Leopard 1A5 in UAF: War Is Algebra | Episode 04

[@UATVEnglish]

Subscribe to The Gaze: www.youtube.com/@TheGazeDigitalPlatform

[@NeubrandGunther-i7x]

Schonen abend dear Ukrainians and all Ukraine supporters ❤ well spoken yet again ❤ Slava Ukraine 💙💛 we all Ukraine 💯👍 sehr gut 🇩🇪👍

[@cfrasier1419]

Looks like they did a great job upgrading these 1A5’s. Some of that kit looks brand new.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

nah its just the same it was 30 years ago. just well maintained unlke the russian stuff

[@beersmurff]

The Danish donated 1A5's where last updated in 1998 and were not replaced with Leo 2 until 2005. A very capable piece of weaponry I had the blessing of driving in 1994-1996

[@Ianmundo]

The Abrams, Challenger and Leopard 2 were developed because NATO overestimated how powerful Soviet tanks were. In reality, Soviet tank designs don’t have the mobility or survivability that was claimed. The Leopard 1 doesn’t have great armour but it has a superb gun and modern optics and fire control, more than capable of knocking out any Russian tank

[@beersmurff]

Plus, the Russian tank crews are mostly Green and inexperienced these days, where as these Ukranians are well trained by the Germans, Danes and Dutch on these vehicles. I'd take a well trained crew in a Leo 1A5 over a Green crew in a M1 or Leo2 any day. Modern FCS on the Leo1 and with trained crew, you dont need armor. The Danes showed that in the Balkans in 94

[@iachi73]

Si vede proprio che non li conoscete, hanno un cannone rigato da 105 che non sfonda nessuna corazza moderna hanno ottiche di 30 anni fa di prima generazione e hanno una corazza che non regge I 30mm

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

its not overestimation. The NATO MBTs of the time (Leopard 1, M60, Chieftain, AMX-30) all reached a limit to their capability. Armor Protection with 60´s era technology was limited and new armor technology emerged (composite armor chobham style). Also main armament capability reached limits. The 105mm gun was good but not longer sufficient to engange and destroy sovjet T-72´s on save distances, so the 120mm smoothbore was needed. Also the 105mm had more or less peaked in its capability for further developement at the time. Sensor developement had progressed way beyond what M60, Leo1, Chieftain etc were capable of supporting. Newer engine and powerpack technology was also availible. Do you want to have a system where you expect that it is barely good enough for the job, or a system that utterly trashes the opposition? i would choose the second one when i build my force around a limited pool of availible soldiers.

[@neilba1]

super accurate gun on a very mobile fast platform. useful.

[@Buckfast76]

I love your little battelcat! 🐈 She will bring you luck!🍀

[@Vladimirthetiny]

1:09 that's *5* crew members

[@Buckfast76]

Little Leo!

[@fabonzanaon8177]

Poor animal, exposed to a possible impact of hollow charges, drones, artillery shells, mortar greandes, airplane bombs, mines, rockets etc...

[@Vladimirthetiny]

@@fabonzanaon8177 where there cats there are mice

[@Buckfast76]

@@fabonzanaon8177 yeah this is sad! But all animals or humans in war region have a hard life.

[@heinedenmark]

Perfectly fine for infantry support

[@Franky46Boy]

Right! You see hardly any tank versus tank battles in this war...

[@tessjuel]

No, that's one purpose the Leopard 1 is not good for. Think of the British tank doctrine during world war ii. They had two kinds of tanks, heavily armored but slow infantry tanks that stayed with the troops and slugged it out and fast but lightly armored cruiser tanks that hit fast and got out before the enemy had time to react. The Leopard 1 is very much a cruiser tank. The Russian tanks are based on yet another concept. They are "mass attack" tanks, built to be cheap and expendable and manned by cheap and expendable crew.

[@heinedenmark]

@@tessjuel Ukraine use it for infantry support. It has a very precise 105mm rifled gun barrel. Good sights and fire control. Lots of different types of ammunition. It's fine for fire support.

