How Will Ukrainian Leopard Tanks Perform Against Russia?

It's not 100% certain yet, but it seems Ukraine will begin receiving Western tanks, starting with Leopard 2A4s from Poland. So how do they compare to the latest Russian tanks?
Check Out Project Owl on Discord
/ discord
For Business Inquiries - [e-mail]
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
Leopard 2A7 Image
Author: AMB Brescia
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[@dmitriyzhukov9193]

I was a tanker in the German Army and our basic training took 3 month to handle the Leopard 1A5. Later we got the Leo 2 A4. That didnt need much effort to re-train. As a tanker I can tell you that its not a big issue to train on new equipment. Especially the loader is no problem at all, 3-4 weeks and even you could serve there. Therefore it doesnt matter if autoloader or not. The issue is really the maintenence. The mechanics need more training. Anyway, the main reasons why the German tanks are better than Russian ones are the optics and really true the reverse speed. If you identify a target earlier you shot earlier. Then back up. Then next one. Better never rely too much on amour, just dont let them hit you.

[@FrancisJoa]

Wusste gar nicht, dass Deutsche Zhukov heißen. lol Die sogenannten Deutsch-Russen kamen erst nach dem Mauerfall, da war der Leo 1 schon lange außer Dienst gestellt gewesen. Du bist nie und nimmer ein Deutscher und somit hast du auch nie in der Bundeswehr gedient.

[@dmitriyzhukov9193]

@@FrancisJoa Schon mal was davon gehört das man irgendein Pseudonym in YT verwendet? Nur weil ich mich hier Zhukov nenne heisst das doch nicht das ich Russe bin du Einstein!

[@tomk3732]

All mechanics will be in Poland. So no training needed. Problem is that most crews are dead. So you need to train people form the scratch that never been in a tank.

[@MyLateralThawts]

Thank you for expressing what I was thinking. I was a gunner in the Canadian armoured corps trained on an armoured car equipped with the British Scorpion turret. We spent two weeks undergoing conversion training on the Leopard C-1 (roughly equivalent to the Leopard A-3 or 4) and were deemed combat ready at the end of the exercise we participated in. You’re right about the loaders, they’re essentially gunners in our organization, who can fill in for the commander if necessary. Maintenance is done away from the battlefield, so if it can be towed away and loaded onto a low bed trailer to be hauled to Poland for repair, that’s just great, especially if a replacement tank is readily available.

[@tomk3732]

@@MyLateralThawts How long does it take for totally green person to have conversion? I.e. recently taken off the street conscript?

[@muammargaddafi2740]

Honestly i really don't get why most comparisons still lay such a heavy emphasis on tank vs tank performance. The fact is that even in Ukraine tank on tank engagements are rather rare, and tanks mainly act as heavy fire support vehicles for other units.

[@tellyboy17]

Video says 2A4 is very vulnerable to any number of Russian ATGM types as well.

[@Legalizeasbestos]

@@tellyboy17 what isn’t though? You watch enough videos and you realize ATGM just has to get lucky and you’re toast.

[@tellyboy17]

@@Legalizeasbestos Well there aren't any videos of ATGM vs modern versions of Leopard of course, all we can know for sure is that 2A4 is obsolete and vulnerable.

[@greybuckleton]

Yeah its a natural thing to do but actually a fairly rare event in this war. In other wars there has been large tank on tank engagements, but not really in this war.

[@FrugalPCOG]

WWII dispelled the myth that tanks need not be prepared for tank on tank combat. Kursk anyone?

[@ChertovLogin]

That reverse speed didn't help that much.

[@ex0ghost837]

*This Aged Well...*

[@scatterlite2266]

No tank performed well in syria, especially not the T-72. Its the nature of asymmetrical warfare, which is very different from the ukrainian war.

[@para-tanker]

No good operators in that conflict....it's the crews!

[@silver4214]

In both 2008 and 2014 gaza wars there were zero tank hits at all to merkava 4's, and hamas had all the best russian block ATGM as kornets / rpg 29/32, *A good trained crew *An APS *Good sensors *battle network pc for the tank commandor And tanks are still fine even in urban combat

[@jengsta9311]

Also heard that those leopard 2a4s were used without infantry support which is the reason so many were destroyed.

[@user-km5kj8xh1x]

It's a numbers game and war of attrition. Sure the patriot can hit drones, but those missiles cost about 3 million each for drones that only coast 10,000. You cannot win

[@MrQwerman]

Боги войны.джпг Отделение Джобара от Замальки.мов Так то именно Т-72 и Т-55/62 затащили этот конфликт, лол Причем с обоих сторон

[@honnebombll]

The reverse speed is a good advantage mentioned here no one else really talks about. The Leopard 2 has a high chance of First Hit. He waits in a covered position, drives to its fire position, fires and quickly drives back again. Thats the main doctrine behind this tank. Of course while advancing it is as vulnerable as other tanks, so dont expect magic from them. Edit: For those interested in how that looks like search for "Leopard 2 engaging T55" on KZbin.

[@CorePathway]

Those French tanks tho, faster in reverse than forward 🤣

[@honnebombll]

@@noneshere No its not, the Russian realized this disadvantage as well thats why their more modern tanks have a faster reverse speed, but most of them still dont.

[@davidmacy411]

Western tanks were designed with defense first in mind, hence the high reverse speeds. This was from a time when they had to deal with the worst case scenario of a possible 20,000 tanks overwhelming E Europe.

[@Squee7e]

Let's hope the Ukrainians are more effective with the Leopard than the Turkish 🙏

[@walli6388]

@@Squee7e Well, the Kurds used German supplied Milan wire guided rockets against them...

[@Grimshak81]

Also, you don’t have to train crews completely from scratch if they switch from a T64 to a leopard. They have to learn the advantages a leopard brings and someone needs to learn loading shells (that’s in peace times for 18 year old conscripts a 4 weeks course. Not wizardry. That’s learnable in a week of training if need be). But it doesn’t mean the crew forgot everything about tank warfare in general. It’s not THAT different what you do inside the tank.

[@aymonfoxc1442]

You make a good point that people tend to forget.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Yes consider how much british tank crews had to change through tanks types in world war 2 for example (or even ww1), having to learn even more about tank warfare because there was no established working doctrine. It's possible.

[@Lord.murugan]

Yeah markings will be in German...not Ukranian..lol

[@typxxilps]

@@Lord.murugan no there are also english but far worser the ukrainians are not familiar with latin alphabet but cyrillic and that is not available. they had struggled to get the panzerhaubitze running during training in germany and then had forgotten all the lessons learned in combat.

[@CARBONHAWK1]

This some massive cope

[@glenbolderson9279]

They all burned.

[@braniskis8521]

there have been 10 reported losses

[@glenbolderson9279]

16

[@abroom144]

@@braniskis8521 9 tho

[@Legalizeasbestos]

Remember, how you use them ALWAYS trumps the stats. Saudi Arabia loses M1 Abrams to the Houthis for Christ sake and no one thought Ukraine’s T-64s would hold up. Don’t forget the soft factors too, I’d serve in a leopard from the 80s before I’d ever step foot in a Russian T-Anything.

