Top 5 Tanks | What's going to Ukraine?

David Willey is back with another Top 5 Tanks. With the Tank dominating news in recent months, David looks at the history, capabilities, and characteristics of the tanks that NATO has announced it will be sending to Ukraine.
Consider becoming a Patreon Supporter today: / tankmuseum
00:00 | Intro
00:53 | Number 1
04:46 | Number 2
08:00 | Number 3
12:52 | Number 4
15:15 | Number 5
#tankmuseum #top5tanks #Ukraine

[@thetankmuseum]

Hi Tank Nuts, let us know what you think about this weeks content.

[@timgosling6189]

Interesting. For the Polish T-72, the name for the augmented armour isn't something as simple as ERA is it? ie just Explosive Reactive Armour?

[@sithdoestat4432]

You missed out the incident where a blue on blue incident with challenger 2 resulted in the deaths of 2 crew members

[@brokeandtired]

The Leopard 1 will be perfect for secondary units as a fire support vehicle. Mixed in with M113s and NLAW teams and you get an aggressive mechanised infantry unit with sufficient anti armour equipment, to defend itself against isolated enemy armour pockets.

[@brokeandtired]

@@CycahhaCepreebha yes we hate Putler...the biggest modern NAZI.

[@barrythatcher9349]

Hi Tank museum, I know that Australia has promised the Australian Bushmaster AFV. Can you do a video of all other AFV's that have been promised to Ukraine.

[@ThisGuyAd.]

Brilliant video, I swear British museums are at the cutting edge of staying relevant and accessible in the age of the internet. 👏😎👍

[@johnwelton6554]

It is a great day out visiting there.

[@ThisGuyAd.]

@@johnwelton6554 I'd love to, when I was growing up I lived near Duxford and we used to go to Yorkshire and visit the armories every year. But the tank museum is still very much on my bucket list 👍

[@sammni]

Agreed. I think alot of museums have a "slightly look down attitude" to the internet and particularly KZbin. I'm happy the tank museum has completely embraced it and even created their own KZbin personalities. Staying relevant and educating people on KZbin is still education

[@BeKindToBirds]

Must be good uni for this kind of stuff there

[@ThisGuyAd.]

@@sammni I mean it's alot of work for museums that often have quite limited resources, but I think the guys at the tank museum and of course Johnathan Ferguson at the armories are really creating a model for other museums to follow 👍

[@rgomez6660]

Well done everyone at the Tank Museum - this is such a relevant way to show that a museum is not just a collection of history, but of knowledge and its application to life, both past and present. Huuuuge thumbs up, thanks.

[@rcgunner7086]

Indeed! I wish the Museum of the US Army would get involved in this.

[@JinxSwe]

Yesterday Sweden pledged 10 of its strv122 wich is the Swedish version of the leopard 2a5.

[@Relyt345]

Leopard 1 is even pretty useful for freeing up more capable tanks from the least important areas. Belorussian border would be a decent area.

[@Frankon81]

and knowing Ukrainian ingenuity they will find a way to bolt Kontakt1 to the chasis and turret of Leopards 1 to somewhat improve their armor.

[@r200ti]

All the fighting in in the south east tho, why would put most of your tiny tank allocation hundreds of miles from the frontline? I suppose atleast they wont get destroyed so quick sat idle 1,000k from the action. Some of these comments really make me wonder what planet people are on.

[@waynehankinson8210]

@@r200ti The Russians have already attacked from Belarus so there is a need to defend the border still to prevent another attack. Russians do tend to repeat themselves even if it is a mistake.

[@Relyt345]

@Jason Davis What planet are you on? You don’t send everything to the front because the Russians can open new fronts and come through where you don’t have forces posted. They’re still guarding the capital, for example, even though that’s not where the “front” is right now.

[@petrolhead982]

Yes, Slovenian T-55S already there

[@HerrGausF]

10:59 Correction, the Leopard 2A5 still has the L/44 gun. A6 was the first version with the L/55.

[@whya2ndaccount]

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out to others.

[@jonathon5411]

Just proves he's reading a propaganda script

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

@@jonathon5411 hey vatnik go back to the trenches

[@elford3906]

@@jonathon5411 -_-

[@wilsonsantiago3095]

Are they getting actual models or export models

[@kermitage]

Worth mentioning that Poland so far has provided Ukraine with well over 300 tanks (T72 and PT91) - before the donation of more modern western models (like Leos) was even considered.

