Leopard vs T-62: Underdogs of the Ukraine War
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- In this video we discuss the "Underdogs of the Ukraine War" in terms of tanks, namely the Leopard 1 variants and the T-62 variants, additionally we also talk about the T-55s. We look particularly at indirect fire capability as well, since this is something often forgotten. The usual suspects mobility, firepower and armor protection are of course also looked at. For this I talked to a former Leopard 2 gunner that is also well versed in other "tank matters".
Cover: T-62M, Patriot Park, Kubinka Tank Mans Day 2019, Photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, permission granted. Modified by vonKickass, original here:www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military...
Disclaimer in 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2023 I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster.
/ 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
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
00:00 Intro
00:30 Weak Armor
1:17 Leopard 1 Gun & Thermals
2:39 T-62 Gun & Ammo
4:02 Russian Modernizations
4:14 Indirect Fire
5:37 T-62 Fire Control
6:31 Armor
7:51 Is Explosive Reactive Armor on the Leopard 1 possible?
09:05 Tank vs Tank?
9:55 T-55/54 Indirect Fire
12:45 The "Battlefield Foodchain"
#t62 #leopard #ukrainewar
A gun tuber recently stated: Obsolete doesn't necessarily mean ineffective. The BAR or M1 might be obsolete, but the 30-06 is still highly effective. I suspect the same is applicable for the T-55, T-62 and Leopard 1 rounds.
erm well bcus there are much more limits on human body armor. whereas armored veh tech has grown much quicker.
@@hippoace he just meant a bullet is a bullet
@@hippoacea gun is a gun
Вы какие то не понятные ,все лезите и лезите к нам.отьябитесь Христа ради ну там и Перикла.
Either way humans are still spongy, an arrow from a bow can still kill a human, and that's technology from 60,000 years ago...
I'm still amazed how many people discount the L7/M168 gun vs other cold-war era AFVs. The IDF proved its effectiveness over and over.
Most people see only one characteristic - caliber. Barrel length, case length, case volume, chamber volume, rod length, barrel rigidness, ability to sustain pressure, presence of muzzle reference device and thousands other things don't exist for them.
i dont know man the 115mm received some powerful sabots in the 80s, and only the high pressure XM24 can fire M900 type APFSDS; 115 mm also fires a more powerful high explosive shot. Leopard 1 will have edge in general due to thermals, but Russians are putting their 1PN96-MT02 which does have 2km range (Leopard 1s' is much better, but 2km is sufficient for european battlefield). T-62 base armour is much better than the Leopard 1 (which had no armor), and the T-62 BDD add on is much better than the spaced armour add on for leopard 1
Leopard 1 advantage in fire control will be better in (rare) tank to tank engagements. but T-62 is better for long range fire support due to russian drone superiority
It’s gamer spec fetishism. Gamers fixate on weapons and the specs of those weapons, which is never the full story. The stereotypical example is the comparison of tigers to shermans.
It’s meaningless to discuss tank specs without considering the multi-level multi-system contexts, from the operating level to doctrine to logistics to manufacturing.
One of the reasons I enjoy Bernard’s presentations is that he understands this fundamentally and is always reminding us of the bigger picture and role that equipment plays within that bigger picture.
@@glubokayaoperatsiya
4 month old empty account that has russian name "deep operation" written with latin letters.
Idk if there's even a point of investing time to argue and explain what you're trying to derail the conversation into and why here...
Or if it’s efficacy against tanks even matters given they are mostly used for shooting in infantry attacks.
When I started my teaching career (as a high school social studies teaching in the US) I was given a set of history posters as a gift, and I still use them today, because as everyone knows, "male teachers are rubbish at decorating their rooms." One of the posters is "Weapons of the First World War" and claims that 90% of Great War casualties were caused by the machine gun. Well, I found out years later that the vast majority of deaths were caused by artillery, so I was not totally surprised by the importance of indirect fire in Ukraine (but still somewhat surprised). Because of this, the potential usefulness of these early-mid Cold War tanks in that role today is only somewhat surprising to me now. The lesson(s) are clear: 1. Never underestimate the power or artillery, and 2. don't bother replacing inaccurate classroom posters, because the students don't bother looking at them anyway.
I’ll have you know I read and reread every classroom poster
That's not true! I still remember the poster of a series of discs with a feudal hierarchy on it. I've seen the format copied by other people online and now it's a reminder to me that the Middle Ages was not Kings ruling priests ruling nobles ruling merchants ruling Peasants.
I'm sure that idea has stuck with thousands of children by now.
Well most wounds are caused by artillery (I heard numbers like 70-80%), but they do not cause 70-80% of all deaths. That number is probably a bit lower. And while machine guns do more rarely cause injuries are they more represented in death statistics.
So both types of weapons are important on a battlefield
@@nattygsbordthings have changed in modern warfare and I’m afraid neither machine guns nor artillery is the number one casualty producing weapon anymore. Now it’s Zionism.
Post WWII tanks have a main gun and machine guns.
Im always impressed by the ability to translate highly technical terms from German to English off the top of your head
I love conversations like this. The general way of thinking is because something is old it has no use. A tank is still a tank and it can still be deadly.
And most fights are not tank-versus-tank anyway. Remember, in WW2 Germany conquered most of Europe before their strongest tanks were developed, they did it mostly with tanks which only had machineguns. They were still very effective against infantry, and to counter tanks, they used artillery and anti-tank rifles.
It’s incredible that after so many decades, these old Cold War relics are finally going hot, head to head
Yeah ot nice to finally learn what work and what trash of both sides
boys and their toys. this entire war was an easily avoided tragedy if outside parties had not interfered
Iraq-Iran war was ~35 years ago, but without German tanks.
The Soviet doctrine was always about mass. So many Russian tanks and AFV have been killed that they can't mass anymore. Russia is dying in Ukraine. The human wave attacks have already begun and some units are refusing. I expect a general mobilization after the March elections...then it's going to get real. Like 1917 real.
By words of ukrainian tank commander, nearly 90% of shell fired by tanks in Ukraine are High-Explosive rounds .
Assault guns, but better.
Indeed, during my time in the 72nd Motorised (we fought to the South of Artemovsk) our T-80BVMs carried only 2 APFSDS, 2 HEAT and the rest HE
yea its so rare for tanks to engage with eachother that even when they do get close enough to fire its sometimes faster for arty/ATGM/drone to be used instead of switching to AP and all that. This was a needed video because I think people really have forgotten that even the lowest tank on the totem pole is still considered stronger then all other types of vehicles
Reminds me of what happened to the M18
same as ww2...supporting infantry with HE is their major task...tank on tank is minority
It's more likely to be Leopard 1 vs Kornet, Leopard 1 vs TM-62 mines and Leopard 1 vs Ka-52.
Because even tho we saw some T-62 in bases and on train moving up, they are not used on the front and anyway there is no much tank vs tank battle.
Thank you for this video, it's always highly annoying reading people saying that T-62s/T-55s/Leopard Is and the likes have no place in Ukraine and shows how one side or the other is desperate bla bla bla... They still have very potent guns even for today's standards. Too many people see this conflict through the scope of video games and don't understand that a tank can and will do much more than tank on tank duels.
it's always true that a tank is a bad day for almost everything on the battlefield that isn't a tank.
That is the issue with the propaganda coming out by both sides
Not to mention the fact that the Leopard 1 and even to a limited extent T-62 is still a potent threat to even relatively modern MBTs if it can get the first shot off accurately. Both tanks can still penetrate the sides of nearly every modern MBT out there.
