Leopard 1s for Ukraine: Still useful?

There is a discussion in Germany about sending Leopard 1s to Ukraine. The question is how good these tanks are and how the Ukrainian forces could deploy them. In this video we look at the capabilities of the Leopard 1 in regards to the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.
The chairman of Rheinmetall stated that in a few months 50 could be shipped. There are an additional 100 in storage with the company FFG. Meanwhile the German chancellor is reluctant. The general public opinion is in favor of sending heavy weapons to Ukraine.
DISCLAIMER D: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019 & 2020.
/ daspanzermuseum
DISCLAIMER A: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington in 2017, 2018 & 2019.
/ thetankmuseum
Cover from Stahl auf der Heide 2017, permission granted courtesy of the Panzermuseum Munster.
Modified by vonKickass and MHV.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZbin Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Hilmes, Rolf: Kampfpanzer Leopard 1: Entwicklung, Serie, Komponenten. 1. Auflage, Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2019.
Lobitz, Frank: Kampfpanzer LEOPARD 1 in der Bundeswehr - Frühe Jahre. Tankograd Publishing: Erlangen, Germany, 2006.
Lobitz, Frank: Kampfpanzer LEOPARD 1 in der Bundeswehr - Späte Jahre. Tankograd Publishing: Erlangen, Germany, 2006.
Hilmes, Rolf: Meilensteine der Panzerentwicklung Panzerkonzepte und Baugruppentechnologie. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2020.
Zaloga, Steven J.: T-72 main battle tank 1974-93. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2003.
Zaloga, Steve: T-64 Battle Tank: The Cold War’s most Secret Tank. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.
Zaloga, Steven J.: T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army’s Last Armored Champion. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009.
Zaloga, Steven J.: T-90 Standard Tank: The First Tank of the New Russia. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018.
Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.
Jens’ first Leopard thread: / 1513949123283759112
Jens second Leopard thread: / 1514490562862366727
elbitsystems.com/media/Catalo...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105%C3%...
/ 1515013773794414594
www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute-...
www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...
/ 1514343012809293828
www.t-online.de/nachrichten/d...
www.handelsblatt.com/dpa/poli...
www.tagesschau.de/ausland/ukr...
www.janes.com/defence-news/uk...
www.rheinmetall.com/en/rheinm...
/ russian_tanks_with_the...
00:00 Disclaimer
00:11 Introduction
00:45 News / Political Situation in Germany
01:41 German Public Opinion
03:00 Just old Scrap Metal?
04:33 Firepower
08:58 Armor Protection
9:39 Mobility
10:46 Ergonomics
12:07 Potential Employment of the Leopard 1 in Ukrainian Service
14:32 Concerns: Training & Logistics
16:10 Summary
#LeopardsForUkraine,#Leopard1,#Ukraine

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Check out Jens Wehner on twitter: twitter.com/jagdfliegen and of course my twitter as well, if you don't follow me already: twitter.com/MilHiVisualized Jens’ first Leopard thread: twitter.com/jagdfliegen/status/1513949123283759112 Jens second Leopard thread: twitter.com/jagdfliegen/status/1514490562862366727

[@lzot]

A well made commentary. Thankyou. edit, the post above is a putinbot - joined April 2022. ignore it.

[@williamyoung9401]

You (Germany) and other NATO countries have to step up. America is full of weak, bought off leaders. It's a wonder we've given Ukraine this much support. Don't be afraid of your past! It's been 100 years since the rise of the Nazis...now you're a long-time friend under a functioning, strong, powerful, Democracy. Economically, there's nothing like you. Putin won't stop...it's not an overstatement to say he is the 21st century's Adolf Hitler...Stalin... He wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire...are we going to let him? Is he going to use tactical nukes before we wake up? Will we even respond when he uses them? In the words of the immortal General George Patton: "Instead of disarming these German troops, we outta get em' to help us fight the damn Bolsheviks!" lol.

[@Eagle_Delta]

Junk and this junk metal won't last long Calibre will take care of them.

[@victorynow1944]

Those Russian ERA upgrades are all but useless on Russian Tanks don't ATGM us heat warheads right? So If those ERA Upgrades are so great how is it that the Russian Tanks are getting destroyed so easily by infantry wielding RPG-7 and ATGM?

[@victorynow1944]

Also that T-72 in the bovington racing video is an Iraqi Built T-72 variant.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

I think most people forget that tanks don’t actually spend a lot of time fighting other tanks, most of the time they are engaging buildings, Infantry anti tank weapons, and other vehicles. In these roles a Leopard 1 is still very effective, and the 105mm main gun will still shit mix all other non tank Russian armoured vehicles.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Leo Is have very thin armor. Pretty much anything with 23mm and up firing modern APDS can kill it frontally. And its easy meat for RPGs, ATGM, and AT cluster munitions. Its basically a light tank at best, and really just a light infantry support gun mostly, something that infantry can deal with their own heavy weapons. Then there is the retraining, maintenance, and logistical headaches listed from above. And it will take months to years to get them actually in Ukraine.

[@stevepowell6503]

That is an obvious point, but you are absolutely right. Most people only compare a tank's capabilities against another tank. As a matter of fact, I have recently watched several of these videos, and yours is the first comment about that.

[@ChaplainDMK]

Yes but even a Leopard 1 will need similar amounts of support and logistics to any other tank. IFVs and especially wheeled IFVs are simply more efficient in regards to how much support they need to operate - deploying Leo 1s means Ukraine would need to dedicate the logistics comparable to T-64, T-72 or T-80 units while being at best used as IFV busters instead of MBTs. If the Leo can't do what a MBT is supposed to do anymore it's more efficient to just deploy larger numbers of IFVs instead.

[@admontblanc]

People also seem to ignore the fact that a light tank like this is a thing, it wasn't designed for taking out every target in 1 shot, it was designed for having more speed and agility, these will operate like a marvel in Ukraine's terrain just like their predecessors did in WW2.

[@admontblanc]

@@ChaplainDMK if ukrainians have no comparable equipment then this is still an upgrade, the rest depends on how they will deploy them.

[@weasel6535]

Ex- driver/gunner here; learning to "drive" is the easy part and takes little time, the actual time is learning how to appreciate the ground in front of you, how can you get from point A to point B using dead ground, low ground or covered; is the ground marshy (tall lush grass), rocky, are you going to be putting your tank "tracks up". These things take years to learn to become second nature and for the driver to just know what the commander wants. Just my two cents. With that said, I would not want to go up against a T72 in a Leo1...

[@kevinkliegl9315]

Well put, good reasoning.

[@greggstrasser5791]

I drove a 113. Those tanks are going to get stuck if the entire crew is new. So they’ll probably use mercenaries.

[@EK-gr9gd]

It's possible with the right ammo. The early M1 also used some variant of the L7, with tungsten sabot it should be able to handle T-72 - T-90s.

[@reappermen]

There is a difference between knowing how to drive tanks and knowing how to drive a specific tank modell. While you habe to adapt your general knowledge to a specific tanks of course, a lot of it is still generalized knowledge. Some Ukrainian reservist tanker that might have been trained on a T-72 Variant originaly should be able to adapt that knowledge to a Leo1 in a few weeks time, most lf it probably while learning the mechanics of driving the 'new' tank.

[@randyboisa6367]

How can you be a driver/ gunner, they are in different positions of the tank? I call B.S!

[@DiasBenes]

I think lessons can be learned by what the Canadians did in Afghanistan with tanks. In 2006 Canada deployed Leopard 1's to support their campaign. Before this in Iraq, the American and British experiences with tanks showed that tanks could be vulnerable to an insurgent style warfare scenario. Tanks were being knocked out and suffered damage to IED's and RPG/ATGM weapons. So the Americans and British didn't deploy any tanks into Afghanistan fearing the hostile terrain made them operationally useless. Canada chose to look at it from a different angle. They were fighting an insurgent war where they had to go into hostile mud walled villages and dig the Taliban out. IED's and RPG's were a threat to the soft armor that Canada had. Canada is a NATO nation and unlike the Russians who follow a top down command structure which is proving in Ukraine how unfeasible it is when your dealing with a conscript army who lacks the professional training that NATO countries go through. NATO countries on the other hand rely on the NCO's to have a lot of say on how tactical operations work at the company level. Because of this, Canada quickly found out that at the company level, commanders wanted the use of tanks in these environments to provide protection as well as fire power at the company level. In response Canada deployed their Leopard 1's into Afghanistan. Canada found that their Leopards were so effective that they wanted to upgrade the Leopards that they were using to Leopard 2's which they proceeded to do from Germany and the Netherlands in 2009. They ordered the first 20 from Germany which were the Leopard 2A6M CAN variant. It had an armored belly to protect it from IED's, a new modular armor package which became standard for the new A7+ variant. Cage/bar armor to protect it from RPG/ATGM missiles and Infra-red 360 site for the commander. Canada then ordered 80 more from Netherlands and upgraded them to the A4M variant and bought a further more from Switzerland for spare parts. Canada's combat doctrine was to use the tanks to support the infantry. Tanks did not go solo, they were always protected by a mechanized platoon when they were deployed on the field. The combined arms approach was really evident when they assaulted the mud brick walled villages that the Taliban would turn into fortresses. Canada deployed their forces into 2 columns with 3 tanks in each column. One at the head, middle and rear of the column. In the middle sat the infantry with engineers in support. Canada prefers to have their tanks equipped with implements like minerollers to set off IED's and plows to create breaches. In this case they would have plows to break open the mud wall and then push in. The tank commander would command the breach and then the infantry commander would command the operation. The 2 columns would then clear the middle and then clear the sides. If the infantry came under fire, they would retreat behind the tanks and have the tanks with their infra red scopes locate the Taliban and fire HEAT shells into buildings which would punch right through killing the Taliban. The Taliban after many encounters with the Leopards ended up giving them a healthy amount of respect, if a Taliban saw a Leopard they would quickly avoid the fight giving the Canadians a strategic advantage. When Canada ended their mission in 2011, Denmark replaced Canada in Afghanistan and from learning from Canada brought their own Leopards into the theater and the US Marines who for years were asking for tanks were finally given Abrams and had them deployed when Canada ceased operations. Even though Afghanistan and Ukraine are very different, the Taliban still had access to RPG/ATGM's and Canada found a way to protect their tanks by using combined arms doctrine. Having the tanks support the infantry and not having tanks exposed to ambushes. Canada always fought on the ground they chose and in the case with Ukraine, they haven't been deployed their tanks on mass like the Russians. They have been husbanding their tanks for counter attacks. This is how you use the tanks in Ukraine and properly supported by Infantry, Tanks are not obsolete no matter how hard the Russians are trying to make them obsolete with bad handling of their tank forces. Tanks need to be supported in Modern warfare, its been like this for decades, but they have a clear role to fill, their accurate firepower isn't matched by anything else. You can't use a soft armor vehicle to replace what a tank can do. Those Leopard 1's can still be very useful for Ukraine, its really up to the German government if they want to send them to Ukraine. Lastly, here is an article that is interesting on how the Americans view the tanks after Canada left Afghanistan and their changing opinion. ipolitics.ca/news/canadian-tanks-in-afghanistan-inspire-u-s-deployment

