a prank on us!😂
Or maybe Simon just can't read a script written for him, let alone write one. He really is not very bright.
@@jdb47games He's so cringe and the channels he fronts generally just spread poorly researched nonsense
Affectionately known as the Lenny.
Was a cavalry/armor officer in combat. This is the normal civilian thought process. Lazy thinking. Success requires the whole spectrum. Good equipment, well trained Soldiers, great doctrine, outstanding logistical support (including maintenance!), and superb leadership at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Nothing is easy. Or simple.
I agree and it must be a joint effort utilising assets to work together in order to maximise attrition and good knowledge of what assets are at hand and how to utalise there ability to have superiority on the battlefield.
Too complex to think about for a politician.
@The_Oracle so is every day life stuff that is included in there job description
Actually, one commentator made a good observation on attritional wars. Throughout major wars, including WW1 & WW2, the initial troops were the very well trained ones. As they become casaulties, the question becomes how well trained are the follow-on draftees? Both Ukraine and Russia lost their highly trained troops in the first year. In WW2 it took the draftee Allied Armies to the end of 1943 to become proficient. This was part of the reason for America to attack in North Africa before tackling the Atlantic Wall. So the big question for NATO is: how good are NATO reserves?
Loving the change in tone from a year ago, where there were published expectations of superior western game, change your weapons, the tanks in particular leading to capture of Crimea within just three weeks.
But I can tell you, I knew this would never happen because I play a lot of Pokémon so I understand type matchups. Just as electric, Pokémon dominate water types in the game, in real life, the Russian type dominates the Nazi type!
If you add turtle armour to a Leanard, does it become the Leonardo variant? Just add twin katana weapon systems to the rear decks.
Former armor corps soldier here - the mishmash of gun calibers, track types and support vehicles is a nightmare. I'm fairly certain that all these vehicle abandonments could have been reversed with good combat support infrastructure - a tank brigade is useless for more than one sortie if you don't have the equipment, man power and training to recover a tank that ran into problems.
I was a 10 year 63 E 20.
That has been very obvious problem from the start. There is reason why modern armies are uniformed, from literal uniforms to uniform vehicles, guns, weapon systems etc. because it's much more efficient and convenient that things work together and are compatible as much as possible. E.g. if you lose a vehicle/it needs maintenance, the next one will be as similar as possible so you e.g. do not suddenly under stress (e.g. in war) forget how things operate, where are important switches and levers etc.
Having army build around mixed bag of everything; this weapon system is from here, this weapon system is over there and this is 5 years old, this is 30 years old etc. it is a logistic nightmare and also nightmare to operate and build logistics and maintenance around it.
The support was there at the start, but Russian artillery doesn't sleep.
@@Jawzzy These guys don't understand the Russians are not the goat headers US lost to recently.
But the Soviets lost to that bunch of goat herders as well.
The number of tanks sent by Poland could be highly misleading. Since the start of the war, there have been many rumors of mysteriously missing tanks from warehouses. As much as 200 mentioned here and there, could be old Soviet equipment, could be something else. We'll never know.
The IFVs have been much more valuable than the tanks. The war is mainly an artillery and small scale infantry affair now and the ability to safely move groups of soldier around the front is much more important than the firepower and maneuver a tank can deliver.
and who is winning? -> ⬜🟦🟥 all arrows points to that. no woke article in some western 'newspaper' can tell me otherwise. i may be wrong. but i think i am right
That's just an assumption you arrived at by watching combat footage. But combat footage is always propaganda, both sides only release what they want to show. Unless you're either at the front or in the command center, you can not know how and where tanks are deployed.
@@UnfollowYourDreams Or watching interviews. Russia withdraws any tanks in the area that the unit of challenger 2s are deployed to, and plant large minefields and artillery, and so the Challengers end up being mobile artillery platforms.
@@Flakey101 i'm sure nobody ever lied about what happens at the FLOT, ever. Especially not in public.