[@raylopez99]

True tho lack of maintenance is going to be a problem, I see lots of these tanks abandoned.

[@shootinputin6332]

Spoken like someone who wouldn't serve in a 1980s Leopard on a Ukrainian battlefield aka a shill.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

@@raylopez99 Unfortunately… unless we can “hire” some former maintenance personnel familiar to the vehicle to go to Ukraine and serve in the International Legion.

[@VicaryCoMyjeGary]

@@PeterMuskrat6968 maintenance in NATO tanks is easier than soviet counterparts, switching out the whole power pack (motor with transmission) is an hour tops, same for T-72 family is a few day ordeal

[@1royathrone1]

Prussian Vlue is a total moron that eats up anything that the West says lol! Ukraine is failing so bad and its losing 3-4 for every Russian killed! For defenders that fn pathetic! because the attacking force usually has way more casualties than the defenders. Western propaganda pushes Ukraine is winning but yet Ukraine is begging for more because all that it has been given has been practically obliterated! Ukranian soldiers themselves make videos showing how the Ukrainian command tosses them into the meat grinder just to halt or slow down the Russians and if they try to communicate with HQ they dont even respond basically abandoning them! If they try to retreat there is a line of soldiers some Ukrainian and some from other parts of Europe to make sure they cant retreat! Not to mention the 15 -16 yr olds Ukraine is recruiting ..... Look up the drunk NATO commander that was leading forces in Ukraine he admits they commit war crimes on a daily bases and violate a bunch of international laws! Zelenkzy will be in the USA begging for more in a month or so if the war isnt over by that time.

[@MaxiEspadas]

around 2/3 of spains leopard tanks are the Leopard 2E wich is based on the Leopard 2A6 but with improved turret protection

[@jasonkings6721]

CANADAS all have extra mine protection as well as crew aswell

[@simonmoorcroft1417]

I think Spain wanted to keep its Leo 2E's and hand over the 2A4's it has in storage. They are in a poor state but KMW was happy to refurb them before they were transferred to Ukraine. That was several months ago, but I think the German gov. blocked the transfer.

[@michelleesquerra6537]

@@simonmoorcroft1417 they better get together, bc its going look bad on the German gov for not helper

[@oberleutnant4013]

@@simonmoorcroft1417 Only about 50 A4s in Spanish storage and they are in horrible condition. Rest of 2A4s are in Spanish territories in northern Africa.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@simonmoorcroft1417 the spanish government retrackted its request for export as they looked closer at the condition of their stored vehicles (majority would need 12+ Months of work before they could be delviered, a good amount were missing the turred or armament etc)

[@jonnekallu1627]

Finland switched from T-72m1 tanks to Leopard 2A4 in 2004. I recall that they had issues with the tracks in the Finnish terrain but I believe those issues were fixed and the switch was mostly painless.

[@williamzk9083]

Germany is providing the Leopard 2A6 which has vastly improved Armour and fire power. Most nations are providing only their 30-40 year old Leopard 2A4. The 2A4 can be upgraded to Leopard 2A5 receiving extra Armour and the cheek wedges as well as separate commanders thermal sight. The 2A6 apart from further minor Armour upgrades also gets a long barreled canon..Sweden's StrV 122 is basically a Leopard 2A5 that is essentially a 2A6 without the longer gun.

[@amandathurston2720]

I was a gunner on a leopard tank.... I'll bet you you can train a crew to be capable fighters in 10 weeks or less, if unions stay out of the way. They are VERY user friendly, intuitive to operate. Crew maintenance is easy too. In LESS than 6 months, doing other stuff too, it gets boring / repetative when working just 8 hours a day.

[@fennoman9241]

I remember when we had to take Leo 2 motor off in 30 mins, very much doable. Cant say the same for CV90

[@GrandTheftOfYourConcentration]

Except Leopard 2A4s Poland also uses Leopard 2A5s, 2PLs and 2PL M1s. It has not been specified what variant we will send.

[@adrianotaylor7230]

even if they get 2a7 directly from germany or sep v 2 from the US they will still be destroyed at the end of they day no aps can stop a krasnpol

[@GrandTheftOfYourConcentration]

@@adrianotaylor7230 No Russian APS (in service they have no APS anyway) can stop Excalibur, Kvitnyk and captured Krasnopols too. Furthermore German 2A7s are not equipped with APS as well.

[@byzantinehoney3384]

Highly unlikely they would send that

[@GrandTheftOfYourConcentration]

@@byzantinehoney3384 The Germans or the Poles? 😏 But no matter what version will be send by Poland, Germany gotta agree.

[@saltysalt7339]

@@GrandTheftOfYourConcentration Maybe you should read up again about A7 not haveing an APS

[@blurglide]

I've never heard "Leopard" pronounced with 3 syllables rather than two

[@hugovera1540]

he is a russian spy

[@callumbush1]

It's an AI

[@Jehty21]

That's the German pronunciation (or at least close to it).

[@bladfadsfblaadsfsadf900]

He’s saying it the same way the Germans say Leopard in their language: “Lee-O-Pard”

[@ucube33]

In Scandinavian and German it is le-o-pard. Probably Dutch as well, I have not checked.

[@anthonymedina5186]

Great video. Keep ‘em coming

[@kilasracingfactory]

Looks like you have hit exactly 400k subscribers, congrats!

[@slythewhyissilent]

Tanks, (like any other weapon system), have to be integrated into the fighting structure of their respective units. A good commander will be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of his equipment and configure them in a way that accents the strengths while mitigating the weakness as much as possible. This can be done by using terrain, complimenting support units, and battle tactics.

[@imjashingyou3461]

Your forgetting to bring up the massive "hull down advantage" the Leopard has because Soviet tanks can't depress the guns. This is highly important in defensive warfare. Between this, the reverse speed, and the better sights and data links is a massive advantage over a T anything. 14 tanks is company and I assume it's to enable training and doctrine building around it before they get sent en masse. Your probably not going to see these tanks on the line for months and then NATO will probably send tanks en masse sometime in the spring or early summer once the infrastructure and knowledge is more in place.

[@jannegrey593]

Exactly. This is mostly for training purposes and to make other countries not be able to hide under "no one delivered modern tanks to Ukraine before, so we won't either" argument. Ukraine needs those tanks and needs to build maintenance, logistics and training base for them. Some of it will be handled by NATO countries, but they need to be able to at least do basics.

[@David-cy5zu]

there are no hills in eastern southern ukraine.

[@imjashingyou3461]

@@David-cy5zu thats irrelevant for hull down. You just need a 6ish foot natural or artificial rise in terrain

[@TheRealBillBob]

The T-90 isn't a Soviet tank. The leopard is a Soviet era tank. You aren't qualified to discuss this topic.

