Panther vs Leopard - Breaking with Tradition?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Did the Leopard 1 break with the Panzer Tradition of the Big Cats namely the Tiger and Panther? Or did he continue the tradition of the Panzer III and IV? In this video Jens Wehner (MHM Dresden) and I discuss the various perspectives and also the factors that made the Germans choose Mobility and Firepower for the Leopard 1 instead of Armor Protection, since that comes down to various factors like technology and doctrine at the time. Also included is footage from Stahl auf der Heide 2019 of Panzer III & IV and of course the Leopard 1 during Tankfest 2019 as well.
Cover design by vonKickass.
Disclaimer I: Thank you to the Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden for inviting me. Disclaimer II: Thank you to the Panzermuseum Munster for inviting me to Stahl auf der Heide 2019.
Disclaimer III: Thank you to the Tank Museum at Bovington for inviting me to Tank Fest 2019.
Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden: mhmbw.de/starteng
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribes...
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/...
» SOURCES «
Our brains
#PantherVSLeopard #PanzerTradition #Panzer
Many of you asked for it, so you can get the Cover for your t-shirts, posters, mugs, etc. here: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized
Want to see more museum trips & interviews?
Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
@Max Paine Very much, one cannot ignore the advancements in technology and how this also has an influence or effect on the tank's design. All modern day MBT are large and heavy tanks but they have high mobility because they have very powerful engines in them.
On the other side of the valley in Dresden there is the officer school and the tactic centre of the German army. Maybe you find a interview partners there as well.
Military History not Visualized
Could you please consider the battles where the Lepard 1 fought like for UN in Bosnia?
After my Knowlege was the leopard 1 based on the Panther ruclips.net/video/otRgdY6Chd4/видео.html
do you have plans for any 18th/17th century videos soon?
“Hello everyone. This is Jens whener, and we are on a leopard 1”
The most badass intro so far
Hello, this is Jens, whener (sounds like we are) on a Leopard.
“Hello everyone. This is Jens whener, and this is Jackass''
I would say that Bernhard is correct in that the reason that upgrades to older tanks like Leo 1 and T-55 is in the fire control system is that it's, quite simply, much easier to do. It's always possible to add a little extra armor, even the tank that they are sitting on can has had that change added, but what starts getting more difficult is more efficient armor, engine improvement, and suspension improvement. But adding an external rangefinder, swapping out the active IR for an LLTV, changing some circuit boards for new ammunition types, that's all modular addition, as long as there's room in the turret to do it (See Leopard 1A3/A4)
I apologize in advance for my ignorance: "swapping out the active IR for an LLTV"
Isn't LLTV tech a generation *behind* the Infrared and not the other way around?
@ active IR. Which basically means you need an IR illuminator, basically an IR-spotlight to see something. This system has a serious drawback though. It's like driving with the lights on at night if the enemy troops also had IR capable sighting systems.
LLTV on the other hand is a passive system. Yes, the early ones weren't especially good, but at least you didn't give away your position for anyone with IR/NV googles. What you probably mean with "generation behind" is thermal vision, which is related to active IR, but a passive system.
Does "fire control system" include anti-tank missiles, which my limited knowledge says started with the wire guided missiles (TOW) and probably has fir-and-forget missiles now? That fits with the idea that the Leopard I's mobility was no longer sufficient protection in lieu of armor, and why the Leopard II had more armor.
Fun fact, even though the armour is thinner on the Leopard, it has comparable effective thickness to the Panther
@@bookranter3488 I'd guess through manufacturing and angeling
depends on version 1A1 definitely.. 1A3 or 1A4 had new turret which used spaced armor, that was quite effective against early APFSDS rounds and even HEAT.. 1A5 was practically base 1A2 with additional applique armor reinforced with rubber to get similar level of protection as 1A4.
Overall, When Leopard 1 came out, HEAT was main killer, 105mm gun firing HEAT could kill any tank on the battlefield at that time (T64 was still a prototype with a lot of issues) so Leopard 1 was quite good tank for type of combat NATO was planning to fight.
@@bookranter3488 The Leopard, altough thinner armour, achieves equivalent levels of protection due to advancements in metallurgy, manufacturing quality and the more aggressive angling of the plates in question
Also context matters. While early Leopards 1 had only very slightly weaker armor than Panther, compared to everything else around the difference is dramatic.
When Panther came out, it was by far the best-armored medium tank, and frontally immune to other mediums around then. It stood against T-34, M4 and the Cromwell. In this company Panther was the heavyweight. The standard tank gun of the era was medium-velocity 75 mm firing AP, which Panther's front could withstand at any range.
But Leopard 1, on the other hand, was the by far lightest armored MBT around its time. Centurion was old by then and about to be replaced by much heavier Chieftain. M60 was in service. Soviets had T-55 and T-62, and T-64 with its composite armor was about to roll out. In this company, Leopard 1 stood out with its lighter armor. And now, guns ranged from 100 mm to 125 mm and fired APDS and HEAT, against which Leopard 1's armor amounted to practically nothing.
@@Alpostpone technically speaking - if you manage to fire and hit your enemy first, you usually win the fight.. at least thats what happened during most of tank engagements so far.. in such case, your armor is practically a dead weight that doesnt benefit you at all... It only matters, when you make a mistake and enemy fires at you... in 60ties, when HEAT became dominant, it was possible to kill any tank... armor suddenly lost its benefits.. NATO focused on proper tactical deployment, and trained for fast maneuvering warfare, where tanks wont be used as static antitank guns to stop the soviets, but as mobile reserve, that will engage enemy formation flanks, while infantry would pin it in place... for such tactics, Leopard 1 was actually excellent tank... it was fast, had good gun, good fire control system, and good ergonomics.. which gave crew ability to engage enemy with accurate fire, then reverse out of line of sight before they could detect them and fire back... this tactics would work quite well for whole cold war... no tank was armored enough to withstand hits into side armor... so outmaneuvering enemy was crucial... and it is still the most important thing in armored warfare.
In WW2, the Germans looked at the T34 and Sherman and thought "we can't produce enough tanks to fight these, let's try going bigger", and developed the Panther and Tiger.
