How Leopard 2 Tank Can Destroy Russia’s T-90 in Seconds!

Support CuriousReason:
✔ Patreon: / curiousreason
✔ Stuff I recommend: www.amazon.com/shop/curiousre...
✔ PayPal: paypal.me/Diyorbek
✔ KZbin Membership: https: bit.ly/2Qt5Gna
The Leopard 2 is one of the world’s most common main battle tanks, used by militaries on four continents. As such, the market for upgrades that bring the older versions up to the latest standards of protection and lethality is large. The primary player here is Krauss-Maffei Wegman, the original designer of the Leopard 2, who markets a variety of kits and new versions of the Leopard 2.
Before delving into the details of the update kits, it’s important to realize what standard the majority of the world’s Leopards are at. The majority of Leopard 2s operated worldwide are of the Leopard 2A4 standard, which was made between 1985 and 1992.
The Leopard 2A4 has the characteristic flat turret front, an all-digital fire-control system, an L44 gun, a hydraulic turret drive, and a thermal gunner’s sight. They do not have an independent thermal commander's sight, advanced guns, or add-on armor.
Is the Leopard 2 better than the Abrams?
Is Leopard 2 a good tank?
What is so special about Leopard 2 tanks?
Has the Leopard 2 seen combat? Are Leopard 2 tanks in Ukraine?
Interesting stuff I found for myself:
✔www.amazon.com/shop/curiousre...
Special Thanks to Patreon Supporters:
Sannu, Bill Pearce, Miroslav Houdek
Lets chat:
✔Twitter: / reasoncurious
✔Facebook: / curiousreason1
✔Subreddit: / curious_reason
✔Instagram: / curious_reason
Business inquiries: [e-mail]
#leopard2a6 #tank #ukraine

[@shax0823]

Well this age like milk

[@Gonan246]

Huh, even the leopard tank was destroyed before it came face to face with the Russian troops 😂

[@ayuex1871]

Look the t90m😂

[@bimoarioseno9414]

How Zala lancet drone destroy Milion dollars tank leopard with a second

[@Necromancer_88]

IRIS-T is much much expensive than a Leo2

[@thepullahirubc5347]

😂😂😂😂 leopard tanks arrived and both destroyed 😂😂😂 it is not a leopard 🐆 it is 🐃

[@shax0823]

The artillery watching this from afar

[@rheinjaegerY]

Lol yeah, now the leopard 2a6s are in ukraine, oh sorry, they just got destroyed🤣

[@martinp.orbesen115]

Are you under mental care ?

[@charlesscholten1469]

Leopards have less armor then challangers and abram but stil a good tank. But armor is Stil beter then rusian tanks. Also the have a compartment for the ammo so the don't blow up skyhigh yes one was realy distroyed. But most are fixeble depends on the hit. And how big the explosion is. But the leopard tanks are maked for being fast and mobility so the have less armor then the challanger and abram. So the are also faster to the Frontline. If it's on good ground then you can drive and shot. It's hard for any other tank to hit it. Every tank can be distroyed. Ore taken down. Also oekraïne trained with it but training is always difrent then in a real war. You mast know what you're tank can do and what is the best option to use it.

[@RussiaZVO978]

They didn't even last 3 days 😆😆😆😆 the Russians burn Leopards very well.

[@ayuex1871]

Like t90ms😂

[@Vinprvx]

Your turrets are flying very well my brother 😉

[@frantz7534]

How Leopard 2 Tank Can be Destroyed by Russians in Seconds! BIG LOL

[@stefiv6270]

we saw that in ukrainia. Russians demolished with shovels...Easy come easy go.

[@andreyklockov777]

now we see that the leopard is just a tank the same as Т72

[@HinokasArabfan1]

This statement did not hold up very well.

[@user-gr3vx1qn3p]

funny to watch it now, when leopards being smoked in Ukraine everyday lol

[@alejandrocasalegno1657]

Many Leopards were destroyed without even see a T-90........

[@jhwheuer]

By falling debris of exploding Russian tanks? Russia delenda est.

[@bizepsberti3683]

T14 pure stealth - never seen in combat lol

[@murkywateradminssions5219]

That's Stallinium for you!

[@MoseleyJon]

Clever, but WHY would the T14 have been in combat?

[@murkywateradminssions5219]

@@MoseleyJon to prove the westoids wrong obviously. Makes for excellent propaganda about how the T14 can actually compete against western MBTs...

[@MoseleyJon]

@@murkywateradminssions5219 But after 1200 years of being invaded from the East and the West, Russia does not fight battles to create a show or entertain people or make news stories. They have never fought wars based on how it looks to other people. They have learned that when you show off, people die. So they don't care what anyone thinks. They will systematically win and celebrate their total victory.

[@Cuman.m285]

​​​@@MoseleyJonto defeat and kill NATO(!!!!) GAY SATAN forces in Ukraine? To save the lives of their tankers? Or do they like to watch the burnt bodies of their tankers in the T72 (80,90) and the torn towers?

[@ChandranPrema123]

Leopard 2 got destroyed before it even say T90M😂

[@madgamer-hd4hg]

No tank can withstand artillery and it wasn’t destroyed it could easily be fixed

[@luka2298]

Ahahaha cope harder NAFO bič

[@madgamer-hd4hg]

@@luka2298 the video of the T-90M getting destroyed due to a RPG-7 😭😭😂😂

[@NobleSix-1403]

@@madgamer-hd4hg i just watched vid of quite few leopards and ur ukies "heroes" being on fire cope harder and go suck biden balls

[@Deezehere]

Right lol ,leopard got took out by an rpg

[@nguyenhuynh3605]

Guess what?