[@imjashingyou3461]

@@TheRealBillBob Guess again. T-90 Development started in the 80s.

[@Damathus]

For the reasons that he mentioned it might actually be really useful to send Leopard 1 tanks, since they can also engage t-62, BPMs and BTRs., just not t-72 and upwards. Apparently in total 188 of them are parked at various manufacturers. Problem is they will need to be overhauled which takes time since these companies are already fully booked for other arms production. Would be an issue of priorization then I guess. One benefit would be that the Gepards, Bieber (bridge layer) and Bergepanzer 2 (ARV) that Germany already delivered to Ukraine are all based on Leopard 1 chassis so the logistics has to be established already.

[@alfredchurchill2328]

If you read into the leopard in Turkish service in Syria you quickly find the way they employed their tanks being their main issue. They set their own tanks up for failure. It wasn’t the tanks fault. Many of those ATGM hits were from above. Fired from hill tops They also weren’t protecting them with accompanying infantry in many situations.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Turkey are complete clowns when it comes to this stuff. Dangerous to be within 100 miles of them as an ally.

[@alfredchurchill2328]

@@Ukraineaissance2014 if America employed their abrams the same way there would be m1s littered all over the Iraqi desert

[@isacdourado4681]

Saudi Arabia had many M1 Abrams destroyed in Yemen for the same reason!

[@TrassseB]

Turkish Leo’s on all videos I saw were parked stationary not in combat

[@TeslaEdi]

And what makes you think Ukrainians perform any better?

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Not all the Ammunition in the Leopard 2A4 is unprotected, they do have the same Ammunition stowage in the turret with blow-out panels like the Abrams. If they give up the hull storage, they will improve their survivability. One other issue is the Turret is hydraulic and not electric.

[@Future183]

War Thunder experience lol

[@Grimshak81]

Not that very old leopard 2s.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

@@Future183 The Leopard may see the T-90 first and get the first shot. That is all that matters

[@Registered_Simp]

My guy, that leaves them with 15 shells +1 if they decide to leave one in the breach. Ain't no one gonna load their tank with 15 shells in an actual combat scenario where they may need to run to an ammo depo every few hours if they forego hull stowage.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

@@Registered_Simp True, Luckily I am not a tanker. But the 2A4 is not as helpless as the video pointed out, at least it has thermals and a decent gun and ammunition. Maybe it will be useful to train Ukrainian tankers on western kit

[@tyhy1]

another great advantage (if you want to call it that) is if a leopard ends up in russian hands in one way or another it wont be all that bad. they are old enough to not reveal too many secrets.

[@valyshknee4203]

wont turn the tide for Ukraine though, Their most prized general said he could win the war but only if he had hunderds more tanks, hundreds more IFV's and APC's, Trucks and most importantly lots more artillery, Something the west cannot provide without depleting and weakening their own militaries, So basically he just said he cant win all the land back and will someday be forced into a defeat due to then a even greater lack of equipment

[@tyhy1]

@@valyshknee4203 I know. He asked for an army and got an handful. But that wasn't my point.

[@exarder1377]

@@valyshknee4203 He also said he could win with lessbut that it'd cost way more lives. he asked for 300 tanks, shouldn't be too hard to find those around Europe.

[@Jehty21]

@@valyshknee4203 hm, NATO has 10,000 or so tanks. How would a few hundreds of those deplete their militaries?

[@valyshknee4203]

@@exarder1377 it is, it very much is, the tank is considered the ace of cards of every army since its what you need to score a breakthrough, and well sort of all surplus tanks that were still working and not important anymore have been sent, thats why they're sending a couple leopards now since they dont have any surplus left,

[@rsKayiira]

I think the way Scholz has been fretting over sending them, would mean they are more effective(when used right) than has been advertised

[@killxAyush]

We can see what happen to leopard and challenger tanks, nothing is invincible

[@dfmrcv862]

No one said they were invincible. That said, by comparison to Russia's losses? They are completely and undeniably superior.

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

@@dfmrcv862 All that was sent was blown up. So they stand at 100% losses lol.

[@johnshaft5613]

How well tanks function has way more to do with strategy and integration with infantry and other weapons systems than it does the nature of the tank itself.

[@reinerheiner1148]

The better the tank, the more tactical options to choose from however. And less reliance on support. Although tanks always need support, the question is just how much...

[@realnapster1522]

Most tanks are being used in infantry support role and not being used for Blitzkrieg like WW2. Because of advances in drone warfare and satellites, massive armor columns can now be easily destroyed with drones and aircrafts.

[@dakufokkusu2702]

Apparently the turret popped of because it was hit by a 500kg from the Turkish airforce not because of ammo explosion. Thats at least what german mil twitter says.

[@nordensueden]

True

[@jonasmeyer5957]

Correct

[@Actionandy98]

correct. Another one was destroyed by a suicide truck. I personally only know evidence of this two Leos.

[@MrQwerman]

Конечно, конечно. У них конечно же вышло видео с поражением брошенной бронетехники, чтобы у джентельменов не возникало вопросов? Или как обычно ваши пруфы не пруфы, наши текстовые сообщения истина в последней инстанции?

[@greybuckleton]

In the end it doesn't matter if the turret pops off or not. If the ammo cooked off the crew is paste, how high the turret may or may not go is irrelevant. Its just twitter war stuff.

[@ThatGuyOrby]

I think the most significant aspects of such a deal are not necessarily the tanks themselves but rather the precedents sending them sets. Some of these points were already touched on above. 1. Once a Western MBT has been officially sold to Ukraine it breaks the ice and makes the future sale of more potent and capable Western MBTs more likely. 2. Ukrainian tankers will get training and experience with a Western style MBT, many Western tanks are quite similar in overall design and maintenance (this is intentional to ensure ease of international cooperation and interoperability among NATO countries). 3. With these tanks they can use basically all Western tank ammunition (excluding ammunition designs for the Challenger which is still currently using a rifled barrel cannon instead of the standard smoothbore) even the most modern Western APFSDS shells are made to work with the 120mm smoothbore cannons of Western tanks. 4. These tanks have fully stabilized main guns and thermals, something most Ukrainian tanks do not have. Gaining experience with such things will be invaluable in the case of acquiring more advanced tanks later on. 5. These tanks will need maintenance and will teach the Ukrainians how to properly maintain and repair a modern Western MBT. This will be invaluable if/when they acquire more advanced tanks.

[@typxxilps]

can you read cyrillic ? if not how long will it take to train you with a full cyrillic manual and tank ? the ukraianians do not learn latin alphabet so this is the very first key issue

[@richardschipper5989]

@@typxxilps how st-pid are you? manuals can be translated and re-printed in a week or so.

[@Intellegencewatch]

6 months and they all burning 🎉😀

[@mikedittsche]

The gun stabilisation and accuracy is leagues above any russian tank. The first hit probability is definitely on the Leopards side.