After WW2, the Americans looked at the Panther and Tiger and thought "we need to go bigger like they did", while the Germans thought "going bigger didn't work", let's go back to maneuverable".
Basically, they each switched to the other's previous thinking.
Exactly, the Germans saw T 34 and Sherman and their problems fighting them, the Allied saw their problems with the few Panther and Tigers; however, a colleague from my father was a German tank commander in WW2 and he cursed the Panther and favoured the P IV because of the longer operating range.
Bear Mro
You beat me to it!!
not Tiger... Tiger was 1938 development... originally intended to be a breakthrough tank
I think after each switched concepts based on the difficulties they had with enemy Tanks during WW-ll the Americans and the Germans now allied incorporated both Heavy Composite Armor and Maneuverability in the Leopard-ll and the Abrams Tanks along with advanced Fire Control Systems.
@@jafr99999 Leo 2A7+ and M1A2C Sep3 includes active protection.
The usual high quality subject I have come to expect from Military History.
Be great to have a discussion on the MBT-70 on American/ German 'development'. Oh I would want to have been a mouse in a corner when these 2 countries development teams discussed/clashed what should be design features. Countries with proud armored traditions.
And the Brits- no slouches-did they ever think about working with the Germans on a tank? Or APC?
(Always thought shoe-horning a 17 pounder in a Sherman was GENIUS considering you go with what you got.)
Keep up the great work.
Great topic, nice well informed discussion followed. I was a conscript driver on the Leo I (PRTL) in 81. I agree with the remarks below in that Leo 1 concept was a T34 and Sherman mix. T34 light mass produced smart armour and ruggidness like multi fuel diesel. Sherman mass produced quality with high availebility and ergonomics. Quick change of engine in the field etc. A tank for quick draw engagements at 1 km for which a 105 mm would do. A true MBT like the Sherman. The Brits had the faster range system to get a first round hit, that was also the idea behind the Leo 1. Sterioscopics had too much drawbacks. Tactical driving was learnt i.e. stay smoove in rough terrain in order to come to a guick stop for a high probable first round hit. The Leo 1 didn't have a good enough stabaliser for firing on the move. Anyway thanks for the post!
The Germans figured out heavy units that couldn't respond quickly to enemy attacks or run away if things went badly didn't work in the last war
Because having a lot of cheap tanks with untrained crews to use as throwaway units worked wonders of decreasing the losses of the Soviets.
Oh wait...
Why are some documents still classified? Just curious really
50 year period is rather standard, also if you look at the Leopard 1, it is still in operation by various countries as well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Current_operators
I refuse to ever buy anything advertised in an ad that pops up at a random spot in the video, usually in the middle of a sentence, and cannot be cancelled.
I’ve always wondered about this. Curiosity satisfied. 👍🏻😊
Leopard was a practical response to the reality that the US and British tanks available for import were fat and ponderous beasts that consumed fuel voraciously. It is easy to forget how often a Chieftain or M60 platoon would have to detour around weak bridges or soggy fields. By limiting the Leopard 1 to around 40 tons, they could simply go more places faster than any of the Anglo-American MBTs while saving an ocean of precious fuel that Germany couldn't assume it would have.
That thumbnail on a shirt
Yes
Different and Interesting! Appreciated ~ Cheers
I do love a Jens video. And not just because it's adorable when he uses Germenglish. "...not so much mit..." heheh, classic.
But seriously, insightful as always.
Like when firearms were first introduced they obsoleted plate armour. For a while we got rid of armour all together because it didn't work. However body armour has now came back to the battlefield.
Plate armor was actually kept in use for a rather long time after the introduction of firearms, with thicker plates specifically designed to resist bullets. Many were even tested by firing a pistol at them, which is the origin of the term "bulletproof". Cuirassiers in the 19th century still had breastplates able to protect them from pistols and longer-range musketry, though by that time they were the only ones still using body armor. I don't exactly know why plate armor went out of use by the 18th century, but being useless against firearms wasn't the reason.
@@villehammar7858 it was probably expensive for an army to make plate armor and the biggest army(britain) acted more like a police force
@@loserface3962 I'm pretty sure Russia and France had bigger armies than Britain. Cost was likely an issue, but I've heard it argued that the cost of plate armor for a soldier would have been negligible compared to the cost of feeding, lodging and wages for the entire service of the soldier, so I'm not sure.
@@villehammar7858 Cuirassiers were heavy cavalry and more worthy of protection, they were not commonly used against infantry. Experiments with body armor were conducted in WW1. Plate is fairly useless against rifles (higher penetration than a musket) and machine guns, infantry becomes too slow with it, only helmets became common to deal with head injuries.
Is there a download for that thumbnail?
Its adorable
Screenshot
Do you count pumas as "Big cats"? During WW2 there was the Sd.Kfz. 234 also known as the "Puma". This vehicle was a lightweight armored car with a 50 mm KwK 39/1 cannon capable of penetrating 126 mm of steel at 100 m. This vehicle weighed only about 11.7t and a top speed of up to about 90 kph. This to me does not seem like a heavy tank, which would kind of eliminate the "big cats" theme.
Australia initially stations it's Leopards 1's just north of Melbourne, in the far south east on the continent with more Mediterranean climate. When a forward defense policy was adopted they were all moved close to Darwin in the northern desert region. The laser range finders worked well in the moderate temperatures of Melbourne but the extreme hot desert air of the far north they didn't work.
Who were the expected attacker?
@@juanzulu1318 The attacker doesn't matter. A military threat to Australia can come come form only one direction. It's geography. There's nothing to the South, East or West but Ocean.
@@binaway in the north is Ocean as well. Why should an attacker not target the south?
@@juanzulu1318 Because that would hugely increase the length and vulnerability of supply lines? Obviously.
@@antred11 u dont need much supply if there is no enemy force to fight. Lol
Thanks for the great video!
Also "mobility" doesn't necessarily equal "manoeuvre warfare" (OODA loop, etc.)