Overall that is true, especially for the Bradley. However, tanks have still been a very useful addition in certain places and situations where their big guns are needed.
The affirmative disregard for pronuncification made me think I was watching Task & Purpose
Lo blo!
🤣oh come onnn hahaha
"Pronuncification". Is this part of the joke? His pronunciation* is indeed horrible, so is Simon's.
@@noreply-7069 Slow your roll, Funk & Wagnalls. You’re ruining the joke and the mood. Sometimes it’s okay to just not comment, if you have nothing good to add. I mean, I get it, I used to do the grammar nazi thing. But I have since reformed, realizing it rarely does any good except make people feel dumb, make people dislike you, make people less happy and derail the conversation away from anything useful.
I do make an exception for comments directed at actual Nazis and other hate group members.
@@notcompletelynormal It's good in my opinion to try to help others correct their mistakes, especially when they are mentioning someone else's themselves. Also what a sacred task you are doing by commenting to "hate group members", it's such an important job for humanity. Thank you for your service!
I read a recent analysis that the overall impact of western tanks to the success of the Ukrainian offensive efforts in particular is and will continue to be very limited. The greatest factor that limits their ability to make a significant impact is their weight. These 70-75 tonne monsters are simply too heavy to cross most bridges in Ukraine, since most Ukrainian bridges are limited to about 60 tonnes. This, however, doesn't present an issue for Russia since the T-72, T-80 and T-90 are all around 45-46 tonnes. Another issue is that in most of Ukraine the ground in the spring is far too soft for any tank to operate on anything but prepared roads. But as the mud starts to dry out it becomes firm enough to take a T-72 long before a Challenger 2 or Abrams dare try to cross a field lest they sink up to their turrets in the muck.
The result is that Russian knows exactly which bridges western tanks can cross and thus knows where to station their observation drone in order to target them with long range drones, artillery, guided rockets and missiles. And by destroying those few bridges that can carry the weight of a western MBT, they can cut off the Ukrainian western tanks from being able to advance to the line of engagement, or even cut off their escape routes and trap them as Russia advances.
And then in the spring offenses, the Russians are able to leave the highly predictable routes of prepared roadways and into the fields much earlier than Ukraine's western MBTs can. I wonder if that isn't why earlier this year we saw a lot of 25-30 tonne Bradley IFVs being used in ways where it would seem better to have deployed an MBT. It may have been that all of the western MBT were still highly restricted in their movements and that the Bradleys were the only western vehicle that could cross the bridges and not sink in the mud.
its not world of tanks its always better to sit still and wait not go after random bridges in the off chance they have to cross them
Ground weight is a far bigger factor than the bridges. Bridges is one part, you can build temporary ones. Not being able to even drive at all a tank for some months while your enemy can? We saw that happen multiple times and is one reason why Russia maintains momentum and advantage more and more.
"a significant impact is their weight."
Nope.
It's their quantity.
Sorry bro. But 60 of tanks in such big war is just NOT ENOUGH.
Just so you understand - RU forced lost from 80 to 150 tanks during seige of Avdeevka only.
@@N4CR give me a link to prove the momentum (preferable not any state controlled media)
@@gnomeachu8045bro wat
That perfect British accent calling it a Leonard has brightened my entire day. Your videos are awesome.
You only lightly mentioned logistics, but that is a *huge* factor. When you have many different kinds of tanks from many countries, it becomes much harder to maintain, repair, and train crews to use them effectively. If you need to drag a damaged tank from Eastern Ukraine all the way to Poland or Germany to repair it, it's likely not going to happen.
Tanks also have to be used in coordination with the entire military such as with air support and artillery. This is why no "wonder weapon" makes much difference by itself. I highly recommend former NATO officer Jacques Baud's analysis of the Russian Art of War for more detail on the combat zone.
the biggest challenge in the closet...this isn't our "home-field"
Logistics, the difference between a 'BANG!' & a 'click'.