[@jasonkings6721]

definitely

[@Jake-dh9qk]

Stabilization wouldn't matter if the Leopards are used in a defensive hull down situation. Most tanks are also traveling at less than half full speed in combat so even the old stabilizers are more than enough. The advanced leopard2 stabilization and accuracy only matters if they are driving at full speed and shooting at targets directly in front.

[@Squee7e]

@@Jake-dh9qk Why would you drive at half speed if it would mean to give away your biggest advantage? The leopard can be used super aggressively and spearhead deep into enemy lines if supported by mechanized infantry and good recon. It's a tool to encircle the enemy but can be used defensively in ambushes too (hull down). The Leopard 2A4 is not easy to use (looking at you Turkey) but if fielded by capable hands will crush the enemy.

[@Jake-dh9qk]

@@Squee7e In theory but not in practice. In practice you don’t know where the enemy is. Majority of the time your biggest threats are other Anti-tank infantries hiding in buildings or forest. You’re always constantly scanning the area. Driving too fast gives you away even more and also makes it harder for you to spot enemies. Tank commanders, especially in urban areas like Ukraine, drive slowly just incase they push too deep into enemy lines. Also the camera systems on tanks aren’t perfect. Driving too fast makes it even harder to spot enemies because you’re not looking outside directly with you eyes, you’re looking through a thermal imaging system relay that could have input lag.

[@Jake-dh9qk]

@@Squee7e Not only that, tanks need to conserve fuel. They can’t be at full speed all the time. Logistics is important as well. Going full speed adds more wear and tear and increase chance of battlefield malfunctions.

[@kalewintermute28]

The Leopard isn't an armour tank it's a maneuver tank. Probably of more use in a Ukrainian counter offensive than in a defensive line.

[@mikedittsche]

It is, and always has been one of the best armored tanks in the world. The armor protection on Leopards, Abrams or Challengers has steadily increased over the years. Of course a model from the 80s isn't up to the same level of protection as a 2020s model.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Exactly. Always the paper stats comparisons. Really missing the point.

[@leneanderthalien]

The Leopard 2 is not a agile tank, it's heawy armored, but more agile as the Abrams or the Challenger, the only relative agile MBT is the Leclerc

[@eliasziad7864]

@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Cope.

[@eliasziad7864]

@@leneanderthalien Cope.

[@tellyboy17]

Great video for managing expectations.

[@Brissebrajan]

Polands Leopards 2 have been upgraded to the A5 variant if i remember correct, improved turret armour, and addon armour to the hull.

[@Joda5212]

Doesnot make a difference . Its over already for UA. Better for all of us lets go for peace.

[@TB-zf7we]

IMHO a few Leo 2's in Ukrainian hands is a great idea, not for combat initially but to train up a corp of personnel to work with the new platform. In the meantime its very possible to upgrade other 2A4's to 2A7 giving some needed parity with T-90's. You won't see Leopards on the front lines for a while but the Russian invasion doesn't look to be ending this month, maybe not this year.

[@Squee7e]

The invasion won't end this year if not for a political decision of one side. Strategically both sides will be able to keep the fight up for at least one more year

[@moonasha]

probably not going to end this half of the decade honestly

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@moonasha Another unbased opinion..16yr olds are on the frontlines fgs!

[@alek9195]

@@moonasha It is unlikely that the West will be able to financially support Ukraine that much.

[@Grimshak81]

@@alek9195of course. They have to anyway. The west will pump money into and gear up Ukraine until Russia collapses or retreats from all Ukrainian territories. Because everything else costs more. Even Pakistan now provides ammo to Ukraine and India considers joining the price cap for Russian oil. Russia cannot win the financial war and that is why it gets more on the Blackfoot each day. Short lived human wave successes like Soledar won’t change this. There’s a finite number of prisoners and a finite number of young Russians willing to get slaughtered in the Russian army. And until now, Ukraine has more volunteers (!) than they can kit out.

[@willbarnstead3194]

Another big advantage of providing western tanks is the ability to use western ammunition, as there are shortages of ammunition for Soviet style tanks. Don’t want to jinx it, but it looks like several nations will provide Leopard 2, hopefully some of the newer versions. British will provide Challenger 2, and who knows, maybe Abrams. Getting sufficient western kit and ammunition to Ukraine will give Ukraine a chance to defend after the next round of Russian mobilization.

[@TheRealBillBob]

No one is providing anything. The world isn't a military flea market for the Ukrainians. They need to fight the Russians with what they have already. Win or fail.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

By the time these tankscare anywhere, it will be spring. It maybe sooner as training began last summer , but no amount of Western tanks will affect the outcome of this conflict, only the attrition rates.

[@thomaslacornette1282]

The leopards need 4 man teams (and most of western tanks) but they are reputed quite easy to use. Other tanks will need months of training to master them. For the soviet era ammo US have asked Romania and Bulgaria to reopen refurbish old factories or open new lines to increase their production but they will not do this for free and it seems they don't even have the capacity to produce enough ammo to sustain actual war consumption rate (cause most Ukraine artillery of soviet era are instorage facilities and i guess many of their tanks too). In the end in this war tanks are not that important and artillery is, on the two sides tanks are easily destroyed by artillery strikes. I see this tanks pakcage as a communication offensive: they give Ukraine tanks when they should give it artillery (or an new air force but that would take years) but they already give all they could and even is they could give more they would not be enough ammo shells for them.

[@vicjokoper8142]

But ukraine should have around 1000 soviet tanks left. Wouldnt be more effective for the west to produce and supply ammo for them, because they need to supply 1000 or more western tanks to make any difference... which is very unlikely to happen... Or the truth is that western reports are wrong and ukraine has almost no tanks left, like russia is claiming?

[@mikkohakkinen3359]

Well there isn't any manufacturing of soviet ammo in the west so it's much easier to send somewhat working tanks and western ammo rather than repair old soviet junk and find a way to produce ammo for them.

[@hhkk6155]

Top notch analysis, as always!

[@rosscollingwood5189]

The amount of armour and the effectiveness of the gun not withstanding, it will really come down to the quality of the crews and the way they are deployed, and both of those elements remain to be seen.

[@stevehill4615]

Good video, I was curious as to whether sending modern western systems was better (in terms of retraining) than sending older Soviet systems where users can use immediately with minimal reintegration.

[@mattjessup8376]

I would think that training for those who already have skills in place shouldn’t take several months but only about a month. In education it’s called “prior knowledge;” it’s like an auto mechanic learning to become a diesel mechanic. There are many similarities but different concepts.

[@alfredogruber122]

Good video, but need to point out a small error in your information. Spain operates the Leo 2E, which a slightly uparmoured 2a6 with air conditioning, something lacking in the German 2a6. Spain bought a batch of 2a4 in 1995, in order to train troops and maintenance crews, but those are now in storage as reserve units. It is these out of service tanks, that may be sent to Ukraine.