[@HanSolo__]

How British tanks showed any vulnerability in Iraq? By taking 20+ multiple types of missiles hits and still fighting? They used lighter Warriors in Afghanistan. Challenges were not deployed to Afghanistan due to the greed of the UK govs. The costs of deployment of the 70t tanks shocked them.

[@christianweibrecht6555]

I'm surprised that Canada decide to adopt leopard as its main battle tank instead of the leclerc , challenger, and abrams

[@darthwiizius]

@@christianweibrecht6555 Not really that surprising considering the high standards of engineering within German industry mate. Militaries buy that that suits their operational needs and budgets, and Canucks are a famously adaptable folk of course.

[@jameshawkins1339]

Brilliant comment - really informative and on point

[@billestew7535]

@@christianweibrecht6555 Being stationed in Lahr and Baden Solinan in West Germany during the cold war it made perfect sense,i think they had Centurian tanks before that

[@SpeedsterDEN]

I spend 5 years in the Danish army from 76- 81 as crew on the Leopard :) 3 years as gunner and 2 years as driver.

[@TheIvanNewb]

Same type as the one outside the War Museum in Copenhagen? I love that one (Leo 1A5DK) c:

[@Harte74]

Hvilket regiment? Den hjemsendte dragon er vel nysgerrig. ;)

[@SpeedsterDEN]

@@Harte74 Prinsens 🤛😀

[@jim99west46]

Leopard 1s could be used as direct fire support weapons much like the US Stryker based 105mm MGS. The British derived HESh round is outstandingly accurate and effective against infantry and emplacements. Most battlefield targets are not tanks but IFV, APCs etc..against those it would be devastating and be cheaper and faster than using Javelins etc on them.

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

You know that the Leopard1 has 200mm armour at the thickest spot? And less than 100 at any other?

[@1chish]

Just a word of caution here: The leopard I uses the Centurion's 105mm gun dating from 1946 so I am not sure if there is much of those rounds about. Ever since the Chieftain the UK has used the 120mm rifled gun.

[@LifeStyle-uh1ns]

@@Ruhrpottpatriot Something tells me the ukranians will probably take all the 'unexpended' reactive armor from the Russian tanks they destroyed and stick them on these and any other tank they can service

[@Future183]

@@Ruhrpottpatriot rightfully used thats no problem but if the crews are poorly trained we gonna have the same issue as the turks when they lost leopards because of lack of crew training

[@CorePathway]

Just because the 120mm is bigger doesn’t mean a 105 can’t take out anything the Russians are currently fielding. Besides, historically over 80% of tank gunfire is NOT aimed at other tanks.

[@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511]

Damn BR compression is real

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

lol

[@berserkerpride]

We all got mad at Warthunder, but maybe they were right all along. The next step is for random M-22 Locusts and Chaffees to enter the war.

[@Ravenheartless322]

@@berserkerpride atleast Egypt has not sent Ukraine any T-72AV Turms.

[@Snagabott]

People tend to forget that equipment _does_ make an impact immediately: With the knowledge that more stuff is on the way, they can use what they have much more aggressively with less thought to it having to last the duration of the war.

[@Miami1991]

People also tend to forget logistics makes a impact long term . You know like when your fighting a war of attrition

[@oze1999]

During my time in the military, I've found the most underestimated factor is training. There is a huge difference between conscripts and a well trained crew. A good example is a high level operator (i.e. Delta Force) vs. Regulars. They both have roughly the same weaponry, but there is much more combat power that resides in those elite untis. In the right hands and employed properly, I think this could be a very effective weapon. Now to develop an experienced tank crew presents its own challenges

[@ernie28ernie]

I'm 100% with you! Training, tactics and "Instandhaltung" (maintenance) will be the key factor! Some synthetic 1 on 1 duel situation is a nice thought experiment, but clearly not a standard situation in reality. I'm nonetheless thankful for the informative video ;)

[@mistergeopolitics4456]

The Ukrainians won't have much time to train with Leopard 1s. Even experienced Turkish crews of the Leopard 2A4 were annihilated in Syria by ISIS. Ukrainians will be destroyed, if not from the air, by Russian tanks or ATGM crews. Game over.

[@_rares9321]

@@mistergeopolitics4456 weird how it looked like the game was over weeks ago, since then however, russians retreated. now they're going to try again, we'll see how that goes, knowing that the ukrainians have a significantly better morale than the russians and history has taught us in many cases that morale can break a battle.

[@wolfehoffmann2697]

@@mistergeopolitics4456 It wouldn't be the first war in which short trained crews had to go into action. But the fact is if they're never supplied with the systems, they can never train with them and gain the experience needed to operate them or train additional crews.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

@@_rares9321 Keep in mind, Russians were not militarily defeated. They retreated in good order and it took Ukrainian army days to finaly move in. Hence why Bucha is hard to pin on the Russians if one is to look beyond CNN headlines.

[@eivindhelgetun3254]

Ex-Leopard I ARV-driver here. I would not sleep on the mobility of the Leopard. It might not look so hot anymore when you're purely looking at the HP/ton stats, but it's got a magnificent gearbox, terrific suspension, great flotation over the soft stuff and an engine that's got a lot of low-down grunt and torque for its weight. We ended up surprising a lot of newer vehicles with better HP/ton ratios than us from a standing start, such as the CV90 IFVs. We'd just rocket off the line while their (relatively) low displacement engines were busy spooling up their turbos and getting into the torque band. Over long distances on flat ground sure horsepower is king, but don't sleep on low-end maneuverability and pep. That's what actually matters outside of strategic movement. With how well the UA have been handling themselves I have no doubt they'd be able to put them to good use. Maybe not in frontal duels against Russias latest and greatest, but there's plenty of squishies around that the L7 will handle just nicely.

[@frankt.1391]

Does it fire special rounds or rockets?

[@Huckleberry68]

Pretty sure the apfsds is still good for the older Russian tanks

[@TheAlien729]

@Dirk Bürger All the T64s that are involved in the fighting are Ukrainian (maybe the LDNR militia), they have long been decommissioned in Russia. There may be T64 trophies, but they are given again to the militia (NATO weapons depots are also given there).

[@TheAlien729]

@Dirk Bürger I understand that "it is more visible from abroad," but they are either dismantled, or in museums, or rotting in cemeteries of military equipment. The T80, T72 and T90 are in service in various modifications. (Although, I can assume that somewhere for training they may have T64, but no more). It's like saying that we fired at Kramatorsk from the territory of Ukraine, with a Ukrainian missile with a Ukrainian number on it. (There is a rocket that has been decommissioned in the Russian Army for ~ 10 years).

[@TheAlien729]

@Dirk Bürger Listen, with what probability do you mean the LDNR militia, which can really have a T64, since they are a former part of Ukraine and also often have tanks captured from Ukraine. It just seems that sometimes, when they demonstrate the "poor equipment" of the Russians, they show exactly the LDNR. Maybe with tanks too? However, I can admit that maybe the army could have taken these tanks if there was no other worker (for example, the tank is needed now, it will be delivered tomorrow, but there is a Ukrainian one at hand, which you can simply mark with paint).

[@localdrugseller6431]

A tank has far more tasks than competing with enemy armor (in fact i would argue competing with opposing armor is not a priority for them). Supporting infantry with firepower destroying bunkers and buildings providing fire support providing mobility and more. That is what most "tank experts totally not a wot player" fails to understand. Tank on tank engagements rarely ever happen in modern chaotic warfare like this.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

And aren't they all claiming MBTs can now be taken care of by other things and that they're obsolete?

[@johnreaper4452]

30mm modern sabot can pen this tank

[@ED-es2qv]

@@johnreaper4452 in Russia, tank penetrates you.