The Tiger broke the tradition. The Panther didn't. The latter was a (little bit too big and )heavy medium tank for manouvering warfare(If I remember correctly "schwerer mittlerpanzer" was the unofficial term). It has the frontal armour protection of a heavy tank and a cannon with heavy tank like penetration values, yet it was still able to go above 40 km/h on paved ground as required.
Why the Leopard is different in armour protection? Change happened. During the 50s, the handheld HEAT-grenade launchers, HEAT-rocket launchers and missile launchers became widespread. And these had much longer range than their WW" predecessors. Also,the technology for cannon-fired HEAT-rounds improved with the new piezoelectric triggers, so they can manufacture higher velocity HEAT ammo,that meant flatter trajectory and higher accuracy at longer ranges compared to earlier designs. Most tanks at the time can fire HEAT-rounds. For example,and again, "if I remember correctly", the HEAT-round for the D-10T 100 mm tank cannon(used by the T-54) can penetrate 360 mm of armour at any range(since HEAT armour penetration is not influenced by range).
The Bundeswehr realized, thanks to their WW2 experiences with multiple different tanks, and what I briefly mentioned above, that there is no point in putting together a 70 ton tank,when even one enemy soldier can severely damage or destroy it with one HEAT-warhead. Or the enemy 30 tank can do the same to this 'theoretical' 70 ton vehicle. They required the manufacturers to make something which meets the upper speed limit, is within weight limitations and can resist 20 mm autocannon ammo(of the era) and that's basically the reason for it.
what a wholsome thumbnail
Excellent video and explanations.
I've always thought that if the Germans had taken the VK1602 Leopard and increased its size a bit (say 25 tons), installed a larger turret that could have housed the 7.5cm KwK L/48, and simplified its components, it would have been a better alternative to the over sized Pzkfpw-V Panther. The initial design of the VK1602 was lighter, faster, more maneuverable, and actually better armored than the the Pzkfpw-V Panther.
In my mind the Leopard 2 is not a change from the thinking and Ideals at the basis of the Leopard 1. Technology and engineering capabilities "just" catched up with the original Ideals. Allowing for armor and so on to be improved, while still keeping it very mobile.
I think the Leopard 1 is more like the Stug III/IV than any real German WW2 tank. Strong gun, and strong mobility, designed to be used to ambush an enemy. A lot of people don't seem to realise, the best German tank aces, got most of their tanks kills, when they ambushed an enemy. The tanks that took the most hits in a frontal assault, often ended up being captured quickly, ending up being a massive resource loss for the Germans.
Was there any political restrictions in the development of Leopard?
The idea of forces (and a a tank) capable of the task of a delaying operation (“Verzögerungsgefecht“) against an overwhelming armored enemy force might already have existed in the Reichswehr. Experiences of the Russian campaign had further influences on defining the requirements as: reliability, multi-fuel capability, heating for engine and crew compartment, low maintenance efforts, quick engine replacement, a.s.o.
I’ve always heard that “King Tiger” is a mistranslation and that it’s technically “Bengal Tiger”, so it’s interesting to hear a German-speaker call it “King Tiger”.
not 100 % sure here, but I think "Königstiger" is actually a translation from English into German.
The other thing is, yes a "Königstiger" as animal is a "Bengal Tiger", but it is about the meaning not biology here. So "Bengal Tiger" makes little to no sense for the tank.
Military History not Visualized Now that you mention it, the naming of a tank after a specific species of animal would have been a break to precedent. After all, the “Elefant” was never called the “Afrikanischer Buschelefant”, haha. As for who came up with the name, I do know of a Wochenschau reel that named the Tiger II as “Königstiger”.
m.ruclips.net/video/yuOCyePOBvU/видео.html
But wouldn't the maneuver warfare of the Early War be at least little bit armored as well? I mean because the Allies didn't had all that great guns in the early days, you see? In 1940 they might have been very strongly protected, but they didn't had that firepower to shoot back. 2 pounder then the 6 pounder with the British for instance. On the Soviet side, the best gun they had until mid 1943 was the 76mm. The Soviet 76mm wasn't that good of a gun, was it? I think the later more protected Panzer IIIs could still managed it. While the short 76mm could still get through a Panther by the side.
The German engineers might have thought of only the maneuver elements on this equation when they conceived the Panther. And yet there was still other problems to be dealt with during their time, I guess.
I feel the future of battle will revolve around mini drones. 100s of synchronized mini drones with 2 kg( or 10kg) of c4, that will make all fixed or slow assets obsolete. All tanks, artillery, soft vics, and or encamped infantry, obsolete. Send 40 $500. drones in 4 close waves at one 30 million dollar tank and it will die; only 1 needs to get through. Counter measures will not reload fast enough to withstand such a coordinated attack. Drones are made autonomous and smart, so radio jamming won't work. Only after all drone reserves are expended will traditional assets be possibly useable,Infantry included. Very Scary. But drones are cheap and easy to mass produce. tanks are not trucks not jets not.......... humans not. very very .........
Nicholas Patton you should look at this fps Russia video. Imagine 1000s of these at a time.
ruclips.net/video/SNPJMk2fgJU/видео.html
Once again, the german accent is strong in this one.
Yes but their English is perfect. :)
lol you can be so clueless. How about the saggar missle in 1967, how about the advent of 1500 hp engines. It is not a change in war fighting concept at all but a response to an emerged new threat and the advent of engine and armour technologies that indicate a newer larger platform.
I play war thunder so i know what im talking about
The leopard shares nothing with the Panther besides a feline name.
Tiger was a break through tank, a main battle tank.
The Leopard is focussed on defense not attack and breakthough.
Please compare a Tiger (cat) and Leopard in real life then you obviously see a difference in statue, attitude, weight .... not to mention elegance in movement of a leopard which does not really count in modern warfare I guess.
bur speed replaces armor ... in the late 60 when its design process had started
NATO was not trying to do Barbarossa or Fall Blau again. No need for racing deep into the enemy rear areas. It was a defensive alliance anticipating a reprise of the Eastern Front after Kursk: attacks from overwhelming numbers of cheap Soviet tanks. In that scenario doesn't a Tiger style tank make more sense, able to stand its ground, take a hit or two, and take out many Soviet tanks?