[@Ricardo-lb4so]

En realidad, hasta el momento en Ukraine no hemos visto batallas de tanques, apenas duelos de dos o tres unidades. En una guerra abierta el balance se define en terminos de numero de unidades perdidas, tal como en el Bulge, Kursk y Ardenas. Y en tales ocasiones ademas de las caracteristicas operacionales de los tanques, as estrategias de combate y el numero de unidades juegan l papel fundamental.

[@a.p.3004]

This is the only comment i've read which sais, lodgic and understanding.

[@andrej5861]

It all depends who gets better tactical position ie first good shot. It also depends on ammo used (which is never considered- most russian tanks have been seen using outdated ammo). In the end most loses will be from anti tank weapons and artillery.

[@eliasziad7864]

Stupid, Russian tankers have armored pericing rounds made of tungsten that can penetrate frontal armor of M1a2 abrams.

[@robjohnson5872]

Great video. Really shows the need for months of preparation for this one tank type. There's other countries now offering tanks as well - each will have this similar path to follow. Let's hope they can still make a difference.

[@bewing77]

It should be noted that when talking about APFSDS round penetration it rarely makes a difference if the target has ERA or not, only some very specialized ERA systems has any effect on a kinetic penetrator. As for “older ATGMs” being able to destroy Leo2A4 that also doesn’t say a lot without knowing details of the engagement, since even really old ATGMs can penetrate most of the very latest MBTs from the rear.

[@brunovalentine61]

Now we know that it was just media hype. Since most of these tanks are now on trains back to Poland to be repaired. After quick tour of the Russian defences . really feel sorry for the poor Germans. Its going to be very difficult to convince other countries to buy their tank

[@indyjons321]

At this point, I feel like countries are just pushing their equipment over there to see how well they actually stack up in a conflict.

[@CertifiedBullpupHater]

Bingo

[@tellyboy17]

That might be true if they sent the latest and greatest but 2A4, Marder, Bradley, Gepard and AMX 10 all have one thing in common: obsolete junk that the donors were going to phase out anyway.

[@Gstyle1]

No, they use Ukraine just as a scrapeyard for their old systems to get rid of them and to weaken Russia. The only modern weapons beeing send were the M777, PzH 2000 and some other artillery and even then, most of them were the oldest versions.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Most of those systems are battle tested. Even HIMARS has been used against Russians - in 2018 Wagner was on the receiving end in Syria.

[@FrugalPCOG]

They're pushing them over there to get rid of outdated and barely running stock. The U.S., right on queue has guaranteed to resupply these countries with our barely obsolete gear still packing our storage yards.

[@aniruddhamondal9185]

T72M4cz are quite good and polish twardy are also quite good Ukraine also has a high number of T80 in storage

[@pavlosemenoff1415]

We know all things about Leo for now. 😂😂😂😂😂

[@augustvonmackensen2102]

15 of Polish Leopards 2A5, not A4 were recently overhauled in Poznań. Just sain...

[@LegatusGaius]

I think your stats for Leopard 2A4 armor RHAe equivalent and the penetration abilities of the DM33 APFSDS are both wide off the mark. I’m seeing frontal aspect RHAe figures for Leopard 2A4 of as high as 700mm on the turret and 600mm on the hull. Likewise, I am seeing penetration figures for the DM33 as high as 600mm RHAe. While this is all speculation, it seems highly highly likely that Leopard 2A4 will provide overmatch against all but the most recent variants of the most modern Russian tanks, using recent ERA, even discounting the digital fire control systems (and improved imagers, which you touched on). A significant number of Leopard 2A4s with contemporary ammunition would likely be a game changer, in my view. Edit: I would be very cautious about taking the Russian technical specifications at face value when doing any “on paper” assessments of which vehicle comes out on top. The T-90M is undoubtedly an improvement, but Russian weapon systems seem to underperform the advertised specs almost universally. Whether this is because of overstating the design or poor operations / doctrine, I don’t know. It is not at all clear in my view that a T-90M beats a Leopard 2A4, although I think it has a better shot than any other tank the Russians have actually managed to field.

[@jasonkings6721]

there is a video showing under the russian brick armour its rubber must be armour plated rubber eh

[@LegatusGaius]

@@jasonkings6721 well, there’s that lol. Probably not quite as effective as the advertised protection value of Kontakt-5 ERA.

[@pilotman9819]

@@jasonkings6721 That's called the 4B22. Or the Egg Carton. Its meant to just pop tandem warheads and that's that.

[@LegatusGaius]

@@pilotman9819 good to know! 👍

[@moonasha]

where did he even get those numbers from? I didn't see them on wikipedia

[@Kretion666]

good vid!

[@Recovering_Californian]

Tank vs Tank comparison and performances difference are important to consider, but, the tank operators and their experience are probably more important. It's not the car, its the driver. So to speak.

[@francissalguero1111]

If the leopard 2A4 did not fare well in Syria, dont expect it to do any better in Ukraine. chances are that it will never face a Russian tank, most likely they will be destroyed by ATGM's, Artillery or mines.

[@winstonsyme7672]

Given those Armor and Penetration stats you might as well just flood them with Leopard 1s. I was not aware the earlier Leopards were that incredibly anemic. I'd always considered Leopard 2s to have some of the best armor, with apparently the A5 and later models in mind.

[@LegatusGaius]

His stats are low. Leopard 2A4 has 700mm RHAe on the front of the turret and 600mm on the front hull. It should stop anything up to the latest Soviet era ammo (which would’ve been contemporary with the time it was introduced).

[@xapocotacox]

Penetration tables are incredibly inconsistent and shouldn’t be used to determine effectiveness.

[@teodoreh]

I have some little experience on Leopard tanks. You didn't mention at all the most significant thing, which is the onboard computer that calculates every shot for the main gun. Loading is not a big deal. You can train someone in a week. For the rest of the crew, there's a 3 month basic training that covers everything, but during wartime you can reduce this to a month or less. Lastly, Turkey used Leopards on attacking missions on foreign ground. It was so obvious that they would have heavy casualties. Ukraine seems to need tanks not for the tank vs tank war (they already have a hell of mobile anti-tank weapons). They seem to need the tanks for counter-offensive tactical moves against light units which are supported at best by mortars.

[@AgentSmith911]

2A7+ would be nice for urban warfare but they're expensive

[@katraapplesauce1203]

one of the key advantages is also for recon. The leo2s commander peri has a really amazing thermal sight and it would be fairly easy to use the leos in well planned out recon situations because you can see enemy troops and vehicles at really long distances with, including at night

[@nietkees6906]

They only have a commander thermal sight from the 2A5 onwards. The version that will probably be sent to Ukraine, the 2A4, doesn’t have it.

[@bryjaks2446]

we live in an age of drones with thermal cameras, there is no ground recon with a tank

[@fennoman9241]

@@nietkees6906 Germany is sending 2A6

[@nietkees6906]

@@fennoman9241 Yes, I didn't really expect that but I am really happy they are sending 2A6s.

[@wordofswords5386]

It having thermals alone makes it better than 90% of Russian tanks.

