T-72 vs Leopard 1A5: Trash vs Quality?

In 1990 the Bundeswehr made an investigation if the T-72 could replace the Leopard 1 A5. In this video we look at the report from back then. Various parts of the report seem a bit off particularly about the T-72, as such I note why I think they are off and add additional information for context on other parts.
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 design: vonKickass.
Cover images: Leopard 1 at Tankfest 2019 by MHV.
T-72 of the Georgian Armed Forces, Public Domain, U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Ellen C. Brabo,
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» 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 «
BArch, BH 1/19863: v. Wittenburg: Gegenüberstellung KPz Leopard 1 A5 - T-72 (ehem. NVA), Munster, 1990.
Zaloga, Steven J.: T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1993.
T-72 - Part 1, in: Tankograd (Blog), thesovietarmourblog.blogspot...., last accessed: 7th July 2022.
Donnelly, Christopher N.: Red Banner. The Soviet Military System in Peace and War. Jane’s Information Group: 1988.
www.tanknet.org/index.php?/to...
www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de...
#t72 #leopard1 #tanks
00:00 Intro
00:35 A: Comparisons make no sense…
01:18 Context
01:47 What T-72 Variant?
02:46 Different Doctrines
03:00 Basics T-72
06:08 Basics Leopard 1A5
06:47 Command & Coordination
10:21 Mobility & Combat
11:48 Combat
14:26 Crew Coordination
15:04 Conclusion of the Report
15:25 Summary

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Want to see more videos with content from museums? Additionally, you get AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@teejayaich4306]

Forgive me if there is already one (I couldn't find it at the moment) but are you likely to do - or do you know of a good one - which explains the different common types of suspension and why they were/weren't used? Torsion bar, Christy(sp?), etc, are usually mentioned by name and not really explored. Anyway, i'm not in a position to donate, but I appreciate the work you do, especially how you really support your statements with decent evidence (at a time where people believe the earth is flat and that mRNA vaccines... whats the newest one, that they have microchips and give you cooties?, and so on)

[@truenews5399]

Put some calm music. This is so boring.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@truenews5399 you are on the wrong channel.

[@truenews5399]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized lol you don't have to get triggered for pointing the obvious. Every other military channel does that.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@truenews5399 I am not every other "military channel".

[@greg.kasarik]

As an Australian Leopard 1 tank crewman in the 1980s, early 1990s, I'd point out that at this stage, we were still using the IR lamp and had no thermal imaging capacity for any crew members. Even without the lamp, the gunner could see remarkably well through the sight at night, but was functionally blind. We did have a bunch of techies come through in an attempt to figure out a Thermal imaging gunnery solution, but none was implemented during my tank crew service, which ended in 1996, when I transfered to Psychology Corps. Given that the decision to go ahead with the Abrams was made during this period, I doubt any thermal gunnery sighting was ever installed in the Australian Leos. Driving at night was done using the Mk1 eyeball, or if, like me, you were night blind, you'd use the BM8005 light intensification system, which was a huge periscope that replaced the centre driver's scope. As such, with little peripheral vision, the driver's ability to manoeuvre at night was incredibly limited, although interestingly, the IR Lamp was highly visible through the night scope, which I found a bit odd. Basically, the Australian version of the Leopard 1 at the time was really suitable for daytime vision and combat only. At night, our main role was purely defensive. Regarding crew, the Leopard 1 could both acquire and fire at targets from the crew commander's position, so if you were down a crewman, you weren't down an entire tank, as seems to be the case with the T-72. In normal operations, the gunner would be scanning the forward arc (10-2 on the clock face), while the crew commander would be using his sight to also look for targets. If he identified a target, he could use his override to place the gun on target and hand the firing over to the gunner, or place a round downrange, if needs be. I don't recall there being any issues with the CC being unable to fire while on the move, but the German systems could have been different. While the hatch on the loader's side did impede the crew commander's vision, it contained an unmagnified periscope that could be rotated, meaning that the loader could also be looking for targets to the left of the vehicle, but only be able to see those visible with normal eyesight. The driver's sole job was to provide a stable gun platform, keeping to the low ground (it is amazing how many places a tank can hide hull down on normal "flat" terrain) while reporting anything that looked suspicious that might have otherwise been missed by other crew, who being in the turret, were better placed to observe potential threats, or targets. I'm interested that the report didn't discuss overall manoeuvrability, as the Leopard 1's light armour arose specifically as a result of the emergence of HEAT ammunition in the 1950s, before APFSDS came along and forced everyone to redesign their tanks (again!). The Leopard 1 was incredibly agile and reversing was very quick, with IIRC there being 2 reverse gears (I'd have to dig out my old manuals to check). Going from one turret down position to another on the same slope could be achieved quickly and with a minimum of fuss. It had a steering wheel (or yoke, if you want to be technical) and really was a joy to drive and a really comfortable ride. The main issue was the same with any tank and that is the problem of fixation on the forward arcs. On one occasion, when playing 1v1, I successfully manoeuvred around the tank playing enemy and literally parked right behind (as in my barrel was nearly over their engine deck). We then radioed to them to look behind and a great time was had by all. Funny as fuck! :-) For those unfamiliar with the Leopard, they used a 36 litre V12 diesel engine, which meant that there was no real situational awareness, with respect to sounds. Our engine noise was overwhelmed by theirs, theirs and so they had no way of hearing our approach from the rear.

[@4evaavfc]

Cool. I think we just had scorpions over the ditch by then.

[@thorstennommensen5105]

Well written. Greetings from a German Leopard 1 crewman 1984-1996.

[@espacesX]

As far as I know the Leopard 1 has a Super-Charger engine and Not a Turbo-charged engine. The Main Goal for the Leopard 1 was agility. Super-Charger is better for Instant Torque and steeper ramping up horsepower-curve, while the Turbo-charged engine is better for Marching. The Super-Charger consumes more Power from the engine, while the Turbo-charged let the engine "grow Wings". The Leopard 1 is already Flying while a Leopard 2 is still in launch-phase. At the End of the Launch-phase the heavier Leopard 2 Takes over the Lighter T-72. The Leopard 1 has already "escaped from Scene" and reached a good Position for a deadly Strike. The Leopard 1 is the Phantom on the Battle field in Case the Crew knows what the Leopard 1 and Gepard is as a Tank.

[@thorstennommensen5105]

@@espacesX "Phantom on the battlefield", nice 😊. I remember training together with M 48 in 1985. Compared to our Leopard 1 they seemed like crawling turtles in the mud. And in 1989 at Oksböl training area we saw Danish Centurions. Turtles too 😊.

[@espacesX]

@@thorstennommensen5105 Porsche developed - Porsches Like the 911 - Tractors for Farmers and the - Leopard 1 Concept I think the Leopard 1 is the Porsche under MBTs a "Wildsau" (engl.: Wild Sow) in the Most demanding Terrain.

[@ThisOldHelmet]

Strap-on spelled backwards is no-parts

[@Tankliker]

Worst part? You can be fucked by both. Either by presence or lack of it.

[@userequaltoNull]

Lol

[@blackberry_seed8390]

So you’re telling me that’s why it feels like I’m getting pegged when I have no parts in war Thunder?

[@Axonteer]

Tacocat likes to have a word with you

[@localbod]

Nice.

[@bartunthegreat2999]

5 km/h reverse speed. Of course. You're supossed to only go forward comrade. To victory!

[@ihavenonamederp3013]

@Ching Chong I think the T-72 is a russian tank and made by russians. I'm not sure tho.

[@mattaut88]

just turn around on spot. front is back

[@nerd1000ify]

Usually it is desirable to keep the front of the tank pointed at the enemy, rather than turn and expose one's lightly armoured rear to enemy fire.

[@Robert53area]

You have to also take in account their chief design. Leo1 was designed around the idea that modern armor would be useless, because of the design of sabot rounds. So they put everything into speed and fire power. Which isn't exactly flawed either. If you can seize the better position and as the moving elements it can keep up with mechanized forces. So no wouldn't call this trash. T72 designed for open plains combat and mainly designed around at giving a main battle tank to warsaw nations that lack the industrial power of the soviet union. So designing a tank around the philosophy of export in mind and giving minor nations the ability to fight stronger nations. Wouldn't call it trash either. Decent armor, good guns, and allows for less crew with an autoloader. The only people that consider these tanks trash are comparing them to modern tanks, or tanks that were given to middle eastern conflicts and this should not be taken as proof as middle eastern troops have always been shown to be inferior in training, doctrines on how to use the equipment given to them, or are not given the best export models either.

[@rogerpennel1798]

The problem with Russian military hardware is that it was based on design considerations from World War II and built for a future war that never happened. The idea was that like the T-34 of WWII weapons should be cheap to build, easy to maintain, reliable, and expendable. The Russians were relying on the weight of numbers so they didn't pursue highly survivable vehicles in the assumption that they wouldn't last very long anyway. Their tanks were incremental upgrades and the same faults of poor crew safety, poor ammunition storage, and poor fuel storage are inherited traits common to the entire family tree that was never rectified with a completely new design. The post Cold War rationale was why invest in new weapons when you can upgrade older designs on the cheap to bolster the number of weapons available in case of a large-scale war? The problem is when the Soviet Union collapsed Russia inherited all of these cheap and expendable weapons that were never going to be used in the numbers originally intended. But having such a huge stockpile of weapons meant that new weapon R&D and procurement were delayed and only incremental upgrades of questionable value were completed. So when they were used in high-intensity conflicts without a massive superiority in numbers they couldn't achieve the results that were expected. When used in huge numbers the chance of survival was greater. When used in smaller numbers the chance of survival declines.