@@Thisandthat8908 Tanks are vulnerable to ambushes (especially from high elevations like buildings) but in that regard they are no different from any other ground vehicle; for the most part the trick is to not get ambused, keeping tanks operating in an indirect fire role achieves exactly that; using tanks in a direct fire role is far more risky and is probably only done (on purpose) when trying to achieve breakthroughs and the more modern tanks with the better protecton are more likely to be deployed in such roles.
Thank you both. Very interesting and very informative as usual.
Good job explaining acronyms and abbreviated designations.
Rip to the innocent who died in this war
You said it right bro
Yes, for the greed and decadence of the Collective West's MIC. How very very sad.
@@adelarsen9776have a day off
Every day is a holiday for me. @@tallshort1849
@@adelarsen9776Stupid, Ignorant, or a Russian propagandists? Which are you?
Excellent point. Using cheap drones as artillery observers, you turn these older tanks into fast moving field guns.
This war showed how old gear still can be effectively used. Also, pretty much every ERA will need upgrade to protect against shells and drones falling from above.
Trenches will also need cages and ERA .. soon drones will meet drones in between, its already happening, resupply drones hunted by air drones, sea drones hunted by air drones etc
I learned "Bracket and Halving" method to direct 5' artillery. Back in my day.
Lost skills? I hope they still teach manual methods for dire situations.
Great video. I was wondering when people would start to talk about the indirect fire capabilities.
I do have issues with people always talking about can tank A penetrate tank B, while it seems that in this is not so relevant in the conflict in Ukraine.
It looks to me that you don't need to be able to penetrate a tank to disable it.
Being capable of simply disabling a tank is more than enough. If you can blow of a track or damage the engine it becomes a pillbox and this often means that in "no man's land" or enemy controlled territory that it will probably have to be abandoned. We do see huge numbers of abandoned vehicles in the Ukraine war and mostly only later they get destroyed to avoid that they would fall in the hands of the enemy.
Yet the war in Ukraine in very unusual, and typically you would not expect such a static stalemate in a modern war. Hence the expected use case of a tank becomes obsolete.
However, to state this how war is now would be a mistake. This war is like this due to specific constraints on both sides and it does not fundamentally change the idea of a big clash between western and eastern forces, even with the development of drones considered.
That's what I have an issue with, when people think that "everything has changed" but it didn't. With the necessary industrial capacity everything stays the same, one side brings a new thing and the other side finds ways to counter it. And countering drones is anything but a new idea. The necessity just never became that clear.
@@madrooky1398 What I think is unusual about this war, is that we did not have a near-peer conflict in recent decades.
I do also think there are some political reasons to why both sides fight the way they fight. Zelensky on the one hand seems to have the idea that every square meter needs to be defended. On the other hand the Russians might not want to be look to aggressive to avoid a panic in NATO that could make them directly intervene in the conflict. Also the fact that both sides have built a lot more fortification than seen in most conflicts and the massive use of mines make rapid advances very difficult.
@@letsgorandom1380 "we did not have a near-peer conflict in recent decades"
That's absolutely one point. On the other hand Russia surely did not expect to get stuck in this war for so long. So whatever the reasoning behind closed doors is or was, they had to adjust their views and approach.
"Zelensky on the one hand seems to have the idea that every square meter needs to be defended."
To be fair, what else would you expect from your president? Just give up some territory because your neighbor state wants some?
"the Russians might not want to be look to aggressive to avoid a panic in NATO"
I don't think Russia was concerned about NATO initially at all, they thought they could get over with this swiftly and nobody would do anything serious, the same as with the initial annexation of Crimea 2014.
The Russians know exactly that NATO is not aggressive, despite their propaganda, they know what was at the borders before the war started and they know it today.
Russia would not pander with the idea that NATO was a real threat if they believed it. I mean, NATO can easily stomp Russia into the stone age in a conventional war, but nobody in their right mind is expecting NATO would attack, simply because the populations in the west would not allow that to happen just like that.
And before you answer about NATO and US wars in the middle east, those are separate things. The western interventionism is not NATO, and many have understood by now how wrong that was, even if some people still did not get it or mix these things up...
One major difference between Russia and western politics, Putin is in office since 1999. He has seen western leaders come and go. Whatever he might think otherwise, one thing for sure is that he can sit this out. That's one advantage a dictator has.
@@madrooky1398 "Zelensky on the one hand seems to have the idea that every square meter needs to be defended."
To be fair, what else would you expect from your president? Just give up some territory because your neighbor state wants some?
A president is elected by the people for the people. He is not elected by the land.
The Ukrainian army has been poring massive amounts in the defense of disadvantages positions.
The Russians know this and allow Ukraine to send more and more troops in those cauldrons. This is one of the reasons the Russians are so slow at closing of those cauldrons. There a gift that keeps on giving.
Also the crossing of the Dniepr in the Cherson region can hardly be seen as a brilliant move. Zelensky is the business of wanting to create the perception of success (he is an actor) at a high human cost.
While we can disagree on several points in the end it's a sad story for millions of people. Last week Ukrainian tv released an interview with one of the Ukrainian negotiators from the start of the conflict.
He said Russia only wanted Ukraine to remain neutral and that the rights of Russian speakers should be protected and Ukraine would also get an economically good deal with the Russians. (probably means cheap oil and gas)
They refused because Zelensky listened to people like Boris Johnson. All very sad.
Tank vs Tank is always rare. Tanks are mostly there to dump HE on strong points and softer targets to support the infantry.
The main advantage of the T-62 is the number of tanks. The T-62 in its modern modification has a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder of a level not lower than Leopard 1A5. The T-62 is not seen as a first-line tank, it is used as a reserve tank and a direct-fire artillery. The tactics of using the T-62 are well known (I, II Сhechen war, Georgian aggression to South Ossetia) and consist in the accumulation of tank detachments at repair companies and spraying machines in the strongholds of the second line. Which is very close to the concept of fortification dust. But ZSU requires tanks specifically. The lecturer's remark about the low quality of the stabilizer does not stand up to criticism. The T-62M fire control system (2Э26, 2Э28) allows firing from short stops with an accuracy equal to a standing tank, which corresponds to the Leopard 1A3 level. It is unlikely that more will be needed. The T-62M mod 2022 is not known to the lecturer, but he certainly knows about 2Э58.
Your point about stabilization necessary to meet short stop-and-fire dashes is valid. Most fire-during-rapid-movent is necessary only for tank-on-tank actions. Abrams slaughters T-62 and T-72 during 1991 Desert Storm, but so did the lock-and-stop Challenger. The capability is needed when facing five- to ten-to-one odds in armor battles, as demonstrated then. The real key seems to be being able to designate targets and have the gun automatically align to fire as soon as a target is locked with a high probability of a hit, whether moving or slowing or stopped, and being able to stack and prioritize multiple targets for rapid fire with high accuracy.
A really good optical rangefinder has the advantage during hunting, because a laser warning receiver is very, very cheap. Laser range finding is only useful in mobile battles, when tank commanders have many things to do and all optical range finders suck during movement, period.
Tanks are not dashing back-and-forth behind the lines providing indirect fire, anyway.
Thermal detection and imaging is most important, Optical Visible Light View about as high, Magnetic Anomaly Detection next, Passive low-light amplification with a high degree of cimage quality is third, and Electromagnetic Emissions Detection, Localization, and Classification (detecting communications, discerning where from and type) is climbing rapidly through that list!
All of those are things T-62 can easily have.
A faster and more precise turret rotation should not be hard to achieve.
Mounting powered cupolas for weapons suitable for defense against drones is not difficult, but does not seem to be being done.