[@rajaydon1893]

90% no, a good portion yes

[@Thesomersetgimp]

Common misconception, a lot do have thermals now.

[@shootinputin6332]

90%? Keep eating that propaganda. Also, thermals are not uncommon in Russia's tank force. Don't drink the kool-aid.

[@darkmemes953]

Prob 40-50% Russian tank, the Russians have a lot of tanks with thermals.

[@ktms1188]

They don't have thermals these are the old versions of leopard tanks and not one country is talking of sending modernized heavy armor.

I have never seen such a civilised and quite well informed comment section under a tank video. Nice :)

[@tobiwan001]

The difference between an A4 and the A7V version of the Leopard 2 is that of a generation. You cannot compare an antique A4 version (even before wedge armour) to a modern Leopard 2.

[@reinerheiner1148]

Due to their speed and accuracy while driving they will most likely be used in blitzkrieg tactics, supported by bradleys for fast spearhead attacks into enemy territory. In any other, more defensive role they would be wasted unless they have no other tanks for the same role nearby. I hope they get upgraded before being sent into battle though. While the west has tons of leos, building capacity is most likely very limited

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

No blitzkrieg, no air cover. No artillery superiority. Just heavier coffins. Why not volunteer?

[@rflats771]

That sounds really nice when you're sitting at home in Suburban California or whereever USA and you have your blue and yellow football jersey on, but given the fact that there's only going to be 12ish leos and 12ish Challenger 2s, that hardly makes for a armored counter offensive force

[@reinerheiner1148]

@@a.m.armstrong8354 you seem to forget that ukraine did use blitzkrieg tactics to great success so far to push behind enemy lines.

[@reinerheiner1148]

@@rflats771 there will be more for sure.

[@rflats771]

@@reinerheiner1148 Lol, yeah sure, maybe for the Gallacian rump state that's left over after the war abs post Zelensky

[@fuckingpippaman]

went down good 😂

[@pantheraleo1047]

Did he actually say "according to orcs" in 7:05?😂😂 Love it!😄

[@SerialWaffleStomper]

I'm not sure if I agree with this comparison. IRL the most likely to win is the tank that spots the target first and scores a hit. To achieve that the most important are the crew ergonomics, tank optics, how easy it is for the commander to spot targets independently from the gunner and then translate that information to the gunner, how quickly the tank can get from and into cover, how well can it perform in the hull down position etc. Most of the statistics that You mentioned - excluding the reverse speed and thermals - are the typical video game stats, things like armor thincknes, penetration, caliber etc.

[@philipcoffman4372]

they performed awesome lol

[@laurenth7187]

There will never be enough leopards. You have to send a whole army, not only a few tanks, and that won't happen.

[@Cyberdemon1542]

Sounds great for ambushes during night time in hilly terrain and for defending urban areas.

[@suomynonaanonymous9646]

A video on the challenger and fv304s being sent from the UK please

[@voltaire229]

long range tank on tank battles are extremely rare.

[@burre01]

depends how you employ them, ukraine and russia are (mostly) employing tanks piecemeal as fire support to infantry, thats not how you ideally want to employ them. you keep them in reserve then punch holes in the enemy defences by overwhelming a small area with tanks in the spearhead,tanks protecting IFV's, IFV's protecting tanks from infantry, infantry protecting IFV's, in combination with fire support from 155mm artillery and rocket artillery with anti armor cluser munitions to take care of enemy armored formations. When these big tank formations form, the enemy must respond by gathering his own tank formations or they will get overrun, thats when you will see tank on tank engagements.

[@slintirreg]

Well, when Poland sends them there is really no telling what ammo they will fire, since there are a lot of operators in Europe firendly to Ukraine and many of them have given a lot to the fight already so I would not be surprised to see more modern ammo in the field. Finland also seemed keen on sending tanks that would likely be more A4s But more intersting would be if we see the Swedes chips in, they only got upgraded versions similar to an A5

[@bananowy_ocet762]

The problem with ammo isn't that Poland doesn't have newer variant, but the whole tank guns are not fit for modern ammunition. If you want to shoot something better, you need to swap the barrel for more modern one.

[@VOTE-jw6qy]

I guess it's better than nothing. But, necessary to have a combined arms effort in order to take on any enemy.

[@BroadHobbyProjects]

Declassified UK documents mention the Leopard 2 A4 armour being much less armoured as the British Challenger 1 mk1 and the Leopard 2 A3 being comparable to the Chieftain mk9 with Still brew armour. In fact the Challanger 1 mk3 had even better armour rated at round 600-650mm frontal protection (without added on era or added Chobham) The Leopard 2 A6 was when they really got much better armour upgrades.

[@termitreter6545]

That comparision doesnt even make sense. The Challenger 1 is a fairly hefty 1980s tank, from the same time as Leopard 2A4. The MK3 is a 90s upgrade around Desert Storm. And im pretty sure the UK wouldnt declassify documents describing the secret armor capabilities of a Leopard 2, thats absurd lol. In reality we still dont even know how the first generation of western composite armor even works, let alone a tanks armor capabilities. Anyone claiming we got "declassified" numbers is clearly lying.

[@BroadHobbyProjects]

@@termitreter6545 They are obtainable via the national archives. Some others did this prior to me knowing you could and put them on various forums. Declassified as the armour matrix used in both Challenger 1 variants, Leopard 2 A4 aren't in use now. The mk3 was penned in initially for late 89 but got moved to mid 1990, it was to have more armour on the hull and more on some parts of the turret. One of the shown pages has the Leopard A3 (main version until early 1990's) had approx 350mm RHAe on the turret front and hull. Chieftain mk 9 with Stillbrew had approx 300mm on the turret and 275mm hull front. Challenger mk1 had 500mm on turret front, about 300mm on the hull. Mk2 had them bring up the armour on the hull to match the turret for improved survivability. Mk3 was to have this upped to the 600mm figure. The front ERA likely only added about 50mm protection against non HEAT rounds. If you Google - challenger 1 and Leopard 2 declassified armour values and go to images you'll see a varying amount. The only one that doesn't get specific about the upped 600mm with the mk3 and that's because said files I couldn't find uploaded by others. At the time of Op Granny/Desert Storm Britain had about 140 brought to the mk3 standard which was the better filters for the engine, add on armour along with the base vehicle ass on armour before being shipped to the Gulf. Along with

[@BroadHobbyProjects]

@@termitreter6545 The armour of early Dorchester is in other documents about the challenger more specifically. With tests showing multiple hits in images, the armour is layered spaced armour panels with a flexible rubber/plastic backing so when the round hits each plate is pushed in and the reflex of the more flexible back creates more resistant energy before said round hits the next plate. M1 Abrams had this armour, except the M1A2 HA variant which had US applied depleted uranium armour panels in key areas making it slightly better protected than even the mk3 Challenger 1. From M1A2 armour figures out there with the then estimated protection via the depleted uranium zones those particular areas had approx 650-680mm of protection. There is a lot of info out there, worth a look you'll find it interesting. Before the whole debacle of Challenger 2 armour protection levels and such were leaked I'd had a good look at them myself. Put it this way Challenger 2 even without add on armour was comparable to the Leopard 2 A6 against fin rounds, against HEAT it was still approx 200mm better. The US M1A2 SEP 2 had about 100mm better protection against fin rounds than the Challenger 2 and very similar protection against HEAT rounds. Anyway them files were scrubbed from the web and rightly so.