[@tomfu6210]

Czechoslovakia alone produced about 10 000 tanks (1500 T-72s) and 15 000 IFVs... All in all about 35 000 armoured vehicles was produced. So much about insuficient industrial power 😉 It was just a question of finance. T-72 was easier to produce.

[@rogerpennel1798]

@@tomfu6210 - But the war of mass numbers they envisioned never came true. Wagering that you have more men than your enemy has bullets is a poor bargain.

[@BlastinRope]

Theres some multipage report from US brass about arab culture and how it affects their military comptency, wish I could find it or knew who wrote it.

[@tomfu6210]

@@rogerpennel1798 well till 1980s the quality was also on a side of WP armored forces. BTW the mass of T-55 was ugraded with digital balistic computers, laser ranger finders, laser illumination devices etc. in 1980s. The real game changer for West was thermal devices.

[@OneofInfinity.]

Great info, they took good things from the Leo 1 and improved on the Leo 2. As a former Leopard 2 gunner I was in "heat" vision almost 80% of the time I was behind my EMES, very little escaped my attention in my sector.

[@rags417]

Thanks for the insight. A question - since you used a lot of thermals, did you ever find them useful during daylight hours or was the ambient temperature too much for the sight to handle ? in War Thunder thermals seem to be a no brainer, they are always used even in full daylight because they can spot guys hiding in cover, but a lot of the gun footage I have seen from Iraq and Afghanistan becomes a white blur once the ground became hot and chewed up from cannon impacts and shrapnel. Were you able to see through that or did thermals lose most of their effectiveness once the target area became chewed up from hot smoke and shell craters ?

[@strizhi_mir9252]

@@rags417 although I cannot speak of leopard 2 tts, the abrams m1a2 will see everything day or night in regards to thermal sights. Maybe if a vehicle is not running (for a while) it will blend with background but I've never run into such a scenario, if it's running and the engine is spewing exhaust, its dead

[@benwade6155]

@@hs342 escaped his attention meaning he could see everything not things actually escaping

[@schnuersi]

@@rags417 The thermal imager works fine in daylight. Even during hot days there is no problem. Hot smoke will create the blur or haze. But most smoke not deliberatly created as hot smoke to blind termal imagers and IR seekers cools down quick and can be seen trough. Fog and dens raine or snow also can be a problem. The important thing a temperature differences and radiation. The radiation is detected and the differences in intensity are displayed. So in theory a human that is laying flat on 37° C hot ground would become invisible. But only if he is naked. Clothing and the equipment has different radiation properties and will show up. If the ground gets hotter the person would show up as cold spot.

[@little_lord_tam]

@@schnuersi Is it possible to camo from thermals? In theory youd only need a layer on your vehicle that is as hot as the environment, but I see that becoming difficult due to the engine. Is there a work around, because beeing spottet by thermals seems like a huge problem

[@Adam-vb3rt]

The part about the T-72's speed when going backwards (around 11:30) reminds me of the tank platoon in Kelly's Heroes. Oddball (the commander) made sure their tanks could back out of trouble faster than they got into it.

[@Oddball_E8]

It's very important!

[@darrenjpeters]

I 100 percent endorse this tactical approach.

[@jonsouth1545]

A major issue for Allied tanks in Italy with the British was low reverse speed as it was very important in relocating the tank under fire and became very evident in the restricted spaces of the Italian front where tanks didn't have much room to manoeuvre. This led to the next generation of British tanks (Centurion) have a significantly higher reverse speed

[@derricklarsen2919]

@@Oddball_E8 how important is the loud music and paint?

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

@@derricklarsen2919 Very. VERY loud music and PREETY pictures are integral parts of armoured warfare. Plus of course no negative waves baby.

[@ConsciousAtoms]

The "Limited familiarity with T-72" does not add up. Germany did not just acquire T-72 tanks, it also acquired their crews. Did the authors of the report not interview East-German tank crews? If so that is a major shortcoming of the report.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

the report was purposefully written negatively for the T-72 because the Bundeswehr wanted to phase out ALOT of equipment. With that report (and similar ones for other equipment) the phaseout of former warsaw pact equipment was justified (and with that the dismissal of NVA Personnel)

[@brokeandtired]

The T-72 is crap. All the Bundeswehr needed to do was be honest.

[@barbarapitenthusiast7103]

@@brokeandtired the t72 was the Perfect tank for what ww3 would have been

[@kilianortmann9979]

The Bundeswehr did acquire a large amount of east German personnel, however those often where difficult to integrate into west German procedures. I am not familiar with the army, but the East German Mig-29 pilots (and to a certain extend their aircraft) could not adapt to the eastern way of operation. They were intensely familiar with the capabilities of their airplane, but almost completely dependent on ground control for intercepts and combat effectiveness. Once they taught the east German pilots how to fly the Fulcrum and operate the helmet mounted sight, there was not much they could teach them. As mentioned by Bernhard, the eastern doctrine relied on the assumption, that individual knowledge and capabilities would quickly degrade and thus be inconsequential. The West rejected that assumption and prioritized individual proficiency and situational awareness.

[@snafu1635]

@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 Ahahahaha

[@derhesligebonsaibaum]

Ok, adding Soviet Womble as "less accurate" @ 13:20 was hilarious

[@noahlemay-assh2651]

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed, happy someone else did.

[@derhesligebonsaibaum]

@lenka oktyaberskya SovietWomble is a Streamer and KZbin creator who is notoriously bad at hitting the things he is trying to aim at.

[@elektrotehnik94]

Soviet Womble is love

[@villesaarenketo2506]

The T-72M1's were sold to Finland. I myself have been crawling inside a few cleaning their autoloaders.

[@30cal23]

lose an arm yet?

[@villesaarenketo2506]

@@30cal23 Luckily no. That was back in 99 when I was doing my military service. The tank is so tight we had to go in head first from the tank commander's hatch to get job done.

[@basharalassad1073]

@@30cal23 when u belive in rumors with no reports of it actually happening not to mention u need to try really hard to get ur arm in the path of the autoloade rjust cause how crampe dand the design of the chamber

[@stalkingtiger777]

We were taught (not officially) to sometimes write reports to cause a desired reaction, not necessarily to report the event factually. Sometimes factual reports can do more damage when it goes up the chain. Wonder if this was the same thing.

[@Psytinker]

Nothing better than starting wars you are fated to lose, because you are physically prevented from objectively knowing your own strength, and the strength of the enemy.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

Desired reaction was to get rid of all Eastern equipment, and more importantly Eastern military professionals, in order to save jobs of Western officers at the time when Bundeswehr was shrinking.

[@szlatyka]

@@aleksazunjic9672 And with quite a competition - NVA officers were highly trained and skilled, maybe even more so than their western counterparts. I imagine it would have looked really bad to win the Cold War but keeping the East German soldiers because turns out in a real war they would have been better.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

@@szlatyka Well, there is also an angle of cost and quality. Western equipment and soldiers were always more expensive than Eastern. German industry produced Leopards and hoped to gain new markets, not to lose existing. This is the reason Westerners are always reluctant to send their equipment to combat when there is a strong opponent on the other side.

[@exhorderhd]

@@szlatyka that’s the take of ex-NVA officers. Reality, as always, is much more nuanced. There‘s an interesting website of a ex-East German armor officer who continued to serve in the Bundeswehr. Less than flattering for Soviet/East German doctrine, which matches quite nicely with what I‘ve heard from other ex-NVA guys. Also, don‘t forget that a lot of West German career servicemen were offered early retirement after 1990, too.

[@thewomble1509]

It's always worth remembering that neither East or West would say "your tank is clearly better than ours" as propaganda is the first weapon deployed in any conflict. I do know that when the UK was developing Chieftain and the FGR Leo 1, a lot of German high command expressed concern about the ability of Leo to absorb heavy punishment on the battlefield compared to the British tank. The top brass wanted a tank that was more like a modern Panther able to give and take punishment. The Leo was , like all tanks, a compromise and although it had a powerful, reliable pack it had serious weaknesses in other areas.

[@savincristina7580]

Warsaw pact had at least 10/1 ratio, and the tanks were not weak....they would crush the west

[@Constanza235]

@@savincristina7580 The entire industrialized world would be crushed before either Soviet tanks saw paris or nato tanks saw warsaw.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@Constanza235 vaporized is better word than crushed.

[@whitephosphorus15]

I appreciate your two summary points. During the video I was wondering if the report writer was just dumb or intentionally making the T-72 look worse than it is. I think the lack of familiarity had something to do with it, but they were so unobjective that I think them not wanting the T-72 to be adopted had more to do with it.

[@xendk]

The report was made in 1990 and at that time that t-72 were 17 year old and the Germans had the leo 2A4 since 1984/85 It were never going to be adopted.