@@davidgoodnow269 According to the Russian conclusions. The superiority of coalition tanks during the Persian Gulf War and the Coalition invasion of Iraq was in the gaps in the combat formations of Iraqi tank units, which were formed with the help of modern anti-tank weapons and airstrikes. In addition, the Iraqi tanks did not have actual ammunition and were distinguished by the monolithic armor of tank turrets. Often, Iraqi tanks did not have up-to-date data on the location of the coalition's firepower. They were forced to monitor large sectors (or not). And the coalition tanks had up-to-date data and observed limited sectors.
The answer is obvious: to reduce the observation sectors of tanks for their tanks and the multifactorial nature of destruction in the same place and time for enemy tanks.
Very important to touch on the indirect fire focus. Tanks dont show up very often to the front in ukraine and their indirect role is arguably more important sometimes than thier standard role. Ommiting that would have not given tge right picture so props for talking about it. A tank 10 km away and a drone correcting it can be scarier than a tank charging at your position. That one you can at least shoot with atgm or call artilery on
Very good! Informative
Americans used Sherman tanks in an indirect fire role during WWII and the Korean War. later US tanks could do it too, but I'm not sure at what point they gave up on using tanks in that role.
Auxiliary Fire Control system was not placed into the M1 tanks in 1979 as a cost savings measure. The last US tank to have Auxiliary Fire Control equipment capable of conducting indirect fire was the M60A3.
I have seen L-1 in direct fire moving dodging gaps in the tree cover deal with a T-72 at close range.
Weird question, but since return of T-62 into service coincided with russian arms purchases from North Korea, does the mythical "tank repair plant in Far East that specialized in repairs of specifically T-62 and was untouched by budget cuts while retaining all the skilled workforce for over 30 years of collapse" exist... or are they just purchasing Chonma parts kits and scratching the letterings off?😅
Russia have a "small" amount of old T-62 they were giving to other dictators as support but now they are using them for there own troops
Russia just gave Syria some T-62Ms years ago so I think they utilize that production line for the war with Ukraine.
@@lightdarthvader777 Russia gave Syria a few dozen T-62's at best after 2000 total. Syria had over 1000 of their own T-62 that they purchased from USSR from 1973 to 1984. And almost 200 more were apparently sold by Russia from 1991 to 1995. And that was the last delivery until 2018.
However in case of T-72 the situation is far more interesting and russian "adventures in Syria" are one of the main reasons Russia has such huge discrepancies between tanks on paper and tanks in actual service. On paper Russia should have between 5000 and 7000 T-72 in active service ie combat ready. _Unless those tanks were lost in 2014-2022 in Ukraine, we lost in Syria, were sold on black market and cannibalised for parts for "new production" of T-90A over the years._ I wonder where those tanks might be?
You should read how T-62 gun and caliber were born. Because they were unique there is no large amount of ammo for it. For many countries having T-55 T-62 wasn't real option because it was better, but not hat better so they opted for "let's wait newer tank (T-72)".
@@TheArklyteOoh, good point about, Where those T-72 might be. When I heard Russia was pulling in T-62 from storage for refit, I immediately thought of Terminator-1 and the Israeli T-62-based heavy armored personnel carriers. Those would make sense for city fighting, it is what both are specifically designed to do. Other T-62, or T-54, could be used as parts-compatible infantry support in Infantry Brigades.
Armor Brigades built on T-72 could use Terminator-2 and a T-72-based Namor equivalent vehicle for infantry, to retain parts compatibility up to brigade level.
We surely have not seen much of that scenario, and certainly no Terminators refitted with Terminator-3 internal capabilities. (All three Terminators use the same turret; T-2 is moderately better-protected against RPG than T-1; T-3 is supposed to have advanced military-trained specific A.I. support for four coordinated infantry staff in the back, instead of generic "special heavy Infantry."
Once again a nice Video.
Excellent video....again! 😉👍🏻👌🏼👏🏻🍻
Fantastic topic for a tired, old Cold Warrior, Herr Kast.
Leopard v Centurion would make an interesting next one imo.
Thanks from Canberra.
Did the ADF legends do any testing on Cent vs Leo when converting to Leo 1?.
Very interesting. Thanks.
I feel like he left out the most interesting question: How is the performance of the Leo1 in indriect firing mode? What is the range? Is there a stockpile of 105mm HE rounds for this purpose?
It's more important how you can traverse through semi frozen black soil than marginal improvements gun stabilization, which will cost you extra in maintenance and supply.
The best way to think of the Leopard 1, its a modern Tank Destroyer like the Hellcat(M18) goes fast can stand up to indirect fire and mGs and has a men gun.
Excellent
There is a reason why most Cold War war plans called for large scale weapon buybacks with a particular emphasis on tanks, because having a tank was much preferable to not, especially once all the ATGMs/AT Rockets had been expended.
One thing I rarely see mentioned on tank vs tank is the difference crew skillset and logistics can make.
Tanks rarely engage each other, they are usually countered with ATGMs
Mines and drones are also a issue. People make fun of the cope cages but o have seen them stop fatal drone hits. And seen what happens when Russian and Ukrainian armor doesn't have the cages. It's why isreal is rocking them right now as well, they aren't to stop AtGMS or javelins like people thought in the beginning of the war.
Mines are always an issue, Ive seen drones get entangled in the cages on both sides of the Ukraine conflict, so I believe they are effective to an extent@@joshuabonilla3491
I agree the "Cope cage" term did not age well at all@@joshuabonilla3491
I would say that the major advantage of the T-62 over the Leopard 1 is maintenance, in that the T-62 is easier to maintain and repair than the Leopard 1.
Exactly what happened to the tiger …. ‘Fancy stuff got schooled again by russia’
Was wondering how long will it take before mentioning thermal imaging😅
Tobias brought it up right? I might have forgotten it.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized exactly. In under 2 minutes into the video already!
Also, big respect for detailed time codes
What's the thing at the end of the barrel of the Leo? I assume it has something to do with the aiming?
It so that the ballistic computer know were the gun barrel is.
@@xendk ooooh, thank you!
More precisely: its a mirror for a laser mounted near the base of the barrel, which allows the system to measure barrel deflection due to heat and compensate for that deflection in the fire solution, so that the rounds will still hit the mark.
Thing is t62s arent really being used on the front except for drone tanks or to strike poorly defended targets of opportunity. Usually they bring up the rear, because you cant just abandon the lands behind you. The leopard 1 is on the frontline though.
would be fine to have a Video of all their Versions, i grow up with this Things and other NATO Tanks /during autumn Manouvres in my Homeregion in late 60s , later my Green Navy unit shared the Training ground with a Leo and Greni Unit but i think they had the first batch of Leo II not 100% sure, after military when iam out hiking i watched them on my Hometowns Trainingground (Pz.Btl.44 Leo I with the big welded Turret, A-3,4 or 5? idk) every month few and iam even today confused by all the Variants with Cast Turret, Cast Turret with spaced armor and the big welded Turret (A-3,4 or5?) Version.
I heard both sides are using artillery tool apps to help fast calibrate their artillery and tanks to indirect fire mode.
Um what? "T62 wasn't made to fight leopard 2", the m variant was literally developed in the 80s... And how exactly is leo 1 gun able to easily defeat t72 and 62 can't even pen??! This guy is obviously biased and not looking things as a professional. I also like how he forgot to mention that 105 has limited HE rounds which he as a former crew should know that it's much more commonly used on the battlefield, hence 62 gun is more useful. Also what about Lancet drones?? Very weak leopard armour means 1 hit of lancet and it's over, while 62 can at least survive some weapons.
t-62m also has decent thermals and most importantly gun launched atgms. gives it an edge in range and firepower.
@@bigmanrobert3610 Yes, and much more easily maintained compared to leopard 1s which were not made in too big of a number and mostly been sitting in storage for decades...