[@localdrugseller6431]

@@johnreaper4452 That can perforate any tank in the entire world. Hell that can perforate centauro tanks which is most modern armored vehicles in italian army. Armor is overrated. It is in 3rd plan after mobility and firepower. This is not ww2 anymore. First tank that hits the enemy most of the time wins the engagement. That is why NATO prioritized first hit probability above all. Even if it doesn't penetrate it will damage or scare enemy enough to make them abandon.

[@lucasvieira9642]

Yeah but... Every single thing on the battlefield can blow this thing up. Whenever its another tank or some random soldier with ww2 era AT gun. For me this is a giant coffin

[@davidmawer6859]

Very good as always. Just a comment when comparing the Leopard to T72s etc: as you are aware, the best tank killer is not another tank, so comparative deficiencies of Leopards are going to be much less important. Ukraine would maximise its local knowledge, experience, training, morale and intelligence to have the upper hand.

[@pat0652]

If the Leopard may be less than ideal against the latest RU tanks, I think it is worth remembering that the majority of veichles it will encounter are IFVs and APC that it will tear through. If they do run into anthing super nasty, they will have enough mobility to pull back and call in other assets to soften them up/deal with them.

[@davidty2006]

IFV's APC's and light vehicles in general. If used in hit and run then add transport trucks as well. and with HESH rounds fuel trucks would just be flat out exploding.

[@vonathenbrod8498]

And with how easily the Ukrainian Guerillas are finding convoys, it wouldn’t be hard to set up an ambush with a leopard and some infantry

[@davidty2006]

@@vonathenbrod8498 Mhm more so that it's really just as little as a civilian taking a video and broadcasting their location via google maps.

[@therodian96]

Finally someone in the comments who understood the situation and doesn't argue like "eh 105mm gun, thin armor, has no chance against T-90 blah blah".

[@EpicThe112]

Good point but HESH Shells will do damage to Russian tanks Except for Relkit 4s24 Explosive Reactive Armour. In Ukrainian War the following tanks that have this equipped are T-72B3 Model 2016 T-80BVM T-90M. T-90M has Aramid Spall Liner armoured autoloader. Remember 1973 Yom Kippur War Israeli HESH Shells decimated Syrian T-62s T-54/55 Golan Heights

[@oditeomnes]

Leopard 1 former loader here, I am not sure if it is just me or if other NATO tankers feel the same when we see engagements in Ukraine: Who the hell did write the doctrine of fighting during the day in a tank that is equipped with superior IR/NV optics? It's like negating the only advantage you have. I remember during excersise we could see infantry from almost two kilometres away, it was like a shooting gallery and they could not engage back because helmet mounted IR/NV is just isn't good enough range wise.

[@iraklitordia6295]

Probably the tank is also easier target at night from air attacks? Or drones correcting artillery fire

[@guss77]

@@iraklitordia6295 drones rarely carry passive FLIR cameras due to their weight, and without these they cannot be used at night at any meaningful range. Infantry long-range FLIR scopes are easy for tanks to evade by simply parking behind something large enough to hide most of the hull (which is the hot part of a tank).

[@just1689]

I love insight like this! Thanks for sharing

[@michaeldillery9232]

We would see dismounted troops and vehicles glowing in are thermal sights. Plus we operated as a combined Arms Team.

[@oditeomnes]

@@michaeldillery9232 I agree, there is often too much focus on a tank or some other single hardware, when reality is that combined arms is they key to covering your weaknesses. My tank batallion alone had only one squadron with actual MBTs. The first one was recon with heaviest vehicle being a CV90. 3rd and 4th were mechanized infantry and the last, the biggest one was support, logistics and mortar fire support. And that is just within one batallion which is supported by other batallions with their own structure.

[@ZWIPPMANN]

The leopard is old, but it's not something like a ww2 era tank. It's an MBT. Even the worst AP round of the leopard 1 can destroy modern MBT's from the side and all armored fighting vehicles the russians have. And it can shoot at infantry. I bet an infantryman being fired at by a tank from the 60's is just as dead or suppressed as if he was fired at by a modern tank. I think the ukranians can use them well.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

The best APFSDS Round for Leo1 has about 560mm penetration. That is not enough to penetrate T-72B3M, wich has 600+mm armor protection

[@TheRandCrews]

I like the idea one of the other commenters said by having them in reserves or by the coastal areas to free up other T-64s & T-72 to go to the East or North. Leopards were built for a defensive Cold War, pretty effective against lighter targets like Russian airborne & marine armored vehicles

[@TheGM-20XX]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 that is why he specified the side and we already have videos of T-72 getting schwacked by IFV cannons.

[@kamovka2317]

@@TheGM-20XX yea from the side idiot we are talking about the front, what he means is even if the leo sees the russian tank first it will not penetrate it from the front

[@bentapekatt6607]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yeah mostly on the frnt. not on the side dum dum

[@iraklimgeladze5223]

1) leo 1 can be used in north and east borders of Ukraine. And freed modern tanks send front line. 2) counter offensive can happened in one side of Frontline, where leo 1 can be used as securing position after Modern tanks attacks.

[@CrazyhorseDK]

they have

[@williamsquare2669]

The Leo 1 was built for high mobility operations, not infantry support. The Leo1-Marder combination was conceived for just that, mobile, high tempo and fast movements. Not slugging it out in slow or static operations. If, ever, UKr army get these old timers, they will have to master high tempo operations, not outgunning the RU tanks but outmanoeuvring them, totally other mindset than zone control and defensive operations. Leo 1 has a good gun, with the newest 105 mm ammo they still can destroy the latest but not so modern RU armour. The Leo 1 will be at it's best in flank operations of a main body, with close infantry support and artillery on call. It also has a very good night action capability. Also, radio's will be crucial, I have no clue if the older SEM 25 will be used or is compatible with other UKr radio networks... If the UKr army can master all that, they might have a opportunity to outflank, outmanoeuvre cumbersome and badly led RU formations, otherwise, the LEO 1 will bring nothing to them.

[@wangyi8031]

but cant you just even use it as a worst case situation with not much training needed use them as stationary self propelled arillery close to the front line, i heard they have a 8km indirect fire mode with sights. you can also use them as decoys just to get russian tanks into a ambush , have them in cover behind trees in a field with no one in them and wait for russia to attack before ambushing them with drones as the tanks will draw them out. There not worth anything on the second hand market and are pretty much equal to a T72 except for the latest versions .

[@williamsquare2669]

@@wangyi8031 we will see, they are already there...

[@discerningscoundrel3055]

Tanks like these would be of use even though they are no ideal for frontline service; they could potentially be deployed to Odesa and the northern border with Belarus to free up Ukraine's own tanks to move east against the Russians. Especially in Odesa, they would be there to deter an amphibious assault which is at this point quite unlikely anyway, but if it did happen, the Leopards would more than outmatch the amphibious IFVs the Russians would be deploying there if they did attack.

[@zwierzak2012]

Good answer. The Ukrainians would surely know what to do with it.

[@emilj9399]

@jеffrееstаr 🅥 Need more thumbs down ?

[@colbunkmust]

And really any type of tank can be used effectively as defensive direct-fire artillery as long as the enemy doesn't have air superiority. and there is time taken to build proper defensive berms.

[@mweskamppp]

@@colbunkmust Tanks used as artillery are sitting ducks even for infantry. Turkey showed that in irak with Leopard II.

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

@@colbunkmust If there's one tank that cannot be used like stationary artillery, it's the Leo1. In some parts that tank has less armour than tanks from WWII. The very first production version had turret armour of 50mm steel, i.e. just slightly more than a Panzer IV. It was later upgraded but never got above ~200mm and only at the turret. The Leopard 1 is really a tank that you need to know how to use. It's what the German designers of WWII always wanted. The speed of a Panzer III and IV with the firepower of a Panzer V and/or Tiger II, just reliable and a tad more modern.

[@rogerpennel1798]

The Leopard I always had poor armor, good mobility, good optics, and a good gun. The problem is it's not something that Ukraine already has in service so they won't have a parts supply, training, ammunition, and its communications gear may not be compatible with what they are already using. I would rather see the former Warsaw Pact countries clear out their armories and supply Ukraine with gear they are already using.

[@somethinglikethat2176]

Isn't there a question mark over the readiness of the Soviet equipment? In a perfect world the Warsaw pact gear would be the best but if a lot of it isn't really and the war lasts a while more NATO gear could play a big part.

[@wilfdarr]

We need to be careful that we're not burdening them with all our old garbage. What we're giving them needs to work.

[@kentmacalalad]

The time they are making this tank, they prioritize the mobility, which is why it have bad armour, if it be better if they upgrade their armour. Although i think russia will destroy these tanks? while they are training the crew how to use drive this tank and using it effectively (like u know, air superiority might target these first)

[@LordOfChaos.x]

What about just letting Ukraine die ? At least if things end fast no more deads will occur The way things are now are idiotic Ukraine wont win even with our support Why make the war long? If Ukraine wins their territory back and have things stable They will eventually try to invade russia Which would be supported again by Nato Thats when things will go wrong

[@rogerpennel1798]

@@kentmacalalad - The Germans and French came to the conclusion during the 50s that speed, mobility, and affordability = armor. They realized that they would be on the wrong side of the numbers game against Warsaw Pact tanks so they didn't see the point in armoring the Leopard I and AMX30. The thing is even with ERA the Leopard I would still be vulnerable. However, the Israelis proved that even an obsolescent tank in the hands of a well-trained combatant can overcome a more numerous and technically superior enemy. There's also the question of how effective ERA is when you consider how many destroyed Russian tanks have it? The Russians may also be at a point where they have to deploy tanks that haven't been upgraded with ERA because of losses. If the Russians are deploying non-upgraded tanks the playing field levels.