Soldiers win battles, Logistics win wars.
Actually I think it's happening to all of them. I don't know of any damaged tanks that are simply being left in Ukraine.
"Ingeniørpanservogn" is a three in one; Ingeniør = Engineer, Panser = Armored, Vogn = Wagon
So it's a literal "Engineer's Arnired Wagon", where "Stridsvogn" (Combat Wagon) would be a normal "Tank".
Source: I've got that æ ø å
Amired wagon sounds less leathal than the Leonard 2.
Tø be fåir, sø dø æ
It’s actually literally, Engineer’s Armored Wagon. Nice try though.
Rynnäkkö = assault, panssari = armor, vaunu = wagon
I've got that refference, and it is great. Norway just has the bigger ... ...
Alphabet ;)
The issue is that ppl assumed that the quality of tanks was the problem. But the problem is a 15€ drone from eBay carrying an armor piercing bomb dropped exactly on a point no tank is designed to be particularly protected at.
That, and the Challenger 2, a 70 ton behemoth with zero traction on mud (or wet grass for that matter) and a gun with its own special ammo. And the Abrams, another 70 ton behemoth with a jet engine that requires 40 maintenance hours of MIT graduates for every hour on the battlefield. And the fact that Kiev has like 30 different battle tanks now, half of them were osolete in the 1980s, which makes maintenance and logistics a herculean task. And the fact that Kiev has to press-gang the tankers from the streets and send them to the front with only basic knowledge of how to operate or maintain the machines. And the fact that half of what the West sends is in near unusable condition with moldy interiors and fried electrics.
The real game changers in Ukraine are drones, for both sides. Armies will be working over time to find an answer to them.
@@mananaVesta and yet Russia is still stuck in a stalemate with them lol
@@Coyote6745
Russian doctrine relies upon artillery
Which slows the progress
@@Coyote6745Russia is still well in Ukrainian territory. Until they are driven away, Ukraine is losing.
“We don’t know.” Amazing integrity! Sadly this is a rare trait in many aspects of journalism, social media and mainstream media!
The Leonard tank... Nimoy class, to boldly go where no tank has tanked before.
best comment by far 😂😂😂😂
Spock would be upset as Vulcans are a peaceful people.
I was expecting Leonard 2 to be a one off mistake, but I loved it more and more every time it got repeated.
Are you calling the
Leopard Lennard??
Are you falling for all the ”misspeaks” simon does to make you comment?
Yes.😊
@@TH-qh6jz Yes they are 😂 every single comment is about it 😂 Simon sure has it dialed in for the ammosexuals
@@TH-qh6jz well apparently it has worked on you too since you have also now commented lol.
apparently so. Lol
It’d be more accurate to say “how western old tanks are doing” since bot USA and rest of nato aren’t mainly giving military gear currently in use
Is he saying Leonard instead of Leopard?
Yes
comment bait
he was handed the wrong script from his overlords
Only sometimes!
Im guessing the p is cut off at the bottom from whatever he is reading making it look like an n
"Recoverable" implies that it can also be recovered by the opposing side.
The difference is that Russia doesn’t have the experience or parts to properly put it back together again
@tuurderom2017 why would they want to put it back togther again for equpiment they already have captured models for. Anything being captured now is going to be used in weapons tests
Useless to either side if they don't have the logistical equipment and personnel in place to make it operational again.
@@tuurderom2017 they also, don’t have Ukrainian farmers on their side.
@@tuurderom2017 But China has the tools and labs to properly disassemble it down to the armor laminates.
I recall one expert say that tanks (or F-16s) on their own won't make much difference; what makes all the difference is integration of forces which requires the presence in sufficient strength of air defense, air power, mobile artillery (tanks), "fixed" artillery (howitzers, etc.), "boots on the ground", and probably a bunch of other elements all working in co-ordination. If any of that is missing or in short supply, effectiveness is reduced.
would a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II given to Ukraine make a huge difference?