[@xendk]

@@JK-oq9cl The only thing That "many comments" show is that there are a majority that don't know anything about the German unification. Would be interesting if he made a detailed video about it but it was not easy to incorporate a Dictators communistic party army into NATO and the fact that they had to go back to school be course everything they know about war is useless in the new army

[@termitreter6545]

​@@JK-oq9cl LOL the east german army was superior to the west? Yeah im sure the east germans using soviet garbage tactics and equipment was better to german NATO troops and their 2000 Leo2 tanks xD

[@matthiasbaumbach5393]

Some thoughts on the Leo 1A5. During my time in Munster I had the lucky opportunity to work with the Gruppe Weiterentwicklung. I soaked all Information up like a sponge. The EMES 18 of the Leo 1A5 is an even further developed version of the EMES 15 which was introduced to the Leo 2A4. The thermal sight was not only meant to be used by night but by day also, as it extended the range of recognition to about 3 km during daylight, mitigating the problems of a mere optical sight in rough terrain, where the enemy could be unnoticed due to optical camouflage. The periscope of the commander, the Peri R12, was specifically designed to be used during movement, to give the Leo 1A5 the Hunter - Killer capability. Therefore the periscope is stabilized. By one press of the control overdrive button the tank commander is able to assign a target to the gunner with the gunners optics and the gun already on target. Trained on the 2A4 on all positions and as a platoon leader and from my experience during training for foreign tank commanders from former WP countries I am convinced that the Leo 1A5 is superior to the T72 in the battle types mobile defense, delay and attrition, each with the respective counter offensive tactics. The Leo 1A5 is absolutely superior to the T72 when it comes to tactical versatility, tactical adoption and foremost mobile fire fight. You also might never forget that the Leo 1A5 is much more ergonomic than the T72, giving the crew a higher stamina in battle. In the end it's always about tactics and as mentioned this is the strength of the whole Leo family.

[@justvid366]

What about Leo1A5 vs Leo2A4?

[@cannonfodder4376]

Honestly while useful information can be gleamed from such evaluations and comparisons, often its more revealing what such reports show about the user and their perspectives and biases than about the tech in question. Another good video Bernhard.

[@bruetel436]

Error at 6:16. It is spoken about a "4-man turret" when "4-man crew" is meant, as had been written.

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

4 man turret. Wow! What do we have? A Ratte ?

[@SamuraiAkechi]

@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle MBT-70

[@ushiki2212]

​@@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle Challenger ww2.

[@TRPilot06YT]

Lets see Paul Allen's Leopard 1A5

[@REOGURU]

I always enjoy your reports, in particular how you bring in other experts to round out your thoughts. As an illustrator, I really appreciate your unique and creative iconography!!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thanks for that!

[@velikiradojica]

I'm pretty sure the reason for such discrepancies is that they had a foregone conclusion and needed a report to justify it.

[@knightlypoleaxe2501]

pretty much, as another commentator says; "the report was purposefully written negatively for the T-72 because the Bundeswehr wanted to phase out ALOT of equipment. With that report (and similar ones for other equipment) the phaseout of former warsaw pact equipment was justified (and with that the dismissal of NVA Personnel)"

[@anasevi9456]

I sure liked NATO militaries a lot more when they were sandbagging their own stuff, rather than foolishly a hostile power. Germans military is nothing more than a pathetic tripwire force these days, hope they fix it in time.

[@knightlypoleaxe2501]

@@anasevi9456 it doesn't show me your comment unless I try to see it on mobile, strange

[@mikepette4422]

very likely you are on the right track

[@fumoblitzkrie]

The military-industrial complex is no joke. As a politician you are probably not very incetivized to tell a big military lobby "sorry, we don't need your product anymore, we found a better one".

[@gamecubekingdevon3]

Something worth noting ks that one of the biggest weaknesses of T72, aka the poor optronics, can be fixed. The pôles did that on their PT91 and it s latter variants. Considering the weight, protection, and surface to armor, T72 has also more room for upgrades that can give it a decent survivability against infantry held RPGs (as seen for exemple in the syrian civil war with the t72 mahmia )

[@PterAntlo]

Same with the Leopard. There was at one time a Leopard 1 A6 in development, which included even more feature from the Leopard 2. But it was very costly and after the end of the cold war there already was a surplus of Leopard 2, so the program was stopped. Leopard 1 A5 simply was "good enough" (at the time). IIRC Greece and Turkey both upgraded their Leopard 1 A5 too, but I don't know which changes they made.

[@gamecubekingdevon3]

@@PterAntlo issue is that leopard 1a5 and T-72A have approx the same weight (around 42 tons) but one has a 105mm and a paper thin armor the other has a 125mm and a composite armor addind proper optronics is lighter than putting more armor and a bigger gun so, if you where to upgrade both the leo 1a5 and the T-72A for both to be able to match modern requirment, the upgraded leopard 1a5 would end up far heavyer than the upgraded T72 with all the bad consequences regarding reliability that we can imagine

[@PterAntlo]

@@gamecubekingdevon3 Yeah, I agree. I think if they wanted to upgrade the Leopard 1 much further they would have needed a new engine and/or a new powertrain and so on. Probably one of the reasons the A6 update was stopped. All of these updates would have cost too much and at some point you just have to accept that it is an old tank, some assumptions no longer hold true (e.g. armor is mostly useless) and just use the successor.

[@g0dsr2ng3r]

@@gamecubekingdevon3 t72 were build expendable easy manufacture but t72 hull is obsolete that automatic loader dangerous might lose hand if something have stuck that in loader but russia have problem they cannot mass produce t14 and they know that its stupid to use t72 and t80 even t90 but they don't have anything else it all begins in cold war Soviet union build massive amount military equipment that even now Russia have stuck with them but I agree with you that leopard 1 thing

[@gamecubekingdevon3]

@@g0dsr2ng3r the "loosing hand" thing isn't that common with T72. otherwise we would have seen countless exemples of that within some of nato countries that does have T-72 (the czech and their T-72M4CZ, the polish and their PT91) and even some other countries that have seen lots of wars in the recent decades and that massively used T-72s. the main issue with the T-72s autoloader is the fact that the ammo is integrated within the crew compartment, so, when armor is pierced, it often mean death. but as long as nothing get trough the armor, it's safe.(and *comparatively to the tank's weight*, the level of base armor is far from bad, even for today standards) regarding the hull itself being obsolete, it is even further from the trugh considering that things like T-90M exist (with a weight of , depending on sources, seems to var beetween 46 and 50 tons. wich is 4 to 8 tons more than T-72A, so, quite a nice margin) and considering that some rebuilding is possible by reusing the hull (for exemple we could cite the russian BMTP "terminator" or even things like an ukranian project that was called "T-rex" and wich was basically a plan to recycle T-64 chassis into a cheaper and more reasonable homegrown rival of the russian T-14 armata). something to not forget is that the *russian* T-72s we are seeing die countlessly in ukraine aren't *properly* upgraded (i mean, let's be serious, some relikt bags on the side, some kontakt 5 [kontakt 5 already existed during soviet times] on the frontal arc and a cope cage on the roof...that's not a proper modernisation for 2022. if the older versions of the leopard 2 and of the abrams had recieved only that as a modernisation, they would be as shitty. the issue doesn't come from the T-72's design itself, but from the lack of proper upgrades slaped on it. i am pretty sure that something like a T-72A or a T-72B, if retrofitted with a modern transmission, a modern engine, proper electronics and FCS and loaded with proper ammo and crewed by properly trained crews and used in a proper combined arms doctrine would be cappable of doing the job. each one would not be individually as good as a M1A2 or a leopard 2A6 or 2A7 of course, but the ratio beetween the cost, the ease of transport, and the ease of keeping it operationnal vs the performance in combat would be totally acceptable even for today standards. for exemple, imagine a little tought experiment: imagine that tomorrow, for some magical reason, the US adopted a litteral homegrown copy of the T-72 design (it won't happen, but just imagine a parralel timeline where such thing would happen). do you think this homegrown copy would perform bad? i don't think so. because such copy would benefit from a good powerpack (so, the rear speed issue is gone) it would benefit from a top of the line FCS and optronics (so, blindness is gone) , it might have ammunitions that are even better maybe , especially in the ATGM-firing realm [since it is possible for some T-72 variants to shoot ATGM trough their main gun. i let you imagine, with current day ATGM technology what kind of things could be done ] (so, firepower might increase) a proper up-armor kit could be slaped on it (so, higher survivability) and a modern, proper hard-kill APS could be slaped on it (so, even better survivability). and at the end, even tough the cost would be higher, it would not be **significantly** higher enough to make it near as expensive as other designs, while on the other hands, the only two *major* weaknesses that would subsist would be the cramped interior and the low post-penetration survivability. (but with the pro, compared to more boxy western designs, to, at equal level of protection, being smaller and lighter, wich, for both transportation, for fuel consumption and for manoeuvering in tight and shitty places is a bless. )

[@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh]

The 1500m operational range for T72 seems correct; during the first Gulf war, French tanks were instructed to always engage over 1500m as this was considered the range over which Iraqis tanks were not effective. Now it is true that on their West front, the French mostly encountered T55 and 62 (and 1500 m was also the distance over which T55/62 could probably not penetrate French tanks) and few T72, but no French tank was ever hit by Iraqi tanks to my knowledge.

[@jordansmith4040]

That's important for the French to not be hit. They didn't have the same armour capability that the Americans and British had. The AMX-30 tanks they brought were more equivelant to the Leopard 1, with no real protection from tank guns. They relied on their skill and coordination to defeat tanks which could have easily punched through their thin armour if hit. Qatar also had AMX-30 tanks in Iraq and lost a couple in combat against T-55 tanks.

[@Spurkadurka]

Looking at the Iran-Iraq war, a lot of tank engagements were at WW2 level ranges of 500-1500m due to the trench warfare situation so Iraqi gunnery was probably especially poor at the extreme range of their familiar use not to mention platform limitations. Considering the French were fielding AMX-30s it's probably best they didn't need to engage T72s.

[@samgeorge4798]

It is important to remember this was Iraqi army post Iran Iraq war. And not spec to the t72 as you said.

[@Robert53area]

Using Iraqi armor commanders as a strength or weakness of equipment is a flawed logic, as often times Arabic crew are far worse than their western and eastern counterparts both in training, capabilities and maintenance. T55 t62 and t72 are both very capable tanks, and shouldn't be taken as face value as their actual eastern and soviet counterparts as often times they were given stripped down versions.