[@tessjuel]

@@heinedenmark Oh, I misunderstood you then. I thought you meant the traditional close support infantry tank role. The Leopard 1 is an excellent "sniper tank" according to the Ukrainian crews that operate it. They brag about their 3 second load time and one of them actually said something about 90% hit rate at 3,500 m range (tor a little bit more than two miles in case any Americans read this). I don't actually think there is any smooth bore gun that can match that and Challenger 2, the only other tank with a rifled barrel in Ukraine, doesn't have that range at all, at least not on paper. So yes, you are right. As long as it has a clear line of sight it can stay way back in relative safety and still provide effective fire support to the troops at the front line and apparently this is the main role the Ukrainian have given to the Leopard 1. (Just for fun, compare it to a T-90. The T-90 can fire 8 rounds in a minute at most and at 3,500 m range it may hit the enemy with perhaps five of them - and probably hit its own troops with one. If the Leopard 1 crews' claims are correct, the Leo 1 can fire 20 rounds in a minute and at 3,500 m range hit the target with 18 of them.)

[@conormcnamara2273]

Nah it's designed to be a anti-tank sniper. Specifically anti cold war Russian tank sniper, which is actually what it will be facing in Ukraine.

[@Jhossack]

At least the tanks look like they actually have been used as intended.

[@brealistic3542]

When used properly and as the designers had intended this is still a very deadly vehicle. It relies on speed accuracy and advanced systems to fight at long distances.

[@mryouben]

Your resistance is an inspiration

[@operator9858]

a tank is better then no tank, and while this 'can' be effective trying to hold a static line against much heavier and modern tanks with enemy artillery all around you probably isnt going to be the most efficient use of them. its not about protecting every inch of land. its about making the space cost something to take while preserving your strength....

[@AirAssault7]

I like that they relabeled everything in their language in the tank so they can read what every part is for.

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

If the Leopard 1 were heavily armored for the time of its conception, it wouldn’t fare any better against modern ATGMs or Tank rounds than it does with its actual armor, so going for mobility instead seems to be a compromise, that holds up better to test of time.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

its due to the low velocity and high arced ballistics of 1960´s HEAT and HESH rounds, that were the precieved main threat in combination with the poor firecontrol and optics of the day. it was very difficult to hit a moving target with a HEAT round on range. If you cant be protected against HEAT (even Chieftain as the heaviest armored NATO MBT of the day was not protected vs T-55´s HEAT rounds) then better not be hit -> mobility over armor.

[@-----REDACTED-----]

I appreciate the Tactical Tank Kitty! Fits well with a Leopard!

[@daviddiani5825]

La Primavera si avvicina, i Piloti Ucraini sono pronti per imparare lo Sparo in Semi-sommersione nell' agguato fluviale (River Ambush). Ai piloti deve essere spiegato che l'acqua di un fiume o una palude è come una Corazza aggiuntiva quando il Leopard 1 è in Immersione ed è Termoschermante: il Carro in acqua diventa invisibile agli infrarossi e, con lo Sparo in Semi-sommersione può sparare lo stesso

[@user-zp8sp4hj3d]

Where’s the algebra? I see “math”, or “Statistics”, but I did not see a single algebraic equation.

[@damianm-nordhorn116]

7:00 The "Biber" is a beaver. .. pronounced like "beaver", only with a "b" instead of a "v"

[@u.s.1974]

or like the popstar from canada

[@damianm-nordhorn116]

@@u.s.1974 Yeah, but I wanted to highlight the Biber being a 🦫 and not "byber" ;)

[@u.s.1974]

@@damianm-nordhorn116 Och, wenn du Amis den Namen aussprechen passt das schon. Schöne Grüße von jemandem, der in Deegfeld zur Schule gegangen ist.

[@damianm-nordhorn116]

@@u.s.1974 Gerade nach Deegfeld auf Maps geschaut. Das ist ja ein schöner Zufall! .. Wobei ich selbst nicht aus der Ecke komme, der Familienname früher mit "t" oder "dt" geschrieben wurde und man die längste Zeit (15./16. Jahrhundert) in der Ecke Gütersloh lebte. Ob es doch einen Bezug zur Stadt Nordhorn von davor gibt? 🤷

[@4evaavfc]

They are still a reliable and quick gun platform.

[@oleandersen2228]

Most likely former Danish 1A5

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

correct, from the german FFG company storage.

[@An3dmax]

Heard they are used as kind attellerie and with stage a5 they have decent updated tech on board

[@JeffreyThomas-th2ps]

Nice rugged piece of kit way better than a t72 it's main opposition upgrade the armour a bit it can be a game changer.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

you can put only so much armor ontop of it. (MEXAS-H Kit increases HEAT protection)

[@justnothing8692]

Its not like Ukrainians lack ERA to slap on leopard 1 why not upgrade it a bit

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

for an ERA to work properly you need a sufficient thick base armor. The 1A4 welded turret is spaced armor and cant carry ERA. Also ERA only reduces the post ERA penetration. And with Leo1 having reinforced cardboard as armor, its not going to matter is you got ERA ontop of it or not, even an RPG-7 will go through

[@thankyouforyourcompliance7386]

The background music is too loud and the information is repeated several times. But I like the format. There are always ways to improve.