[@stockscareful6368]

I recently saw a video with Polish tank commander presenting Laeopard2. He was trainedr for T-72, and then moved to Leopard 2. In general for him the Leopard's advantages over T-72 were:. 1. Much much better field of view and control of the surrounings\awareness of situation. Taking into consideration all the systems, periscopes, and even the problem with the commander's hatch being opened to the front in T-72 (the same problem that some German tanks had during WWII forcing the tank commander to get exposed to enemy fire). He said that in T72 the commander is virtually blind comparing to Leopard2 (though in Abrams it's even better than Leopard when it comes to that) . 2. The system of control of fire, allowing tank commander and the gunner to work almost independently. So for example mark targets\fire independently working on multiple targets at the same time. (comparing it the default version of T72) Basically it's like having 2 observers\gunners. 3. In general the comfort of work, ergonomy, space. 4. He also mentioned many small options like ammunition programmed from a panel inside the tank, not on the projectile itself and similar. 4 Better negative angle of shooting + ability of observing\marking the target when the whole tank (including the gun) is hidden behind some obstacle or uneven terrain. 5. In general Leopard was designed for fighting with outnumbering enemy, so maneuverability, speed and firepower was more important than armor. I'm not a specialist so this is more or less what I understood. Take into consideration that Eastern Europe tankists know T72 weak points very well from their own experience so they can use it again enemy.

[@avnsteve1]

Fully understanding the strengths & weakness of any weapon system is important. Add to this the concept of combined arms, train the crews & infantry along with all the rest (arty, drones S2, avn etc) and that "old" tank will STILL be devastating to the enemy!

[@paullakowski2509]

YEAH !!!!

[@joek6791]

I started out in the National Guard as an enlisted tanker. With no training of any kind went to a two week summer camp with the unit and learned to be a loader, driver and gunner on an M48 Tank in two weeks. My crew maxed out on the gunnery ranges. Later went on to be an Armour Officer. Any tanker can learn to operate an other tank in days, most military training is 5 minutes of info crammed into an hour.

[@bathhatingcat8626]

Domt you mean five min of info dispersed into an hour?

[@bombsquig]

"ARMOUR"??? WTF?

[@iz5233]

Yesterday saw a video, where ua soldier right in battle forgot how to use NLAW. He opened KZbin video:)

[@lacdirk]

@@bathhatingcat8626 No. It's an army joke.

[@shanut8139]

Us military training budget is likely more than Germanys entire budget...

[@snagletoothscott3729]

German armor in Ukraine fighting Russians. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme.

[@ImperativeGames]

Actually, Nazi in Germany were nurtured and grown by Anglo-Saxons to fight against USSR. German and Ukrainian Nazis massacred USSR civilian population using German weapons. Now it's Ukrainian Nazis and German weapons. History does repeat itself.

[@tonyoliver2750]

Well they say a leopard cannot change its spots.

[@SirAntoniousBlock]

Plus ca change. 😅

[@robert.m6755]

I mean Nazis would be driving those Leos anyways. So up to Russians to get rid of the last bastion of Nazism.

[@paulvarn4712]

The Leopard would be on the right side of history this time protecting NATO while the Russians are not yet on the German border.

[@svejobaron]

Hell yeah, I really love your production quality, keep up that good work

[@emceha]

During the counteroffensive, one of most important breakthroughs was achieved with 16 tanks. Even 50 tanks is a huge force when aplied properly.

[@PhonciblePBonehimself]

How times are changing - the majority staunch right wing AFD is against weapon deliveries and the supporters of green party, which has been founded out of the peace and enviroment movements of the seventies is for it. ... so sometimes recycling beats pacifism ;) PS.: thx MHV for the interesting take on that topic !

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yeah, it is really weird. Thank you for your support!

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Someone famous said something about "politics makes for strange bedfellows".

[@undeadwerewolves9463]

~ Topsy Tervy ~

[@scratchy996]

Aleksandr Dugin himself said in an interview that Russia is funding the AfD. They are sponsoring all far right politicians in Europe and the US.

[@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511]

Yeah I found it weird that right wing is agains supporting Ukraine...

[@gartje]

I was commander on this beauty in the mid 80-ties. When I heard this news, I was surpised but also proud this old beast would join the Ukranian Forces. It feels a bit like "back to the future", but in a good way! The tank itself is quite easy to operate, especially to drive and to load. The gunner and commander would need some extra time to learn all the features and drills, but all together I think an Ukrainian tank crew should be able to operate it within weeks. Good luck guys, SLAVA UKRAINI 🦾

[@jnievele]

A Ukrainian tank crew would however have to get used to the new guy on the team (and the Ukrainian Army would have to deal with 25% higher staffing requirements)... The existing tanks have three man crews...

[@DutchOrbit]

you should join the ukranians if you dont mind risking your life or dying early

[@jnievele]

@@DutchOrbit Too late, already did my term with the Bundeswehr, and nowadays KdoCIR would have dibs on me if push comes to shove...

[@ygjt76v0-----]

Oh boy

[@akiamini4006]

Nice video as always . I think the main thing around the sales would be getting rid of the old gear mainly . Also i think the lepard tank has way more prone to heat attacks by all sorts of ecplosives or incindiary attacks so they wont be having that much of practical difference

[@fffgrehn]

I think one important topic that hasn’t been addressed in the video is: What would introduction of a patchwork of sophisticated non-Soviet / Ukrainian equipment do to Ukrainian logistics? Managing that the right type and quantity of fuel, ammunition, spare parts etc. Is at the right place at the right time I assume gets exponentially more difficult the more different your equipment is

[@somethinglikethat2176]

It could benefit by deployment to secondary fronts. That way the Ukrainians won't need to supply to different types of tanks on any one front.

[@interdictr3657]

@@oohhboy-funhouse indeed. they can make the choice to use them on the ground themselves, if nothing else it gives them options.

[@Weisior]

@M W You are clearly underestimating a value of this "od NATO vassals trash". Ukrainians are not fighting the US Army with their modern equipment and swift logisics, but the leftovers army from the USSR with some modernised elements. So 1v1 there may be some advantageous fights for Russians, but on the tactical, operational and strategic level Russians dont benefit from slightly better equipment.

[@jimtaylor294]

^ Conversely: One could say you're overestimating the equipment. Those ancient A/T weapons the Germans have previously sent were reportedly so decrepid they were more likely to kill the operators than the enemy. Material assistance that is useless to the end user; as always [it's not the first time by any measure] an elaborate way of disposing of unwanted offcasts, while damaging ones own rep' for military hardware. (we Brit's even did that once; exporting "Penny Muskets" as barter with African slavers, weapons more likely to explode in the user's hands than put lead in the opposing side [though in hindsight a hilarious moment of post-sale karma for said slave traders])

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

If the tanks try to drive to the front they will all need new tracks before they reach Kiev. Old tanks will wear out even faster and will be a nightmare to keep running.

[@FippeFi]

I would like to mention a very important mobility issue: T-72 has had historically bad gearboxes, especially when it comes to reverse gearing. The Finnish Defense Forces abandoned T-72s we had before the considerably older T-55s because the T-72s reverse speed is outpaced by a walking man. I am not sure of T-80s and T-64s, as we've not operated them and I've got no first-hand experience. Mobility is especially important in defense, where Leopard 1 would be very useful with its brisk reverse speed to allow hiding back into cover after taking a shot. As you said, in ambushes and urban combat, especially against every target not a main battle tank, the Leopard 1A5 is a valuable asset for Ukraine. Good video, thank you for posting!

[@herosstratos]

In fact, the Leopard 1 is probably still to this day the MBT that can jump backwards out of position the fastest, due to the Leopard 1's supercharger and it's torque converter transmission. By the way, the top speed of the Leopard 1 for reversing depends on whether it uses the switch box for gear pre-selection or the switch box for automatic gear selection.

[@lestermoe7159]

mobility is important in defense? youre clueless about the situation in ukraine, leos are garbage, they should be treated as an insult, not a gift.

[@matthewrogers8407]

In Steel Beasts in the T-72 I used to reverse up hills with the gun over the back as reverse gear was so slow I could not get back behind the hill quickly enough with reverse gear, which I thought was a serious design flaw - effectively I had to use forward gears to duck and thereby negate the strength of the front armor.

[@makoado6010]

"72s reverse speed is outpaced by a walking man." becuase its made in russia not in france.

[@FippeFi]

@@matthewrogers8407 Yeah... Some people have said it's an extension of the 'no step back' mentality, but I think they just didn't intend the T-72 to be used much in defensive operations, and as such the reverse gears are absolutely awful.

[@fredaarsandoy7336]

Ex Leo 1 ARV commander and tank mechanic. This will be interesting! Now we will see if it is as good as we thought back in the days. But it depends a lot on the crew to utilize its advantages...

[@dahutful]

Another excellent analysis. Thank you for seeing everything from all sides

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@clopec]

The Leopard 1s taller profile is also reflected in a lower gun depression, meaning it is better suited for peaking up behind obstacles to shoot and then hide again. The advanced fire control system of course also supports this tactic, in getting the first shot off quickly.

[@pinwizz69]

Exactly, in hull down situations behind obstacles off to the side of roads and bridges it'd be an excellent killer of Russian tanks and other vehicles. Even if it only disabled a Russian tanks tracks it creates a traffic blockage and makes it easier to target the tank with shoulder launched missiles.