It's not having them, it's feeling the absence of such systems that make the difference. If have weak air defense, then exploit the airspace with helicopters, CAS and bombing. If they have weak tanks or IFVs, then increase artillery and drones to do more damage to the unprotected soldiers. It's a constant game of rock paper scissors, except the side with the best intel knows what the other side is about to use and can send in the appropriate counter. If tanks fight tanks, or soldiers fight soldiers, a lot has failed before that point.
@@AsunaYuukiSAO3 yeah but it would take 2 years to train someone on it at least >.> the f16s will just have to do much better than most of what russia flys anyway
@@AsunaYuukiSAO3
One F-35. No. 200 of them would be significant.
Your comment is the most well informed one here by far. Spot on.
Another great example that the most important feature for a tank is its air support
Ukrainians would probably disagree and name a capability for precise indirect infantry-support fire with HE instead. This is as close to an "airforceless" war as one can realistically get; CAS is almost entirely absent and the VVS rarely crosses the borders of Russia proper these days. Even the Crimea squadrons are focusing more on ersatz ELINT/AEW than on attacking ground targets.
Tanks, like all weapon systems, are designed to work as part of a combined arms operation. If you take out factors that were assumed to be part of the calculation, like air support or engineering support vehicles, you need to recalculate the entire formula.
This is my thinking, too. As far as i understand NATO doctrine, apart from overwhelming air supremacy, it relies on medium sized formation (like at least a company) to be incredibly mobile, supported by infantry (in IFV's) to scoot around and cause havoc.
The tactics Ukraine have to use, of one/two tank lumbering across a field towards and enemy trench isn't what they're designed for.
This does not sound like a good doctrine to have your whole fighting capability rely on assumptions.
Think of the Greek Phalanx shield...but if the shield is missing some of its constituent parts, then the defensive effectiveness of the Phalanx shield is degraded. Former Armor officer & M1 tank commander.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who kept hearing Leonard lol. 😂😂😂
It's all fun and games until the Leonard Cohen shows up on the battlefield
I wonder if the Ukrainians are saying hallelujah
Man, I must say that your channel is awesome and you look really good and talk in a way that I want to listen to you haha. This is the kind of content I'm looking for on YT. All the best and greeting from PL :)
I think Simon lost a bet and was forced to call the Leopard the Leonard.
I think it’s because he can’t enunciate Grumman correctly and always says GREWman
Or is the subject of a bet between writers. Revenge from the basement.
He just blindly reads whatever he's given
I think the writer behind the teleprompter lost a fight with autocorrect and nobody bothered to fix it/ran out of time to reshoot. That said, I'd think a channel with this name would at least make sure they're getting the name of the tank right....
Leonard 2 is my favorite tank of all time.
it is a secret 'Wünderwaffe' version of the Leopard 2 (the Germans have asked the ukies not to deploy it near the frontlines because it is embarrassing when it gets blown up and it may hurt weapons sales to other customers)
You might be thinking of the Leonard 6
Leonard Skinnard is my favorite southern rock band.
Ah, yes the Leonard 2, dubbed "The Big Len" by its crews. It was named for the vicious predator who would fall upon its prey from the branches of a tree. Many is the night we used to listen to the growling of a Leonard as it stalked through the darkness.
@@Tanks-In-Space I prefer to operate by the reliable maxim: "Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by stupidity and incompetence."
One notable piece of missing data here if we're comparing.... How many Ruzzian and Soviet era tanks were lost in the same period?
1:05 the leopard 1 didnt end service in 1965, it STARTED its service with the bundeswehr in 1965! (it ended in 2003!)
he said entered
@@kanacksinbtrs6183 no he didnt. He clearly said "ended". Even the subtitles are saying ended
@@kingfish2703slowed it down to 0.5, he definitely said,”entered,” but he is British so the accent makes it difficult to hear the “R” in “entered.” This is why it sounds like he said “ended”
@@joeyhayes3137 Even on 0.25 hes saying ended. Idk how you can hear anything else. Plus even if that difficult to hear R was true , thers still an E missing. The difference between "ter" and "d" is pretty huge and again, even the subtitles agree with me on this.