[@brokeandtired]

The Merkava successfully engaged T-72 tanks in Lebanon. But it required the then latest penetrator rounds for their 105mm on their first gen Merkava tanks. AND it required highly trained crews for Israeli tankers to close the distance and engage the T-72.

[@sealution1634]

Reverse speed is vitally important when returning to a turret-down position from a hull-down position during defensive engagements. (Former M60A3/M1 TC)

[@Elkarlo77]

I reheard the Report on the T-72 under another aspect: In an Interview Ralf Raths mentioned that the NVA Tanks they got for the Collection of the Panzermuseum where in a sore state and needed lot of refurbishing to be presentable for the Panzermuseum again. As this tanks came out of the Collection of the Bundeswehr, it may be possible they got a Random Tank of the Reserve Units for the Collection. And there maybe a difference between West Germany and Russian/NVA Reserve Tank Units. West German Reservisten Tanks where kept in nice dry Tank Hangars and were regulary controlled and mantained by their active Sister Units, to be ready to roll after 12 Hours after the Reservisten Arrives, as a Bundeswehr Kraftfahrer myself i can say that the Shadow or Sister Unit's Material for the Reservist was far superior to the actual used as it got lot of maintenance but no running time. If East Germany followed the Russian practice of Reserve Units then they need lot of maintenance and repairs to be combat worthy. So comparing a Leopard 1A5 Reserve Tank vs a NVA T-72 Ural Reserve Tank would be in good practice for the West German Officers, as they as used to that the Reserve Tanks are in better shape. That would explain somethings in the report like the Cupola, if it wasn't disassembled and freshly greased up, it would be heavy to rotate, after 3 oder 4 years in Reserve on an open Field. The same goes for the Driving Problems and so on. That maybe a clou in some points of the Difference in Perception. And it would be intresting to hear from NVA Tankers if they had the Reservisten Panzer in dry Halls or on the Outside and if they had to perform the monthly maintenance as we had to do. Every Month the 4-6 Tankers of our Unit drove the 12 APC 6 Meters forward, let them warm up. Controlled everything, put in new Grease on everything. Drove one Round and putt them Back into Storage. And only 4 were for our Company, so only 4 were used in maneuvers while the Rest was Depot fresh.

[@markusdegenhardt8678]

wow this is the First useful comment to this aspect of the discussion thanks

[@charlesc.9012]

It wouldn't matter, because that was the representative state of the tanks they inherited. If you followed manufacturer's instructions, you would have a perfectly working car, but the Bundeswehr mostly had highly neglected ones, and those were mostly broken. To retain them in service, lots of funds would be needed to upgrade and fix them, which is what Germany did not have. Picking the best tanks for comparison would be unfair, because random sampling is the gold standard for comparison, there is no point in introducing more bias when the Gulf war had just ended, and keeping t-72s in service would be bad for morale and public perception

[@andrewcoley6029]

Excellent video as usual. Great meeting you at Bovingtom last week. I'm looking forward to seeing the video you were making there! Brilliant channel.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@brennus57]

Thanks Bernhard; very informative as always.

[@BlaBla-pf8mf]

Nice burn of Soviet Womble

[@jannegrey593]

That's one of the reasons why later versions or upgrades to T-72 were centered around better engine and transmission and of course night-vision fighting. And yes, you could adjust the spring in turning mechanism. I drove T-72 once, when friend in Military took me for a ride. After couple minutes of explanation and another couple minutes of getting used to this I was able to steer the tank. Obviously not as proficiently as a professional, but it wasn't super-complicated or problematic. Of course it was different variant of T-72, tank that has more variants than most of the car models have. To me it looked like the springs were there to avoid accidental turn or the lever moving on it's own, because of vibrations. But it was 20 years ago so take it with gigantic spoonful of salt.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Soviet tank made to army conscript. not professional. if you can drive a soviet tractor then you can drive a soviet tank. because the working principle is the same

[@jannegrey593]

@@carkawalakhatulistiwa Didn't you make that reply somewhere else? I swear I've seen it.

[@geoswan4984]

At the one minute mark you defend your work on how these two vehicle clashing - from people who thought this kind of clash unlikely. Of course you know that Germany announced over a hundred Leopard 1A5 will be donated to Ukraine, where they may very well clash with Russia's T72 and other Russian tanks. So, you were very foresightful, and this analysis will be highly relevant. Congratulations!

[@herosstratos]

Of course, the reliability of the vehicles, the maintenance effort and, if necessary, the repair efforts are also of considerable importance for the endurance of armored units.

[@REgamesplayer]

I believe it is not quite fair to imply that Leopard 1A5 is a trash vehicle. With its upgrades in thermal imagining, gun stabilization, new ammunition and digital firing computer with a laser rangefinder, this vehicle is quite good and can hold its own against T-72 in limited, defensive roles.

[@RealNotallGaming]

t72 fighting right now in ukraine :))) Leo 1a5 is just a dream because so trash cant be deploied or NATO will lose his face X,,,D (and im on the leo side, i play leo in videogames)

[@johnhighway7399]

@@RealNotallGaming Stay in your little games because you don't know jackshit about tanks.

[@RandomIdiotGS]

@@RealNotallGaming What did you base this on? Russians don't even supply their tanks (any line) with fully expectec instruments on board. Many are lacking thermal instruments, modern fire control systems and those that are meant to be armed with ERA are found to just be sent into combat with empty housings. In addition their crews are hastily trained and the majority of them are sent in with old rusty T-62's with a share of them even breaking down before they get to their destination. In addition, many are sent in with old radio types and that is in conjunction with already poor command hierarchy in Russian forces. Their combat performance is abysmal and they cannot hope to engage at the same distasnce as modern western tanks with modern rangefinding instruments. While I rather see us send better tanks to Ukraine, the Leo 1A5 is still going to be a better gun platform than a T-62 or T-72 especially in Ukraine where T-62/T-72s are not sent in with proper equipment and easily get stuck down roads in columns. Also important is that if Ukraine goes on the offense, these are some tanks they can receive in a relatively short amount of time now and could play a major role due to their speed (and thus relocation) potential. If anything, the T72 might be intended to be built as the better of the two (at the time), but in practice that's not what is put out in the field nor can Russia utilize that effectively.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@RandomIdiotGS but Russia is not Soviet Union or Warsaw pact. And one interesting detail: this report compared tanks with ~10 years difference in date of introduction.

[@Blox117]

@@RandomIdiotGS i prefer giving ukraine the middle finger

[@christopherbrodie6987]

I agree with everything you said particularly your suspicions in the last quarter.

[@Blind_Hawk]

Thank you very much for the objective and factual analysis of this topic. Too often people get carried away from the propaganda, isolated cases or biases. We need a clear and honest view on this topic as possible.

[@simonmoorcroft1417]

Looks like this video just became very relevant again!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Indeed!

[@Spurkadurka]

It is odd when people complain about making comparisons. Especially in this type of scenario when it was being evaluated for an army to see if it was worthwhile keeping with their doctrine and tactics. Also, tanks, being armored weapons platforms will always end up being used in unique situations and terrains that differ from doctrine. Doctrine doesn't eliminate negative situations for tanks and sometimes other supporting arms aren't around to compensate for weaknesses. The poor reverse speed would be a big problem if trying to do berm drill engagements from a turret down defilade. Want to get out of sight once that shot is off, not slowly back into defilade. Surprised that the Soviets wouldn't have a higher reverse speed, tanks will need to go backwards too, not just fight forward through everything (minefields for example). Overall, though, this just seems to me to give even more reasons for shipping Leo1s to Ukraine as at the very least they can be used in defensive roles along the Belarus border and free up more of their familiar tank variants for front line use. Certainly dated, especially compared to modernized T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s. However, it is still a tank and can fill the role as such where needed without the expectation that it should go toe to toe with more modern tanks. If old T72As can be used on the frontline and T62s then there's no reason to think there're no role for Leo1A5s.

[@Flamechr]

And the Russians are sending T62M's to Ukraine so it would be a perfect macth ;)

[@jintsuubest9331]

Everyone wants a higher reverse speed, and Russian made more than quite a few prototypes that can do that. Problem is, they can't afford it (in terms opportunity cost). Just for example. Let's say they put this newer transmission into production. Now they can produce 100 of the the upgraded vehicle at a longer time. Instead of producing 300 of the existing design. And newer design will have issue that has to be sort out because no amount of testing can account for all situation. A different transmission also means revamping the transmission production line, while sorting out the logistics of parts and upgrading their existing fleet. Let's throw other irl consideration. The same budget is competing with munition development, armor development, sighting complex development, newer vehicle development, etc. The t90 program is ambitious and have attempts to put many of those improvement into t72 (including reverse speed, depression, modern sighting complex, better fcs, etc). But irl is a bitch and what we ended up with is t72 with overall reliability upgrade and slight armor upgrade.

[@grumbazor]

there is a really great talk by rolf hilmes kzbin.info/www/bejne/g6qmp32gl5qoqdU its in germany but maybe the autotranslate will help. he explains why these tanks were build like they were build

[@iamawayfrombrain482]

@@Flamechr to my knowlege the russians gave those thanks to voulunteer fighters for fire support. Wich means the regular Army still uses T-72s, T-80s and T-90s and all those are probably upgraded variantes.

[@RealNotallGaming]

there is no comparison t72 fighting right now in ukraine the other is just a dream, trash tank CANT be deploied or NATO will lose his face X,,,D

[@JohnDoe-ml8ru]

I sat in a Leopard 1 in a tank museum in Germany. The ammo racks are stored up front and there's barely any armor. One hit and it becomes a BBQ.