@@bigmanrobert3610 Night sight not thermal the leo 1 and 2 had thermals and that gave them a huge edge in range and firepower
@@Sveta7 but they worked and they were better (thermal not night sights like on the T-62)
@@xendk Pls do research before trying to correct someone, they added thermal in 2023, originally t62 did not have thermals.
This is a good video with good analysis.
What is most important is how survivable these various tanks are if they’re hit by an fpv drone, rpg, an indirect hit from a mortar or artillery, or a military-grade loitering drone. Going forward, tank designers will need to assume that tanks will be hit by fpv drones, and it will be important to design them in a way to minimize the possibility of immediate secondary detonations of ammo or fuel if they’re hit.
I think it will also be important to design tanks and IFVs to minimize potential secondary detonations if the tank drives over an anti tank mine.
In Ukraine, when a tank is approaching your position, the best thing to do is to spot it from far away with a recon drone, send some fpv drones at it from afar, and get your ATGMs ready if it manages to get closer. I guess if Ukraine had more m1 Abrams or leopard 2s, it could make sense to also have these ready behind defensive lines to approach as a backup if the enemy advances with their tanks and their tanks manage to get past a barrage of fpv drones and artillery, but I think having large numbers of drones and soldiers trained to fly kamikaze drones is more important because it is more scalable across a thousand kilometer front line.
For assaults, it will eventually be very important to have tanks to attack enemy trenches. I don’t think tank-on-tank battles will ever make sense as an intentional strategy in European wars in the drone era.
Eventually, some country will develop smaller, expendable uncrewed drone tanks, which could one day be a game changer if they can be made cheaply enough to operate at scale.
The only hard problem for tank designers will be: how to create bottom resistant to shaped charges and everything what happens after penetration.
Having soft-kill jamming of laser-guided missiles was recognized early on, but only the U.S. had the technology. The M1A1 Abrams was the first to have it, and *NO* export or stored Abrams have it! It was integrated with the sensor that warns the tank is being lased, and informs of type -- rangefinder, coded transmission (communications), coded transmission (guidance), continuous scanning (LIDAR). At least, so I infer from numerous export approval debates since the early Reagan years + limited physical evaluations.
Since no one else has even that capacity, then some cheap and basic detection ability alone could be a huge improvement!
RF detection and localization -- "Gee Whiz, there seems to be something within 300 meters of us transmitting a continuous video stream? Oh, it's moving above us now, do you think we are about to be visited by a famous streamer?" -- and that equipment is phenomenally inexpensive these days. Not EMP-hardened like the old gear before militaries went COTS, but potentially life- and mission-saving.
Finally, there's Active Protection Systems. The cost of these is 10× production cost and up, frequently approaching 100× with the current better systems, reasonably to recover development costs. But the idea can be commoditized and software programmed under GNU license, and hardware built by any high school student who doesn't want to lose an older brother. For really-real, I have already provided full system description for devs following a related comment.
Then there's the component most easily acquired, the trained human being. But it's become blatantly obvious that only Head of State level executive protection are being trained to detect drones.
@@davidgoodnow269 high school kids developed APS, that sounds really realistic.😂
@@BojanPeric-kq9et "Motivated, Motivated, Sergeant!" My idea was to adapt cell phone cameras capable of (preferably all of these qualities): high resolution and having stabilized optics scan visible light, low-light sensitive MOSFET, and FLIR. Bundle them one up and four to six around a post to watch for motion detection and flash (mortar, cannon, rocket or missile launch), and (ideally, most phones that have this run US$600) thermal bloom.
RPG warheads are cheap at about $50, and for design and development an inert training dummy is essential and legal pretty much anywhere, and should work fine if launched like a rifle grenade to detonate and intercept just about anything. The tricks are timing intercept, and getting the system to respond fast enough.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et Not terribly difficult to do, some tanks are noted for surviving mines due to being high off the ground. A hydropneumatic suspension could be helpful, because being tall can be great but is also a great way to get shot. Some tanks are notable for crew survival because the hull has a "V" shape that helps divert blast.
Very few tanks have a composite armor bottom, because composite is not weight-bearing. Only the Merkava has a spall lining, among tanks, I think. Having it on the *floor* could help a lot. Having wet-storage of ammunition in the hull, like the M-4 Sherman and Challenger (Chieftain?) is why the Sherman had the highest crew survival rate of all tanks, despite so many Sherman tanks being destroyed!
Mine detection? I saved my convoys from a _lot_ of IEDs that other people didn't spot, because I have trained eyes plus knew what to look for; but no tank crew has the perspective to watch for mines and IED, and very few the training to do so. Close integration of Combat Engineers is essential for tank units, as much so as properly-trained, equipped, and employed infantry. For tank support it is usually one squad of a platoon directly supporting one tank in the advance, in rotation, and in support of armor you need far more than the usual one engineer per infantry company!
The Leopard 1A5 has the EMES-18 fire control system, which is 3 better than the Leopard 2A4 (it only has EMES-15).
wich is not correct.
The Number does not designate how modern or capable it is.
EMES-18 is a slightly specked down version of EMES-15.
The Gun Stabiliser lacks automatic lead and only works at low vehicle speeds and on quite even ground etc.
Only the gunners optic is stabilised like the one of Leopard 2A4.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041
>The Number does not designate how modern or capable it is.
Why else would the number be higher?
>The Gun Stabiliser lacks automatic lead
The EMES-18 FCS includes automatic lead, and is thought to be approximately 20% more than the EMES-15 that preceded it.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I have no idea what you mean by "automatic lead" but it work just like the leopard 2 and it can lead any AFV on the battlefield
@@aldvelothi755 it is true the number have noting to do with how good it is, it is just to identify what tank it belong in. The Leo 1 had less space so some change was made
@@aldvelothi755
The number designates that it is a different system.
EMES-18 is based on EMES-15 but got a few modifications and cut backs to be "compatible" with Leopard 1.
Automatic Lead includes stuff that is called "automatische Waffennachführung" in german.
The FCS keeps the gun trained on the target, regardless of vehicle speed and movement.
EMES-18 can do that on Leo1A5 only to a limited degree, because the turret hydraulics and gun stabiliser of Leo1 dont allow this on heavier terrain and at greater speeds.
Similarly EMES-18 lacks a few other features and capabilities, that are present on Leopard 2.
Look up Kotsch on fire control systems etc.
Atgm,s are very effective against tanks BUT only if supported by mortars, ifv,s, etc especially in urban areas
Not "only," just, "all the more effectively if . . . "
A tank gun fires at very high MVs which means the barrel will wear out very fast. It would appear a waste to use them for indirect fire, where you can't count on the single round hitting, but have a large number of rounds covering the target area. IMHO the Leo 1s biggest advantage is the accuracy of its gun and fire control system. Getting the first hit is the best protection you can get.
Smoothbore guns don't wear out so fast. And worn-out guns are still useful for indirect AoE fire.
Rifled guns ~ 1,000 shots, with the first 200 being the most accurate. Smoothbore ~ 2,000 shots, with the first 1,000 being the most accurate, but those are not very accurate shots unless FSAPDS-D. HESH flight is much different than HEAT flight, so gunners who are not disciplined in their use of the Fire Control Director are going to be wildly inaccurate, anyway.
I think that you hear very often, that tank on tank wasn`t and isn`t a thing. Is this true?
From WW2 until now, what is the frequency of tanks against tanks?
Or is anti-tank-warfare mostly a matter of other types of troops like infantry?
Tanks are mostly for infantry support. That's what they're invented for. Tank on tank is very rare right now. Yes, anti tank work is left to other systems.
T-62 was developped as a interim MBT with no specific threat to deal with at first and is essentially a minor upgrade of the T-54/55. it was never a mainstay mass production tank.
> it was never a mainstay mass production tank.