I heard “entered” and learnt English through various International Schools prior to migrating to Australia. As for the captions, they’re automated and likely trained on mostly American accents.
All Leonards aside, I could listen to Simon read off tank stats all day long.
I thought the presenter was named Leonard.
Meh, at this point his voice is as cringe as an AI voice. Takes stuff put out by other channels, puts his weird voice on it, cashes in.
The only game changer throughout this whole war has been with drones and the guys that are modifying them after the famous remark of hold my beer
I think the FAB series of bombs has made a pretty impact.
I appreciate the honesty and unbiased opinion of the presentation of this video
It’s more that Tanks in general aren’t the same game changers they used to be. When a $700 drone can fly in and blow up a 5 Million dollar tank, there is a major problem. Between drones and ATGMS, it’s very different than WW2 and the Korean War.
The only reason Russian drones are working is because Ukraine is using drones from the same manufacturers so jamming would impact drones from both sides.
$700? I heard it costs $500
@@philwithcheeseUkraine is making their own drones, too. Also they cost around $1000 and the batteries and payload are not part of that cost.
Tanks were only game changers in the past when supported by airpower, infantry and artillery. Drones can't take territory and can be denied coverage with appropriate electronic warfare. They are a new component but war will force adaptations.
@@JJ-dt9lo there isn’t one type of drone being used. They are being sourced from many different places. There are $500 drones, $1000 drones etc. Also the amount purchased comes into play also.
The new Leonard with Warhammer 40k update package and improved inhaler.
And a stranded issue shovel.
The Emperor protects
Drinking game: drink every time factboy says Leonard instead of Leapord.
Nooo, I'll die
Plus an extra drink if you misspell leopard as leapord 😏😆
I like this game I'm gonna rewatch it and drink some whiskey while laughing
Only if you pay for my liver transplant
who the shell would say "Leapord" anyways?!
Former Ihop manager here. There is no "game changer" if its not used correctly, there's always going to be people doing weird stuff in the bathroom.
Thank you for covering this!
I LOVE “The Leonard 1”‼️💀💀💀
Raivauspanssarivaunu Leonard 2R...nearly gave me a hernia laughing...Whoever wrote Simon's script needs an award.
Can't help that Finnish has long words.
@@RabbitShirak I was laughing at Simon not the word
@@rialobran Oh. My bad.
MBTs on their own cannot be a game changer, no matter how capable or advanced they are as they are but one cog in the machine. If everything else is in place, they could tip the scales, but they won’t unbalance them on their own.
I wonder how proud Leonard would be to know his tanks are still holding the line against tyranny to this day
Tyranny😂😂😂
@@patrickmunneke8348Yeah man. Putin is an autocrat posing as a president.
@@patrickmunneke8348I’ve lived in Russia and can tell it’s extremely corrupt from top to bottom
Tanks for the video 😊
😅😅😅😅😅
The Ukrainians will also receive another Leopard 1 variant from Rheinmetal with a high tech Skyranger anti-aircraft and anti-drone gun installed on a Leopard 1 chassis.
"Rheinmetall has announced it will mount its state-of-the-art Skyranger anti-aircraft system on Cold War-era Leopard 1 tank hulls, creating a new vehicle to bolster Ukraine’s defences."
That is how you should Frankenstein these old chassis.. not build a shed around them 😂😂
good luck sitting around in a Leopard 1
Another? As in 1?
Sooo any proof ...?