[@mikharju]

what are canister and cumulative tank ammunition? I assume the armor piercing is some APFSDS type subcaliber thing and probably one of those two is shaped charge, but which and what is the other one then?

[@kiereluurs1243]

Just BS. I cut and disliked.

[@tessjuel]

Cumulative ammunition is better known as HEAT (High-Energy Anti-Tank) or shaped charge ammunition. It's designed to focus all the energy of the blast onto a tiny area of the surface it hits giving it far more penetration power than a regular round of the same size. Canister ammunition is the same as a shotgun round only much bigger.

[@mikharju]

@@tessjuel Many thanks! I was thinking one of them might be smoke. Hadn't heard of a shotgun shell for tanks before.

[@tessjuel]

@@mikharju Oh, canister shots are nothing new, they've been around for ages and were quite popular during the Napoleonic war and the American civil war.

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

​@@mikharju I'm not military, but presumably these are for use against infantry, unarmored vehicles, particularly troop/supply carrying trucks, and unfortified installations, encampments, etc.

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

do stronger tanks survive a ATGM hit ? the leo 1 reminds a bit of the hellcat that the us used back then.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

Leopard 2A6 is capable of withstanding Kornet ATGM´s as we have seen on a few images and videos by now.

[@SeanSoraghan]

It's more about crew survivalbility

[@azmodelsua]

Correct is Leopard 1A5DK

[@eco_stig8075]

How can you tell its the DK version? happy to see my countrie´s old tanks put to use tho, instead of just sitting in a old warehouse slowly degrading

[@tessjuel]

@@eco_stig8075 There are no Leopard 1A5s that were built from scratch, they are all earlier versions that have been upgraded and they've all kept the turret they originally had. The one in this video has a 1A3/1A4 turret and Denmark is the only country who has donated that particular variant to Ukraine.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@tessjuel *its from the stockpile of FFG, where denmark sold its former Leopard 1A5DK´s to

[@gerryhouska2859]

The background music is very annoying. Is it really necessary?

[@Proxxify]

У танка нет Фугасного снаряда...это есть просто катастрофа.в такой войне как сечас в Украине💯💥

[@mafmaf6417]

I hate to be a stickler here, but This is a Leopard 1A4. The Leopard 1A5 has a cast turret.

[@harmless6813]

It is not. No 1A4s have been donated to Ukraine. A comment below has the solution: All 1A5s are upgraded older models and these are from Denmark which have the older turret.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

The welded turret is from the last batches of production (last 100 of Batch 3 and then Batch 4, meaning Late 1A3 and 1A4). All Leopard 1 from german and danish service have been brought up to 1A5 standard, wich is the upgrade with Leopard 2´s FCS and gunners optronic. So there are Leopard 1A5 with welded and with cast turret, the defining feature is the FCS and optronics package that makes a 1A3/A4 to an A5

[@roastntoast7550]

Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 ♥️

[@kiereluurs1243]

Don't display artillery grenades with a tank.

[@iachi73]

Cannone rigato da 105mm che non buca nessun carro Russo

[@dartbro3570]

MEXAS BEST

[@Gerald_von_Butler]

And where is Algebra?😒

[@stephanrademann7715]

This is not a Leopard 1A5. This is a 1A3

[@HingerlAlois]

Ukraine has 0 Leopard 1A3. There are different 1A5 versions.

[@christianm.9960]

No, this is a 1A5, built from a former 1A3. The 1A5 is defined by the fire control system. The number is independent from the cast or weldet turret.

[@stephanrademann7715]

Ich bin ein ehemaliger 1a5 Fahrer. Das ist ein 1a3 Turm. Der 1a5 hat einen runden Turm mit zusatzpanzerung

[@christianm.9960]

@@stephanrademann7715 bei diesen Fahrzeugen handelt es sich um dänische Fahrzeuge, die allesamt von 1A3 auf den Stand 1A5DK umgerüstet wurden, indem die optischen Entfernungsmesser entfielen und das EMES eingebaut wurde. Ob die Bundeswehr ihre 1A3 damals auf Stand 1A5 umgerüstet oder direkt verkauft hat, weiß ich nicht, aber das hier sind ganz eindeutig 1A5DK.