[@tacomas9602]

Are you talking since the invasion or previous to it?

[@Lykyk]

When considered that it was done with western replacement, restitution and the rapidly nearing end of their service life in mind that quickly sounds a tiny bit less selfless.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

@@tacomas9602 Since the invasion. No tanks were provided or sold to Ukraine by Poland before. As for the tanks that have been provided, it's worth mentioning that Twardy also has commander's and gunner's thermal vision, and that thermal vision has been added to the otherwise unmoernised T-72s Poland has given to Ukraine, and after they were delivered, Ukraine also added reactive armour to some of them.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

@@Lykyk Yes and no. Yes, because the war broke the political argument wether these tanks should be replaced for what and how soon. No, because all of the replacement is bought for quite large sums of money, and the immediate effect of the donation is substantially weakining the Polish Army. I don't think our effort is even in top 5 given absolute numbers, but given relation to our GDP it is enourmous. Then of course you can argue that Ukraine winning is in our best interests so then even if it's radical, it's also a rational solution.

[@Lykyk]

@@piotrmalewski8178 I don't think mostly giving away old Soviet equipment you want to get rid of soon anyway in exchange for western equipment and money from the west is quite the same as giving away western equipment you actually want to use. That doesn't mean it's not very useful in Ukraine, it just makes the aid by GDP a meaningless metric.

[@abitofapickle6255]

Don't forget the advantages of having fantastic fire control systems on the M1, Leopard 2, and Chally 2.

[@odalv316]

the modern Cold War relics from the 80s.. 😂 Hey, let's laugh at the Russians for using the t72

[@aryanmalik2390]

Meanwhile Leopards are getting their turrets blown out ! So much for Europe's best tank ! 🤣🤣

[@odalv316]

@aryanmalik2390 When you think you are a superior species because you live in North America or Western Europe.. and everything is the best. Sometimes, a reality check is needed to keep you grounded.

[@MrTony-kd4es]

6:40 It s incredible how Czechoslovakia united just so it could modernise tanks for Ukraine. True display of unity.

[@simonyip5978]

😄

[@peterkorman9368]

there is no more Czechoslovakia. There is Czech and Slovakia. Czech are making tanks for Ukraine. Slovakia is making Howitzers Zuzana 2 for Ukraine.

[@MrTony-kd4es]

@@peterkorman9368 nehovor

[@peterkorman9368]

@@MrTony-kd4es mi vypalilo sarkasticky senzor...

[@oceanic8424]

⚠️ Correction: the Leopard 2 tanks are built by Krauss - Maffei - Wegman, and not Rheinmetall, however, the main gun IS produced by Rheinmetall.

[@gandogarsilberbart3528]

Its a combination of KMW und Rheinmetall, they build them bothe. KMW Does Bild moste of the Chassi, moste of the Firecontroll, gun and Electronics is build by Rheinmetall

[@frankeinfish]

There's also a host of other manufacturers, the Swedish Stridsvagn 122 for example is built by Hägglunds and Bofors.

[@Lykyk]

​@@gandogarsilberbart3528 Rheinmetall only upgrades older versions, but it's not the only other German company to do so. KMW is in charge of actually building all new tanks, currently 50 per year but according to an interview recently given that could be ramped up to 600 per year in 1-2 years since KMW made sure to never get rid of its old capabilities and actually expanded them in the last 20 years despite the reduced production numbers. Perks of being a family owned company that doesn't have to show the highest possible profit every financial year.

[@thorhh]

@@gandogarsilberbart3528 KMW is the general contractor for the Leopard. Rheinmetall is a subcontractor. Small but important difference.

[@gandydancer9710]

What's not clear is why Rheinmetall owns an inventory of Leopard 1s. Did they buy them back from the Bundeswehr (etc?) to accumulate a junkyard to supply parts to repair L1s owned by other countries?

[@roberthoward9500]

A slightly more serious top 5 list than the usual on this channel, but an important top 5 list.

[@Lonewolfmike]

Well, the tanks that are being sent have been upgraded over the years and are more technically sophisticated than what Russia is using right now, from all I have seen. The targeting system, thermals, not having ammunition under the turret, and so many other things.