[@_Sh1ne_]

didn't age well, huh

[@jaromor8808]

this aged like a milk 😁😁😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@matthendricks9666]

The T14 can also fly and can destroy targets from a distance of 95 miles. It can swim and travel back in time.

[@nomad7843]

😂

[@plozar]

It must be an electric tank then too.

[@fernandoc.dacruz1162]

Inclusive é o tanque do juízo final, do apocalipse, do Armagedom e todas essas bobices que russetes inventam para lamber as bolas do Putin.

[@kierans1159]

Pretty sure the turret will fly anyway.

[@SlimShady_1]

😂😂😂

[@themog4090]

Aged like Milk

[@cfalletta7220]

You know that Russia doesn’t have any t14s on the battlefield right?

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

it doesn't even need the T14 anyway, even the T-90M is already capable enough to destroy the latest Leopard. In fact even the older Russian tanks including T-72b3 can destroy the Leopard

[@Texo333]

​@@xAlexTobiasxB every tank can destroy any tank. Even some ww2 tanks can kill modern tanks

[@pepe_6931]

@@xAlexTobiasxB so you fell for russian propaganda?

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

@@pepe_6931 if you mean by _"Russian propaganda"_ reality and facts, then yes

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

@@sieuwkedevries5211 no I was talking about the leopard 2, which doesn't have any more armor on the vulnerable sides than the Leo 1 or literally any other tank. And even the strong front armor still has weak spots too, such as the gun mantlet (if the gun breech is hit and damaged the tank becomes useless without working gun) let alone if the crew even survives the penetration in the gun mantlet The Leopard is not as invincible as you think, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your expectations are just totally unrealistic. Reality doesn't work that way.

[@RakibHasan-ee2cd]

Aged like milk

[@staliniosifvissarionovich5588]

this aged well.

[@maulzt]

Aged very well 💀

[@jean-pierrevandermerwe7604]

Well this didnt age well 😂

[@Stockfish1511]

Lmao they proved to be total garbage. "best tank in the world" Rather scrap metal.

[@TheAlexkor]

The T14 is a myth so far.

[@PropperNaughtyGeezer]

Dangerous tank. Plywood is hard to detect with radar.

[@ChristiaanHofman]

Especially 90 km/h with that poop engine is doubtful

[@zakiulrifat6913]

Modern anti tank missiles are very effective i will not get surprised if leopard 2 and Abraham also gets destroyed but the difference is western media is not going to highlight that.I don't who gonna win this war but i know this that Russia already lost the information war.

[@jimh527]

​@@PropperNaughtyGeezer The Taliban didn't have any tanks.

[@MorningNapalm]

Not a myth, a few have broken down in Russian parades.

[@willmigl3620]

I would pick a challenger or Abrams way before a leopard

[@pacus123]

Challenger is burning as well!

[@willmigl3620]

@@pacus123 when will the Abrams get to the front?

[@thiefysteals1845]

Cornball, thats why they are cooking up right now XD

[@hg6996]

The power rating of the Leopard 2 is actually quite conservative. 1500 HP is a limited rating. Without limitations it's engine can put out 1800 HP.

[@Aer0n023]

Yeah for the extra 300hp you need to bring it to a tuning workshop and re-program or install a new computer chip instead of the default from the factory. #pimpmytank

[@hg6996]

@@Aer0n023 No. Just override the default limiter. The limit isn't there because the engine couldn't do it but because the cooling system can only deal with a certain amount of heat. The full power of the engine would overheat it very fast.

[@carstenbellazon2702]

Higher power reduces the range and lifespan.

[@pmfx65]

@@carstenbellazon2702 That's important in training! Going to the front spare the engine is not the main issue ....

[@MoseleyJon]

Which is pretty much irrelevant because nobody fights tank on tank massive battles any more

[@shredder8790]

That aged like milk xD

[@mariobadia4553]

Huh....... This is awkward

[@ralfhtg1056]

As a US-General recently stated: "You don't need tanks. Unless you want to win."

[@MoseleyJon]

You do need tanks. If you want to win, fire the generals

[@highqualityorangejuice420]

​@@MoseleyJon huaheauah????

[@pinkdrakula1001]

no tanks gona be useless in the future , there is many reasons for that , cost of advancment of anti tanks weapons are far more cheaper then advancment of tanks, especially drones

[@ralfhtg1056]

@@pinkdrakula1001 Nope. The death of the tank has been prophecised over and over again... It will not disappear in the foreseeable future.

[@pinkdrakula1001]

@@ralfhtg1056 doesnt matter if was prophecised in past, now tehnology are going much flaster then in the past , so that changes everthing and tanks gona be useless and replaced by some Kind of fighting drones Robots who gona be controlled by distance

[@RyanSantos-cn5ij]

I just watched leopards got destryoyed in ukrain. I guess too much features dont really matter.

[@dkcb7]

The suspension of the Leopard 2 is well designed, you don't feel driving on rough terrain, it literally floats on the ground

[@ssryr6427]

But can't defeat Taliban 🤣🤣

[@nicoheinila8198]

I can agree with you because I was driver of Leopard 2 in the military.

[@bovverFS]

@@ssryr6427 Are you a clown or troll?

[@Nitrox_909]

​@@ssryr6427 ?

[@ilius1987]

Can it handle east-european roads though? J/K I can't wait for these to reach ukraine.