It was not intended as one, they still produced more than 20K.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualizedT-64 was elite, expensive tank produced in "small" numbers, around 13K. Meanwhile, mass produced Leopard 2 is a bit above 25% of that number. Compared to T-55 production, T-62 was produced in small numbers.
The T-62 is a medium tank according to the Russian classification, it is not the main battle tank, the first main battle tank in the USSR was the t-64
If you are engaging glacis plate to glacis plate, you need a retest on your tactics. The engine is there for a reason, you manoeuvre to engage the enemy from a flank.
T-62 didnt recived new ammo very long ago. The new ammunition for the T-62 was introduced about five years ago, it was probably the 3BM60 "Svinets-2" 125mm variant converted to 115mm 3BM-21M with an estimated penetration of 500mm RHA, this should be enough for the lower part of the T-72B with Kontakt 1 and then i.e. for all remaining versions of the T-64 and T-72, and probably also for the part with the cannon of the Leo 2a4. After the introduction of the new round, it was also announced that another new one is being developed, it could be the 115 Vacuum version, it was also interestingly announced that new 115 barrels will be produced, but who knows.. The Soviets produced the last model of 115mm ammunition in 1988, which is supposed to be 385mm at 2000m, so it is hard to say if this would also not be able to penetrate the part with the cannon of the Leo 2, which is estimated at 420mm at a shorter distance. T-72 Ural and M have some 395mm on hull with Cotanct 1, so there it can have chance same like probably T-64A or T-64B,T-72A/M1 where will not be reactive armor. I would definitely not say that Leo 1 has a better chance against the T-72. Firstly, it is still not known what ammunition the Ukrainians have, secondly, the Russians will have most of the T-72 in variant B with Contact 5 at the time of the more massive deployment of Leo1, at least in the medium term. They have an estimated 800mm on the turret and 700mm on the bottom, the American/Canadian CMC105 has a penetration of 470mm and I think the Canadians sent it here, it is not enough even for the T-72B with Conctact 1 or the T-72A turret with reactive armor, yes for the bottom. Belgian M1060A3 that can do 500mm below 60 degrees, maybe yes. The Ukrainians have already announced that they want to put ERA on them, I can't find data for Leopard 1 armor, wiki says 10-70mm, which is very little even against autocannons and probably against machine guns from the side.
This wall of text made the world dumber but not as dumb as you. Thank god. "I can't find data for Leopard 1 armor," fuck, but you could make up all the other stupid numbers why not just make the leo 1 number up to.
I don't think there's any t72a in current russian active service.
@@konosmgr There where one batalion made right before war, thats some 32 tanks. From that time, 50 machines are on Oryx like lost, + other one like undocumnted, unknow T-72 and unknow tank category, last captured over years ago, last destroyed 2 month ago and couples of them 3-4 months ago, if they will be runing of B variants, there will be A more often seen.
For me the question isn't is a Leo1 better than a T72. Its not. But it can put a heck of a beat down on a BMP and every other vehicle in the Russian army. Its can shell enemy positions with HE. Its still very useful.
Artillery, ATGM, Drones and Mines make it very difficult for tanks, so we don't see much Tank vs Tank battles...
This is all academic because the reality is most tank kills are from three sources. Mines, Artillery or drones. As a result tanks even vary modern heavy tanks are often so much scrap metal once the reach the front.
And advanced thermal sensors can't spot drone which uses DC motor, at least not on time.
another problem - no HE ammunition. And HESH isn't a good replacement in term of effect on infantry. Then what is the value of the thin skinned tanks which cannot be a front line, but its HESH are not useful as an artillery support
T62 - bigger gun, thicker armour
Off-topic, but I'm curious. What is the penalty in Austrian law if you fail to disclose you were invited by an organization to film? I assume a large fine?
The gunner is very articulate and convincing. Excellent English.
But what is the accuracy of T-62 indirect fire?
All over the place like the rest of russian guns
When corrected by a drone observer? Good enough probably. At worst, it's way better than nothing.
@@xendk meanwhile, superior NATO designed guns managed to... be largest PR debacle of this decade.
Nice to revisit the 1960s and see two old grandpa's battling it out. So much for fading away gracefully. 😂. Military junk or valued "vintage" equipment?
I been watching the Ukraine conflict from the very beginning and I have to agree that tank on tank action is relatively a rare event, both side use MBT's mainly in infantry support. The Leopard I tank is ideal for the Ukrainian army and should have been brought into action earlier. The one vehicle I believe is needed even more by the Ukrainian army is the Bradley IFB with it's IR fighting capabilities, the Bushmaster 25mm cannon and of course the twin TOW missile launcher system.
Since the T-54/55's and the T-62's are being fielded in Ukraine for use as either artillery or as infantry supporting assault guns, they will be lucky if they see any tank-on-tank combat. The Leopard I's are being fielded in armored combat roles and, as such, are basically little more than mobile coffins best left in museums. The biggest problem faced by Ukrainian tanks of any type are the extended range suicide drones that possess the newer, much more powerful warheads. Ukraine currently has no real ability to counter these drones thus allowing them to take out the fir and shoot artillery and armored vehicles before they are even able to reach the area of combat.
"they will be lucky to see any tank-on-tank combat" I'd say they'd have to be very UNlucky for that to happen; there is good reasons they're mostly being used in the indirect fire role and it is exactly to keep them away from direct fire from enemy tanks and ATGM's.
@@captainnyet9855 Actually, you apparently did not even listen to the gentleman who was discussing the three tanks. The REASON for using the T-62's and the T-54/55's in the role of artillery and as assault guns was BECAUSE the main guns on those vehicles were designed for both the tank fighting role and for fighting infantry. The HE rounds from these vehicles are significantly more effective than the rounds from the 122mm guns of the T-72's, and the T-90's which are the primary tanks being used. The T-14's are being used, HOWEVER, they, as with any new weapon that Russia introduces, are undergoing serious testing so they are few in number.
So, the takeaway from this video is what I have been telling people all along, The tanks being used by the Russians are being properly employed. The greatest danger facing the Russian tanks are the few drones that Ukraine uses, not the ATGM's of which Ukraine only has small numbers remaining.
By contrast, the Leopard I is a museum piece as their guns are not adequate against the Russian T-72's, and the T-90's. Lucky shots against these Russian tanks can achieve a kill, but more often the rounds will only do any significant damage when hitting weak spots which are few. That is why they are known as mobile coffins, much as how the Russians considered the M3 tanks supplied to them in WW II by the US. Yet, these same Leopard I tanks are being supplied by the West in full knowledge of this fact that they are museum pieces and of little value. The US M3 tanks, with their sponsoned 75's, would actually serve Ukraine far better BECAUSE, in the assault gun/artillery roles their guns are more effective than the guns of the Leopard I's.
Yet, the reality of the situation is that the Russian suicide drones are now so prevalent, they now pose, along with Russian artillery, the greatest threat to Ukrainian tanks as Ukraine has been disallowed from using the Challenger tanks at the front and the Abrams are to be returned to the US (they are to be replaced with 100 Leopard I tanks), Ukraine is reluctant to use their few remaining tanks in attack roles.
@@cliffordterry2133 you say that US wouldn't like videos of burning M1A1 despite their age?
@@BojanPeric-kq9et Yes, that is true. The German Leopard 2 tank videos of burning and destroyed tanks have damaged, so to speak, the reputation of the tank. Understand, most people have NO concept of modern warfare and the fact that it truly is AAIW which, for Russia, is currently the best at using it. This type of warfare is so ISR based that the battlefield becomes virtually transparent and so, the old days when you would have a large force utilizing combined arms as was even done in Iraq, is no longer possible in a peer-peer or a peer-near peer situation. The problem is one of missiles and drones. If one side that does not have even tactical control of the air can keep drones flying, the drones can effectively do enough damage to blunt an attack. This situation did not arise in Ukraine because going into the conflict, Russia was actually behind Ukraine in the use of drones and even Ukraine's use was somewhat limited. However, we have seen how Russian drone capabilities have massively flowered in development and so Russia now has gotten to the point that its extended range suicide drones now impact well behind the battlefield. Further, due to miniaturization, very small drones can now be successfully used for reconnaissance to provide live targeting for long range artillery and missiles.