[@julianshepherd2038]

It's tragic that Ukraine is having to fight to be part of the 21st century

[@renzl2337]

Canada just pledged another 4 Leo2, total of 8 now. They will be "Amazon Prime" shipped to Poland like the first 4.

[@julianshepherd2038]

Good

[@dano3x3]

😅

[@RaduB.]

Every video from the Tank Museum is interesting and informative! Thank you! And I am looking forward to the next one. As ever. 🙂

[@DJJAW11]

... It should read Tankyou 🤭

[@paullanham1014]

Proud to live just a few miles away from Bovington.. not only the finest museum of any type but also the finest KZbin content!

[@Twirlyhead]

Lucky to have Bovington round the corner is more like it.

[@simonmartin3433]

You lucky man. Planning to go this summer.

[@TheManLab7]

I still haven't been and I don't think anyone that I know is that interested in going unfortunately, but I'll have to make them want to go. There is something that I DEFINITELY want to do and that's for me to ride in 131.

[@sam8404]

When you see David Willey you know it's gonna be a great video. I know that applies to all their presenters but Mr. Willey was in the very first video I watched that introduced me to this channel. Well technically it was The Great War with Indy when they were showing off a Landship but I think it still counts.

[@kalostay]

The only reason we don't see destroyed Challenger-2s is they never were deployed on the battlefield...Unlike Leo-2A6/4, PT-91, T-72AE or others

[@user-rs5ui5lg5i]

about that! XD

[@thcdreams654]

Great work as usual. Thanks for the quality content and information.

[@AN-nt3uv]

As i served initially with Leopard 1A5, i can say, yes, they are mobile, accurate in firing, have low armor, are not too comfortable and should be seen here as a supporting role. Still very good for armored recon if no other system is available, but the passive heat radiation based night vision of the optics is powerful to spot enemies at quite a distance. Not related to battle: Leopard 1 has the best engine sound and the driver with the Canadian version driving it during tank fest above hatch was reckless....we had a switch blocking fully stabilized weapon movement, when the driver was up, as the later installed add-on armor could have harmed his head. I think Bundeswehr had it, because one driver got killed.

[@stephengilmore2741]

I suppose given that most tanks in Ukraine don't see tank-on-tank combat, but instead are used in a fire support role, then Leopard 1s should be able to perform that role very admirably. While the more modern MBTs partake in the offensives.

[@whymustyouignorereality]

What an awful accident to have to learn from. Couldn't imagine being a family member getting a letter saying their loved one was killed by a preventable accident.

[@AN-nt3uv]

@@whymustyouignorereality I cannot say, that this story of a dead driver is true, it is just, what we were told during training. Eventually it was a really bad coincidence of several factors. Later, at our Armoured Corps Training Center (Panzertruppenschule) the civil (!) drivers we had for training sometimes secretly bipassed that switch as we often felt some air flow from the driver through the tower, but on intercomm the driver would always confirm to us young guys, that everything is alright. I guess, he was so old, he hated using below hatch the night vision during excercise.

[@tessjuel]

According to wikipedia The Leopard 1A5 can be fitted with the same 120mm gun that the Abrams and Leopard 2A5 and 2A4 use and there's also a reactive armor package for it. How much a difference would it make if the tanks Ukraine receives get those two upgrades?

[@AN-nt3uv]

@@tessjuel The armor upgrade i know and this helps, still mobility might be affected. About the 120mm i am not sure, maybe at the expense of the coaxial MG? The Leopard 1 with the 105 mm is already quite tight and i see problems with storing and handling the larger ammunition in battle. An advantage: You do not have the bronze shell casings so quickly fill up the case behind the gun, in which those fell. Still, would be interested to see a solution for that. Regarding the fire controls the 1A5 was more modern than the late 2A4, of course not the 2A5 anymore or its Swedish version.

[@nommchompsky]

Showing that Leopard 2 driving backwards at speed is such a flex

[@Lonewolfmike]

The Swedish S Tank might want to have a word with you. LOL

[@wills2140]

The bigger "flex" was drifting an Abrams on snow and ice, lol.