[@olafschonwei6420]

I think offensive weapons like tanks will keep meaning when you want to get back ground. You cannot do that with drohnes or anti-tank missiles alone

[@TaylorLiam87]

​@@Johnnyprc yeah drones will very soon evolve to ground platforms also. The Australian army just showed of those Boston dynamics dog robots being integrated with squads and being controlled with brain signals from the controller so they aren't limited with a handheld control unit. The future will be coming very soon.

[@MoseleyJon]

And you also can't take back ground with about 60 Western tanks that Ukraine can't maintain, doesn't know how to use, which are not built for the rough terrain of muddy Ukraine, and which are in very small numbers

[@rientsdijkstra4266]

T14: they only have 14 of them, and they are mainly good at breaking down in a parade on red square.

[@TrccrT]

Thats wrong. You only saw 8 of them in the parades 😂

[@rientsdijkstra4266]

@@TrccrT You are right. The other 6 already broke down.

[@martinp.orbesen115]

Probably because the commanders of the Russian Army is selling the engines in the black market. The level of incompetence is beyond description

[@aqep]

That means theres only 72 T-72's,Right?No,you stupid idiotic idiot.

[@agenthurricane6519]

this aged poorly

[@lucks4fools978]

This aged very poorly

[@reddevilparatrooper]

I used to be a gunner and tank commander on the M1A1 Abrams. As first as a gunner I was impressed by it's stabilization system, its so smooth when rolling on smooth roads and choppy terrain. As a gunner I can track a target when acquired very quickly, laser range, and fire at a target at 1500 to 2000 meters with a magnification of 3 to10 power day sight magnification and the same using the TIS Thermal Imaging System. This is done from battle position and engaging targets on the move to how fast the driver can move to the next covered position. A good gunner can do this 7 seconds or less on the move, even faster on a covered battle position with multiple targets. What makes the Abrams deadly is the crew as a tank. The troop commander must be sharp in employing his platoons in combat, from platoon to each tank commander to the guiding principles of tank combat. Those principles are to "Move, Shoot, and Communicate". Same thing like in infantry combat. Survivability is using tactics aggressively in offense or defense. Fight as a team along with your platoon, cover your infantry and infantry will be happy to kill enemy anti-armor and infantry while covering you. Not a new concept, the Germans employed this during WWII. NATO employs this concept. Armor never fights alone without infantry and artillery.

[@gr4172]

As a German I really like the Leopard, but I think the Abrams is alltogether a better tank.

[@solidsteel3634]

@@gr4172 I see them both as equals. Yes, the M1 uses DU ammo and the Leo doesn't. In return, the Leo has a cannon with the L/55 that can do the same. in fact, the Leo has outperformed the M1 on more than one exercise...

[@shannonhenson609]

Western Armor never fights without significant air cover, either.

[@reddevilparatrooper]

@@shannonhenson609 Combined arms mutual support.

[@MoseleyJon]

The Russians will enjoy these M1A1 tanks very much when they arrive a year after the war has been lost to Russia

[@markpeterson1399]

Suddenly everyone is an military expert, and spewing BS

[@none-iq2dj]

well now they will have to be improved to destroy anti-tank missiles instead of t 90

[@arniepayne2906]

I trained on the M-48 and the M-60 MBT in 1969. These new tanks are so far above what I trained on it is like a whole new weapon system. Ended up on an M-113 in Vietnam/Cambodia. I don't think that amour will ever go away. You still need to close with the enemy with tanks and infantry and artillery. You still have to go in and dig them out of the hidy holes.

[@robertstevenson5145]

Agreed...i cant believe just because russia used they're tanks incorrectly its calling into doubt the whole need for tanks.After the Ukrainian counter offensive with the tanks and use of combined arms this entire debate of are tanks obsolete will fall out of sight.

[@t.k.1448]

Tanks' vulnerability to drones will most likely mean that the next major development will be improved anti-drone defenses. Either all future tanks will be equipped with a degree of anti-drone countermeasures, or armored units will be accompanied by an armored vehicle dedicated to the task of drone detection and elimination - a Gepard for the 21st century.

[@rhabeldibabeldi6812]

There are already some nice systems to protect against drones etc so I can imagine, tanks will still play a certain role in modern battlefields. But then again I have never been to a real battlefield nor is my military knowledge that great. In my mind, having a tank against you is really tough on the morale but I would love to hear some more experticed (is that a real word?) oppinion on that topic.

[@CruzHackett]

Get Shovel'ed?

[@thoso1973]

The Russian T-14 is a parade tank; only few protypes made. The manufacturer doesn't have the materials or means to mass produce them.

[@nomad7843]

And they were towed because they couldn't run itself 😂 It was directly middle of the parade

[@TrccrT]

They cant get the western civilian optics anymore that they need for the tank 😂

[@MoseleyJon]

Russia is the richest country on Earth in terms of natural resources. If the USA wanted to buy "the materials or means to mass produce" a tank they would go to Russia to get them. That's why the sanctions aren't working. Russia is comlpetely self-reliant.

[@thoso1973]

@@MoseleyJon Russia has pretty much no tech sector or advanced manufacturing. They rely on imports for technology. The best weapons system they can build, all contain Western and/or Chinese/Japanese/South Korean parts.