[@basharalassad1073]

something leopard 2 also needed

[@juhanivalimaki5418]

Before the end of the video I realized this report was the one that rejected and freed the (former East German) T-72M:s to be sold to Finland with very low price around early 1990s. Scrapped from MBT role and mostly also physically in 2006-2007. Only few remain in other roles e.g. as platform for utility tanks. Now there are altogether ~230 MBTs, Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A6.

[@stefanschutz5166]

Thank you from Amsterdam. Stefan, commander platoon consisting of 5 Centurion tanks 1967-1968 Dutch army

[@raccoonjesus1305]

To be fair I’m fairly certain they likely used former East German crew that were familiar with the t72 to test the t72. And they hardly lacked officers that were familiar with Warsaw Pact doctrine. So I find it unlikely that the bias or mistakes were as egregious as you seem to think.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Lol that of course explains the basic technical errors.

[@232pk]

Getting people that knew what they were doing would spoil the conclusion they already came up with.

[@looinrims]

Comparisons make tons of sense, most Tank platoons fight other tank platoons when tank units come against each other An entire battalion isn’t gonna be 5m away from each other on both sides, at the end of the day when a tank goes to shoot another tank, the tank comparison will matter *quite a lot*

[@TrangleC]

There are differences in doctrine and platoon composition that are significant though. For example, a Soviet/Russian tank platoon consists of 3 tanks, a German or NATO tank platoon consists of 4 tanks each. That means the NATO/German platoon can do things like 2 tanks giving overwatch cover while the other 2 move. That is especially important in defensive and delaying tactics. I'm not sure whether that is true, but I heard the reason why the Soviets/Russians did platoons of 3 was because of their limited visibility and radio equipment, controlling 3 tanks is easier for the platoon leader. He has one of his tanks to his left and one to his right and that makes it easier to keep track of what is happening.

[@phunkracy]

Tank on tank combat is very rare

[@looinrims]

@@phunkracy tanks shooting at each other is rare? Pffffhahahahhahahaha

[@phunkracy]

@@looinrims yes

[@markkringle9144]

Who fires first, usually wins.

[@Daddo22]

T-72 vs Leopard 1A5: Leopard users' perspective ;-) A couple points I think may be worth mentioning: * The praise for the T-72 ammunition is IMHO due to both the power of 125 mm smoothbore APDS and larger and more powerful HE. They didn't have access to latest Soviet ammunition, but whatever latest they had for T-72M1 was compatible for basic T-72. * Does the T-72 Ural have no commander override of gunner's controls? I know T-54/55 don't, but the turret there is so cramped that commander can easily use gunner's controls from his position if they're 1 crew member short.

[@megalamanooblol]

I am pretty sure that starting from introduction of 3 man, auto loading tanks 72 and 64 the commander always had full gun control and sight duplication in Soviet tanks. Edt. Tried looking up Wargaming Inside the Hatch series for T-72, no mention of the commander gun controls, he can slew the turret to his sight position but may be nothing else. So I was wrong it seems.

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

AFAIK the 3BM15 was the best APFSDS exported to WP Countries.

[@bobthecanon3457]

A few essential aspects are neglected here. The Leopard 1 A5 had excellent mobility and accuracy. Armor protection was sacrificed for agility, as it was assumed at the time that any armor, no matter how heavy, could be successfully combated. In retrospect, this turned out to be correct. So a highly mobile tank was designed that was superior to any tank in the field in terms of speed and dynamics, as well as the highly precise, fully stabilized weapon system. Not in terms of armor and penetration, but in the parameters mentioned above. The Leopard 1 is and was, so to speak, the sports car among tanks. Nobody is as agile off-road.

[@daigakunobaku273]

This has not turned out to be true. Check, for instance, the armor tests conducted by the US military after the fall of the Soviet Union on the Warsaw pact tanks intended for domestic use. Also, imagine the Abrams being as lightly armored as Leopard I during the invasion in Iraq. American tanks were engaged multiple times by the Iraqis, and sustained multiple direct hits by 125 mm sabots without penetration. If Abrams were designed with in the same philosophy as Leopard I, these hits would be fatal even with the old sabots used by Iraqis.

[@leggett997]

I would be interested in seeing the difference between the latest WW2 panther variant, and leopard 1 in terms of design and capability, and how big of a step up the Leopard 1 is

[@jordansmith4040]

You're funny.

[@looinrims]

I mean leopard had no war time crunch combined with years of extra development time and tech

[@ThelVadam7777]

Panther F vs leo

[@tomk3732]

Leo 1 main weakness is luck of any armor making it unsuitable for any modern war. Up armored with say K-5 Panther would be significantly better tank vs. Leopard 1 today. This assumes same avionics. Later version of Leo 1 tried to at least partially fix armor issue by adding more of it, but it was still not a lot and slowed the tank down. Leo 1 is a total glass canon.

[@darrenjpeters]

@@tomk3732 Erm, avionics refers to the electronic systems on an aircraft. The Leopard is NOT an aircraft. As for the Panther being significantly better today, that would only be true if the tank was so heavily redesigned that it would no longer be a Panther. Modern engine, transmission, suspension, and a turret that can house a 120mm gun would be the absolute minimum of the upgrades required. Might as well just build a brand new tank that incorporates all of the design advances that have occurred since the design of the Panther. That's not to say that the Panther wasn't the prototype MBT, but it has been much improved upon in the following years.

[@BioEdicion]

invaluable report! Thank you!

[@NovaValentis]

Great channel! Oh boy half a million subs now! Well deserved!

[@stewm1267]

"...maybe stop projecting your mental capacity..." Ouch, shots fired and direct hit!

[@gaptaxi]

The first time I ever saw Leopard 1 on exercise 3 of them came into my Chieftain gunsight, then then all stopped as one and high reversed out of sight, it was not so much a tank but a Recce vehicle with a 105mm Gun which is still very effective even these days. Very impressed with the German crew training, on Chieftain the only tactic was to dig in and fight to the death, and that was it. That the t-72 only reverses at such slow speed explains why the idiots get wiped out in Ukraine. The T72 is not a tank, it is a deathtrap! Great video btw!

[@user-sb8jh8rq8w]

All Soviet tanks slow in this, but t80 can going on 11km/h

[@basharalassad1073]

You tell me leopard 1is good cause of excersice even tho t-72 is superior on every aspect cause of countless variants and it being in countless massive wars while leopard 1 apparently superior has seen no combat anywhere and nobody uses

[@user-sb8jh8rq8w]

@@basharalassad1073 it’s useless, for them everything that the Russians have done and invented is bad and not of high quality, although thanks to Russian weapons, the Americans fled in disgrace from Vietnam.

[@basharalassad1073]

@@user-sb8jh8rq8w thanks. guess the world using russian weapons except russia is wrong that their good. explains why nothing european is being used

[@user-sb8jh8rq8w]

@@basharalassad1073 I think the problem is that Western weapons are priced for quality service. But in an intense conflict, this is very problematic. For example, I read from Ukrainian artillerymen that the m777 is not a bad thing, but it cannot fire 100 shots per day compared to Hyacinth (they call it ginacid in the troops) b or s.

[@Joaephw336]

Love this guy very informative

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I had to laugh at the conclusions -- the same thoughts had been percolating in my mind as I watched, but I didn't carry them through as far as you. Close, but no cigar! Thanks -- Once again, I have learned something, and that is valuable.

[@wjhandy]

The T-72 was designed like the T-34 to be manned by conscripts in great numbers to form shock units to overwhelm. Leopard was designed to hold those off as long as possible.

[@K.Marx48]

Bullshit

[@wjhandy]

@@K.Marx48 Well played

[@marcusfranconium3392]

There is one thing that people tend to forget , that the leopard 1a5 turret was build to be fitted with the 120 mm rheinmetal L44 guns .sadly they never got the gun upgrade but it would make the leo 1a5 even more deadly and capable.

[@petervonfroster8i]

by that time the leopard 2 was already in development, and the 105mm APFSDS (i think it was DM 33 to that time?) would be similarly usefull to the ones used in the 120mm, so i think it would just make no sense, but it would be very cool to see a Leopard 1A6 with a 120mm and maybe even with a MEXAS Uprade or such! At least WarThunder did one good thing in giving us a "what if" Leopard 1 with a L44 installed.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

@@petervonfroster8i It actualy made sense as the leo 2 was comming in to service and the leo 1 would be on lichter duties facing older tanks . dont forget LEOPARD 1 was a verry versitile chasis . the geppard was based on it and in the 80s the close to flash point of the cold war it came verry verry close in the 80s ( you should check out that era of coldwar as the sovjet unuion and warshau pact where in severe economic distress and several sovjet leaders died in quick succesion ) was something that was preffered to have as many guns and tanks available . The netherlands alone had about 1000 tanks at the time of all descriptions and leo1 and leo 2 where the main numbers . The number of equipment each nato country had was just insane . the amount they have now is just a fraction .

[@jupiler02]

It was tested and I believe one of the main findings was that the 120mm gun was too heavy on the recoil for the chassis of a Leo 1. Keep in mind that with using the 105mm, the recoil of the gun that need to be absorbed is about 58 ton. One can only imagine what a 120 mm gun recoil force could be...

[@saint8257]

They never got it cause they can't. A tank with barely any armor is kind of counter-intuitive, don't you think? If the Leo could far out-range its counterparts and other tanks and snipe from a safe position, on theory, sure that's great. But this is too terrain-dependent.