[@exharkhun5605]

@@Lonewolfmike No it doesn't. The S Tank is sitting very quietly in the corner, trying not to attract attention and hoping no one has noticed how it's been cheating at driving backwards. 😀

[@Lonewolfmike]

@@exharkhun5605 Not "cheating" they were only supposed to have a two man crew, but they decided to have a third one in it for the radio and keep the other two from killing each other. LOL

[@exharkhun5605]

@@Lonewolfmike Ha ha! Great argument. I imagine that when you're racing backwards through the Swedish forest with half of the Red Army hot on your heels it can be quite distracting to have your commander keep unloading his 9mm on you for that remark you made last week about his sister.

[@m8ss1]

Thanks for this up-to-date summary! That´s what museums do - look into history to help thinking on present problems

[@s0frl15]

Just for the record, it is more appropriate to say "Ukraine" instead of "The Ukraine." It's a common way to say it, but "The Ukraine" is related to them being a territory of the Soviet Union. They certainly don't want that, so would prefer it to be said as "Ukraine." That said, thanks for the video. I love tanks. I'd love to make my way to this museum some day.

[@preserveourpbfs7128]

Just want to add some reasoning behind it - given Russian rhetoric, history, and etymology of the word “Ukraine”, including “the” suggests that Ukraine is merely an outlying region of a larger entity - namely, Russia, Russian Empire, USSR, etc

[@gandydancer9710]

@@preserveourpbfs7128Nope. "The Ukraine" IS a geographic area with a historic meaning not implying anything about its status as a part of any political entity. "Ukraine" is currently the political entity with its capital in Kiev/Kyiv which, when the Ukraine SSR existed, was the capital of that SSR and continued as the capital of the same geographic area up until 2014. After 2014 the new government's remit never really ran in the Donbas or Crimea, so there's that complication. If there were a political entity ("country") called "Caucuses" that wouldn't mean that "The Caucuses" wouldn't have a separate, correct, meaning, even if the mountain chain were a different geographic area than the political entity which, in fact, it would almost certainly would. edit: The narrator's use of the term is at 0:05, and is obviously wrong. But "The Ukraine" CAN be correct, just not as he uses it. The Donbas is part of "The Ukraine" even though it is largely no longer (and unlikely to resume being) part of Kievan-ruled "Ukraine". Crimea, on the other hand, was never part of "The Ukraine", though it was for a while transferred to rule from Kiev/Kyiv.

[@Jakob_DK]

@@gandydancer9710 Donbas is part of Ukraine, some of Donbas has been out of Ukrainian control since 2014, but not all. Crimea is also part of Ukraine, occupied by Russia since 2014.

[@FieldMarshalFry]

The UN: “these regions belong to Ukraine” The vast majority of countries: “these regions belong to Ukraine” Weird pro-Russian trolls: “um, actually, international law is wrong because Daddy Putin says so”

[@gandydancer9710]

@@Jakob_DK "Donbas is part of Ukraine... Crimea is also part of Ukraine..." Your saying it does not make it so.

[@JC-il6ps]

That Polish PT-91 actually sounds like quite a nifty piece of kit!

[@Lonewolfmike]

From all, I have heard all of the former Soviet countries made the improvements that Russia didn't to all of the tanks they had. They made them better than what Russia has on the battlefield right now.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@Lonewolfmike Russia made all sorts of improvements to their Soviet-era tanks, but that doesn't apply to the ones kept in their retired-tank-parks, which they are refurbishing now to an unknown (to me) degree. So now you've "heard" different.

[@Lonewolfmike]

@@gandydancer9710 A lot of what we have found out about the Russian military since they invaded Ukraine has been a lot of smoke and mirrors on the part of Russia. So I take that with a grain of salt.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@Lonewolfmike I take everything said by both sides with large chunks of salt, but the claim that Russia's active inventory is unimproved since the fall of the USSR is new news to me.

[@elgenerico6263]

Probably the best T-72 variant besides the T-90A, but nothing more.

[@rpdecorators]

Pt-91 had Polish FCS Drawa. French FCS was used in PT-91M -export version for Malaysia.

[@gandydancer9710]

Thanks. Wikipedia: "PT-91M Pendekar (M for Malaysia) Production export variant for Malaysia with a Sagem Savan-15 fire control system..." Elsewhere, "The PT-91M Pendekar is an export variant deployed by Malaysia. It is equipped with an enhanced 125mm gun, S-1000 engine, French fire control system, communication system and hydropneumatic transmission."