[@MoseleyJon]

@@thoso1973 That's the kind of horse malarkey that caused this war. RIght now the only nation on Earth that has a manned space program is Russia. Not the United States. Russia. Gen. Tsun Szu would be so ashamed of you. You neither know yourself nor your enemy. You will always lose. You don't think the rigors of travel of humans to Earth orbit error-free for regular taxi service to the International Space Station is "high tech" enough for you? The United States has no advanced manufacturing. The USA has outsourced its manufacturing to China, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. Russia has more advanced manufacturing than the United States

[@valteu]

I really think tanks wont become obsulete because you can have the most advanced airpower and anti tank weapones but for advancing on the ground a protected vehicle with high firepower will still be needed. Of course Tanks are pretty weak when used alone and without combined arms doctrines. And we should consider that anti air weapones will get better as well

[@MoseleyJon]

THIS man actually knows something. Instead of being a mindless cheerleader, this is an intelligent comment and smar tinsight. It doesn't matter about the tanks. Its how you USE the tanks that matters

[@crippleguy415]

You need one of these when traveling thru Chicago .

[@yiyangqin4527]

lmaooooooooooooooo

[@scottsauritch3216]

The only leopard 2 with active protection system is The leopard 2 a7+, it's APS is Israel's Trophy system same as the M1A2SEP3/4. Now, KMW has something(I think developed together with Israel. I could be totally wrong on that though.) I think it's called something like "Iron fist" or something, it's what's offered with the new Lynx KF-41. They are the small 2X "defeat round" ejectors on turret roof... It works great and all, obviously the Germans would prefer their own APS. But with all the ATGM threats today, they realized they just needed to get an active protection on the leopard as soon as possible. Trophy is proven in Gaza, and has been operational since ~2013-15 while the KMW is just getting into production...

[@jonny2954]

Iron Fist is also from Israel. The Hungarian version of the Lynx IFV carries a German developed APS, Rheinmetall ADS.

[@honkdatonk1819]

The ADS from Rheinmetall is called strikeshield. It is integrated in the hull of the Lynx.

[@matfax]

Meanwhile, the T-14 doesn't have a real APS. A real APS triggers automatically. This video is quite inaccurate. It makes the impression that all Leopard 2s are the same. But how many upgraded A7+ models exist?

[@honkdatonk1819]

The Leo2 with trophy is called Leopard 2 A7A1! 14 were upgraded for VJTF in lithuania.

[@Schmudini]

​@Matthias ukraine doenst get any if I am not wrong on this. They got a mix of different Models. A4 from Poland, A6 from Germany. As far as I know is the Bundeswehr already upgrading all the tanks to A7 level. But that can take years, till its really achieved .

[@mickcorbett6724]

The tank is a ground based, mobile weapons platform. Great also for holding ground when an area has been won. Not sure anything else can replace it.

[@thegoodboy4699]

is determant to the situation i think on open fields yes in a city, have fun being in hell with a tank infantry is better to defend citys in most cases i think

[@m.rainer4151]

I'm pretty sure there will always be situations where tanks will be your best bet, mainly for overrunning fortified positions of course. And who would come up with the idea of ​​doing without infantry altogether just because you can stop them with a bullet?

[@ut561]

good video and you have a good presentation style, easy to hear and understand :)

[@mikeglenn5212]

It's accurate fire, maneuverability, plus its fire rate. It has combined armor meaning metal, then air, then metal meaning it can take a beating. Not to mention the blow out panels and blocker doors give it a huge advantage against T-72/90s.

[@mister_jayHD]

If the Ammorack is hit while reload, the crew is as dead as a T-72 crew. Even if the ammorack is closed, I am not sure that the blast door will withstand the blast of a muniton cookof any more. It was designed for the ealier munitions and did not get an upgrade since then. Nevertheless they have a much higher chance of survival. Crew mortality on T-72: ~70%. Leo2: ~25%

[@MoseleyJon]

But nobody fights tank on tank battles. So not relevant.

[@berty1422]

They do not have blow out panels on the roof....where captured Javelins and NLAWS operate. That is why the Pentagon are reluctant to supply Abrams to the Ukrainian army.

[@berty1422]

@@mister_jayHD Garbage...lol. there are no stats for T-72, leopard, challenger, or Abrams in the Ukraine conflict.

[@mikeglenn5212]

@@berty1422 blow out panels aren't armor lol. There in place to keep the ammo from exploding and killing the crew instantly like you see when all those t-72 explode and the turret is sent flying in the air. Blowout panels are a layer of survivability and have nothing to do with if a javlin hits on the top or not. It just has to do with the weakest point of the armor. And as I've already said several times, T-72 are just steel plates, while modern tanks actually are made in layers with armor then a layer of air between making it much more difficult to kill as it can take several hits before giving way.

[@westmckay-iu9cb]

How's the counter offensive going?

[@inkubusarchitektde]

One question remains: how can the leopard 2 destroy a T90 in seconds? Everything but the title of video was shown.

[@matfax]

Clickbait

[@inkubusarchitektde]

@@matfax am i the only one, who is mad?

[@matfax]

@@inkubusarchitektde Might be, I'm used to Clickbait in YT.

[@aufr1435]

​​@@matfax Ist heute fast überall üblich.

[@Muromez2010]

Have anyone seen T14 🤷‍♂️🤣😅😂

[@CuriousReason]

There are footages of them active in Ukraine.

[@pepe_6931]

@@CuriousReason the t14 isnt even in active service in the russian army. All claims of the t14 beeing in ukraine have been debunked already

[@anonymusum]

Yes, being towed on Red Square.