[@termitreter6545]

@@BroadHobbyProjects Yeah, Ive seen people make claims about declassified armors. But whenever I poked them, they cant deliver any actual evidence. Every time it just turns out theyre making up shit, or misunderstood something. Im pretty sure even the declassified stuff about the chieftain, with the earliest Chobham, doesnt fully go into describing the function and effeectiveness of the armor. And also Im also fairly sure the first gen of Abrams armor from the late 70s is fully classified. And by the way, hundreds of Leopard 2A4 are still in service. So no, it would be a pretty big problem if someone leaked its armor capabilities.

[@BroadHobbyProjects]

@@termitreter6545 Export models are different and tailored as such before sales. Sweden for example were tinkering with their own (STRV) which they improved their A4's to closer in protection levels to the A5. There is two page I've seen with diagram drawings showing the increased mm in protection levels in various arcs/angles at two given ranges. Germany has about 200 A4/A5' in storage. The rest of Europe I'm not 100% sure about. But again it doesn't matter as the armour isn't the exact same. In all seriousness ignore what most say in regards to protection figures but I'd honestly advise you to nose online like is said. That's how I came across so many. Such as papers discussing how fully up armouring chieftain was impossible due to the turret design and the engine to weight ratio that would likely cause further engine breakdowns. They had small mounted blocks they tried firing on the turret and hull, but only covered about 65/70% of the frontal arc, even that was stressing the engine. So gor lucky bringing in the Challenger 1 when they got it. Orders were limited for varying reasons, a bit one was Challenger 2 being in the pipeline already. At the time they even hoped to have the first batches ordered by 1990. Instead they only had a couple of prototypes. If not for the full of the soviet union & knowledge of it possibly happening prior the fully armoured divisions/brigades would likely have eventually had upto 1200 challenger 2's (or around 800 and kept the Challenger 1's too) Would of been interesting. Anyway it's worth a dig because that's how I accidentally found the warthunder post of the guy who leaked the challenger 2 armour protection levels and such. Along with areas add on armour would be most beneficial. Etc That became a thing in the news with all evidence of said leaked images erased.

[@CookieMonster-nt8hh]

everybody describes the Russian ammo racks as these fatal flaws turning their tanks into death traps. The argument then goes on with describing how western tanks use blowout panels so if the ammunition is hit, it doesn't kill the tank. What that doesn't take into account is that the hit necessary to ignite the ammunition are totally different. And if both tanks were hit and penetrated in a way that would've popped the turret on a Russian tank, I doubt the western one would be that much better off.

[@michael-gb3rn]

the problem with that statement is the placement of ammo in difference tank. the Russian ammo is stored directly under the turret and that is why it goes flying, some shot might mess up the blowout panel and the explosion goes inward no denying that but but most would go outward and save at least most the crew idk about the guy standing near the ammo and loading the shells tho,

[@realnapster1522]

Western tanks will fare no better. Tanks are fast becoming obsolete due to top attack missiles. No tank is safe now 😢

[@CookieMonster-nt8hh]

@@realnapster1522 no they're not. sure, they're vulnerable, but as long as there's nothing that can give you the speed, firepower, protectiveness, and tactical freedom there's no way they'll become obsolete

[@gerhardswihla1099]

The polish Leopard 2PL has more armor at the turret. It would also be interesting how good the T-90 can hit during movement in different terrain compared to the Leopard 2 for hit and run tactics.

[@zaza7658]

70tons tank (Leopard) can't hit & run at all - physics not let him to do so

[@gerhardswihla1099]

@@zaza7658 You know that it is also called hit and run when the Infantry does it? The human max. speed record is at 37,58 km/h at the world championships of 2009. Remember a human under competitive sport circumstances. So a human concentrating only on running forward without any additional gear. The Leopard 2 drives max. about (depends on the variant) 70 km/h forward and 30 km/h backward. It seems to me physics does allow the Leopard 2 to do hit and run, since weight, motor power, suspension and the transmission ratio is build for it.

[@zaza7658]

@@gerhardswihla1099 maybe yes, maybe no. real war is huge difference. however, so far, leopards used by Turkish army in Syria and they failed ,terrible "real life" results

[@gerhardswihla1099]

@@zaza7658 I know and guess what. The turkish army used it like bunkers without infantry support. No weapon system and espacially no land combat systems is meant to operate only on it's own. The Turks in this case just forgot how combined arms are supposed to work. It like using a tool in a way it isn't supposed to be used and it's more likely someone gets hurt in the process.

[@lordofdunvegan6924]

Russian tanks. the t-72 for example, use the autoloader which does eliminate a crewman, BUT this is accomplished by using a caroussel to store and load the ammunition. This is located under the crew in the turret and not sealed: hence the jack in the box response when the turret is hit and the personnel become instant crispie critters.

[@killer3000ad]

When the T-72 was designed, top down attack munitions did not exist. At the time, the autoloader design seemed superior since it not only eliminated one crewman but also meant that the tank could be smaller and thus make a smaller target. Today we laugh at the T-72s brewing up and tossing their turrets but back in the 70s, the T-72 was rightfully feared as the prospect of thousands of them rolling across Europe put the fear into NATO.

[@maddantt7757]

bro, what do you call the big cat on the savannah - a Leo-Pard or a Lepp-erd? sheesh man

[@Jehty21]

Is this video talking about a big cat?

[@Simonsvids]

@@Jehty21 It is talking about a tank named after a big cat, as is traditional with German tanks, and they all have corresponding English names pronounced in the English way.

[@FlyWithMe_666]

1:40 This seems to be the Norwegian model - quite a cool way to park & hide your tank.

[@JoeOvercoat]

3:53 you read my mind! I was just thinking if I have IR but I’m fragile then can I ‘scout & scoot’.?

[@galesams4205]

i served on a M-48 tank in vietnam 90mm main but had 6-7 diffrent flavors of ammo to be used . Crew of 5-6 soldiers . The canester round was always used when serch and destroy base camps of enemy.

[@pilotman9819]

Ukraine's Maintenance Battalions must be pulling there heads out with all of these differing weapons and vehicles being thrown at them.

[@redbovine]

A lot are returning to Poland where nato troops are servicing them.

[@rattroll4803]

Leopard II's are the best in the world, But! You must use them correctly..Probably only useful there in fire support role...Could be very difficult for them to utilize effectively..