[@88porpoise]

Basically the opening stages of WWIII were expected to be the Western forces trying to blunt Soviet armoured spearheads while waiting for reinforcements to arrive. NATO tanks could be hull down, take some pot shots, and run to the next position. Meanwhile, Eastern Bloc tanks had to charge into the jaws of NATO armour and AT weapons and overrun them. The bigger, more comfortable Western tanks and the smaller harder to hit Soviet tanks make sense in that scenario.

[@zeffy._440]

@@pinwizz69 it stands no chance facing a Russian tank head on

[@scottjohnson9912]

True , shoot and scoot , Jack in the box with a 120 mm cannon firing Sabot rounds . Those were our tactics during the cold War . A bigger turret is preferred, more room , better ergonomics and you have a 4th crewman .

[@scottjohnson9912]

@@zeffy._440 ya , because the russians have been so successful with their current tanks , especially north of Kiev ( sarcasm ) Haaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaa yes , Kamarad , you keep thinking that . Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦♥

[@evtinker1814]

Former M60 and M1 tanker here, so yes, I am biased. Yes, any tank beats no tank. If you were defending a position or trying to retake a village with just infantry, a couple of Leopard 1s showing up in support would be most welcome. Yes, they would have at least some difficulties knocking out current Russian tanks but every other armored vehicle in Russian service would be no problem. I would also suspect the Leopards would be easier to operate and more reliable than their Russian counterparts. I also must wonder how well the Russian thermal sights are working. They seem to have issues with complex systems, and a thermal sight is a complex system in an awful environment. Would a bunch of T72s be a better fit? Yes. Would the Ukrainians turn down the Leopards 1s? I am sure they would not.

[@tomk3732]

Russian thermals on their T-90M and T-14 are superior to thermals on latest M1. Not by a wide margin but better. They are 3rd gen. M1 has very good 2nd gen. On vanilla T-72BM3 you have a bit worse thermals then on M1. I would guess most Russian tanks have better thermals then Leo 1 which I feel probably has first gen.

[@evtinker1814]

@@tomk3732 It would be interesting to know what the Ukrainians are finding in the captured Russian equipment. What is actually installed, what is actually working and so forth. As for the T-14, I suspect that is going to end up a “what if” tank. It was supposed to finally enter full production this year, but with the war and the sanctions I suspect it may end up being delayed indefinitely. At a minimum lessons from the war will probably result in design changes causing further delays.

[@tomk3732]

@@evtinker1814 Maybe, it was not accepted for service yet & its expensive. Russia decided to upgrade 100+ T-72s per year instead and get some T-90Ms. I doubt too much things of interest are in Russian tanks. I just seen Russians paint a Z and drive Ukrainian tanks as their own. I doubt they inspect them too much. Heck, Russians already lost at least two dozen captured tanks.

[@leftnoname]

T-72-B3 is the only numerous Russian tank, that has thermal sights. Certain upgraded T-80 variants and a handful of T-90 may have them as well. However, those aren’t as common and even T-72-B3 got culled quite a bit.

[@thePronto]

The Ukrainians have had no problem taking out T-72s without any Leopard 1s. So why would they be at a disadvantage with some Leopard 1s? The only reason I can think of is the learning curve.

[@Kurigo]

12:42 lol the Hit and run Mario Logo, i love it.

[@kylekovac31]

MHV, considering your service in the Bundesheer, I think it would be an interesting video describing their role in European security from 1955 to the present. I think they are a unique force in Europe that is not discussed a lot. I spend a semester at the Theresianische Militärakademie in Wiener Neustadt and learned a lot of the Bundesheer´s unique role and function. Anyways, cheers from the USA!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Hey, might happen, but likely in an interview. Not really my area of expertise and I assume the general interest might be limited, as such it would mean spending a lot of time and likely very little views. There was something else planned in the past, might look at it at some point. Also likely on my second channel, there I covered Austrian topics related to WW2 two times.

[@barrygregory8177]

I seem to remember that the Swedes had a similar experience in training with 105mm L7 tanks. Their Centurions (105mm L7) with veteran crews had great results against their own newly leopard 2 (I think maybe the Strv 121)

[@genericpersonx333]

​@Gert Bonk Swedes were using Centurions as late as the year 2000, though they were formally replaced by Leopard 2 around 1992. S-Tank were purchased because they were cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, and could go more places due to their superior mobility, but the existing Centurions were considered the heavy combat force for Sweden. Put another way, S-Tanks were the cheap tanks bought to support Centurions, not replace them.

[@jonwickmanwiik6773]

Strv 103 "S-tank" was out of service before Centurions in Sweden, even though it was a newer design, it was far from being so easy to upgrade as the Centurions were.

[@smokeonthewater5287]

@Gert Bonk Oh yeah and Bofors and Saab systems suck too, right?

[@johanlassen6448]

@Gert Bonk While I agree that Sweden is a small country that often overestimates its military technology, I would not describe us as "poor" - though the military is underfunded.

[@MrAstrojensen]

@Gert Bonk Sweden may be relatively poor, but it's anything but small.

[@iberiksoderblom]

The Leopard 1 relies a lot on "fire and movement" that again relies on the crews ability to aquire the taget and hit it, and that it never works alone. It all requires a trained and skilled crew.

[@kevinkliegl9315]

Good point.

[@admontblanc]

So long as they have tank crews this shouldn't be rocketry for them...

[@EK-gr9gd]

@@admontblanc Don't underestimate the training need to master the Leopard 1. It really depends on employing its manoeuvrability correctly. Get this wrong and you are "meat on the table".

[@hb-ol9oc]

Add to that that UA crews are pretty good, I saw a video of an ukrainian BMP4 with a 30mm gun engaging a russian T72 face to face, literally, and destroying it.

[@tomk3732]

This whole thing is a "pretend" to give tanks - not to really give tanks that will make a difference.

[@dariugrinov9472]

little correction: the standard t-72b and the t-80B, BV and the standard-80U do not have thermal vision devices

[@avnsteve1]

VERY well presented! You have clearly done some research rather than get drunk and spout ignorant rhetoric! Consider me subscribed, thanks for your efforts!

[@stephenbeucler7645]

It would seem the tank is worthwhile, just not ideal. In the middle of the largest war in Europe since WW2 though, ideal is a luxury the Ukrainians don't have, best to get them the tanks ASAP and if they are less useful then thought, at least they can be used for training or secondary purposes. Timely delivery is more important here then finding the perfect equipment.

[@termitreter6545]

Problem is the timely part tho. The war is likely over in 2 months. Russia is doing their final offensive right about now. Could be useful if Putin is going for a long stalemate, after the probably uneventful offensive. As a german though, our chancellour is being a moron. The german people and 2/3rd of the government are for deliveries, his excuses make no sense.

[@BBBrasil]

Yeah, time delivery, 3 months + 6 weeks for just basic training. For the amazing total of 50 tanks. pfff. Give them ASAP all the old Soviet stock pile, negligible time to supply, negligible _full_ operational capability time. That would be useful. 50 tanks, seriously.

[@stephenbeucler7645]

@@BBBrasil Well, remember that there are an additional 100 in german stocks that can be made ready after those 50 and Greece and Turkey have several hundred more that they could probably be paid or traded to pass on as well (which are working now). So it's more then just 50, but yes, it will take awhile to get them operational. That said, this war isn't ending anytime soon, so best to get them what we can now and quickly. I feel ya on the magnitude of it though, alot of the recent aid has been... underwhelming to put it politely. I can only speculate how the Ukrainians feel about it, but they're probably too busy fighting to care much right now.

[@ericmckinley7985]

@@BBBrasil This is Germany we're talking about. They're gonna dick around and under deliver. Scholz received a 48 page letter from the arms industry of what they have to give right now. He got it 2 months ago and just now forwarded the letter- no, HALF the letter. Lol.

[@SephirothRyu]

Tankers are not easy to replace. It takes a lot of training and good teamwork to effectively use a tank. Unless they are really desperate, they are better used as rear line units and training vehicles.

[@alangordon3283]

It’s the logistics of maintain them and not to mention the training on how to operate them that is the massive problem along with any weapon systems they receive.

[@zammap08]

and ukraine two days after getting the first tank: "we demand maintanance crews...immediately."

[@benholroyd5221]

It's a bridge that has to be crossed eventually. There's only so many museums that can be raided for old Soviet stuff

[@MrDanisve]

@John Grigg This whole thing is hillarious. Mathematicians tell us Germany would take about an 1.5% GDP hit if they stop imports of Russian energy today. Europe funds a new tank for Russia via energy sales every 20mins. If Germany is not willing to take a "small" 1.5% hit, for THEIR stupid decisions. Like closing down Nuclear energy.. Wont give heavy weapons to Ukraine. Germany is funding Russia way more than they are funding Ukraine. I am shamed by German selfishness in this. The hit to Russias economy would be way more than 1.5% The economic war favors the west so much. For every hit we take, Russia has taken 7-8 hits. But i indeed agree with you. If there is a will, there is a way. Its all about the will at this point. The will is rather lacking, leaders hiding behind the convenient nuclear pillar.

[@mattmccaughen8082]

Lol Ukrainians ain't baby's I'm sure won't take long

[@713devereux]

@John Grigg I agree, if you train personal that are already familiar with tanks it is not huge leap to go to the Leopard and same with the maintenance crews.

[@bertoverweel6588]

I was a driver of the Leo 1 in 1973 - 74 , Dutch army 43 Tankb. Aesk. Langemanshof . Great tank .

[@professormarvel4229]

An excellent analysis 10/10. From what I've seen, in footage from the war, Ukrainians are pretty good at hitting tanks from the side. So I think you're point about knowing their terrain, is vastly underestimated.