[@jacksonteller1337]

They are always sent to active conflict zones without participating in the fighting because they are non functional. That way they can advertise they were proven in battle because they were shown moving into Syria. They haven't been deployed to Ukraine as they would have been captured or destroyed by the first encounter with a real army even when used stationary to defend a base. It is the worst tank design ever seen and that used to be a French WWII tank (Char B1).

[@marcoherrmann1820]

Only in moscow,where it broke down in the middle of Russias victory day parade😂

[@SlimShady_1]

Awesome video. Keep up the good work 🙌🏼

[@CuriousReason]

Thank you! Will do!

[@goncaloferreira8543]

And it has been conform that at least 1 Leopard tank was destroyed in the recent Ukrainian counter offensive/ probing attacks. And no I'm not talking about that pathetic attempt of the Russian MoD and the tractor that even made Russian bloggers making fun of them.

[@davidperfette1425]

They will likely always have value in combined arms warfare, which will protect them from those threats you outlined. Alone, yeah, they are very vulnerable.

[@Nanogenium]

The real fun fact is actually, that the M1 Abrams has the same 120mm canon like the Leo. The americans build them with a license from Rheinmetall in the US.

[@schmiddi6538]

If the T-14 is ready to run, there isnt a leopard2 against him, it woult be be the KF51 Panther 😂

[@wanderschlosser1857]

Sure the T-14 will be ready that soon?

[@xidthehermit_kuf2159]

LOL

[@pvught390]

German cars. German weapons. German design. German knowhow. German engineer. Are amazing.

[@nomad7843]

Genau

[@Sindimindi]

Da hast Du recht!😉🇩🇪

[@mwtrolle]

especially compared to USSR/Russian/PRC/Iranian/North Korean...

[@Pte1643]

Hmmm. How did that work out in the two world wars?

[@pvught390]

@@Pte1643 Reality isn't not you strong point. Germany is the strongest economy in Europe after the war. 😂

[@danielmocsny5066]

Tanks are like the battleships of the land. Back in the old days when naval guns were the main weapon, battleships relied on big guns and heavy armor. The only way to defeat a battleship was with another battleship. But along came smaller and (often) cheaper weapons to defeat battleships: the naval mine, the torpedo, the torpedo boat, the submarine, the aircraft, and the (not cheaper) aircraft carrier. The battleship hung around for decades while being gradually relegated to carrier escort and shore bombardment. The last battleship-vs.-battleship surface engagement was on 25 October 1944, the Battle of Surigao Strait. After World War II, no more battleships were built, and only the USA continued to operate its last Iowa class battleships until finally turning them into museum ships. During this process, battleship design kept reacting to the expanding threats, for example by adding torpedo blisters and ever-more anti-aircraft guns (along with radar gun-layers, VT proximity shells, and so on). But as the death of the Yamato showed, a battleship without its own air cover was a sitting duck for enemy aircraft. The tank might be on a path similar to the battleship, with some differences. Out on the ocean it's hard to hide a battleship, so it was rare for a battleship to sneak up on weaker opponents and ambush them. That fate did befall Taffy 3 during the Battle off Samar, thanks to Admiral Halsey's spectacular incompetence. But generally speaking, the battleship was at a huge disadvantage relative to aircraft carriers and submarines, which could often detect and attack a battleship long before the battleship or its escorting destroyers could strike back. In contrast, tanks on land have more ability to hide and to get loose among lesser-armed opponents. We've seen the videos of Ukrainian T-72s driving over Russian trenches and blasting infantry with HE shells and machine guns. Even though man-portable anti-tank weapons keep improving, it's still hard to have enough them with every infantry unit in every trench. Especially for the Russian army it seems. If the tank is indeed going the way of the battleship, recall that with battleships it took about 40 years from the first torpedo boat until the last battleship surface battle, and the torpedo boat itself while being the first credible non-battleship threat to battleships wasn't the weapon that eventually ended the battleship. (Torpedo boats themselves were vulnerable to "torpedo boat destroyers" which eventually became the destroyer.) Tanks might similarly hang on for years to come. The video predicts that aerial drones and ATGMs might do the job. I suspect the final blow could come from land-based drones acting as mobile anti-tank mines. Navigating on the ground is a lot harder, cognitively speaking, than flying through the open air, which is why autonomous land vehicles have lagged so far behind aerial drones (which date back to WWII). But eventually you might deny the battlefield to tanks with small autonomous surface vehicles that have just enough payload capacity to scoot under a tank with an anti-tank mine. These would be harder to defend against than missiles, since they could wait for a tank to approach and then charge out of cover. A tank would have only a few seconds to detect something scooting toward it amongst the ground clutter and then bring a weapon to bear with enough hitting power and accuracy to disable the vehicle. Also note that many tanks are already obsolete - older tanks such as T-55s which can be taken out by cheap RPGs. What used to count as a tank wouldn't last long on the modern battlefield. Just as the battleship kept requiring more protection, from its own armor and guns and from escorting ships, so too the tank may keep needing more and more help until the economic balance shifts to the attacker. But that day hasn't arrived quite yet, as Ukraine keeps asking for more and more modern tanks.

[@farid.2972]

Hoped to see the iconic beer video of the leopard 2

[@andik859]

You are wrong. German Leopard have the L55 cannon firing range 5000 meters. It is 2A6 Version. 🇩🇪

[@CuriousReason]

Rheinmetall Rh-120 L55 cannon which is mentioned in the video and the one you are referring to, the firing range is 4000 meters.