[@kudukilla]

Glad that you mentioned the importance of availability of ammunition and spare parts. Other considerations not mentioned are weight capacity of Ukrainian bridges and trains.

[@denisrobertmay875]

Weight capacities (and dimensional) of Bridges and trains are pretty standard across the world and are dictated by the terrain they cross. In a combat environment bridges are expected to be compromised so it becomes an issue for Combat Engineering. With regard to logistics the range of weaponry is normal across various troops, Squadron, Regiments, Brigades, Divisions, Corps etc. So the logistics support train for a Squadron of one type of tank would similar to that of say, Heavy artillery, light artillery, mortars, UAVs, AT weapons etc in the same operating unit, the sort of problem that Loggies are trained to overcome. Fuel is a perennial problem and why all vehicles tend to run on as common grade of diesel.

[@sqnhunter]

@@denisrobertmay875 All that is totally correct. To add to that, the US already has fuel tankers and AVLB's (armored vehicle-launched bridge´s) in Ukraine. They received 36 AVLB´s at first and then another 50 of them as they have a multi role to play, even for Infantry with the many destroyed bridges around where they would Usually ford! Logistics wont be the problem for these beasts once they begin the offensive. Yes, I know you already know this bro...just added for those that think the US is in the business of shipping unsupported armor.... just not a thing, really!

[@4evaavfc]

A much needed video, thank you. I look forward to the next one.

[@rasmuswittsell10]

Perfectly timed video. This is solid information for anyone who isn't a track head, but wants to know what the tank supply deal for Ukraine is all about. A superb example of why museums are important.

[@gandydancer9710]

I still cant figure out the meaning of the order of 1 through 5.

[@paulramsey1255]

this is not information but propaganda.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@paulramsey1255 In what way?

[@ct92404]

@@paulramsey1255 Your real name is Ivan, isn't it? Do you hum the Soviet anthem in your sleep and dream of the "good old days"?

[@michaelgreenwood3413]

@@paulramsey1255 No, claiming you blew up the entire Ukrainian Air Force 6 times over is propaganda. This is just info.

[@boarwilde8805]

Little error KMW is the manufacturer of the Leopard 2, but Rheinmetall is an important contractor

[@corp-_-3853]

Yeah RM is building the gun and major systems which are integrated in the Leo

[@positroll7870]

Actually, 20y ago RM bought a company that had produced about 40% of all GER Leo2s. So it can be argued both ways.

[@callsigndd9ls897]

Leos were also built by other factories during the Cold War. Among others also in the MAK plant in Kiel. Rheinmetall took over this plant. Today, prototypes are developed and built there.

[@thegoldenmedic2880]

​@Posi Troll KMW is the original designer of the Leopard and the hold sole right to it design, RM is just a subcontractor, any buisnees that took place 20 years ago stayed 20 years ago

[@alanwoods2010]

Good report - looking forward to the next one.

[@f1matt]

Canadian Leopard 2's along with Canadian tank crews, have already been in Poland for a little while now training Ukranians to operate them. First Canuck Leo was sent over on Feb 4, 2023. It was announced on Feb 25, 2023 that Canada would be sending over four more Leopards bringing the total to eight from Canada.

[@mimile4462]

Do you know when the training of ukranian crew started ?

[@chriskitchen4772]

Yes, they sent all our tanks over there. All eight.

[@emmanuelmicron3685]

wow the ukrainian counter attack will be spectacular when it will start...one day😂😂😂 oh my, 30 countries against one s quite something

[@wihamaki]

Canada is set to buy replacement tanks for those they sent over. Also, as we saw with Canada's deal of selling the Canadian Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia, Canadian politicians are all too happy to do whatever it takes to boast their stocks in General Dynamics, who made the armored cars we sent there as well. Don't be surprised if we end up with Abrams as replacements when this is all said and done.

[@nctpti2073]

@@chriskitchen4772 They are cited with having about 70 Leopard 2's actually, in total.

[@thedarksage328]

Informative, concise an interesting. Another great video. Keep up the good work!

[@nozhki-busha]

Thanks for your support, though it's Ukraine, not the Ukraine. Sorry to nit pick :)

[@furtivedig]

I came for this

[@nucleardawn]

404

[@gandydancer9710]

"It" is both. What was the sentence in question?