Simplifies logistics, because many vehicles of the Leopard 1 -familiy are already in Ukraine. Ukrainian mechanics will have gained experiences with these vehicles in the last 2 years. For the conditions in Ukraine (mud period) old tracked chassis are probably better than wheeled bases.
it doesnt matter if then chally 2 was hit by a mine or arty, if it loses a track which the film backs up, i.e. its arse is facing the enemy and immobile, as most know when a tank loses a track it will spin round when it is attempted drive, then immobile, weak armour facing the enemy its gonna attract everything the enemy can send its way. So the only really interesting question is where did it get hit and by how much before it became a catastrophic kill?
The way they talk about advanced and better tanks but in limited numbers reminds me of complicated WW2 German tanks VS allied tanks that are simple but numerous.
The lesson here is that a tank designed for combined arms operations, however individually tough, won't be invincible. Should have been transferring F-16s at the same time.
The amount of ground to cover between trenches (no man's land) would have you spotted 3 miles out. Before you're even able to get in a tactical position. Ukraine is all open fields, and farm land. Stealth and speed would be more beneficial than brawn and power. When clearing trenches.
@@whiskey4o4 Which is why they should have more IFVs with ATGMs. Faster, can deal with armour and infantry, and carries your buddies back when you're rotating off.
Leonard? Insightful episode, well done.
Did you at 5:11 say that Ukraine have no strv 122? You better check with the 21 Mechanized Brigade, the elite spearhead brigade equipped with ex-Swedish strv 122 and CV-90 - they are quite proud of their strv 122 and posts many clips on it. Sometimes informally called "the Swedish brigade" due to equipment and renegade volunteers, the 21 Mech is the among the first to bring fight to russian ground (and yeah, I always spell russia/russian with a non capital letter).
Never heard of a Leonard 2 before, is it any good? Lol
it must be better than the Leopard 2 because the performance has been abysmal. LEONARD 2 FTW
It's inferior to the US Abraham.
@@gags730 No man the Abrahams Lincoln M1 is second best tank, we all know it’s the Stormgetshoots
In 2030 when the new Leonard Nimoy A9M7 Tank is in full production, the rail gun, tractor beam and Klingon Cloaking package will make all other tanks useless.
@@gags730 They've been doing quite a bit worse than the Leopard 2's in Ukraine...
The Leonard 2 is an iconic tank ✨
Tank corp sergeant in my friend's unit: "Gents! What you see behind me is an armored fighting vehicle called a 'tank'. The piece of equipment that is destroyed within 5 minutes of any engagement!"
I love your videos, but I would love them more if you would include chapter segments in the description.
funny how they mention the Leo 2A4's age, meanwhile the M1A1 is 39 years old, 9 years older than the Leo.
The M1A1 and the M1A1-SA which was sent are two different variants, the later is from the 2010s so 14 years old at the most, half that of the newest Leopards that were sent...
The M1A1 is STILL world class. Who else but the USA would put a gas turbine in a tank!!!
After how many decades since it's design and, the B-52 is still world class! And to think, the B-52 was designed with.....
SLIDE RULES!!!
If I'm not mistaken, the sale of AM General by Chrysler saved there ass.
This guy seemed a bit biased against the Abrams. Barely any coverage compared to the European counterparts, considering the amount of action the Abrams has seen in Ukraine compared to the challenger.
Without data on how much damage these tanks did, there is really no way to come to any conclusions.
First of all quantity of those tanks is not enough to make any conlusions.
@@Volodymyr_SVD second point. Some of them simply did not have time to inflict any damage as these were wiped out prior they have even reached combat line....
They did near 0 ZERO damage
Tank you for the update. Slava Ukraine
@@JK-dv3qetiny country is holding its own against a massive military. Russia’s performance is funny.
Game over😂😂😂
@robertp457 Russia performance is funny facing the largest country in Europe with one of the biggest militaries in Europe prior to 2022 that is receiving help from 40ish countries with tens of thousands of weapons systems, logistics, global intelligence, planning and training? FYI Russia broke through fortifications that Ukraine built up for 8 years. The fact is NATO was in Afghanistan for 20 years fighting an enemy with almost no weapons and no outside support but could never conquer all of Afghanistan, we are talking about dozens of countries.