[@carlnapp4412]

2:55 Since the Abrams is fitted with the same gun as the Leopard 2 is , its firepower should be similar. It's amazing how the tracks of today are more and more looking like the Diehl tracks that are used on the Leopard and the Abrams. By the way, the best comparison so far. Congrats!

[@Kurikost_]

not the same gun..leopards gun is longer...L/44 vs L/55

[@DestinationXperience]

Ammunition is also a factor. US Depleted uranium APFSDS rounds have higher penetration than the Leopard"s Ammo.

[@Kurikost_]

@@DestinationXperience no one wants depleted uranium rounds or wasted lands for a very long time.

[@DestinationXperience]

@@Kurikost_ Of course, but this is a response to the Leopard 2, and how can it destroy a T-90. The US uses its DU because its killing power meant it didn't have to re-barrel its tanks saving money logistically and operationally. Not good for the environment, health of the soldiers or people whose lands will be affected by upcoming battles, but that's never been an issue for the US or Russian military (yes the Russians have their own DU ammo as well).

[@Kurikost_]

@@DestinationXperience the leopard has a longer barrel with more power. I think with 120mm any modern ammunition can destroy any tank. Who shoots first..wins

[@taitmcgregor635]

Tanks likely will never become obsolete. Think of it as a tool in a tool box. It may get used less from job to job but will always be there when you need it.

[@johngamba7912]

As a weapon of offence Tanks are necessary because they are the locus of a battle group. Their ability to protect themselves against air/land threats on their own vs. tying down troops is key. A tank that can “hide” from telemetry & tracking (visual or sensor), fire while traveling over terrain at high speed, and has fault tolerance to track/body - are all improving. The Abrams can do much that (and they do have active protection in trials). Just like troops, tanks will be able to self deploy multiples of small drones to provide perimeter, and group protection… like a Borg collective…

[@JeanLucCaptain]

well the super tank powered by Nazi space magic just got captured intact with its motor still running after the recent "counter offensive" by ukraine so tell us another one.

[@haakonsteinsvaag]

Tanks will not be obsolete, at least not for a long time. Only tanks can provide infantry with instant firepower and help them take and hold ground. Air Power/drones can only provide firepower if they are on station and they can not hold ground. There will always be a running battle between tank protection and anti tank weapons, and maybe anti tank weapons are in the lead at the moment, but not for long.

[@andreasmicheleg5676]

Tanks have actually been called "obsolete" since 1919 (no joke). Let's just wait and see.

[@sashasojen2640]

T14 is and will also be tank on prototype - status. a good tank combines a fair mixture of firepower, protection and speed and also a good changeability of components as the engine or the supply with gas. so the LEO, is currently the best mix of all. But in war scenario, the crew experience and its motivation and the protection of the flanks are also important. See Gepard and Marder support...

[@johanneshering3973]

The range of the L55 in the Leo 2 is 5000 meters not 4000 meters.But there should also be Ammunition that increases the Range by a few thousand meters. I don't know if that's true with the said ammunition, but the range of 5000 meters is fact.Would be glad if you give me other information. Take care.

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

targeting and especially accurate hitting becomes very difficult beyond 4 km. Also the penetrating power decreaes more at this range.

[@pejicaleksandar6083]

Good luck hitting a mobile target at 5km 🤣

[@schmo78]

@@xAlexTobiasxB Well, little russian fanboy, unfortunately the Leopard 2 A6 has a first hit probability of approximately 90%.Even at full speed.

[@schmo78]

@@pejicaleksandar6083 So you think a modern fire control system doesn´t take the target´s movement into account? Are you confusing the Leopard 2 with an ancient catapult? 🤦‍♂

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

@@schmo78 Listen little boy, not everyonea is as simple minded as you are. The world is not only black and white. I didn't even talk about any specific side or faction and you still call me stupid names, it's really pathetic lol You are in fact the one who is obviously very biased towards one side and blinded by pure fanatism. My statement was totally neutral and generally speaking about all tanks that are currently in service. Generally speaking 4 km is considered the max range to hit accurately, especially against moving targets. Anything above that range gets very hard to hit. Most tanks don't even have good enough optics to identify targets at this range. Try a realistic simulator such as Steel beats and you will see how hard it is to hit moving targets above 4km.

[@jimmiller5600]

The installed armor package matters. But if you're playing combined arms well you don't need massive armor because your enemy exploded or ran our of fuel/ammo before coming in range.

[@tonykalf5946]

The best choice besides it's armour or fire surplus is because it has a multi fuel engine. It runs on any kind of fuel except water.

[@galesams4205]

I served on a m-48 tank in vietnam and like the Lepard 2 tank. The 125mm main gun direct fire rifled bore is the best. 69th Armor 4th div. 1969

[@marcusfranconium3392]

Makes you wonder what Panther FK 51. armour and fire power rating will be , as that thing looks like a monster .

[@derkohler2380]

most stats in this video - especially those regarding protection - apply only for the most modern variants of the leopard 2: a7 and a7v. germany donates 2a6-versions, but most of the leopard 2's for ukraine will be rather outdated 2a4 that don't even have the version of cannon mentioned in this video. but still - they were built to destroy soviet t-64, t-72 and t-80.. so they should be able to put up a good fight. regarding the rheinmetall kf51: the protection is of the same standard as the up-to-date leopard versions - the demonstrator hull currently is in fact a leopard 2. the optional/multi-purpose crew slot concept is debatable, respectively a question of doctrine - definitely not suited for nato standards atm. only really interesting part currently is the main armament: the 130mm l/52.. although as well not fitting into nato standards atm. due to the size of it's rounds (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_KF51#/media/File:German_APFSDS_130mm_and_120mm_shell.jpg) the demonstrator carries only 30 shells - compared to 42 in a leopard. fewer shells equal shorter engagements equal higher strains on the battlefield logistics and/or the amount of vehicles required to sustain pressure on the line of contact.