[@MrRacing44]

The first cat that I saw was in a training action was 1979 in my first fall nato training with our allies . O it was in West Germany . I was in the 2AD . They pulled us into a perfect ambush . The germans had just started to use a new camouflage patterns we didn’t see them until it was all over .

[@emilj9399]

@jеffrееstаr 🅥 THX for the link, gave it a thumbs down XD.

[@matthewgibbs6886]

i trained with the germans in the 90's after the gulf war 1ad. half their tanks were inop. no crews and no interest in filling those positions.

[@jxg1652]

@@matthewgibbs6886 I believe the 90's were the absolutely lowest low of the Bundeswehr. "Bundeswehr, whats that? Ah, those guys that put sandbags after a flood? Okay, they can do that without guns, cold war is over."

[@dreamingflurry2729]

@@matthewgibbs6886 Well, Germany has been truly broken spiritually after WW2, sure our ancestors were bloody idiots for following that Austrian (Yes: Mr. H was not born in Germany, but in Braunau, Austria!) bastard, but what happend afterwards (we were assigned the blame for it - despite the fact that it's partly the responsibility of the French and the other WW1 victors who turned Germany into a shadow of its former self, which made it easy for any strongman who promised to restore German glory and position in the world to take over and then start a war! Well, this lack of patriotism etc. makes for bad soldiers and makes governments unwilling to spend on defense :( Hopefully that'll change now...seriously, only spending 2% of GDP on defense? I'd spend 5% at least (sure I'd spend more on education, infrastructure etc. - but I would also have decent armed forces! Not ones were the newest piece of actualy widely available weaponry is from the 80s!)

[@danielondrums7646]

@@jxg1652 That's exactly the state of the Austrian Bundesheer since forever, lol

[@loose62cannon21]

The leopard has a exceedingly fast reverse speed of about 26 kph, most Russian tanks only have a reverse speed of 4 kph, meaning it can execl at hit and run tactics

[@user-kw4jw4jd2o]

But the T-72B3M has a speed on the ground FORWARD of about 100 km / h ... and a 125mm gun that will smash a fat Nazi vehicle from the first hit with a land mine .... while a 105mm Nazi gun is GUARANTEED not to break through the dynamic protection of the T-72B3M

[@huginstarkstrom]

I can see them be useful in a long range ambush, where they fire at AFV and light armored targets, then retreating. Ideally light armored vehicles will take cover and heavier tanks will persue the retreating Leos and hopefully drive into an infantry ambush without supporting vehicles.

[@thomsbooth4906]

Leopard 1 is still quite good at engaging non-tank targets like convoys, infantry, personnel carriers and enemy infrastructure. Tanks rarely engage other tanks they would much prefer to engage softer targets. Even though the Leopard 1 is "old" it is by no means junk.

[@wangyi8031]

Leopard old? lol yet russia still has heaps of T55's in active use and reserves and Israel with the m60 tank of the same era with the same gun was fighting T72's in Egypt in the middle east war and actually wining

[@shermanfirefly5410]

I think the bigger problem is that Ukraine really don't have any trained loaders for the last.....60 years

[@thomsbooth4906]

Loaders can be trained in a week or two an 18 year old with a strong back can do it.@@shermanfirefly5410

[@TheIvanNewb]

Jens Wehner's point was going to be what I was going to ask here in the comments, if a Leopard 1 on a "quiet" or secondary front could free up more modern T-64 and T-80/84 tanks for other fronts, or even be used to train tank crews if training T-series tanks are needed at the front.

[@emilsinclair4190]

A good point. However if the situation somewhere is good enough that an leo 1 can replace another tank it is very likely that another vehicle might be better for the job. Like an ifv

[@512TheWolf512]

The thing you should understand more than anything else is that we NEED THEM AND NEED THEM NOW. the details will be ironed out later

[@emilsinclair4190]

@@512TheWolf512 what I will now say will definitely sound somewhat unreasonable but this is sadly how we have to look at the issue. The question that people that decide about stuff like that ask themself is not if you need something. Because the answer is basically yes and basically nobody has the resources to pay for all the equipment. They ask themself what investment will give you the most for the least ammount of money. One good example: you could send 10 puma ifvs. Or you could use the money you would spend on them to send countless anti tank weapons and manpats. And maybe a few older ifvs. Add to this all the massive problems with incompatible weapons systems, different doctrines, and training time in most analysises it is far better to send a high number of light equipment instead of a small number of heavier equipment.

[@TheIvanNewb]

@@emilsinclair4190 The weight of a Leo 1 is a lot closer to Soviet-era MBTs, though.

[@greggstrasser5791]

@@512TheWolf512 Who is “we?” I drove a 113 & if they told me to drive an M-60, it would probably be a bad idea. You want to die, son? You’re safer on the ground.

[@normmcrae1140]

If need be, they could be dug in and used as "portable" pillboxes. Perfect for ambushes. The Germans did this in WW2 with Panther turrets in Italy.... minus the tank hull.

[@edi9892]

Just that back then RPGs were still rare... However, having something that can throw some HE against a soft target is definitely something they can still use... It would be even better, if they had something bigger and with longer range, such as a 155mm Howitzer, or a 240mm Mortar.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

Russians did this too at Kursk, digging in their T-34s all the way to the turret. It was surprisingly effective.

[@mbr5742]

The Pantherturm bunkers often used purpose build and uparmored (roof) variants of what was then a very modern, very heavily armored turret. And with modern thermo optics, even older ones, finding the turrets is a lot easier than it was in Italy 1943

[@DisplayLine6.13.9]

But the panther had good turret armor the leo 1 does not.

[@mbr5742]

@@DisplayLine6.13.9 The armor is similar. But the enemy in 1943 was not armed with a 125mm smoothbore

[@twostep1953]

I was on the Intelligence staff of a tank division when the T-72 came out. Back then, it was classified as Secret that, as with Shermans and Panthers during WWII, the 105mm can not penetrate the front armor of a T-72, but can punch through anywhere else. Use good tactics and they will be fine.

[@tombaur8316]

depends on the distance, but tank battles are mostly duel situations and the one with the stronger gun and armor usually wins and things are looking bad for the leopard1

[@j-lgroen1239]

Oooh, I’ve been to the Bovington tank museum! It’s totally worth the trip! They have a freakin King Tiger in there!

[@katamarankatamaranovich9986]

It won't be used on its own for tank vs tank combat, infantry with atgms who support tanks can do the job, while Leopards will support the infantry like heavy IFVs. Or alternatively, Leopard units can be mixed with more powerful Ukrainian tanks armed with 125 mm guns in a support role.

[@GARDENER42]

Ya. Hull down positions about 1km to the flank of whatever road the orcs are using & aim for a hit below the turret ring to ignite the ammunition in the autoloader carousel.

[@slavicemperor8279]

In Ukraine war we have seen that tank to tank combat almost never happened, it is almost exclusively tanks being blown up by ATGMs, drones, artillery and in cases of Ukrainian tankers airstrikes.

[@harmless-kun]

I guess, the tanks finally gone full circle, i will finally be used as it was supposed to be when i was first tank was designed. Infantry Support role.

[@WimsicleStranger]

@@slavicemperor8279 That's just not true. Sure there has been a significant decrease in tank v tank action, but there are tons of cases of tanks fighting other tanks and/or other armored vehicles.

[@darugdawg2453]

I have seen a lone ukraine tank engaging a whole ifvs convoy in an ambush

[@pahtar7189]

It sounds like the Leopard would be best used in the north where the forests and hills make for shorter than average range of contact. The Ukrainians could then send their T-72 tanks to the east where the open terrain means encounter distances are likely, but Ukrainian UAVs would be very effective spotting Russian vehicles.

[@davidnickels3325]

I think in this war there is not as much actual tank vs tank combat. The range of the weapons would be limited by urban areas. It seems also like at least the Russians use their tanks mostly as self propelled artillery. The old 105mm gun from the Leopard can still handle a T-72, though.

[@darkomiceski3755]

they don't have T-72 tanks any more, they sold or lost all of them. They have only T-64 which are older then T-72.

[@spencer5028]

They are best scraped and leave the Israeli coke head zelensky to make peace which he should have done a year ago

[@TruckingShooter]

This aged well, I expected this to be a week old when I saw the title,... then I saw the date...

[@champy5095]

i was at the Militärfest Munster and Faßberg in 2017 or 2018

[@CyberRabid.]

I'm not too certain about the leopard ones combat readiness, but it's an attractive looking machine. I'd be proud to have one parked in my driveway.

[@atom7216]

I must say the leopard 1 is a beautiful mbt It looks old but modern at the same time

[@zetectic7968]

Use as a training vehicle and second line support is surely better than not having them it would also reduce the demand for ammunition.

[@FelineSublime]

Would the mixed capabilities and shortfalls of the Leopard 1 make it more suitable as a reconnaissance tank, similar in role to the US' M551 Sherridan and cancelled M8 Buford Armored Gun System?

[@vossli1074]

Use them in a tank destroyer role like the M18 (fast, light, no armor), ambush those lines from hidden locations at night using thermal vision, use mud and vegetation to cover the tank’s frontal thermal signature. Support with infantry carrying anti-tank weapons.