[@marcusfranconium3392]

@@saint8257 And yet you have never read up on how armor and guns work do you ? Armour is only good at range , at less than 1km it becomes usless . something navy personel and designers already knew 150 years ago . There are entire tables of caliber vs armor penetration of different armor types equaling X amount of homogeneous rolled armor. At one point it doesnt matter how thick your armour is as it becomes useless when in pitched battles a few hundred meters or less away . An 88 mm gun used on the old tiger tanks punch through 23.7 cm of armour 100 meters away and punches through 15 cm of armor at 2000 meters. Look up gun penetration and armour charts britisch admiralty . and other navys . you get the idea armour counts for nothing when close ranged .

[@alexandermarken7639]

I really appreciate the moderation of comment with actual people familiar with the vehicles. Bias is terrible in many official documents and this commentry is a great resource.

[@carlobinda1127]

Found this channel not long ago, but glad I did.; very detailed and entertaining information. Keep up the good work! 👍

[@cedricl.marquard6273]

To what you said at the beginning. People should look at it like comparing tools. Yes they will almost never fight 1v1, howeverthe qualities and drawbacks can still be compared, like different styles or qualities of hammers can be compared. A tank that is less reliable, slower and performs worse in armour and armament is overall worse, like a hammer whose head is too light and not mounted properly.

[@basharalassad1073]

besides mobility there snothing leopard 1 is better at?....

[@cirian75]

Surprise Soviet Womble at 13:05

[@avukatseckindogruyol6109]

You have solid balls from steel which weights more than both T-72 and Leopard 1A5. Cheers for %100 accurate review mate! Salut from TR! BTW we have Leopards 1's in our inventory too!

[@themostbestwizard]

The reason that they compared the worst (an least numerous) version of the T-72 and STILL fudged it is that they wanted funding for NEW Leopard 2 tanks.

[@Rorynes]

If T-72 hits a Leopard 1 then the Leopard becomes trash and that matters.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

T-72 and Leopard 1 are two different tanks. Pact export T-72 in 1990 backlogs wouldn't be much different than what Poland planned with theirs in current times. Less useable for shifting around positions. Needs to be used like a claymore. Leopard 2A4 already existed at this point in time, as well as multiple Leopard 1 parts sharing vehicles. The Soviet kept a pretty tight leash on East German military vehicles so you don't see things like Shilka T-72's like you do with Gepards and Marders and MBT-70 projects. Replacing your entire pre-existing Leopard 1 inventory with T-72 would be dumb knowing the long standing family issues. -half the gun depression (basically unfixable without an extensive program) -a more limited range of operation gun performance (this is pact era, not the y2k upgrades) -very poor reverse (entire fleet would need non-standard parts overhauls to fix) -severe carousel foibles -Soviet parts in a NATO world -Cold War Soviet composite darts (shatter prone) It should be noted the reverse is "get you killed" levels of bad when combined with the sub-par gun depression, loading rate and acquisition rate on a package that is set up like a bomb.

[@mban2748]

Great Video, I enjoyed your analysis. The weight difference and access to bridges, fords and other weight sensitive issues is important enough the original document should included it at least in passing. Perhaps more evidence for your speculation.

[@Sabelzahnmowe]

Sick burns from both military history channels in just two days? The MH-Verse seems to be on fire :)

[@HereComeMrCee-Jay]

Of course there is nothing wrong with comparing the relative capabilities of two tanks, and then also taking into account how they are expected to be used. I think the issue is when people compare very simplistically how two tanks would do in head to head , 1 v 1 combat and go no further. In my view, that sort of comparison is very much consistent with a conception of warfare that matches video games and it's appropriate to call that out. In no way should that be taken to imply that all people who enjoy WOT, WT, etc. have a simplistic understanding of warfare.

[@laisphinto6372]

in reality like how german ww2 veterans remember their true enemy was never a tank , artillery, air force or even infantry. it was the transmission and the annoying commander who thinks a tank is so cool you can go hiking with it

[@cnlbenmc]

13:07 I like the idea that Soviet Womble's mascot represents Inaccuracy.

[@franklinhadick2866]

Very good review thanks once again.

[@thorstennommensen5105]

Die Panzerung des 1A5 war in der Tat eher ein besserer Wetterschutz, aber der Gefechtswert eines Panzer ist halt nicht nur durch Panzerung, sonder durch das Zusammenspiel von Schutz, Feuerkraft und Beweglichkeit determiniert. An der Feuerkraft gab's nix zu meckern. Ausbildungsziel war es, das Ziel auf mittlere Kampfentfernung mit maximal drei Schuss innerhalb maximal 15 Sekunden zu treffen und in den vier Jahren, in denen ich auf dem 1A5 diente gelang es, jeden Rekrutenjahrgang dahinzubringen. Zur Komponente Schutz sei erwähnt, dass 1A5-Verbände seit flächendeckendes Verfügbarkeit des Leopard 2 für große Angriffsoperationen nur noch im Notfall herangezogen worden wäre. Der 1A5 wurde so zum Arbeitspferd für die Verteidigung und Verzögerung. Um teilgedeckte Stellung und Tarnung wurde ein regelrechter Kult getrieben und was die Beweglichkeit anging: Da konnte einem der Fahrtwind schon mal die Gesichtshaut strammziehen, und zwar sowohl vor-, als auch rückwärts 😆. Nicht vergessen werden sollte im Übrigen, dass der T 72 in der NVA ein seltener Exot war. Bei der letzten GDP-Besprechung meines (da allerdings noch mit Leopard A1A2 ausgestatteten) Verbandes wurde die Verteidigung gegen ein mit T 55 verstärktes MotSchtzRgt BTR 60 geübt, das in über ein Gewässerhindernis hätte angreifen müssen. Das wäre wuppbar gewesen...

[@user-sb8jh8rq8w]

Only t80 was made 10.000 until 1991

[@larrythorn4715]

The analysis that both have similarly poor armor is actually correct. By 1990 the T-72 Ural, M, M1, etc, are so vulnerable to ATGM and NATO 120mm tank guns that their armor advantage over the Leopard 1A5 is irrelevant.

[@iMost067]

there other threats outside of 120mm guns, T-72 can hold them, Leopard not

[@reynaldpelletier]

Very interesting analysis, I enjoyed it a lot

[@tcurtisjohnson]

Thanks for the humor at 15:56; I needed some today.

[@JaM-R2TR4]

There is not that big difference between fire control of T72 Ural and T72M or T72M1.. improvements were relatively small.. and all three tanks used mechanical manual ballistic computer, which greatly reduced speed of engagement of moving targets.. regarding armor, differences were only between T72M and T72M1, but only marginal, as more capable 105mm ammo could in fact engage T72M1 at combat ranges quite effectively, which was main reason why Soviets developed T72B with BDD armor package.. Leopard 1A5 was not completely under-armored either.. turret addon (NERA) armor had relatively decent change at eroding older soviet 125mm ammo, which was supplied to WP armies. But as always, strong frontal armor is almost as useful as ballistic vest for a soldier - if you get hit, it will hurt and it will take you out of combat, because armor is not made to deflect hits, it absorbs them, which damages the armor against subsequent hits.. Anyway, as during WW2, its more important to be able to engage enemy first, preferably from advantageous position, and all that depends on how well could tank commander operate inside the tank, and how good command structure was.. and no T72 or T80 tank could survive flanking side armor hits from 105mm gun at almost any range anyway.... so again, it was all about tactics and proper employment that would decide battle outcome, not the few cm thicker armor on turret or hull front...

[@joeyjo-jojuniorshabadoo6827]

"T72 or T80 tank could survive flanking side armor hits from 105mm gun at almost any range anyway." The Warsaw pact had a numerical advantage and they would have been doing a lot of the flanking and encircling. You cannot always flank or ambush the enemy. A tank with poor frontal armor cannot be the tip of the spear. The early Leopards would have been relegated to being an ambushing tank destroyer like the poorly armored Hellcat which was complemented by other vehicles.

[@markusdegenhardt8678]

​@@joeyjo-jojuniorshabadoo6827 having a numerical Advantage doesnt mean that you can outflank the enemy. your Crew and the comanders need to be able to observe the battlefield and make Prosper decisions even after many hours inside the tank. If you do some research on the t34 you will understand the importance of it.

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@markusdegenhardt8678 still T-34 entered Berlin (and stayed), Panzer III and IV were "almost" at Moscow, big cats weren't even close.

[@markusdegenhardt8678]

@@BojanPeric-kq9et alies vs Axis and few high quality Tanks vs many Low quality Tanks are completly different Debattes my friend

[@BojanPeric-kq9et]

@@markusdegenhardt8678 of course. But German tanks near Russian border sounds very familiar...

[@readhistory2023]

It's my understanding the T72 exports didn't have the range finder. The "lesser" export is slightly more survivable since part of the T72's turret cheek armor had to removed to install the range finder.

[@dashdece]

good info thanks. hope you feel better

[@derkarhu5079]

Der Karhu 0 seconds ago i like your logo that flies in...a great aircraft, talked about a lot by some of the people who recognise it as one of the first true multi-role aircraft, which excelled in several roles, in, multiple theatres ... btw, also responsible for mapping most of northern Canada!