[@drakez2332]

Oh yeah

[@classicgalactica5879]

So does the Abrams X.

[@benjaminkoch2380]

​@@classicgalactica5879 abrahams x is just a concept of what would be possible, i don't think it will be used

[@Klausmp]

But it's a long time away if it's ever getting accepted by anyone. NATO and Germany don't need a fk51 or Abrams x. The Leopard 2A7 and what ever the newest Abrams variant might be are more then good enough to fight the last t-90 /t80 that still exist. Those things are just not needed

[@augusto8821]

T90? The Leopard has to fight against T62

[@sw4photographiekiel896]

The leopard eats the T62 for breakfast

[@paullakowski2509]

@@sw4photographiekiel896 LEO-1A5 eats T-62 for Breakfast.

[@wyringen]

Might even go up against the mighty T55.

[@erikschaepers]

Nice video - just to mention, max speed of the Leo-2 is 68km/h, or 42 miles / hr. Greeetings from Germany - Slava Ukraini!

[@mwtrolle]

Besides he got almost all assumptions and facts wrong? :P

[@richardbrooks8890]

A Apache working in combination with tanks and infantry is a winning combination however if 1 link is missing it makes the remaining vulnerable

[@KY-zerSOH-zay]

the fire rate depends on the loader/2nd gunner. he is capable of loading up to 8 rounds per minute. leopard has 4 men crew and no autoloader like t-72s

[@JohnSmith-bq2ut]

There are pros and cons to autoloader. The worst scenario would be a failure of the autoloader. This would render the whole tank inoperable. A Tank without a gun is literally useless. The T14 also does not have any crew compartment for a loader. So in case of a system failure there would also be no option to load the gun manually and continue operation. A big drawback in my opinion. A human loader might be slower, but can be replaced in case of injury or death. On the other hand, the Leopard 2 is built to kill an enemy with his first shot. In that perspective its not that important if the loader can only load 3 or 4 rounds per minute. If you dont hit and kill you reveal your position and will likely provoke counterfire, meaning you usually retreat after your shot and stay mobile.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

hahaha funfact that impressive firepower of the abrams comes from an outdated leopard 2 gun the one we dont use anymore

[@JohnSmith-bq2ut]

yes, its the shorter version. But its not weaker compared to the now longer versions because the US are using depleted uranium ammunition which has a higher penetration than the tungsten projectiles being used in europe. You could say they have equal firepower now. The US tested the longer barrel for their Abrams but tests showed no substantial improvement in penetration. So they kept their barrels.

[@gehtdichnixan3200]

@@JohnSmith-bq2ut aha .... and if i put dp penetrators in a longer barrel they dont work anymore ... interesting ... maybe you say something relevant next time or you can use that american logic that convinces the whole world that americans are idiots

[@hunterj72490]

Fun fact that Russia isn't even in the top 10 countries by GDP!!! literally on the path to becoming a failed state! ROFL!!!

[@mwtrolle]

@@JohnSmith-bq2ut that's just a stupid statement, that has nothing to do with the gun! You can shoot depleted uranium ammunition from the Leopard 2's and tungsten from the Abrams!

[@classicgalactica5879]

Here's a fact that's even more fun: The L44 cannon manufactured under license in the United States is a completely different gun than the German L44. They look the same on the outside, but are completely different inside. Different mechanism, different propellant, different muzzle velocity. The Americans actually improved upon it's performance.

[@djp1234]

Your map of Ukraine is missing Crimea. Every civilized country in the world recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. Don't bend over for Russia.

[@gregoryfridman5680]

agree but its prob just sloppiness not malice

[@CuriousReason]

A lot of people don’t know about that Crimea is not Ukrainian or Russian. Crimea is Turkic and it should be independent from both of these aforementioned countries. Commies (Soviet Ukraine/Russia) actively genocided and deported indigenous Crimean Tatars since the WW2 right to the fall of the Soviet Union.

[@timleser3690]

​@@CuriousReason 15% of crimea are Tartar so not mutch anymore so as an ethnicity they doesnt have a good claim anymore.

[@CuriousReason]

@@timleser3690 That's the point, just because Russians/Ukrainians systematically killed and deported Crimean Tatars - doesn't make the Crimean peninsula Russian or Ukrainian. That's what basically Ukraine's premise in the war against Russia too. Just because Russia kills Ukrainians and takes their land, it doesn't make Russian land, it's still Ukrainian soil.

[@djp1234]

@@CuriousReason the genocide of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians was ordered by Stalin. They both want to be free from Russia.

[@SwordQuake2]

Lol the T-14 doesn't exist. It's just smoke and mirrors.

[@jorgtanzerjo3633]

Den Leopard haben die IS Kämpfer schon platt gemacht und nich1 sondern 12. Also träum weiter Du kleiner Russenhasser !

[@SkepticalChris]

Its a parade tank, built to look impressive during military parades, when the drivers don't accidentally lock on the emergency brakes during rehersals

[@MoseleyJon]

Lol the Ukrainian counter-offensive doesn't exist. It is just smoke and mirros.