Thus, even the Abrams tanks are vulnerable because the frequency of targeted attacks on vulnerable points significantly rise due to drone technology. armor needs time to establish methods of defense to counter these new systems and such defenses are not yet available. So, the Abrams, should they be fielded, will be destroyed and burn just as the Leopards and Challenger 2 tanks already have. The result of such videos is that sales of those tanks to foreign buyers will be diminished as a result. That is why, for example, the British told the Ukrainians to keep the Challenger tanks back from the front and just employ them for long range fire.
Finally, the worst thing for the West is that the Leopard IIs, the Challenger 2's, and the Abrams tanks are NOT the best fit either for the Ukrainians in their current situation, nor for the environment they are fighting in. They are heavier than the Russian tanks and require more maintenance than the Russian tanks. Thus, they are are more likely to breakdown on the battlefield and, the way things are now, they will be unrecoverable. Thus, they would then become sitting ducks and burn for that reason. Even if the tank crew has successfully escaped, there will only be limited numbers of the vehicles available and each loss is significant in impact.
@@cliffordterry2133I could write all that in fewer words: people in NATO countries took Iraq (both Desert Storm and 2003) as standard, ignoring all other wars when and where results weren't so nice or nice at all. In essence, two exceptions were taken as the rule.
Challenger 2 is somewhat an exception, nobody was interested in buying it even when it had reputation "no single lost in combat". It was bad PR itself.😂
The probability is that the Leopard will see the T64 first.
ukraine is very plain. Drones are the ones that matter for spotting.
Difficult to see anyone when fields are separated by WW2 French style hedgerows. Every field has what is like a mini forest where each side digs their trenches and hides their positions.
Most of the tank duels in Ukraine happen at point blank range, under 1km, because you can't see shit for all the trees in the way. Yeah, Ukraine is a big open plain and every single farmed field leaves the part which separates one field from the other to grow wild. The distance from one field to the other is about a maximum of 1km.
Good luck seeing anything, which is why everyone uses drones and doesn't rely on outdated nonsense tank spotters.
the probability is that neither tank will see the other; Leo 1 is better in the anti-tank role but as stated in the video the tanks are most often used for indirect fire, not aimed firing duels beten tanks so really the vehicles seem to have become incomparable (one being an armored, mobile assault gun primarily and the other more often seeing the role of lightly armored tank destroyer; both have their merits.
T-64 is completely different league from Leopard 1.
I suppose any mobile gun platform with a themal imagery is useful for as long as you have ammunition for it. Regards this conflict we should perhaps stop comparing tanks on a tank v tank basis and more on what they bring in terms of infantry support and indirect fire.
And gun tubes. High velocity tank guns wear very quickly. It is worn out after 100/200 shots compared to an artillery tube which lifetime is ten times that.
Meaning that if a tank shoots a few rounds everyday, it must be sent to the rear for tube replacement after a week or two.
@@chefchaudard3580 Tank guns do wear out fast considering required accuracy for direct fire is very high indeed. But. Does one really need accuracy for indirect harassing/saturation fire?
@@randomnobodovsky3692 the issue is that a worn out tube is unpredictable, as it was never designed for that and can explode.
lol its not 100-200 shots think like 1000-2000@@chefchaudard3580
@@deanwilliams433 i was too conservative. For the 125mm of Russian tanks, it is advertised 900 shots.
Several months ago you made a video named Did theUkraine war chamge your mind about Russian tanks, or something close to that, to which my response today is that the Ukraine war didnt change my mind about Russians tanks, but it definitely did about German ones.
The most important difference between them was sadly not mentioned in this otherwise pretty good video: Ergonomy. In pretty much every Soviet Era tank, you see two things there: It was designed by a committee. And the people there thought, the crew and mechanics are tiny octopusses with long arms. No comparison especially to the modernized Leopard 1, but also western cold war tanks. Yeah, soviet tech officially doesn't break down that often... but if it does, you can look for a replacement tank, while it gets fixed. And the tank is longer in depot as the western tank. No problem, when the USSR had 6-7 times more tanks in the field than NATO. But now the ratio Russia to Ukraine is already closer to 3. But it would need a serious christmas gift to Ukraine to push this lower.
Nah ukraine have very few tanks left due to cannibalization
"It can penetrate even T-72s"
How MANY times exactly did it have the opportunity to do so?
more than you think.. seen lots of pictures of disabled tanks with holes from APFSDS in them.. even seen T90A destroyed by APFSDS..
@@JaM-R2TR4 without any that it was done with Leopard 1A5. If you are talking about side armor, that is nothing new, no tank, including turret, has strong enough armor to stop any modern round. All huge RHA numbers are for front of the turret only, everything else is much weaker.
Zero times. They never met in combat. In the same time. Iraqi export versions of T-62 managed once to destroy a few Abmramses. They did ambush.
@@JaM-R2TR4 Where are those pictures? What links?
@@AlexanderTch Oryx, search for T90A pictures.. number 16 has two holes in front turret of the T90A, with ERA completely stripped. APFSDS hit below ERA, and went through.. Red Effect even had a video about that particular tank...
👍👍
Here is no PE in T-62M armout. It uses polyurithane with steel.
Question. Ive seen youtubeclips of Leopard 1 tanks in Germany. Abandoned in the woods. Plenty of them. Why not refurbish them and send them to Ukraine?
why do you hate Ukrainians so much?
That is often older version that were never upgraded and it would be very hard to upgrade them now
That would be great, especially if Ukraine can spare a year or two. Considering how long it took for US to deliver "properly stored M1A1", Leopard 1s you mentioned would be welcomed addition to Russia-friendly "New Ukrainian Republic" military.
Just at a guess . . . if you could pry parts loose from the German government paperwork in less than a year or two . . . and had satisfactory facilities and equipment to set-up a factory-style production line for both stripping and rebuilding, then figure close to a year before you are up to full-speed, and then you could would have a service line that takes two to three weeks for a full rebuild with all the updates and upgrades you want, and a tank rolling off the line three times a day. With the three thousand Leopard 1 tanks available, that's three years of production, so it might even be economically viable, IF Germany didn't constrict supplies and parts and equipment and experienced tank maintenance crewmen as crew leads.
Firstly, it is incorrect to compare the modernized Leo1 with the regular T62. Compare with the T62M then, it has a better thermal imaging sight than the Challenger and different armor, etc.
ruclips.net/video/YXhHFItjUjo/видео.htmlsi=DQci8QLUS9Nk1GRm
Secondly. Based on the prevalence in the world, I will argue which of these tanks is more common. I'm betting on T62
Third. T62 shells - armor-piercing sub-caliber shells with a detachable tray from 60x - were initially better than those of the West. It was only in 1978 that west created something similar.
Fourthly. The T72 duel against Leo is touching. T72 in its pure form and without modifications was used only in the first year of the database. Now there are modifications.
I would be pretty optimistic for the Leopard considering how horribly the T-62 fared against Israeli modified Centurions in 1973
Yeah but Arab armies have always performed horribly in peer to peer conflicts. Iraqi Soviet armor performed great against Iranian British tanks. Russian T-62s are modernized and supported by drones and Artie. Not saying the leopard 1 is bad tank but it's still able to get knocked out by a t-62 thou.