[@christianm.9960]

Gerade nochmal bei Hilmes nachgelesen: die dänischen 1A5 sind aus Bundeswehr 1A3 entstanden. Die Bundeswehr hat sich selbst nie die Mühe gemacht, ihre eigenen 1A3 mit dem EMES zu versehen und die Fahrzeuge wohl vorher ausgemustert/ verkauft an Dänemark usw.

[@robwyyi]

If the Russian are using just as old equipment then wouldnt the edge lost with use just as old equipment. The point being west should provide higher levels of equipment. Maybe not current but just generation after these ones. Then again rate of losses these will be out of commission in short. But honestly the Z has lot more fighter to exhaust.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

The generation after Leopard 1 was Leopard 2. that is currently used.

[@tessjuel]

According to Oryx the Leopard 1A5 has the lowest loss rate of all tanks used in Ukraine by either side, not a single one destroyed and only one damaged.

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

​@@tessjuelThey're still as vulnerable to mines as any other tank being used, if not more so.

[@TheLAGopher]

@@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry They are highly mobile and their lighter weight (40 tons) makes them better suited to operating in snowy and muddy conditions.

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

@@TheLAGopher Not sure what your point is, but a 40 ton anything could potentially have problems with those conditions, especially in late winter/early spring, when snow is usually wet and mud is even wetter. In any event, such conditions are hardly an impediment to modern mines. I have nothing against the Leopard I, provided they are used intelligently, either as long range "sniper" support for heavier tanks or infantry, or to quickly exploit any holes in the enemy line during a future offensive. But until better methods are developed to detect and evade/eliminate them, the offensives of both sides will continue to peter-out. The side with the best and best utilized military engineers and engineering equipment will be the one to crack this problem, enabling their forces to drive deep behind enemy defensive lines, whatever the vehicle they are driving in.

[@JimJob-gm9lj]

Add one javelin later…………🙄😵

[@CptAngelKGaming]

Like every tank. What's your point? You like stating the obvious?

[@stefanhansen3273]

TZD

[@BigAndTall666]

Stop mentioning specikations!!! 🇺🇦🇩🇰🍻

[@Skarn00]

Why? There is nothing the ruSSians do not know already about an old Leopard 1!

[@UnderTheBanner]

L1A5 = T-62

[@OpenGL4ever]

L1A5 has much better optics.

[@UnderTheBanner]

@@OpenGL4ever What does "much better" mean in your opinion?

[@OpenGL4ever]

@@UnderTheBanner Have you ever compared bad optics with good optics?

[@UnderTheBanner]

@@OpenGL4ever You don't answer a question with a question. You didn't say anything about whether you're talking about observation or sighting devices, magnification, field of view, image quality, whether we're dealing with a day or night channel. e.t.c

[@OpenGL4ever]

@@UnderTheBanner You should have just been more precise with your question. The optics are of a higher quality, which makes them better in many areas and the sensors are an essential component in night vision. In this field Western technology and here I include South Korea and Japan is currently still clearly superior to Russian/Chinese technology.

[@pieciagoras]

Anciet tanks...

[@kiereluurs1243]

Ancient...

[@pieciagoras]

@@kiereluurs1243 To ancient. Even 2A4 is old, but 1A5 is en ANCIENT.

[@jansix4287]

@@pieciagorasToo ancient… In fact the tank is just fine for fighting Russia’s even more outdated tanks. The problem is it’s an artillery, mines and drones war. All kinds of tanks are very vulnerable in this environment.

[@SharonHunter-x6p]

Why not invite the Russians and Iranians onboard for a tour. Can you give them a map so they can find you faster? And the masculine music. Pull this video, guys, and do it now.

[@Kauppi2]

Its an old tank, already in museums. Doesn't mean its not good & useful, but Iranians/Russians won't get any new information that they didn't already know from this video

[@lorenagonzalez71]

@@Kauppi2but but your soviet tanks are prehistoric comrade!

[@Kauppi2]

@@lorenagonzalez71 ? I didn't say that Leopard 1 was bad, just that it was old + i'm Finnish so no comrade...

[@demokratie3464]

Propaganda channel

[@louisecorchevolle9241]

Circus....

[@robson668]

The Vatnik performance on the battlefield you mean?

[@fred1642]

the Russian Navy😂

[@TodaTruth]

There is a Cornet for every tank in the world