Imagine if Russia, China, Iran, India, North Korea, South Africa, ect gave billions in weapons to the Taliban such as drones, ATGMs, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense, radars, jammers, mines, small arms, night vision, artillery, MLRS, tanks, ect. Now imagine the Taliban also got training, help with logistics and targeting information. Imagine how much worse NATO would have suffered. It’s always easy fighting no bodies…..
Or Imagine if a single NATO country would have to fight in a country like Ukraine with lots of thick forests, dense cities, underground factories, fortifications, millions of mines, thousands of rivers, lakes and marshes making it almost possible to quickly breakthrough plus mud, fog and snow making it even more difficult. Now imagine if this lone NATO country had to face dozens of other countries.
@@robertp457Yeah because it’s not a 1v1 like you make it out to be. Without any aid from any other country, this was would’ve been over by now. Instead we insist on sending more young men to die
4:31
Every time Simon calls a Leopard tank a “Leonard” DRINK!
They are doing just fine, but some people finally figured out that no tank is immune to anti-tank mines. Well, at least no tanks are immune to them for now
more like the title should be: an analysis of 80s/90s western tanks doing against 50s through 90s tanks in Ukraine.
The western AFVs sent to Ukr are the same ones in service (modernized versions of original vehicles that were not cannibalized for parts). And age is irrelevant as long as a $500 quadcopter drone can destroy it.
Most of the western tanks deployed didn't even exist in the 90s(ie. Leopard 2a6, M1a1 SA).
In my humble opinion, the Challenger struck a mine which immobilised it, most likely by the loss of a track or tracks. Once immobilised, the crew had no choice but to abandoned it whereupon it was used as target practice. The Challenger is much more vulnerable when its crew hatches are open.
Heard it got repaired, from a Ukrainian telegram site.
And yes they said the same. Track damage from mine
Still beats out of date Russian crap by miles.
@@RoofLight00 LMAO Soviet-era tanks get through places where POS Chally just sinks lol
Challengers are No1, and there's soon to be a MK3. They're epic.
Possibly. It looks a lot worse than I imagine it is. It looks like the external fuel is on fire more than anything
Lawyer here...
...the only real gamechanger is the amount of warcrimes each side hides.
Challenger 2 has Dorchester armour which is an upgraded version of Chobham. The one knocked out in Ukraine initially hit a mine, a track was damaged and the crew abandoned it and once the Russians saw it with a drone they brought down artillery/rocket fire onto it until they were happy it was well fucked up.
Challanger 2 has Chobham composite armour as standard . The Dorchester armour is the add on armour that was placed on the challanger 2 when deployed to Iraq.
Quite impressive that they have only lost 1 Challenger out of 14. So the crews must have been well trained in UK on how to get the best out of them! Didn’t the crew survive as well so the design worked well! Will be even better as Russia is now having to bring 1950s tanks onto the frontline
2 have been lost. I'm not sure why not many people noticed the second. But then again probably not everyone has a special interest of finding tank videos on telegram 20 hours a day like me
Yeah British tankies are training them well
Although it should be kept in mind that it also matters a lot where and how often the tanks are actually used, i.e. what risks they faced how often. I've heard that Ukraine at first kept the Challengers in the second line as their heavier weight considerably affects cross-country mobility, and then there were reports that Ukraine didn't deploy them at all for several months in mid 2023 -- though an article on Business Insider later suggested they were just rotated out and now back in as the Ukrainians retroactively added some more protection to fix weak spots on the glacis. They seem to be more confident about putting the Challenger into heavier line of fire now, but with this of course there also comes a higher risk of losing them.
@@ddshiranui yes I was wondering if they had been withdrawn after the 1st lose, thanks for reply
Ukraine command removed them from frontline service . They lost 2 somewhere near avdivka .
2:48 That is why I love this channel. Not afraid to say when they don't know and dont try to peddle a narrative.