[@jd190d]

A lot of the Russian reactive armor addons were bags holding rags to look like they had reactive armor. We also have not seen many tanks recently newer than the T64 on the Russian side recently and they haven't been having any thermal sights. If you lay down smoke and the Russians are using starlight scopes they are blind. The other major factor on the Russian side is that their experienced tank crews were killed early on and now they mostly have barely trained conscripts manning their tanks. I was a 19E in the U.S Army and the difference between an experienced crew and recruits in tank engagements is tremendous.

[@justicehenrydamian475]

Your source is highly questionable. You saw two or three videos and assumed the thousands of Russian tanks have game ERA

[@TheBosti]

The Leopard 2PL is a main battle tank used by the Polish Armed Forces, and is a modernized version of the older Leopard 2A4 tank wikipedia

[@junebug9267]

They only have 10 2PLs

[@bananowy_ocet762]

@@junebug9267 Poland has around 40 2PLs. Where did you find that info?

[@andrzejabramczyk3600]

2PL is very good tank, but Poland won't give them to Ukraine. We are waiting for Abrams, K2 and polish new tank K2PL ( new constructrion )

[@loathsomedungeater7913]

Yeah but it does not matter bc they do not have stalinium in them. So sending them should not be a problem idk why they are afraid of sending them all of Russias tanks out match them like the video suggested.

[@malinowygarnek4620]

And? Why are you mentioning that since Poland is not sending 2PL variant to Ukraine?

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

You actually say Leopard! rather than Lepard, hats off to you man.

[@asmdogan3006]

By the way there is no armor between crew compartment and " hull ammo storage " in Leo 2a4. Survivability is low.

[@paullakowski2509]

i saw diagram of cylinder shell containers and reportedly blow out panels facing downwards?????

[@evriellesmith6659]

With the bradleys and all the other high speed support might work as very good for blitzkrieg attacks

[@oconnor6456]

Ah, how do you like superior western tanks burning 😂😂

[@ktms1188]

Without the training, logistics and massive infrastructure it takes to keep modern fighting vehicles going This is just a massive publicity stunt.

[@Legalizeasbestos]

Think of it as a pilot program. this is the big test to see if western supplied tanks are even feasible. It won’t be easy but it can open the doors to 1000 leopards across NATO.

[@charlesswain554]

They've likely been training Ukrainian soldiers in these tanks for a while now, I don't believe they'd send them if they didn't know how to use them

[@goobfilmcast4239]

UKR forces have likely sent crews and trainers to Poland already.....they may have already been training for weeks, maybe months on lots of other NATO kit, not just the Leopards. Getting UKR tank crews to Poland for training is basically a few hours ride by train or car. Also, Lots of training and basic familiarization can also be accomplished "on-line" and in simulators. Poland and other Leopard operators now have a market for these older but still capable tanks.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

@@charlesswain554 Sending these is a sop to political pressure, nothing more.

[@marijnnn4992]

Man comparing a tank from 1970 to a tank from 1990

[@dude926]

It's a leopard 2

[@goodsoup6085]

Think there also getting 14 challenger 2s how do you think they compare and do you think any problems will arise from having so many different tanks and ifvs?

[@koenradofrinbe]

The soldier wrote on the shell: "put your knees up", but I don't know why

[@postItNoteObsession]

"they lost 400 more tanks (with visual confirmations*) since last time I made a video about them in September.." DAMN That really puts it into perspective.

[@Careonovam]

The thing you need to compare is accuracy and ability to engage in long distance combat, since that is what tanks are for. And since german tanks tend to be deadly accurate on longer distances I would say they have a good chance to pulverize a few Ivans. Hopefully the ukrainian defenders get a good crash course on how to use this tank.

[@trololoev]

russian tanks has missles that can vaporised couple of nazi at 5 km range.

[@bernhardstil6128]

Use them to strengthen more defensive positions and for fire support and many of the shortcomings won't be that much of an issue. They don't have to go toe to toe against the Russian tanks - even more so since these big tank battles are rare even in Ukraine. ATGMs currently do a well enough job against Russian tanks.

[@darhammora7867]

It’s better to make a video about how would the Challenger 2 would perform as it would be certain to go to Ukraine

[@cykablyat123br9]

Just a fact to add for the video. Most of russian modern tanks today have thermals. (T72b3-b3ubh,t80bvm,t80uk and t90a-m) Even the t62's recieved thermals lol. Btw, In the case of leopard 2a4 vs the t90m, the t90m is cleary superior. The only thing that the 2a4 wins t90m is on its reverse speed. T90m have LWS,superior fire control system, superior armor and a panoramic sight with thermals for the comander with a remote control MG. This is just a comparision so pls dont come and coment obvious things like "oh tank combats are rare" "oh the major threats for the tanks are drones and blablabla" i know bro.

[@alexsmart5452]

When combined with the Bradley in hunter killer groups(3 Bradleys and one Tank), with the ability to hand of targeting information(10 digit GPS cords) to arty(Himars, M110s) they could be a great way to tear holes in the Russian flanks. The Challenger 2 in hunter killer groups is going to be nasty... all 10 of them

[@TheDemigans]

I’d see these tanks as trainers. They will introduce the NATO tank concept to Ukraine, what is necessary to maintain them, how to operate them, what to do with them. There is also the point to be made about what it will fight. Its easy to compare it to another tank, but even the best equipped armies have more armored vehicles that arent tanks on the frontline than actual tanks. Having a Leopard as an addition to your group to engage other vehicles or even infantry while more capable tanks are pushed towards the opposing tanks can be incredibly important. Not to mention that the thermals can mean that not just the Leopard but the entire battle group can identify and engage a target sooner, which is a boost even if the Leopard cannot destroy it.

[@HonchHeado]

I would be more worried about the Challenger 2 that thing is deadly.

[@zano187]

What are your thoughts of sending M60 patton tanks? The older 105s would provide decent armored fire support, while the 120s were even used by the US in the Gulf War and even killed T72s

[@Squee7e]

The US should rather send Strykers then. The M60 is not giving enough protection nowadays to justify it's weight vs fast infantry support guns.

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

"So many mad, blind hopes.." Dolon, Homer: The Iliad: Marauding Through the Night.

[@Mortablunt]

Passing tangs basically don’t exist anymore handful of countries have them in tiny numbers all the big reserves have long since been scrapped.

[@zano187]

@A Perpetual Guardsman with a flashlight A shame, hopefully this war is a lesson in holding onto old equipment instead of scrapping it. As modern manufacturers cannot keep pace with a modern war, deeper reserves would be necessary to replace losses.

[@josecorreia8280]

Portugal has out in rain get rust

[@colbunkmust]

The armor vulnerabilities aren't really an issue as I see it. UA can always add ERA to Leopard if they think they need it, and the real advantage with L2 is the fire control systems and thermals and availability of logistical and training support. If they can get enough of them, it will make UA armor a lot better at dealing with the type of threats they have been fighting. In modern tank on tank warfare, shooting first is what normally determines a victor, and having better optics and targeting give you the edge in that scenario.