The thumbnail melted my Wehraboo heart 😥
ahh the good old onehit wonder. i see hes a gamer. exposed himself ^^
also thermals ARE and have been a real gamechanger. thermals do not only spot literally any tank at almost any distance unless his engine is cooled down and he didnt use his gun for a while but they also spot a lot of infantry wich would otherwise be unnoticed at night and day without giving away your position like with infrared spotlights wich are literally a big flashlight. get the right filter on your optic and you can see him lighting the enviroment like a christmas tree. just look at games. i know their thermals are a lot better than those of the time esp. in the case of arma but in the end youll usually have a gunner using thermals only while the commander switches sights quite often to not let any enemy pass you unsighted and keep the terrain in mind. theres literally no chance of hiding from thermal sights. i know that at first the gunner and commander didnt have them both and so on but it was a HUGE improvement over infrared technology!
the main reason for this is the big contrast. humans are really really good at spotting movement like many predators. if you have a pretty dark thermal sight and theres a lightly coloured dot anywhere youll quickly zoom in to look at it at a better zoomstage. this reduces workload because you can clearly identify safe areas wich youll then only check from time to time to see if sth has changed. on the other hand not using thermals makes this job way more tricky. did the tree fall down? was it like this 10seconds ago? did i really see it fall. let me check aggain. hmmm there could be a tank over there and boom youre already dead....
I think the Leopard was designed with the German lessons of WW2 in mind. NATO in general had quite a reliance on the German lessons about how to fight the Soviets. The main point always was how to stop the expected massive concentration of Soviet armour. During WW2 the Germans tried to do it with deploying armoured reserves in operational manoeuvres, then split these reserves up into tactical manoeuvre units. These units basically had to ambush and destroy individual columns and move on to the next one until the attack was halted. Then the Germans would attempt a cut off of the spearhead and destroy those forces. That concept formed the basis of what became Flexible Response on the tactical level. The idea was to engage and destroy spread out small Soviet units, think individual companies or at most battalions to force the remainder of the spearhead to regroup in larger units in a smaller area for another breakthrough attack. Then just nuke that grouping. It wasn't exactly elegant, but in a way it is very reminiscent of the idea behind kesselschlacht and how the Germans tried to counter a breakthrough. Instead of a surrounding and annihilation by infantry, you just nuke.
Now the Leopard 1 was far more attuned to this kind of warfare than any contemporary NATO tank. I have written my master thesis on the Dutch army its selection of the Leopard 1, and this was also their reasoning for selecting the Leopard 1. They trialled the Leopard 1 against the Chieftain in 1968 after the MBT-70 seemed to become quite unlikely and reading the full rapport I didn't have the impression that it wasn't much of a contest. The Dutch army ever since 1870 had been a very German oriented army and they where following this reasoning when selecting. They didn't value the Chieftain's its additional armour that much, they did value the gun a bit, but they really put emphasis on the Leopard being manoeuvrable with a good enough gun. Also the Leopard 1 actually working during the trial unlike the Chieftain kinda helped. The British even trying to offer the Chieftain below cost didn't help. In the end the army decided, not the politicians who in this case accepted the army's recommendation without issue. Can't say they where wrong either.
Interestingly enough the Dutch army also had input from Israel about tank selection. Now this was one year after the six day war and Israel was very much leaning towards heavy armour and firepower at this point. Israel of course was involved in the development of the Chieftain before the British decided to deny them the sale of those vehicles in 1969. The Dutch army seems to have ignored this input, or at least not valued it much. They however did seem to value the input the Israeli's gave about the AMX-13. They basically considered it hopeless and wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible. A few years later, the Dutch army replaced its AMX-13's in its reconnaissance company's with Leopard 1's. Talk about reconnaissance in force. Ironically it seems quite likely that Israel replaced its AMX-13's with Centurion's that the US bought for the Dutch army and now where being partially phased out in favour of the Leopard 1. I can't think of any other source where the IDF would have gotten more Centurion's between the six day war and the Yom Kippur War in 1973.
Best comment in this thread. If we look at the fighting in Hungary in the autumn of 1944, the German armies there are fighting with small battlegroups of panzers using manoeuvre to cut into the flanks of Soviet advances and cut them off, if only for a matter of hours but enough to disrupt the advance and inflict damage.
@Joshua N. Ajang I don't believe so.
Thanks Bernhard for your great dedication in creating top notch content. Also thanks to the many people that support you, not just the patreons, but also the people in all the museums and other creators. I have to save this one for tomorrow, but I'm already looking forward to it. Have a great weekend.
I had never thought of Leopard 1 as a "return to form" but now I see rather clearly that it is. Leopard 2 is not a break from this as it is just a clear expression of the modern MBT: a heavy or indeed super-heavy tank (Abrams weighs about the same as Char FCM 2C) which has the speed of a fast medium or light tank and thus can keep up with all forces yet still do breakthroughs and assaults, and then go on to exploit its own breakthroughs! There are pretty much only the "Heavy" MBT and a light tank in modern forces, the light for things like air-mobility and other places where actual, physical weight and maybe size are critical.
"Return to form" being a rational analysis of the design requirements relative to available technology. The Leo 1 was a very pragmatic evaluation of the probabilities of Cold War Central European war capabilities. It shares absolutely nothing with the products produced for the WWII era.
Also, What about the affect of generational engine power output improvements? The Mayback HL230 engine maximum power output was 700 horsepower. Leopard 's 1 engine maximum power output was 813 horsepower.
Leopard 2's engines output was 1500 horsepower. If you design your Panzer corp for 'maneuver warfare' ultimately the engine output is the critical limitation to armor thickness/protection as operational speed must remain above a certain critical limit.
the HL230 was planned to have 900hp with an injected system (because the 700hp one is carbureted and ran into a lot of troubles), assuming Leo 1's engine is also injected, then technically the Maybach HL230 is still better in hp/ton ratio...
@@marcox4358 Deeply appreciate!
Good luck with the PhD, Jens!
He's gonna smash that viva voce too!