[@AdumbrationOfAnAlias]

2:22 - So the Ural was equipped with a tanker who pointed at the correct range with his glowing "laser range finger"?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

😂

[@SRB.4S]

Excellent analysis, both tanks as far as you are concerned, congratulations! You have seen the essence! But bad analysis by the people who did the analysis in 1990. But you yourself could conclude that the analysis is biased and inaccurate, by the people who did the analysis. First, at the very beginning, compare the T-72 "Ural", practically the first and worst version of this tank, with the best version of the Leopard 1A5 tank?! She is completely idiotic! Especially since if I'm not mistaken, the analysis and comparison of these two tanks was done in 1990. The German army after unification, especially in 1990, I doubt that it even had one T-72 "Ural", the oldest and worst version of this tank. For the most part, as you said, they were versions of the T-72M/M1, which are certainly much better than the "Ural" version, but they are also, to make matters worse according to this German analysis from 1990, also questionably degraded versions of the Soviet T -72A tank from 1979, which were intended for export and for the countries of the Vrasava Pact. But generally worse than the T-72A version for the USSR from 1979. Not to mention that the time when this analysis was done was in 1990. If they were already widely in circulation and use, T-72 A, B version with ERA contact 1 and B version from 1989 with ERA contact 5 armor protection. With all kinds of new missiles, and with the possibility of firing laser-guided rockets through the cannon tank at a range of 4 and 5 km... These are SVIR and REFLEX rockets, penetration from 800 to 850 mm after reactive armor... There is of course also a new system fire, and a new cannon stabilization system... In the end, it should be concluded that the people from Germany who did this analysis did not want the T-72 in their newly formed army by any chance. Because even the biased analysis they performed still speaks in favor of the fact that even the basic and worst version of the T-72 tank is better than the best version of the Leopard 1A5. That's why these people consciously did this kind of analysis, and that's why they didn't do a comparative analysis, with the T-72M/M1 version of the tank, which the Germans had in the largest number, arrived from East Germany, because it's much better than the Leopard 1A5 version of the tank. , that it is not even possible to compare, even though it is a deeply degraded version when we talk about armor as well as optoelectronics, gun stabilization systems and tank capabilities day and night, the M version is even worse than the T-72A from 1979, otherwise A version is the first modernization of the T-72 tank from 1979, but for the USSR. Version M/M1 are degraded versions for export and for Warsaw Pact countries where these versions were produced in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia... M/M1 versions were never produced in the USSR. Leopard 1A5 cannot be compared even with the M version, a deeply degraded version, let alone with versions A, B, B1 and B version from 1989... It should also be said that Leopard 1 and T-72 are tanks of the same generation! Also, a mantra is repeated quite often in the West, which has nothing to do with the truth at all, not to say that it is a complete lie, but it is not far from it. "Quantity in relation to quality" in the USSR or a Warsaw Pact country?! The real example that this is not true is the T-72 as an extremely successful tank, and of extremely high quality, because it would not survive in "a million versions" even today after 50 years of use. Excellent engines of 780, 840 and 1130 hp, excellent gear and transmission, very cheap to maintain and long-lasting... From examples produced in the USSR through Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq... This tank is still used by over 40 countries of the world, of course mostly in modernized versions ... Even after 50 years since its introduction into use. It should also be noted that versions such as the Polish PT-91Twardy, Yugoslavian/Serbian M-84AS1/AS2, Russian T-72B3/B3M, T-72B1MS, Czech T-72M4CZ and many other versions are based on the platform T- 72 tanks. Very serious tanks even today, at the level of third generation tanks. For example, on the level of Leoaprd 2A4 or even A5 versions of tanks in many aspects.

[@MrBahjatt]

On a related note, the MPi AK-74 could well have served in the German Army replacing the G3, but the G36 eventually was chosen. Curiously the bayonet came from East German MPi AK-74 stocks. On the topic of the MPi AK-74, Germany apparently didn't think to adapt it to the 5.56 NATO round to replace the 5.45mm round as Poland did with its AK-variant in the Wz 96. Returning to the T-72 replacing the Leopard 1A5, it is more likely that sticking to one type of MBT (Leopard 2-series) was the real decision maker. The retention of the MiG-29 for some years was essentially to provide Dissimilar Air Combat Training.

[@barbaraschulze1291]

hi there, as I do know both tanks as a former BW Tank Platoon commander in the 1990s I can tell you that the main disadvantages of the T-72 are its bad reverse speed and poor acceleration speed what was due to BW tactics fundamental important (go into the fight, fire from covered position or during fast movement and go back and revolve these behaviour!) AND the realy poor optics and poor gun stabilisation capabilities of the fire control system. When Mr. Kotsch tells you that they engaged targets during the movement on app. ~1500m than the ground was flat like a saltlake and they knew about the target positions or the targets were as big as housings! With Leo-2A4 or Leo-1A5 you go up to 40-50km/h and hit the small turret targets (what the former GDR tank troops neither even had as a target size) on 1700m + with MZ (multi-purpose HE) ammunition - that is absolutely impossible to do in a T72 despite of good luck! The optics of T-72's are in most weather conditions very poor that I do remember today how shocked I was as I looked through the first time because I before this I believed in good russian optics. And the lack of not having any thermal sights turns the T72 into a lame duck on todays battlefields anyway because in nowadays battle situations you almost will hunt and kill with the thermal sight! BUT in a direct 1 by 1 confrontation on mid range (1000m and less) and good weather conditions at high noon on a flat fielded area the T72 has a good chance to win the firefight at least because the poor armament of the LEO1A5 is a big weakness. And you are absolutely right, that there was NO intention of the German Armed Forces leadership in testamonies like this to get the suggestion to integrate russian made equipement in the BW - neither to speak about the german industry... That means that the outcome of this test was clear before it happened. Nevertheless it was the right decision indeed! The T72's abilities were far away from the Leo2A4s and didn't match with our tactical rules! If you have a close look to the performance of the ukrainian T84 Oplot (which outperformes T72's in every issue) in Nato shooting contests (max 84% hit ratio) you can imagine how poor the real performance of T72's is. With the BW the T72's there was almost a good option to exchange the old iron pigs of M48's but as I mentioned before the political will was to take over as less as possible equipement. Even in the case of the famous Mi-24 helicopters where the results of the tactical expolration was so impressive that there were just the metric instruments left as a "major problem", the leading General of the Helicopter Force (Istvan Csoboth) did everything to undermine any intensions of integration to the BW. This was so obvious that the German Federal Financial Court send a note of disapproval to the government! Just the MIG29's survived at least...

[@gerumarc]

Firing tests of NVA T-72s by American M1 tanks were conducted in the 1990s. As should be known, they have a 120 mm gun. The M829A1 used at that time performed very unsatisfactorily and was therefore greatly improved and used as the M829A2. The Leopard 1's 105mm gun would have fared significantly worse in such a test!

[@paullakowski2509]

do some research.

[@meht43-BringitBadger]

Great channel…thank you for your time and work

[@paulroustan3643]

The leopard 1 was a great tank in its day, but is outclassed by a t72M, maybe a export T72 might be more inline with a leopard 1 in capabilities, but you have to remember the leopard very lightly armoured, and didn’t even have composite armour, so it’s pretty much useless in today’s battlefield, even a ww2 panzerfaust can take it out by a frontal hit.

[@glengearhart5298]

Another great, informative video!

[@viceralman8450]

Was the fire control system of the leo 1a5 the EMES 18 better than the one on the leo 2a4 the EMES 15?

[@typxxilps]

Well, the tenor or the intention of the german general inspection or comparison sounds more or less like 50 years earlier even though a bit nicer polished here and there. But the language and the general thinking sounds still like the PzkW VI tiger comparison shortened to a "our is far better" while the many cheap russian ants of the T family knock them out one by one sooner or later. Feels like an ideology paper : now that the cold war is over and we have won let us compare the weapons as the winner of the hostilities. Result could not be any different: ours was the best, we do not understand why the russian is obviously so worse. Therefore let us continue with out mbt program of the Leo 2 and add a bit of everything usefull to the next generation. Felt a bit too much amateur comparison by the Bundeswehr not getting really into the details they usually would tend to go.

[@MDPanzera]

russians tank arent cheap .... people compare t34 to tiger istead of pz3 and pz4 that is stupid

[@Thor_Asgard_]

First hit matters the most! many ppl seems to forget that.

[@basharalassad1073]

Many people forget 105mm and no protection is bad

[@Thor_Asgard_]

@@basharalassad1073 Atleast the 1A5 will hit compared to the T72 lmfao

[@steppenwolf7958]

A title "Leopard 1 vs. Antitank mine" would describe the actual problem more precisely. Since the first appereance on the battlefield I have not seen a single footage of a one-by-one battle between a western and a T tank. All these comparasions are just hypothetical, and I would bet that no tank used here just wouldn't be affected by a direct hit from the enemies one.

[@brunsheimmasterbaitwilfrie2811]

Alternative interpretation: The assesment was being done with the particular mission set in mind, Bundeswehr was actually meant and built to achieve. Which was purely defensiv. Bundeswehr was an elabourate special purpose combined armes one trick pony, with the sole purpose to take the fun out of a WP invasion. Until - as they said back in the days - real soldiers arrived from overseas. Which is why for instance they opted for a flying AT-gun in place of an actual "attack helicopter". Given when those studies happened my take here is that they asessed the T72 here focusing on what it might add to that particular mission. And as you mentioned: The T72 is an offensiv vehicle. If you plan for a defensiv battle, it is well possible a Leopard 1A5 has more to offer.

[@cgrovespsyd]

Did I miss something? It looks like there was no comparison of the puny (relative to more modern MBTs), outdated 105mm cannon on the leopard I (although the turret would accept the 120mm cannon of thenLeopard II, but this was not done) vs the 120mm gun on the T-72. And what would be the likely effect of upgrading the Leopard I with reactive armor (which the Ukrainians or other countries could probably do)?

[@markkringle9144]

Pretty sure 105s could kill anything on the battlefield, plus you could carry more rounds. This was decisive in the Egypt-Israel conflicts, because the soviet tanks would run out of rounds. Good logistics would level this though.

[@knightlypoleaxe2501]

That's IF they have the production for reactive armor. Do what with what you have.