[@Salimkarim0]

Or as artillary to help infantry

[@gartje]

As a former Leopard tank commander in the Dutch army, I'm surprised how many here underestimate the power of this beautiful tank. I can assure you that this tank can compete with any Russian-made tank. the 105mm super grenade easily penetrates all russian armored vehicles. The only weak point of the Leo1 tank is the relatively thin armor, but this makes the tank extremely fast (up to 100km/h!) and manoeuvrable. There is a drill for example, where the aim is to immediately change position after a shot, sometimes with a whole platoon (4 tanks) at the same time, this is called "sawing". I might be a bit bias, but I would be confident and proud to command this beautiful beast in the east of the Ukraine, bring it on! 🦾

[@piotrd.4850]

I assure you it can't :D 105 mm can't bite any frontal armour.

[@paullakowski2509]

@@piotrd.4850 You know nothing "glass hopper " THE ERA ONLY COVERS 1/3 TO 1/2 OF THE T-64/72/80 FRONT PROFILE ....and since composite armor coverage is only marginally better 105 APFSDS can get though side or rear tank profile plus 1/2 frontal profile.....go back to your stupid arcade games!!!

[@MicroageHD]

@@piotrd.4850 They don't. This tank will probably used as infantry fire support and against lightly armored personell carriers, not as an anti-tank weapon.

[@nonitoypogie7544]

@@MicroageHD huh. say that thick armored T is directly hit by 105, the crew inside are dislodged, see stars and moons from the impact and scramble to get out from their tank 🤔

[@joaogarcia9488]

Its a mobile weapon and at the right distance can penetrate any tank im sure.

[@hawk4192]

Given that this might turn into a trench war, where using high quality vehicles is to be reserved for major offensives, I think it wise to give them the old Leos. 1) it gets them off the inventory so save money on keeping them maintained, 2) it gives a decent infantry support vehicle that isn't an expensive, irreplaceable loss if destroyed.

[@florentmagen5993]

Even if the" Leopard 1a5" is not the "Top of the MBT" today, it can be use to take place and discharge the Ukrainian MBT, blocked to protect the west of Ukraine (ex. Kvyv). These Ukrainian MBT are needed in the Est to support the re enforcement of the Front at Donbass region. So yes, they can be useful. And perhaps "Marder" can also have an important role to transfert quickly infantry in combat site. Expecting the fact that it,'s will be too late..

[@paullakowski2509]

finally some one who understands modern war.

[@EpicThe112]

Good point and if you are wondering Ukrainian military might experiment Leopard 1A5 Marder Nozh Explosive Reactive armour to protect them from 3BM60 Svinets 2 3BM69 3BM70 Vacuum 3BM44.

[@kaleufarias7705]

One thing to add up is that Brazil still uses the Leopard 1 in the 1A5 BR version

[@Welterino]

3:10 Brazilian here, we use Leopard 1A5 as our MBTs, with updated Fire Control System, as far as I know.

[@anthonywilliams379]

Against anything short of so full on modern tank I'm sure these things will dominate the battlefield, far better than a Toyota hylux sporting a .50, if worst comes to worst they'll be pretty effective as a static gun if placed inside a ground or concrete pen\trench to protect them. If the Germans have them in storage I'm sure they'd be cheaper to send over there than store them a few more years and then decommission for scrap

[@Rick2010100]

The German Army has decomissioned and sold all Leopard 1. The companies Rheinmetall and FFG bought some to use the chassis and drivetrain as basis for other vehicles. They have ca. 150 left in their storage.

[@richardbenjamin8341]

Love those attribute icons….very effective!

[@richardkudrna7503]

I wonder how much damage a T-72 woujd sustain from a frontal glacis hit? No penetration but would sensors and systems still be working or would that be an operational kill? Does he need to leave and go get repaired? Could he still kill the leopard🎉? Or is his sighting broken?

[@AgentPepsi1]

The Leopard tanks (1 or 2) would be very difficult for Ukraine as they have not trained on this weapon system, nor have spare parts or experience maintaining them. Also, the Leopard carries a NATO standard armament. Germany, however, still has lots of former East German T-72 in storage. THIS would be the weapon of choice.

[@BS-my6qx]

No T 72 in storage in Germany any more... Ended in the late 90s...

[@bw5888]

That's a terrible idea. T-72's would get blown away worse than what the Ukrainians are doing to modern Russian tanks now. Don't give them a tank that's going to fail! They need crash courses on how to use modern tanks like the Leopard or the K2 Black Panther from South Korea.

[@leinad3305]

Germany does not have T-72's in storage at all. After the reunification some were evaluated, and then by the late 90's all were already sold, either for scrap, or to other countries.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

Leopard 2 has plenty of spare parts. Ukraine is essentially a subsidized force now, it doesn't matter if they can't produce the stuff.

[@nonyabisness6306]

Afaik all NVA tanks have been sold or scrapped.

[@robanson32]

In regards to mobility, you did leave out that the leopard 1 has much better reverse gears than T-72. This would allow it to perform better defensive movements than existing T-64’s.

[@V-V1875-h]

Seriously, so many times Russian tanks peek out around a corner, get a missile shot at them, notice it but can do nothing about it

[@lafaar5069]

i dont know what is the problem with deutsch Speaking in Europe, my side i think that the deutsch speaking countrys in Europe is Afraid to have a strong Country like Ukrain in Europe

[@edopronk1303]

I am curious. Can it also help that it's a older vehicle on the maintenance point? Like, a modern car you have to diagnose with a pc.

[@peterecker7112]

Hervorragend zusammengefasst und eingeordnet. Ohne die Griechen und Türken (!) macht es demnach wenig Sinn. Der Ringtausch (T72 gegen neues Gerät) mit Osteuropa bietet - in der Kürze der Zeit - viel mehr Potential für die Ukraine. Allerdings wird dieser Konflikt noch Monate andauern. Daher wäre ein "sowohl als auch" wohl die klügste Idee.

[@MrMediator24]

Truly potential War Thunder moment - Leopards 1 taking part in full scale battle against T-90s and BMP-3s

[@MrKj202]

omg and I stopped playing that because it was "unrealistic" to have fights like this

[@nekomakhea9440]

While it would not be effective in a fair fight vs modern MBT's, it would still be useful if unfair fights could be arranged. Even just using it as a glorified support gun / assault gun, like pretending your Leopard 1 is a Stryker MGS, would still offer a lot of value too. To go on offense, you either need a large firepower advantage over the defenders, or a large numerical advantage over the defenders, or preferably both superior firepower and numbers. Old tanks in an assault gun role could provide the firepower advantage, at least.

[@PhilippSeven]

But for the moment there is almost none of assault or counter assault operations by Ukranian army. They need strong defence, and leo 1 not very good choice for that.

[@septimus7524]

@@PhilippSeven with how Russia has been doing in this war so far honestly a counter attack would absolutely be possible soon. Nobody here can tell me with a straight face that after learning of Russia's "tactics" so far they DIDN'T immediately say "what the fuck is Putin doing?"

[@PhilippSeven]

@@septimus7524 And how they doing? They doing absolutely fine. Slow advance with minimal collateral damage in mind. To think that Russia does not have enough forces or weapons is simply ridiculous. Russia have 1 mil army. With ~12k tanks. plethora of other vehicles, planes and helis. In Ukraine right now not even 10% of Russian army. Ukrainian army on contrast lost almost all of its planes, heavy armor and fleet. Slow progression Rus army in result of Ukrainian forces tactics, that use civilians as "human shield" as among other things. Don't believe Ukrainian propaganda. If you didn't trust Russians, read US, and UK intelligence summaries, there is more truth.

[@victorzvyagintsev1325]

@@septimus7524 Ukrainians have tried to counterattack many times. Problem is that Russia dictates where the frontline is. For example the breakout atempt in Mariupol. 1000+ strong marines force with armor up front is no joke, but the deployment was tracked from the start. End result - armor lost, about 200kia and the rest surrendered in 1 day of fighting.

[@crckdns]

Danke für die das aufklärende Video! Diese Frage wollte Ralf nicht beantworten, weil es nicht zu seinem Lehrauftrag gehört.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

?

[@crckdns]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized ich hatte ihn um einen "Vergleich" zwischen dem Leo1 und den aktuellen RU Panzern in der Ukraine gebeten gehabt :)

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

ja, ist auch hier nur oberflächlich, weil wenn man es richtig machen will, dann muss man halt: alle Varianten der T-Panzer berücksichtigen, was die wirklich haben, etc. Ansonsten beschweren sich auch immer wieder Leute, wenn man Panzer vergleicht, dass "Tank vs Tank" was für War Thunder etc. von daher nachvollziehbar. Ist halt die Frage was man unter "Vergleich" versteht, in dem Video war es eher eine (sehr) grobe Einschätzung, als ein Vergleich. Vergleich wäre eher dieses Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6m3gmClrtRgfZY aber da Vergleich ich genau 1 Variante vom Panzer III und 1 Variante vom T-34.

[@petarmartic4526]

I really enjoy your reviews. I’d note that, what I’m hearing is that both tanks can knock each other out.. but if I’m not mistaken leopard armour is between 10-70mm.. meaning that the amount of armaments that can destroy the leopard versus the number that can destroy the t72 is significantly larger..

[@thePronto]

"That tank round that will hit us in 1 second was fired by an obsolete tank that mounts an underpowered gun with an archaic fire control system." said no soldier ever....