I agree with Kurt, fire control improvements are driving design these days more than armor.
Leo 2A4 to 2A7+ has armor upgrades (with lesson from Afghanistan via Danish Leo 2A5 and Canadian Leo 2A4-CAN with 2A7 test armor) and active protection.
Turkish Leo 2A4 shown to be useless.
Turkish armor are shown to be useless because their officers are useless.
Sending tanks without any accompanying support just like that is incredibly stupid regardless of how well protected it is
@@fulcrum2951 Danish Leopard 2A5 was nearly useless in Afghanistan which leads to Canada's Leopard 2A4M-CAN with backported 2A7 armor configuration.
Both Abram M1A2C SEPv3 and Leopard 2A7+ has Israeli designed Trophy active protection system.
@@fulcrum2951 Turkish Leopard 2A4 is old.
Due to Turkish adventure against the Kurds, Germany halted Leopard 2 upgrades for Turkey.
US booted Turkey from F-35 JSF program which is lobbied by the Greek government. US is expanding its military base in Greece (against Turkish threats). US has an interest in Greek-Cyprus-Israel gas pipeline. Warning to Turkey, don't interfere with US gas/oil interest.
Credit Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for unifying EU and US foreign policy positions against Turkey.
On the issue of why the Leopard 2 was heavier than the Leopard 1, why the LeClerc is heavier than the AMX-30, etc. why even the Italians got into the game with the Ariete - I think the answer is two fold. 1) Big improvements in engine technology. With way more horsepower available you can haul more armor at speed. 2) With postwar austerity easing, and plentiful fuel from America being a safer assumption, the need to worry about fuel efficiency faded.
There's something almost magical listening to a german and an austrian talk about tanks x'D
The 50s through the 70s was the age of HEAT. Armor protection was irrelevant. Any hit was a kill. When composite armor was introduced it neutralized HEAT and the only way to kill a tank were kinetic rounds. Armor protection became important again.
RE: Air Force emphasis. The US and RAF also had superior ground attack aircraft and the C2 to use it efffectively.
This. Composite and reactive armor is why you saw a completely new generation of tanks in the late 70's - 80s. instead of the iterative development. "Pattons" to M1 , Chieftain to Challenger, Leo 1 to Leo2, T-72 to T-80. er... well maybe not.
not entirely.. HEAT has one small disadvantage - you need a lot of over-penetration to actually kill the target... at least 20%.. so shell that on paper can penetrate 400mm of armor, could fail to destroy a tank with 350mm armor... because it would not manage to have enough of "energy" to continue inside and hit something important...
plus armor slope was effective protection as well - as these HEAT shells had issue fusing against anything that was sloped higher than 70 degrees...
@@JaM-R2TR4 That was only true early on and was still vastly better than the APC and APDS of the time. And as warhead diameters got bigger and fuzing improved with tilt and shoulder switches, HEAT (and HESH) really was king.
@@jamestheotherone742 All true. Although HESH was rather easily defeated by spaced armour and spall liners. Another point: HEAT wasn't only used by OpFor tanks hitting the front, but also by infantry ambushes against the sides and by airborne tank hunters like choppers and ground attack planes. You couldn't slope against those. At first, speed was the tanks' only defense against those unguided and/or slow HEAT warheads , but then composite, spaced and ER armour suddenly could stop those threats even without prohibitive weight and sloping. And speed didn't protect anymore against the fast and accurate ATGMs of the 70s and 80s. The new armour did. That's why we then saw a change towards KE tank rounds, while during the 50s and 60s there were AT systems that totally relied on HEAT, like the Sheridan, Ontos, ST-1, Object 287, HU-1 etc.
"Unless you count Canada and Mexico as a major threat". Definitive, final answer: No. No we do not.
Thanks for creating such great content. Hope to see you do more and more interviews and museum videos. 👍
Leopard 1: Look grandpa! Look how fast i'm going!
Panzer 3:That's wonderful son, you're just like your grandpappy.
Leopard 1: Do you think i'll get to invade the Soviets like you did?
Panzer 3: No....*looks sadly into the distance*..and i hope you wont have to.
Oh the pain the Soviets could have dished out with masses of cheap RPG-7s..
Seriously. On the pain and misery that would have resulted in all sides.
More like "There is no more soviets after all"
The Germans had at the time the "Speed is Armor" concept. The problem with that idea is that they would be in a war of defense with the Warsaw Pact.
Maybe they could using speed get a few ambushes in but they are not going to sweep the stepps of Russia with their tanks.
I remember American tank men of this period saying their battle tactic would be to go hull down and then shoot and scoot falling back to other hull down positions. They acknowledge even presenting a very small target that just from sheer number of Russian tanks some of their tanks would take hits. A speed is armor tank is not going to do well in a defense battle.
Well, the question is, would the armor technology they had back then really be good enough to protect the crew if the tank receives a proper hit, and the the answer is most likely, no.
The Leopard 1 came out before composite armor was a thing. The HEAT rounds the warsaw block states had at the time were good enough to penetrate the frontal armor of every tank the NATO had at the time except for maybe the Chieftain. So what's the point to slap armor on the tank when most likely if it really comes to war with the warsaw pact it wouldn't do much anyway?
But what the Warsaw pact tanks often lacked at the time was a proper fire control system. So a fast moving tank would be very hard to hit for them.
So knowing this, the Leopard 1 made perfect sense for its time.
@@shi01 How are going to defend a strategic point, drive around in circles? Look at the Arab-Israeli wars. The Israelis seized strategic locations, went hull-down and made the other side attack them.
@@501Mobius And that was in fact also the german strategy. Basically wait in a hull down position until a warsaw pact tank drives in front of the barrel an kill him. But then what? You have to relocate immediatly and that's where the speed comes in. If a russian tank would spot you while relocating and you're in a slow tank, it's more likely that you get hit and as i already wrote, the armor of nearly all NATO tanks at the time didn't offer enough protection. You can't expect to have always perfect cover while relocating, so it's better to be fast while doing it.
@@501Mobius
IIRC, the concept was (or still is, I'm fairly sure it's still how you do defence) Defence in Depth.