Bro i used to watch your videos a lot and then you fell out my algorithm. Im subscribed now. You make interesting videos
Thanks guys
Thanks guys
Thanks guys@@mr.r1178
Tanks guys
Tanks guys
Fanks guys
Its the Leonard 2 from the acclaimed Big Bonk Series
The Challenger was destroyed by the crew so it didn’t fall into enemy hands.
@@cuchidesoto2686 He means the Challenger shuttle
@@Novous
No source of course. You people don't believe in those
Simon has to be the hardest working dude on youtube, I had no idea he had a war channel, too.
Who’s Lenard?
People will never realize that crew that manages to get out of tank, are getting killed by follow up drones to finish them. It will be to late before you realize the reality of modern warfare.
There's interviews with Ukrainian tankers who survived their Western tanks being hit and they got out unhurt. They were much happier to be operating western tanks than Russian built ones, due to survivability.
@@andrewtingate6658 they are usually on defended ground where as many russian tanks are not.
I doubt they would waste a drone on a single soldier, that seems hugely inefficient.
@@asmosisyup2557, известны случаи , когда одного бойца атаковали 4 - 5 дронов.
Its pretty funny how people feel the need to argue over how a tank is destroyed when they have literally no context to work with other than what they are told, we wont ever know how that challenger got destroyed but honestly it doesent matter.
I do like to see though that none of the western made tanks have lost their turrets or have had ammo detonations that destroyed the whole tank, the point is that the crew can actually survive and the troops can walk away and it appears that is the case in most of these.
Yes, I was also looking to see if those tanks had been de-turreted.
But there is a video of UA pulling out burned remains of crew from Abrams indicating ammo cook off.
@@vanjamenadzer And it is hard to believe *all* the Leo2 crews got out safely either.
@@willietorben560 100% not all of them but the fact still is, without blow out panels, crew has worse chance to survive in case ammunition detonates.
If you can’t see two tanks in that then I’m glad you’re making mid yt vids instead of being on the frontline.
When hit, being able to disembark and return to base to get inside a new tank, allows you to absorb the lessons learned, and keep the same tankers in the fights - who will become even better tankers as a result. Beats violently exploding with a turret toss 30 meters or more into the atmosphere.
Except that you don't have enough tanks to apply those lessons to.
@alexpayne2662 you act like having burnout panels somehow translates to the crew is immortal. If a goober with an ATGM or a APFSDS or HEAT penetrates the fighting cabin the crew is still going to die.
@@dirtysniper3434 lol bozo cry about it, they aren't guaranteed survival and you know I didnt say that, so trying to make it seem like I did makes your worthless comment even more pathetic
@@dirtysniper3434 Not only that but it's incredibly common for crew to be double tapped if they disembark in combat. Often there is surveillance drones watching, who then inform other drones to strike the crew fleeing on foot.
@@-Zevin- Well China pays real good mone~~~ehhhh gives you lots of golfcarts for recovered Western tanks. So yeah. Softkill the tank, hardkill the crew. It's not like Ukraine has much equipment that can get 60 tons of heavy metal with thrown traks unstuck. The usual Soviet-era recovery equipment is for tanks of 50 tons max. Russia had to design novel recovery vehicles for Armata, and they can handle Leo2/Challenger/M1. And it's not like they are needed for recovering Armatas.
What I took from the Challenger 2 stories. No tank is indestructible, but both stories seem to indicate it takes a shit ton ordnance to take one out. LOL
It's tracks were disabled but crew safe and the burning was the added fuel tanks at the rear which were hit
That's my take away too 😂
@@dannycostello yep they clearly hammered it much later on
Dude, Simon, how many youtube channels do you have?
I find your content to be top-shelf. I do wonder if there are listeners who like your rapid fire presentation style. I don't. Please slow down. People with authority do not have to speak fast
Good point
Simon said "Leonard" 6 times. New game.
I got 8