[@cgrovespsyd]

@@knightlypoleaxe2501 The Ukrainians have (or maybe had) a tank factory so they at least have the potential to add reactive armor. It could be done prior to other countries shipping them as well. But they will likely used in defensive positions or less intense/dangerous areas, thus freeing up more capable tanks to be sent where needed.

[@knightlypoleaxe2501]

@@cgrovespsyd other countries are likely able to do it, ukraine? not likely for a while. Their economy would take decades to recover at least to sustainable levels, certainly not to pre war levels and never back to old soviet levels (which it never reached even before the war)

[@looinrims]

‘Puny’ hahahahahahahha any side flank shot (you know, expected on defense) would be pretty painful

[@discretebear4115]

One thing the report failed to mention is that the T-72 can eject its turret in an emergency to facilitate crew evacuation of the vehicle.

[@Blodhelm]

LOL

[@darrenjpeters]

Unfortunately they haven't yet solved the problem that the crew is evacuated at high speed in medium sized pieces, but apparently they are working on the problem. Trust Mother Russia!

[@shuathe2nd]

Yes, odd that this major flaw that is becoming apparent in Ukraine is not mentioned here - It would appear that the NATO four man tank, with baffled ammunition stowage is a much greater factoring tank protection than just armour. Most anti tank weapons are now top attack, so not having the entire tank explode should be a big plus.

[@Ropetor]

So can the leo 1, since it does not have any protected ammunition storage and the loader has 7 shells on the turret as a first stage ammo rack

[@MDPanzera]

you need to see turkish leo 2 in Syria

[@michaelguerin56]

Interesting video. Your analysis of probable political motives affecting the comparison report seems valid to me.

[@montys420-]

Usually when we assess enemy weapons and tactics, we do immerse ourselves in this and understand it very well and understand the weaknesses our our own units weaponry and tactics, so I would think the analysis is pretty spot on.

[@trance9158]

Very interesting and informative.

[@mikepette4422]

Well that was a very informative video. Learned tons well done ! So this is shocking that the T-72 can only go 5 km/h in reverse ? How is that possible in a post WW2 vehicle or even a Pre WW2 vehicle I'm confused how this is real did they just fail that badly in the design process ? just got a real laugh out of that "Fire Control System" image at 15:20 I keep picturing an old man beating some young brats with his cane lol

[@darrenjpeters]

That's not a design fail. That's a deliberate implementation of a rigid combat doctrine. Of course they could have made the tank faster in reverse, it's just a matter of gear ratios. You can make a tank go just as fast backwards as it will go forwards if you want to.

[@JaM-R2TR4]

@@darrenjpeters no. it was a result of making T72 as simple as possible... anyway even much costlier T80 could do only 11kmh in reverse.. yet today, these tanks are preferred by crews, because they can get out of hairy situation easier than T72...

[@darrenjpeters]

@@JaM-R2TR4 It adds very little cost or complexity to a gearbox to add one more reverse ratio. These tanks were designed to only advance successfully, not to be able to have combat flexibility. That is a direct result of doctrine on design, not a desire to make the tank as simple as possible. And that's exactly why your point about the T-80 is correct. It has better combat flexibility, so of course the crews prefer it.

[@REgamesplayer]

@@darrenjpeters I had read that this was made in order to reduce complexity. "The T-72 transmission with dual planetary gearboxes and integrated final drives, a type of transmission that is sometimes referred to as a geared dual transmission system, but more generically known as a transmission with side gearboxes, or BKPs. The two gearboxes are connected by a driveshaft which transmits power from the engine via the intermediate power transfer gearbox ("Гитара", “guitar”), marked (5) in the drawing above. The transmission does not have a main clutch. This type of transmission was originally developed for the Object 430 by the Malyshev design bureau in Kharkov. In layman terms, instead of one gearbox unit and two final drives (one per side) as used on T-55 or T-62, this system offers two gearboxes per side almost directly. The advantage of such configuration is that it’s simpler, lighter and more compact, saving space inside the tank. The disadvantage of this system is that it’s indeed compact. During design phase, trade-off was made and reverse gear were put in place as much as the size of the tank allowed it. Adding more gears for reverse would have incurred the increase of the size of both gearboxes, and they are already packed quite compact in the tank.".

[@darrenjpeters]

@@REgamesplayer Cheers for your well researched comment. I'm still leaning towards doctrine being the deciding factor here. If combat flexibility and survivability were more prevalent as design considerations, then I'm quite sure that the transmissions would have been differently designed.

[@frankgulla2335]

Nice and concise. Thank you.

[@gryph01]

One option that T-72's have that Leo 1A5's do not, is the convertible option. I've seen a lot Airborne turrets in Ukraine.

[@MS07B3-G0UF]

There’s ammo in the hull of the Leo 1 lol. If it gets hit it to will show you it’s a convertible

[@T0ffik1]

Looking at performances in joint excercises T-72 is largly underestimated in these raports (and probably from political/industrial reasons). Just checking data from for example Polish T-72 or at that time basicly T-91 (modernised T-72) it was outperforming Leopard 1. It had stronger gun, better armor, similar agility (in reverse slower though), optics were quite close (on the upgraded ones) but more resilent. It was an offensive tank, while Leopard 1 was more all around/defensive type of tank. Ranges of engagement were wastly lowered for T-72 as Polish crews were hitting stationary things from 2000m by 80+% hits on 1st shot. There is a reason why NATO was fearfull about T-72 and its offensive capabilities (and at its production time strongest gun on a tank). It just depends on what you need your tank to do. But it is understandable that for Germans at that time it would be a political/industrial and for army in terms of strategy problem to leave T-72 functioning.

[@tranbachuyen6655]

one thing i never understand is : the soviet already know how much better an armored vehicles can be if it had good reverse speed . during ww2 soviet IS-2 heavy tank also have good reverse speed (infact it can move backward faster than forward) , and during the cold war soviet BMP series also have good reverse speed , and their T-54 , T-55 tank also have useable reverse speed (faster than T-64 and T-72) but somehow from T-64 and T-72 series , the reverse speed getting worst ...why ? soviet tank design somehow feel so weird to the point they even made their own light recon tank PT-76 have almost zero reverse speed ...wtf ?

[@xendk]

A high reverse speed require a good gearbox and that cost allot of money so do you want few Super tanks or allot of meh ok tanks ?

[@elanvital9720]

Because this was not explicitely required and the designer of T-64's transmission was obsessed with keeping weight and size as low as possible.

[@MDPanzera]

Is a compromise but the soviet dual gearbox have somme advantage over west choise like fast start and and the two gearbox in each side if one where damaged it can drive but one gearbox tank cant

[@xendk]

@@MDPanzera No but the leo1 can change its power-pack in 20min and move again and it is not hindering its recovery unlike the one on the T-72. And The leo1 is as fast or faster them the T-72 with a semi auto transmission and a steering "wheel"

[@MDPanzera]

@@xendk Easy field reparation is not a battle advantage .... Again the dual gearbox in each side permet to moving if one was damaged leo would bee imobilisated and attempt field reparation that is not possible in battle ...

[@pietvanelst3038]

It should be noted that an all-round view with the angle gauges was hardly possible for the commander in practice. The field of view per angle mirror is extremely small and not enlarged. Between 4 a.m. and 10 a.m. the pushpit and loader hatch are in the way. Camouflage material often obstructs the view. Most of the time there is not enough time to observe the periscope, because there are more important goals. The corner mirrors may only make sense in house fighting. But that was not practiced at the time. Piet, Platoon Leader Leopard 1 A2, 1983 - 1986

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Amazing Comparison introducing thanks

[@Rokaize]

Can we get an in-depth overview of the t72b3?

[@iMost067]

there actually different versions of B3

[@Rokaize]

@@iMost067 Yeah which is why it’d be really cool to have him to over each variation as they differ pretty substantially.

[@basharalassad1073]

if u go to ukraine russia and ukrainian tanks are in depth view cause abandoned in mass

[@4evaavfc]

The Leo 1 gets top marks for style. A bit of reactive armour might help. It's still tougher than any IFV out there and could ambush T-72s in forest or urban situations. The ammo these days is more lethal, however, seems T-72s are faster on the plains and with that 120 mm. gun. Leo 1 still a useful tank much like the M4 Sherman was.

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

Puma IFV has more armor than a Leopard 1

[@paullakowski2509]

@@ivanmonahhov2314 prove it!

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

@@paullakowski2509 Leopard 1 max armor is 70mm RHA , PUMA has 3 armor configurations : Base , AMAP-B module is used for protection against kinetic energy threats, while AMAP-SC offers protection against shaped charges. You are not protecting from anything but a WW2 PanzerFaust with 70mm RHA

[@4evaavfc]

@@ivanmonahhov2314 They found that Lexan spaced armour panels took care of the RPGs, though the odd 30mm could penetrate an unprotected turret ring area.

[@Flamechr]

the commanders periscope on the leopard 1A5 dose work in motion if I remember correctly.

[@xendk]

Yes but i believe it is not stabilized so it would be useless in motion as in you can still look through it but not really see anything

[@piotrpietryga]

Rusznica jest taka że leopard 1 ma cienki pancerz z jednorodnej płyty a t 72 mimo że jest stary ma bardziej rozwinięty pancerz. Wysyłanie kogoś z takim pancerzem w Leopardzie 1 czy t62 na wojnę było by ludobójstwem koniec kropka.

[@jaimete0589]

Sí pero el leopard 1 no era el único tanque. El leopard 2 era mucho más blindado con blindaje compuesto. Creo que con un cañón mejor. Pero la idea del leopard 1 era que fuera rápido y con mejores aspectos en la defensa.