You basically have an array of preprepared defensive lines, and you start off at the forward line, take a few shots and kill a few attackers, and then you retreat to the next line, take a few more shots and kill a few more attackers.
It's less like a wall, and more like an airbag, and to do it, you need mobility.
It's so much fun reading the automated transcript
I read a report many decades ago that said the Leopard was closely based on the Panther2 design that was not manufactured. The Germans felt the Panther was their best tank and with the reliability of the running gear fixed and a simplified wheel arrangement, that's what they wanted post-war.
not sure if it may count, but in Warthunder, I have both a Leopard 1 and a Panther II, and I still prefer the Panther II, while not as good with top speed, it excels in aceleration time, survability and ammunition effectiveness. First of all, the Panther II uses the 900hp fuel injected HL230, in contrast to the +800hp Diesel of the Leopard 1, so the Panther II can haul it's ass despite being heavier, also gearbox has more reduction, and so it has more Torque.
Both tanks have exactly the same turret slew rate, so it doesn't really matter.
Panther II already comes with NVG integrated and has room for many improvements.
Leopard 1 has a bigger gun, but the ammo being mostly APFSDS makes soft targets and contemporaries harder to kill, in contrast, while the Panther II carries a smaller gun, the Pzgr.39 APHE shell can effectively oneshot almost any target in front of it, since it was designed specifically to pen soft targets. However, this situation changes with the introduction of HEAT.
The Panther II has more armor than the Leopard 1, so it can withstand or even ricochet some hits, but the near 90° turret cheeks are a big con for the Panther II.
in the end, very similar vehicles, but each one with it's distinct features.
@@marcox4358 I'd be very cautious about a paper tank being emulated on a computer.
Leo I am you father... NOOO
That thumbnail was sooooo cute
I think that the Yom Kippur war of 1973 with its extensive use of hollow charge rounds (HEAT) played another important role for the adoption of heavier armor solutions. The original M1 , Challenger 1 and even Challenger 2 protection solution saw the chemical energy threat as the most important concern. The Haynes Manual books talk about this a bit. Declassified documents are also floating around that support this idea.
yeah but a leopard is a fast kitty
and also the tank
Hmmm, I might have to check some dates on things and some of the designs, pattern of tanks out there.
It seems to be that if the return of armour, the development of composite armour came out of the creation, vast improvements of the fire control system. When it became so easy to hit a fast moving target, the obvious reaction is to up armour, improve the protection.
Even 'basic' fire control of the 50's through 60's bring us to a point where if you can see it, you can hit. More modern systems only made that easier to do, even in reduced light conditions, night operations. High velocity cannon as well flatten the ballistic arc, make leading the target easier too.
Sure, using that big IR search light isn't exactly the safest option, it's still one way to do it.
It might be better to say that the vehicles of this period, Leopard 1, the 'light' MBT was in the time when fire control systems were still developing the tracking capability to match their speed, speed of the target. As soon as the tracking, stabilisation existed, protection on the vehicle had to be increased if you want to keep the same level, improve crew survivability.
You forgot to point out, that Leo1 is one of the best sounding tanks of all times :)
Your guess is wrong from the very start. Leopard was a direct result of that era advancement in HEAT firepower where no amount of practical amour could protect against HEAT projectiles. After a decade, composite armor came to be and Germans had developed Leopard 2 which follows tradition of big cats. Title and introduction to this video for me seems just charged with intent to push your own ideology and preference of light tanks over medium and especially heavy tanks.
"Why the Sherman was what it was" ~ The Chieftain
ruclips.net/video/TwIlrAosYiM/видео.html
The Sherman: any task, anytime, anywhere!
The Tiger broke the tradition. The Panther didn't. The latter was a (little bit too big and )heavy medium tank for manouvering warfare(If I remember correctly "schwerer mittlerpanzer" was the unofficial term). It has the frontal armour protection of a heavy tank and a cannon with heavy tank like penetration values, yet it was still able to go above 40 km/h on paved ground as required.
Why the Leopard is different in armour protection? Change happened. During the 50s, the handheld HEAT-grenade launchers, HEAT-rocket launchers and missile launchers became widespread. And these had much longer range than their WW" predecessors. Also,the technology for cannon-fired HEAT-rounds improved with the new piezoelectric triggers, so they can manufacture higher velocity HEAT ammo,that meant flatter trajectory and higher accuracy at longer ranges compared to earlier designs. Most tanks at the time can fire HEAT-rounds. For example,and again, "if I remember correctly", the HEAT-round for the D-10T 100 mm tank cannon(used by the T-54) can penetrate 360 mm of armour at any range(since HEAT armour penetration is not influenced by range).
The Bundeswehr realized, thanks to their WW2 experiences with multiple different tanks, and what I briefly mentioned above, that there is no point in putting together a 70 ton tank,when even one enemy soldier can severely damage or destroy it with one HEAT-warhead. Or the enemy 30 tank can do the same to this 'theoretical' 70 ton vehicle. They required the manufacturers to make something which meets the upper speed limit, is within weight limitations and can resist 20 mm autocannon ammo(of the era) and that's basically the reason for it.
The 20-30 ton panther medium tank became on the drawing board a 45 ton tank, and that's a lot more than any medium tank of its time.
@@2adamast In retrospective view,it's always a fascinating question,what falls into which category.( If the M24 Chaffee appeared in 1940, would it be considered a light tank or a medium tank?) Weapons and weapon systems changed just like their categorization.
In my opinion, the Panther was a heavy tank or heavy medium tank for manouvering warfare. By 1949-1950 standard, it would be a medium tank.
@@2adamast There is no 20 to 30 ton Panther nor would tehre ever have been one, even the first proposals by both MAN and DB already listed the estimated weight of the vehicle to be roughly 37 ton.
Dreachon Exactly, if it started as a demand for a medium tank, on the drawing board it was always a heavy tank. Compared to the heaviest m4 with 100mm of frontal armour the panther had 7 ton extra.
@@2adamast It never was a heavy tank, in no part of its design does the Panther comply to the specifications that are common to German heavy tank, in particular the rather thin side armor.