@@joshuabonilla3491 IF you're talking about untrained inexperienced Iranian crews attempting badly managed attacks against Iraqi armor then sure. When Iran had learnt later in the war the Soviet armor was no big deal. A T-62 in the hands of what is no doubt a third rate Russian crew thrown into battle would not be a bet I would take against a Ukrainian Leopard 1 crew with NATO training....
@@joshuabonilla3491 "to be fair"
To be fair "bad arabs, who don't know how to fight" is a myth USSR and Russia used to excuse deficiencies of their equipment. Iraqi tank crews during BOTH Desert Storm and Iraqi War performed BETTER then russians did innpast two years. Despite having worse equipment, being outnumbered and having less budget dedicated to training(as it turned out iraqis were indeed training, not only stealing funds).
Especially showing are instances of where iraqi tanks were ambushed by M1A1's and were still able to score hits. Not penetrations, but hits. Some M1A1's were hit several times so likely the optics and turret ring weren't in best condition so it might be even counted as mission kill as those tanks would need to return to camp for maintenance instead of going further.
And how they done it? They didn't panick, they assessed the situation, they closed the distance and they returned fire. Without modern or even adequate fire control systems, without thermals, without GPS, without pretty much everything.
Meanwhile russians?😂
@@TheArklyte Russia performs much better than Iraqi, Ukrainians had the same equipment but much older and not upgraded like Russians one
@@JF-ee3nn Russia has equipment superiority, numbers superiority, it is supposed to have air superiority and it is the side that invaded ie it had initiative. Iraqis had none of that. Cut your bs.
just this week Leo was hit by 150 shells at a distance of more than 10 meters.. and it has penetrated.... Has it then been bater to t 62 with got 60 mill side armour?!!!
pf what is this protection in leopard 1? 70mm turret forehead, 30mm sides, it will be destroyed even by a close rupture of any 122mm or 152mm artillery shell, even the old Soviet anti-tank gun 100mm mt-12 rapier of the 60s will destroy it! the t-62 mainly guards the immediate rear and is used as a protected artillery, a caponier is dug for them at a high slope so that the gun has a large degree of elevation, in this state it can throw a 115mm high-explosive projectile at a range of up to 12 km, and yes there is a tower 200mm in the forehead and 100mm in the forehead of the hull, if it is protected With the dynamic protection of Kontakt-1, it may well survive even when encountering RPG-7 (up to 400m range) and S.P.G.-9 (up to 900m range), these old Soviet anti-tank grenade launchers are still used by both sides of the conflict
😊
These are not great tanks in as so much as they are not good MBTs but these are all great Mobile protected fire power platforms. To that End older better built weapons SYSTEMS of older NATO tans vs soviet tanks paired with these new cheap UAS and remote systems that will have the advantage. L7 105 is probably the best rifled gun and thus the best at range in indirect.
The old Soviet tanks likely are going to be preferable for the indirect fire role; their optics were designed with indirect fire as a serious consideration while the L7's optics generally were not from what I understand.
Yup T-10M with a few upgrades to communications and modern ammunition for its guns would be a beast. Add some sensors for on-board threat detection and fire control, split the mantlet like the AMX-30, and improve the armor quality by magnetic forging, and give the commander's 14.5 (Or, replace both top and coaxial machine guns with Steyr 15mm HMGs.) a powered cupola integrated to threat detection, more modern longer-lasting and tougher tracks, suspension, and power train, and you would have a really superior platform for direct-fire support. Ideally, it should have the proper D-30-based 130mm rifled field gun of the T-10M.
If it's got thermals, it's at least an asset.
Laser range finder. Thermals sight.Gun stabilizer. Better the many of there t-72/80/90
It's the drones
The Leopard 1 could go back into production with a low recoil 120mm smoothbore gun like the XM360 and preferably with an auto loader with all systems designed to provide value for money. The primary purpose would be as a SPH but also for infantry support but still being able to defeat all Russian current generation MBT's.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM360
Sure its a steel coffin, but would you rather be buried in a fabric one?
Here you advertantly or inadvertently demonstrate yet another word - leopard - is truncated in English, tending to ignore the O, giving the sound lepard.
please do a video on these
(this is a copy and paste list for a few channels)
units and tactics/evaluation of loadouts of troops (from different jobs (and other branches)
the tank doctrine of countries
evaluation of tank veiw ports
evaluation of tanks/armored vehicles of different countries
logistics units of the axes and allied powers in ww2
ww1 estern front tactics
Russian Civil war tactics and strategies
navil ship cross sections (all the rooms and how it all works)
evaluation of types of ships
or evaluation of navil warfare
air craft carrier strike group formations exsamples (from different countries)
ancient persan ships,
ancient veneti ships (gauls that fought ceaser)
ships used by genoa and the vernesain republic
the vernesain republic government
all sailing ships, (i know theres many on yt but some contradict each other and i think theres more left out)
tactics used so far in the Ukraine war,
better for squads to be 2 teams of 5 or 3 teams of 3,
and probably the easiest, better to keep troops well feed or starved like an animal
how dose age effect comsnders eg napoleon got older so took less risks,
ancient urban warfare
ww2 tactics in Asia, tactics in the Chinese age of warlords, (and Chinese civil war)
tactics in the ruso jap war
cold war navil tactics,
Korean war tactics,
strange tactics or unque battles from the American war of independence and America civil war
how were 17th centry sailing ships build
types of bombs lunched by drones
comands given on sailing ships (like ease the sheets and get ready to chine, or slack n beases, basically things you hear movie capitns say)
why did the nazis never return (or a video on best occupations)
why did the Japanese empire fall, dont just say "America" like things like how there army and navy argued alot
alot more on the Polynesians and māori, but please learn pronounceations if you do this
Se debe mejorar la munición para el tanque leopard 1.
Just ask typical Ukraine or Russian tank driver which one he would prefer: Leo1A5 or T-62M.
Wait Leopard 1 with added armour= T72 Ural armour? That's funny. Cuz even old T62m1 with 3bm36 and 3bm21m APFSDS has enough penetration to knock out modernized Leopard 1 with no problem. Even old 115mm APFSDS can take out Chieftain tank. Noted During Iran Iraq war Iraqi t62 with old 3bm3 manage to penetrate Iranian Chieftain armour on the front hull within 500m let alone a Leopard 1.
I remember talking to an old cold warrior, who said that when NATO found out that the Soviets had the T72 back in (surprise) 1972 that NATO forces in Germany were put on immediate alert as it was believed that it was better than all the tanks NATO had back then and also outnumbered them massively.
T-64 was true "Wunderwaffe", not T72.
He lied to you there were no panic the Russians already had the T-64 a tank that was better then the T-72 in (surprise) 1964. What made nato concerned was the 115mm on the T62 and the fact that it made the Heavy tank more or less useless.
@@xendk sadly I believe you. Maybe even he was lied to as well? It's funny how we never hear of the T64 even though, as you both point out, it was superior. Any info on how many, if any, are in service today?
@@BojanPeric-kq9et that too is a fair point. It doesn't seem to have got the publicity that the 72 has got. I wonder why?
@@stealmysunshine maybe because it could cause panic "they have thousands of tanks which are much better than ours"? NATO wasn't aware of T-64's capabilities for quite some time. I mean, would you like to be in Leopard 1 or T-64 when they were new?
Why is Leopard 1 classified as tank, not tank destroyer?
Well it's a tank not a tank destroyer, there's very few tank destroyers post 1960s anyways.
@@konosmgr The thing is that it was designed specifically to engage enemy armour and they didn't even bother to give it decent armour or gun that fires HE rounds. It sounds much more like a tank destroyer than a proper tank.