[@gilberthasvision]

I really enjoyed watching this. Well done!

[@BearWolf21]

Fantastic job on this. Great video support

[@Will-SFC06]

Thumbs up and support!

[@rumatadestora]

Thanks for the overview. I only wish those tanks get here faster and in more numbers!

[@bmcg5296]

David is such an amazing speaker for all the tank museum, naturally gifted to captivate and hold your attention.

[@hellboystein2926]

Well done, but one comment from German speaking world: From the german Leopard-2 tanks at Reinmetall/Industry not a single one is in the concrete list of 'Send tanks' by now, because they are not in a 'drive away' state by now, but have to be rebuilt before you can send them. So, the '2 bataillions' now in training in Poland and Germany are just the beginning, more tanks will be send when the refurbishers are ready.(Same is true for most of the spanish Leo2A4s,.. because they are in a similar bad technical condition.

[@tessjuel]

The video also forgot to mention the Leopard 2 tanks donated by Norway, Portugal and Finland and missed the ones from Sweden since those were only confirmed after the video was made.

[@williamzk9083]

I think Ukrainian tankers being trained now will be being trained in tanks active in the armed forces of Germany and or Poland now. The first 14 tanks are coming from tanks active in the the German Bundeswhare not Rhinemetall I believe but most of the rest will need to be ones taken out of storage. The Leopard 2A6 is pretty modern.

[@Lonewolfmike]

@@williamzk9083 They are probably being trained on the Abrams either there or here in the US. I know they have Abrams over in Europe for training purposes and war games purposes. The Ukrainian tankers will get a lot of good training for all of these tanks that aren't old Soviet-era tanks. As we have seen they have made great use of the artillery systems, both tracked/wheeled and traditionally towed. Just look at how well they have used the HIMARS systems that they have gotten. Hell, they even made fake HIMARS to fool the Russians.

[@Frankon81]

@@williamzk9083 Germany and Poland is sending/send the Leos 2 from their active units. Polish ministry of defence confirmed yesterday that the polish leos were already delivered to the Ukraine.

[@petrolhead982]

Honestly it's shame for Europe for armed forces in such a bad state. The only garantee for European strategic independence from US is to accept Ukraine into NATO.

[@MichaelJantzen42]

I kinda thought the m1 was pretty well tested at Eastings 73 against the T72. Anyhow the video of the m1 drifting in the ice is pretty fun to watch - lots of fun tank sounds as well.

[@zednotzee7]

They certainly did very well, yes. But it's extremely unlikely that the Iraqi tanks had the same weapon systems as the Russian ones. This is because of defections from countries that the Russians had sold their military stuff to. These defections meant that NATO got hold of top Russian tech. The Russians were obviously not keen on this, so they sold export versions of their stuff. These were not so well equipped * sightsetc ) as the ones Russia itself used. However, I expect all the western tanks ( with the exception of Leopard ones ) being sent will prove to be superior to the ones Russia is currently using. But of course, time will tell. And don't forget that the Ruskies have crap tons of heavy artillery. Which could make things awkward.

[@haskalah]

It is not against T 72 and it was not tested. 1. A tank is a platform the ammunition is the weapon. The Iraq had no modern ammunition and they had extremely downgraded versions as Arabs and soviets never really trusted each other. 2. The Iraqi army was badly trained not using weapons correctly as they fought only 70's armored Iran. So it was a professional boxer against a toddler in desert storm. 3. The tanks in Ukraine on both sides have the ammunition to destroy any tank and they can hide as it is not a desert. 4. Most important this war heavily depends on artillery and infantry no tank vs tank like in Video games. So any tank will see hard times

[@EpicThe112]

​@@zednotzee7you are correct as a matter of fact capture tanks that ukrainians give to NATO probably stored in Ramstein Rheinland-Pfalz Air Force Base US Military waiting for shipment to the US or UK Salisbury Plain

[@ferallion3546]

True but never fight the last war. Gulf War I was 32 years ago. The weapons platforms and their subsequent weapons, ammunitions, armor, sensors, equipment, communications, electronics, digital, and analog systems have advanced into current gen 4.5 block updates. Then there are the cyber and active defense systems that are being integrated to be considered. These current 21st century systems didn’t even exist back in 91. This makes every MBT a completely different weapons platforms from what were essentially the last of the Cold War era technologies fighting each other. Every MBT block update has to prove itself again but that’s normal.