From the very start it was going to be a medium tank. Much like two of its direct counterparts such as the M26 and the Centurion the Panther is one of those tanks that start to blur the lines between the medium and heavy class.
In its first model the T26 was classed as a medium tank, it was with the second version the T26E1 that it got reclassified to a heavy tank, this remaiend with the next model the T26E3 until in 1946 all modesl of the tank were reclassified as a medium tank.
Centurion began initially as a Heavy Cruiser tank and it woul remain so until 1948 when with the introduction of the mk III it got reclassified as a medium tank by the British army.
He get's less annoying with every video. Quite some progress.
Bernhard, when he speaks about the recon tank, at 3:15-ish minutes, is he talking about what Aufklärungspanzer Panther?
Imo the Leo 2a4 are still the best.
The old choice, more armour less speed, more speed less armour.
Obviously you're correct, but a little out of date. By which I mean considering the space/weight ratio per-horsepower output of modern engines. Extremely heavy tanks are now more peppy and acceleration-y than the fastest light and medium WWII tanks, to the point now where we see the somewhat alarming trends of 70 ton tanks drifting(!) and jumping(!!) becoming popular.
My favorite tank in wow
I went to a public lecture at my local College, about thermal, and image intensifying, scope systems, in 1976. I think it was sponsored by M.E.L., who I remember made them locally. All the images were green, but you could certainly see more than Eyeball M.I. and, as the lecturer pointed out, you didn't have to have every infrared sighted enemy shooting at you within seconds, as you would with a IR searchlight.
In the Australian Army we used the angular Leopard 1A4. It was impressive in it's performance and I enjoyed having a ride and being in it as it jumped of 1 metre berms. (My job was as a recon soldier) The doctrine was again high speed tank force with laser rangefinders giving a high first shot - hit probability. From discussions with a friend, who was Australian Sergeant on exchange service with the British Army Heavy Dragoons, using the Chieftain the doctrine was the West German army and allies using the Leopard out front and the Chieftain employed in a tank killer role about 1km or more back into killing zones. The 120mm had a much greater range and the tank had more armour (Rubbish engine at the time) so they blended their doctrine with NATO as a whole strategy to resist combined Warsaw Pact attack with other arms such as Helicopter and Air strikes. The NATO strategy was paramount. Most scenarios ended with battlefield nuclear weapon deployment and probably the end of days. It is hard to convey the suicidal mutually assured destruction that Cold War strategies that countries in Europe and everywhere expected IF someone started a conflict in Europe again.
The Leopard 2 was developed under the shock of the Yom Kippur war 1973, when Egyptian ATGM-teams destroyed large numbers of Israeli tanks. Therefore improving the armor against hollow charges became imperative.
I think it's worth pointing out that Panther had a better power to weight ratio than the Panzer 3, a similar operational range, and because it had wider treads it should have had better cross country performance. Discounting the reliability issues, on paper despite its heavy armor the Panther was mobile enough to fit in with the war of movement concept.
As USUAL another excellent video. SO glad you are talking to a German about German tanks.
combining the words operation(s)al and maneuver warfare is rather iffy when discussing German tactics. The Germans were damn good at maneuver warfare but the Soviets were the ones who came up with the successful intergration of operational and maneuver warfare in the Deep Battle idea. Just using maneuver warfare or Bewegungskrieg would be more accurate.
I always did think the Leopard and the panther looked similar. Like siblings almost.
Well Panzer 3 & 4s were orginally quite lightly armoured.
I think the Leopard was probably more reliable than a British cruiser tank in North Africa .
I love how Generals and Admirals always say speed will save you in a battle. The only way speed will save you if you can out run the shell that is after you. I think Jutland showed us that. That's just my opinion.
Speed helps you get to where you need to be and still have time to disengage. Don’t be there -> Don’t be seen -> Don’t be targeted -> Don’t be hit -> Don’t be penetrated -> Don’t be killed
@@talltale9760 Your talking in the days of inferred, satellite and drones. No one going to be un notices. The battle field is going to be a blood bath and that speed isn't going to help.
Donald Grant drones aren’t invincible and neither are satellites. Shit the F-15 has a confirmed satellite kill
Very interesting chat, thank you!
1 does it kill Coronavirus ?
2 does it make tea ?
Most ammunition types are somewhat effective at killing sars-cov-2 in vitro. However, there hasn't yet been funding for human trials.
@Max Paine Injection? You shoot a collection of viruses. Some of them are rendered inert.
@@sealpiercing8476 Well, they should start trials soon. Everyone knows that if Italy takes too many casualties from coronavirus, they'll switch sides and help Covid19 conquer Europe. It's their standard doctrine.
Yes, but you also kill the human body that houses the croronavirus...
" so your father was a a nazi huh...!?
Panther was maneuverable, so I didn't get it.
The panther was more maneuverable than the panzer IV.
There was ~8500 PZ IV and 6.000 Panther.
So: I still not get it, why the Panther not followed the german tradition and maneuver warfare.
"Panther was maneuverable"
*Laughs in 150 mile range*
*Cackles in engine catching fire going backwards*
@@The_Crimson_Fucker
Avg ~2000 km was the Panther range between big maintence same as the Panzer IV.
Panzer IV range was 230 km
Panther range was 200km.
You are wellcome. :)
Every gasoline engine could catch fire going backwards khm..sherman..khm..
@@The_Crimson_Fucker The first generation had some major issues with the Gearbox which was constructed for the lighter planned version. The 2nd generation Panther 2 had all the kinks ironed out. Speaking of which did you know the Shermans range was 100-150 miles??? So yeah makes the Panther look quite good considering its alot heavier.
@@canisxv9869 Panther never had problem with the gearbox, it had problem with the final drive.
For the Ausf A the germans solved all the big issues, and in 1944 april it had the same reliability as a Panzer IV.
Check out the The most Controversial Panzer video from Military History Visualized
.
@@canisxv9869
"M4's range is 150 miles"
That's operational range, i.e. how long it can go before it doesn't have enough fuel to get all the way back again. The M4's range on a single fuel tank is thereby double.