[@jasonthomas9596]

There's a lot of thought process going in here a leopard one is a solid tank and its latest variant I wouldn't want to mess with it on the battlefield granted there's other tanks have got bigger reach and longer arm but an experienced tank crew who has a pretty good understanding of what the strength and weaknesses of the tank is could use it to great effect. Imagine this tank in an ambush style Tank destroy roll. Orange direct support of mechanized infantry going up against not necessarily other infantry but let's say hardened vehicles harden targets even other stuff like that this tank in the right spot could free up other more valuable tanks to be used in a military spearhead this tank could easily be a very good second line tank IE rolling with the infantry and stuff giving them extra support and still free up enough space for the really big heavy hitters to be concentrated and used in Mass. I rented it can also be used as a tank destroyer roll hunting down enemy tanks and bushing and destroying them using overwhelming firepower this isn't a bad tank to use and this could turn the tide if used properly there's a few caveats here I know. But this might not be a bad idea.

[@colerape]

4 crew vs. 3 crew. Huge advantage to 4 crew. You have a third more crew to perform crucial functions that occur outside the tank. Resupply, security, and maintenance on the tank. As a Tank Commander I could send my loader to pick up chow, have my driver pulling daily maintenance, Gunner pulling security, while I went to the Command Post to get an updated battle plan and local intel. This disparity increases as the size of the unit increases. I would think that tanks with only 3 crew would be forced to do maintenance at a higher level using dedicated support personnel. Which would mean an increased time out of the line for these vehicles. I've had a wide range of experience on tanks (Driver, Gunner, Tc, also Platoon Sergeant for Tank Platoon). I switched to officer. I have been a Chemical Warfare Officer (Bn), Tactical Intelligence Officer (Bn), Assistant Operations Officer (Bn) and even the Night Battle Captain for a Tank Battalion. I also had two Company Commands. Being able to manage resources such as personnel is absolutely critical. I have never believed that Eastern Block tanks could offer effective firepower over extended time periods primarily due to the size of their crews and due to the maintenance and supply functions having to occur at higher levels.

[@macflod]

Anyone else hate getting adverts 4x as long as the actual video you put on

[@carloshernandezsanchez1877]

MVH: Hit and Run tactics *Mario entered the chat* This channel is so amazing, very informative, reliable sources and understated humour!

[@christianchristiansen1471]

​this is the military equivalent of giving your xbox 360 to your little cousin.

[@lieutenantcoloneltanyavond8273]

Well, if your cousin has no PC or other consoles, he might appreciate it.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@lieutenantcoloneltanyavond8273 yeah but your cusin already has two xbox ones and ps5´s and your xbox 360´s fans have started siezing due to age

[@CalinCETERAS]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 We don't know how many XBox Ones and PS5s the Ukrainians still have available... Some tank factories were hit so maintenance will be a problem... some tanks might have been destroyed but nobody says anything... Some tanks might need maintenance so much that they are basically pillboxes... The Russians might not have anti-tank missiles as effective as the NLAW and Javelin, but against a Leopard 1 what they have is more than enough.

[@geoswan4984]

I recently saw a recent youtube about a new modern turret designed to upgrade Leopard 1 tanks. I think it was a private offer, from a French firm... Umm. Limerick? Something like that. Is this fluff? How much value would a new turret add to the Leopard 1? Thanks for all your interesting work!

[@Avalanche041]

The key will be how the Russian's operate. In their assault on Kiev, they were highly dependent on roads and could be easily ambushed. A platoon of Leopard 1s, with trained crews and fighting from prepared positions flanking major roadways could be extremely effective. The Leopard 1's ability to shoot and scoot also makes it useable in a fighting retreat scenario. Maybe even form small mechanized task forces around the Leopard 1 and send them marauding across the enemies axis of advance. The possibilities are endless. The key will be making sure the crews know what their vehicle can and cannot do. Using the Leopards in prepared fighting positions would also reduce the required maintenance as the only time the tanks would really need to move is when relocating to a new firing position.

[@jucaesar4961]

One problem with prepared positions is, though, that they have to be properly concealed, as they would otherwise be quite prone to being spotted from the air.

[@ApocDevTeam]

Pretty sure the Germans already walked back on the deal and are not giving away any Leopards. The Ukrainians tried attacking Russia itself earlier today with 10 tanks, eight were destroyed while two of them retreated. It's like you said, you need lots of training and proper usage. Just giving countries equipment only to have then squander it is pointless. We've seen this as well with the US giving modern equipment to middle-eastern countries who subsequently use it incorrectly and it just gets destroyed easily.

[@williamsquare2669]

good points indeed, training , training, training, but something UKr army has no time for...

[@andrewhart6377]

@@jucaesar4961 He did mention 'Prepared Fighting Positions' this of course would include Camo.

[@armynurseboy]

If manned by a trained and disciplined crew, the Leopard is still a formidable opponent

[@josephahner3031]

The Ukrainians could benefit from using the Leopard much like the US Army plans to use the Griffin 2 MPF tank. As an addition to light motorized infantry to enable their operational mobility and security elements and provide direct fire support.

[@guyhancox4246]

Good analysis. Reminds me of the situation of Sherman fighting Panthers, Tigers etc. Clever tactics, side attacks, element of surprise, etc, could easily make the difference and give the Ukraine forces a very useful battlefield weapon, especially if we could get ~900 to them quickly. Speed and logistics will be essential, so get a flippin' move on!

[@68RatVette]

that SATURDAY at the 2019 show was Brutally hot!

[@johnjacobjinglehimerschmid3555]

I was stationed in Baumholder in the mid late 80's. I think them giving older serviceable leopards is an outstanding idea.

[@ThePRCommander]

Not from a logistical point of view. The Ukrainian army will face a serious challenge, if to incorporate Leopards into its supply and support system.

[@BosonCollider]

It's... kind of weak if viewed as a tank. But it has a big cannon and it can move around. That's not something you turn down. Ukrainians can support it with NLAW crews and make sure it operates in areas with cover to ensure that enemy tanks can't attack it directly. While the leopard can still easily suppress Russian IFVs and infantry since the Russians don't have third gen anti-tank rockets to threaten it with. It needs to be defended, but it has its uses.

[@edi9892]

Yes, but I'd rather send some long range artillery and man portable AT and AA weapons.

[@tomk3732]

Russian have a Kornet missile - latest AT missile fire and forget with long engagement range able to fly through 3 or 4 Leopards 1 parked in straight line.

[@lulutileguy]

thanks for the insight

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad it was helpful!

[@KellyBergerDeusVult]

Best use is mobile artillery supporting infantry. Fire control integrated with support is more important than direct battlefield engagement.

[@AveragePootis]

10:20 Also important to remember that the T-72 could very well perhaps beat the leopard in a straight line, but the older variants have a really clunky gearbox which makes them lose alot of speed in turns

[@piotrd.4850]

Well, both Leopards were built using WW II experience and with premium on MOBILITY. T-72 should was supposed to be CHEAP supplement to T-64 and its subsequent developments to T-80s.

[@AveragePootis]

@@piotrd.4850 Still, the T-72 has 780 horses for ~41 tons, leopard 1 has around 800 for 42 tons, so it would be down to the gearbox mostly... and in the the 5 speed antique of the early T-72s would cause it to lose

[@MicroageHD]

@@AveragePootis nonono, it's just NOT mostly about the damn gearbox. Yes, germans are geniuses at building gearboxes but the most important thing is ground/track resistance... Especially when turning.... You don't need power if you have lower resistance.

[@pauldehart744]

Very informative. Some of the support issues is what I thought and I thought they have the 105mm instead of the 120mm gun. Of course they would have to be supplied with the shells for them to use, which they do not have in their system. If they could send their people to Germany to train their crews and mechanics now and also send T72 as well, this could work for them.

[@joesmittington1207]

I assume sending crews and logistical infrastructure along with the tanks is out of the question? Feels like that would be the best choice since then they could be put to use in just a couple weeks, but it also feels like sending expeditionary tank forces might be inflammatory, and out of the question for the German Govt, and the people.

[@ItWillAllBeOver]

What can inhance the firepower of the leo1 is some like ammo like dm33 or 43 or 53 just a bit smaller that it can be used in it , i dont know how the ammunation is called but i think apcr?

[@jenskruse1475]

It is a little bit scary hearing the " my tank" was overpowered by the russian tanks. I saw 120 mm shell go straight through both sides of the tank. That made me happy never to have gone to war.

[@Sippi81]

better through both sides as only one side I guess dont wanne sit in there with a tank-gun projectile bouncing around

[@HanSolo__]

Now when Germany also broke the embargo and sold the missiles to Russia, these Leopards will burn faster than we think. France on the other hand supplied Russia with the thermal imaging systems for their T-90. So, yeah Leopard 1 stands no chance.

[@agentepolaris4914]

@@HanSolo__ tell me more about rhe broken embargo

[@QuixoteBadger]

I think it goes without saying that the Leopard 1 would be highly effective both in reserve, as well as in anti-mechanized warfare and infantry support roles.

[@Robert66734]

A better option would be to upgrade the Leopard 1 tank with a new turret and engine. These have already been developed and can be integrated into this tank quite easily. Quite recently CMI defense integrated their 3105 turret with a 105mm gun into the Leopard 1, they just had to connect an electrical cable and install a new turret ring and it was ready to go. An even better option would be to use the turret of the tracked Boxer, the KMW 120mm RCT120 turret. Another option, perhaps even the best option, would be to use the turret of the KF41, this variant is called the LYNX 120, with the 120mm smoothbore gun derived from the LEOPARD 2 MBT as the main armament. Replacing the engine would also offer many advantages, in particular if the powerful Liebherr turbo diesel engine (KF-41) is installed, this engine can reach 850 kW or 1,140 hp and offers an excellent power-to-weight ratio of almost 25 - 30 hp per ton when the new version of the Leopard 1 tank weighs approximately between 45 - 50 tons.