[@leonnunhofer3453]

A few prototypes. With a bad engine from the 30's. In WW2 germans hated the engine, because it was so bad. The russians constructed their T-14 around the engine, so they have to use it, or to develop a totally new tank 😂

[@leonnunhofer3453]

Btw the video says, T-14 can drive up to 90 km/h. I highly doubt that. It's a bit heavier than other russian tanks, and the engine is bad. Even if it could do that in theory, if it would have enough horsepower, the engine should break down, if they would try. The thing is a good joke, imo. It's pretty funny. In the same way most newer disney movies and shows are. Imo it's stunning and brave to drive and use this tank 🤷‍♂️

[@thingsthatinterestedme7962]

Just a few of the inaccuracies I saw in this video. Given that German Leopards completed a week of trials with with Trophy APS only in November of 2021, then they must be capable of 88mph to have it battle tested in Afghanistan. The Leopard fitting with APS started ~3 years after the Abrams, (order date: 2018 vs. 2021, delivery date: 2021 vs 2023, quantity: ~400 vs 17), that it is extremely disingenuous to say that the Leopard 2 has APS while the Abrams doesn't.

[@broccolibeater]

in a combined effort a tank can be a tank. but as we are seeing right now, they are not often enough and can be taken out quite easily. so they should be able to protect themselves against anti tank attacks not only with thick armour. maybe thats why the new panther tank has a extra seat for a crew member to manage the defense activelly.

[@DaChaGee]

Abrams and Challenger use Chobham armour which doesn't just protect against small arms fire.

[@robertnemeth6248]

Challenger has the best armour and this has been reared in combat. No Challenger 2 has been lost to hostile fire unlike Leopard 2. In Iraq and Challenger 2 was hit by multiple T72 rounds- Milan and Russian antitank missiles and survived. Leopard 3 does not have such an impressive combat record. The M1 does have active protection. Challenger 2 thanks to its hydrogas suspension has better more stable rough terrain ability then Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 has weak side armour and stores ammunition at the hull front Were it is vulnerable. The Leopard 2 is NOT the best protected tank. I think you work for the manufacturer...

[@thegymteachersgrandma]

Can only agree on the challenger part. As far as I know, Challenger has the best protection, Abrams the best engine/compatability Leopard is a combination of all, but not at the levels as the counterpart Good armor, good engine but not outstanding. Small addition, the lost leopard were leopard 2 a4 I think and they weren't lost because they are so bad, but because they were used in an completely wrong way

[@Texo333]

Well the Leopard 2 did not take part in the 2003 iraq war so it cant have that battle record. Germany Was not at war unlike Britian. I agree the Challanger has a better protection but for the extra weight.... its to heavy and will sink in the mud. In a desert i would prefer the challanger on flat Land the Leopard

[@pepe_6931]

thats not even true. The frontal armor is by far better than the frontal armor of the challenger. The side armor of the leo and the challenger are about the same. The ammunition in the leopard is stored in a protected readyrack and in the hull behind composite armor. Meanwhile the propelling charges in the challenger are stored literally everywhere in a hull that isnt as protected as the hull of the leopard. The challenger also uses a worse gun than the leopard or the abrahams. Its much heavyer than the leo and has a weaker engine. The commander of the challenger also doesnt have his own thermal imager. To sum up the leopard is superior to the challenger in nearly every way (Firepower, mobility, protection).

[@juliussteponavicius4168]

T14 is prototype...even it was showed publicly

[@mwtrolle]

If even that, I would say it's all propaganda! It might have started as an idea for a tank and they started to try to make a prototype. But they failed so badly that they soon decided to just make it look good and dangerous and show it off at parades!

[@1guitarlover]

Tanks are weapons. When used proper and wisely represent a victory factor for the army which uses them.

[@justTyping]

We are talking about a generation of tanks, when drones were not a thread. If tanks will be used in future is based on the new generation of tanks and how they will handle the current threads.

[@MoseleyJon]

If tanks will be used in the era of drones, there won't be any tanks

[@traktor321]

leo 2 gamechanger 🤣

[@robertwhitaker3779]

it's okay matching tanks against each other, but has anyone actually seen a T14 in battle.? don't believe such a thing exists.

[@aqep]

Whats the point of sending Russia's best tank if they arent even mildly produced..

[@bellissimo4520]

How exactly is an "active" tank protection system supposed to deal with something like an incoming Javelin missile?

[@Hellfr4g]

as an us general recently stated: "you dont need tanks, unless you want to win" with the aps and anti air assets in combined arms operations i dont see the end of the tank

[@philippschwartzerdt3431]

To compare to T-14 is theoretical at best, as it will never be on the battlefield in Ukraine. Better compare to T-55/54 🤔 Adding: Compare the new KF-51 or Panther, the newest “cat “ from Rheinmetall - to be produced in the not so far distance in Ukraine against any Russian tank. 😉

[@ValeraMur]

I wish Ukraine victory from Russia, and thanks to Germany for the help

[@konradhenrykowicz1859]

What help?

[@ValeraMur]

@@konradhenrykowicz1859 Leopard🐆 1 and2

[@noid717]

черт ты Валера

[@Cloudiskyies939]

@@konradhenrykowicz1859 Are you kidding me? We send so much guns and militäry equipment. Don't forgot germany very often do the first step to do this and we are es small country.

[@notacop1477]

Taking out armored personel carriers and attacking in great numbers still makes sense

[@kepomPong2816]

which leopard 2 they send? lastest version ? 2A7 ? or old tank the leopard 2A1/2 ?

[@MorningNapalm]

4 and 6