The M4's mechanical range was probably higher than any other thank of WW2 - the fact that the Americans _drove_ their M4s all the way to Berlin aught to demonstrate that well enough.
The number I referenced for the Panther was something MHV mentioned in another video about how far Panther could to go before something broke or it needed a significant refit.
The operational range of the Panther was 60-120 miles, so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I get the feeling you're assmad about something, I just can't quite put my finger on it. All I know is it has something to do with the word "wehraboo".
Leo 1 is around 42 Tonne so not really "light". :) Leo 2 is around 62 Tonne.
This are the latest version (1A5, Canadian ones etc.) which have much more armor, the early Leo1s were not that heavy
@@UsoundsGermany OK the Leo 1 A0 was 40T - agreed not 42T but still not "light".
@@whya2ndaccount leo is classed as an mbt not a light tank tho and its power to weight ratio is still one of the best
@@UsoundsGermany I never said it wasn't an MBT?? In the video its says its "light" 9:20 - 10:20 (in terms of real world weight not "waste of time" fantasy definitions), which is why I made the comment. Jez, if I known it was going to become so complex I would have let it slide since you at least weren't listening.
At 5:30 you said exactly what I was thinking. Moving away from armored bulwark tanks and to better mobility seems more like a return to the German/Prussian tradition of mobility in battle to me. Much like "blitzkrieg" is in effect cavalry tactics with tanks and radios in place of horses and flags/trumpets/couriers.
+Corwin Hyatt
The beasts like Tiger and to some extend Panther were very unGerman. Tiger was a support / breakthrough tank that got catapulted in becoming the Rock Star of its time, but wasn't at all the type of tank the Germans would have used their original offensive operations. It marks where politics and propaganda hijacked the military doctrine.
11:11 Ah, I was wondering whether this Bundeswehr museum had any stuff from the National Volksarmee... Seems like a T-72, a bit unfair to put a Leopard 1 against that...
That's a T-55AM
I think after WWII each country deigned a new tank using characteristics of the tanks they had opposed and which had given them troubles.
LostInPA
Except the USSR?
There’s a continuity from the KV1 to the JS3 and from the T34 to the T54.
jerry2357 That’s true. 👍
There is another tank that somewhat fits into this breaking of tradition, dating even during the second world war. Panzer II had late-war recon version named "Luchs" or lynx. Though I guess lynx is not traditionally considered as "big cat"
Leopard is not a small recon tank though, it was designed as a fast MBT
Americans like to move.. so mobile warfare is easy to grasp and just part of their nature. ( Maybe because their country is large ?).. Would Germans and even British feel that way ?
Soviets already figured out by 1964 how to make a tank that can be mass produced with composite armour and the best that the germans can come up with is an overweight porsche with a gun.
That overweight porsche will beat that mass produced tank with a good crew any day^^. And definetly outrun it..... And its not overweight if you have a proper propulsion system and the Leos propulsion is quite sufficient if you look at the top speed. So no, in my opinion you are talking bullshit. top speed leopard: 70 kph, top speed T 72: 65 kph..... weight leopard 1: 30 t, weight t72: 42t.... so yeah lighter, faster who´s a overweight porsche now?
LOL ..the T 64 was surely e revolutionary design ... but had according to my knowledge many technicasl flaws and was unreliable; he replaced the heavy T 100 tanks and was never the standard tank of the Russian army; many units in the WP were equipped with the T55 till the mid 80ies, T
@@canisxv9869 Leopard 1, first production model: 40t. Thats without any useless addon armour that later models got. I dont know where the fuck you got 30t from lol. Also no stabilizer and no ammunition that can effectively fight a T-64. When later leopard 1 models got upgraded ammunition, the majority of soviet mbt's were immune to it. So yeah not a very impressive tank.
@Mialisus You have no clue at all. Leopard 1 is anything but flexible. The only thing it could do somewhat effectively is fight aging T-55's (only non upgraded ones) and lightly armored vehicles. Forget about even standing a chance against tanks like the T-64 and T-72. Forget about supporting infantry effectively because its armor could protect against any kind of handheld AT weapon (even ww2 era) or tank cannon. You misuse or just dont understand the meaning of "modernisation". T-64 was contiously upgraded even when newer tanks like the T-80 appeared because it wasn't completely outclassed by its opposition unlike the leo 1 which were replaced in units that were fielding it as soon as enough leopard 2's were avaible. You talk about slowing production lines or whatever you are imagining, maybe you should look at how many T-64, T-72 and T-80 were produced compared to leopard 1's even individually type by type lol.
@@komradearti9935 Saying that the leo 1 with addon armour is the same as an M60 which is atleast completely immune (including the hull not just turret) to 100mm aphe rounds frontally is a bit of a stretch. It also had no chance of stopping anything that the 115mm and the 125mm guns fired. It would only protect against ww2 era aphe and the 3bm8 and only on the turret. You say no tank was safe from shoulder launched rpg's yet the T-64 was completely resistant frontally to weapons like the LAW and also to the majority of HEAT warheads in the NATO arsenal when it was introduced. Even the T-55AM which can be found in this museum had decent protection against most RPGs. Soviet tanks were found vulnerable to APFSDS rounds, specifically the israeli m111. APDS and HEAT rounds couldn't do anything to the frontal plate of tanks like the T-64.
The leopard 1 might have been in production for as long as the T-64 but look at the numbers built.
Moving with the times
I have said before, and I reiterate my thinking, but the Americans with the Sherman M4 was the best tank of WWII. It sacrificed armor for speed, therefore making is very maneuverable in the fields of battle. I must admit, but I do have a love affair with the Panzer IV which I believe is nearly the best of WWII. YES, the Panzer V or Tiger 1 definitely had it's place in the war...and much needed. But, the Panther was not...IMHO. Rather the Nazi Germans should have increased production of Panzer IV and more improvements to Tiger 1. The Tiger II was SO SO SO unnecessary and a waste of Nazi Germany resources and time!! YES, it is purrrty to look at, but waste nevertheless. Wonderful video and format!! Merci