Any of the L1 series is unlikely to survive a direct hit from a T62; let alone a T72. (Range
Leo1 were lost to shrapnel from artillery hits at over 20 meters. Another one lost on front hit from FPV with RPG7 load. This tank is outdated for Ukraine war. T-62 can at least be used as second line fire support without fear of shrapnel hits
The problem is tank on tank conflict is beyond rare: this comparison is not relevant.
Subtitles needed.
This conversation ignores that this isn't a matter of speculation: the L7 105 mm gun can defeat the armor of T-62 and T-72. We know this from actual combat in the Middle East. It's not a matter of opinion.
No l7 can defeat t72a tank not t72b nor t72b3
A tank is terrifying to the enemy. Even an old tank like the t-54 is still a tank, and is very dangerous to you if you're infantry or a light vehicle. It would stand no chance against an advanced Western tank, but how often is it going to actually face one? Rifle rounds just bounce off tanks. Without manpads, you're in deep shit. Drones are changing the face of the battlefield, but the tank will remain relevant for some time to come. What else gives you the same combination of mobility, armour and firepower?
The Leopard 1 is very underrated.
It is overrated.
simple question, what he shel it got to fight entrenched Russians?!!! So no he round to fight trenches???
The best MBTs can't survive without aircover and the Ukrainians never had it.
What I read/see the Russians haven't it too. Thanks to patriot and other AA systems
Ukrainians claimed to get tank on tank kill at 10km range using t-72 at indirect fire with drone to spot for hits. They also published the drone footage but it didn't show their own tank so it's hard to tell if it really was that far or not and so on.
Sounds BS to me
There is a story about Tiger II which scored hit against plane. Or a story about T-34 destroyed from 3km. Nice curiosities, but at the end, T-34 and small monsters like IS-2 won, despite no guys like Wittmann on Soviet side. Superheros are good for propaganda, average guys do most of the fighting.
Leo1 is very dangerous for its crew in a warfare where there is any chance that enemy fires anything more powers thank 7.62. T-62m is not a modern and powerful weapon. But its side armor at least holding shrapnel and 12.7m rounds. That's why Leo1 cannot see proper use in Ukraine
ridiculous analytics, leo 1 isn't slightly worse in terms of armor than t62, its just awful. Even back then it was released (50s) armor was very weak. Just to compare, leo 1 cast turret is not thicker than 70mm, whereas t62 is 220mm
You would rather want a soviet hunk of a tank then a leopard 1, its like bringing a mercedes car out in the mud, its expensive to maintain, finicky, also, the armor is lacking, the cannon cannot be spammed and replaced easily
Die L7A3 ist ausreichend wirksam gegen alles, was in der Ukraine eingesetzt wird. 105mm APDSFS verschossen vom Leopard1 mit einer Rohrerhöhung von 0° hat eine Reicheite von etwas über 10km, bei etwa 47° über 100km.
Wichtige Vorteile der 120mm Glattrohr sind allerdings leichtere Fertigung, leichtere Reinigung, höhere Lebensdauer, kürzere und leichtere Munition, der wesentlich geringerer Aufwand bzgl. der Entsorgung der Patronenhülsen und eine bessere Wirksamkeit der Hohlladung.
Mit WBG, Laser-E-Messer und digitaler FLA hat der Leopard 1 A5 die Fähigkeit Ziele in einer so großen Entfernung zu bekämpfen, dass dem Gegner häufig die Fähigkeit fehlen wird, überhaupt zu erkennen, wodurch er bekämpft wird. Zusammen mit der hohen Beweglichkeit des Leopard1 bietet das die Möglichkeit Verzahnungen zu vermeiden, bei denen der im Vergleich zum Leopard2 geringe Panzerschutz des Leopard1 sich nachteilig auswirken würde.
T72B3?
Was schwätzt du denn da fürn Stuss zusammen? 😂
T-62 has better HE round than leopard. Leo only has hesh/heat with no frag round.
That matters more in Ukraine honesty
BS there are more then 7 nations that are making or have made 105mm HE rounds that are as good or better M110 HE-MP-T is one of them and there are APDS. APFSDS, HEAT, HESH, HE, Smoke, Anti-personale(canister). illumination, and even a Gun launched anti-tank guided missile (GLATGM). Read before you spread you ignorance around. The U-5TS (T-62 115mm) is a turd of a gun that was only used on the T-62 that hade to have modern ammo made by wester nations (UK and Belgium) in some cases. PATHETIC
#irony as Russia has learned the hard way "you can't simply throw in armor to teach either strategy or tactcis." The *PRESUMPTION* was that Russia had the rear echelon service and support to sustain wholly mechanized warfare indefinitely upon Ukraine but for any number of reasons now plainly seen this is not factually true. The latest "rumor"(name ine one War that isn't consumed by Rumors) is that the Battle of Adiviika is being fought with actual armoured combat and not as has been previously done through/by channeling all Tanks and Mechanized assaults into known fields of fire with mines, sighted in Artillery, drone strikes, pre-positioned infantry and #apparently some type of "doctrine." Ukraine successfully doing all of this has meant the Russian "break through" hither and yon has been met by whithering counter-attacks in the open by, well...Tanks basically. Seems odd to point out something so obvious but whatever assumptions made for Russian break through becoming an actual break out have been completely misguided. This Victory and make no mistake this is a Ukraine Victory over Russia across the entire Front Kupiansk to Kherson means more armor en route and all that comes with that presumably air power of some sort. Very rare in the History of modern Warfare to see "Tank on Tank" Battles. Kursk. The Battle of Saipan. That's about all i can think of actually. This definitely has not been true of Russia Ukraine War where actual combat between armor is becoming a much more regular occurrence. That says to me anyways "better read the manual" as to not use your Armor in a doctrinally sound manner means to *LOSE* your armor. In the case of Russia reports suggest well North of 5000 main battle tanks have been destroyed! Obviously of course these are irreplaceable losses in both equipment and crews. So yes the T-62 might be deemed "acceptable" as a replacement but of course this presumes a competent and motivated crew. If neither is forthcoming the Tank might simply be abandoned instead. In the alternative from what i have seen of the few opening moments of the 2022 Russia War on all Ukraine the T-72 was a devastatingly effective weapon in the defense by fanatical "Azov" units. Russia doesn't really have any of that with now all of Southeastern Ukraine that was failed to be liberated this Summer now in fact very much threatened from two sides (from West to East/from North to South) all by way of mechanized forces and leading this effort Main Battle Tanks. Less discussed are Ukraine efforts in the direction of Belgorod moving North directly into Russia proper. So far these have been minor skirmishes without anything "formal" such as an incursion "utilizing" armor but given what is an apparent *ROUT* of their Fall counter-offensive to take all of Ukraine nothing can be ruled out for what Ukraine can execute upon going into Winter 2022/2023 Ukraine defensive Victory.
Nice to see you get your daily dose of copium
“No kid ever grew up playing Service Battalion!” And that’s probably why the Russians never made it to Kiev. “No kid ever played senior NCO” is why Ukraine couldn’t get to the exploitation phase of their counter offensive…..grossly oversimplified…..maybe, but whoever gets their CSSS and intermediate leadership together first wins this amateur call of duty style conscript massacre. Both sides have brutally incompetent leadership and their young male citizens are the ones paying the price.
Leopard 1 still has the advantage of better night sight electronics, from what I heard, many T-62s sent ot Ukraine dont even have night vision or are using the sucky 70s 80s Soviet night vision.
Theoretical advantage. T-62 has thicker armor.
@@BojanPeric-kq9et thicker armour but gun and guin sight better on the Leopard.1 also has good night sight.
@@johnwalsh4857 depends on variant and comparing original T-62 with latest upgrade of Leopard 1 is apple vs oranges.