[@sjent]

Not even in same ballpark. Iraq was basically stabbed in the back by US. In addition to that Iraqi tankers were not particularly well trained. Iraqi T-72s were not upgraded versions. They also lacked up to date ammunitions. Not to mention total aerial superiority by US. So on and so forth. Right now, all things considering, Russian T-72s are about 15-20% worse than any of those western MBTs and T-90s are considered to be ~30% better. Of course its not a game and you do not get +30% more damage, pretty much all of those engagements will be purely situational. Western MBTs have better armor, but Russian tanks are more agile and are smaller. They both can detect and kill opponent on roughly same ranges with a well-placed shot. Almost everything will depend on how experienced crews will man tanks and pure luck. And Ukrainians will be at huge disadvantage there. Proper training for Abrams for example, takes 2 years. They can be blitz trained in a few months, 14-16 hours a day 7 days a week, but they will still be nowhere near properly trained crews. Plus this smorgasbord of tanks is also a very bad idea. You cant train on Abrams and then just hop into Leopard. This whole thing looks more like publicity stunt, rather than any real attempt to make a difference. Enough tanks being send for it to be news, but not enough to make any real difference. And those that are being sent are not even of same type. Overall, considering low number of those tank that will be sent, i dont think they will make much of a difference. Especially with Russians controlling the skies and mercilessly pounding with artillery everything that moves.

[@Ebonyqwe]

I really enjoyed this video, your knowledge of modern as well classic military hardware, makes your insights into Ukraine so interesting.

[@jm9371]

Very timely and interesting insight and content.... Fantastic video.

[@yurinator4411]

M1 Abrams did not replace the M48 Patton, it replaced the M60

[@WitherAndProsper]

The way he said it works out, "This is one of the family of Patton tanks (this particular one the M48) that the Abrams ended up replacing." The way his tone of voice changes and sped through the parenthesis quote implies he added it in as an afterthought

[@FuriousFire898]

God the Challenger 2 is a beast Also god am i lucky for having this youtube channel ive been to the museum twice cant wait to go again

[@williamzk9083]

I like the way the UK army thought. Excellent cross country ability (probably the best), strong track protection, good acceleration, emphasis on supporting infantry. It's pretty much still got doctrinal roots in the Churchill tank (but free of rail gauge restrictions). The Leopard 2, M1A2 all have their niche areas. Having this diversity in European Military keeps everyone on their toes..

[@FuriousFire898]

@@williamzk9083 I do think the Challenger 2 was designed for that kinda grit underdog style to war off-road armour also exactly like the Harrier jump jet it didn't need billions of pounds for a runway or a Aircraft carrier give it a tarmacked field 😂

[@gandydancer9710]

@@williamzk9083 "Having this diversity in European Military keeps everyone on their toes." Mainly it's a logistic nightmare, but the theory is that any tank is better than no tank. We'll see.

[@Lonewolfmike]

I've seen a video of British tankers are working with and teaching Ukrainian tankers on how to operate the Challenger 2 and about the ammunition they will be using. From all I have seen of the Ukrainian military, they are picking up the information very quickly and making good use of what they learn. Look at how well they have been using the various artillery systems they have gotten.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@Lonewolfmike You think the "various artillery systems" are all being operated by Ukrainians?

[@TacticalHunter1981]

Great video! Thanks for the treat!.

[@larryjohnson1966]

Another great video. Thank You for explaining what is going on with the tanks for Ukraine thing. No one else has said anything .

[@kokomo9764]

Just a small point: Ukraine should not be Referred to as "The Ukraine". This description is how Ukraine was referred to during Soviet times. It is a very small point, but important to Ukrainians. Great video!

[@away2619]

Just watch the video and stop nit picking. It really doesn't matter. We all support Ukraine here and a "the" doesn't change that.

[@RoganGunn]

Well, you're right, but it goes far beyond Soviet times. "Оукраина" _(Oukraina)_ in East Slavic Old Church Slavonic from the 12th Century was used to mean 'borderlands' and referred to the borderlands between the Poles and the Kievan Rus. Some have argued that there is a difference between _oukraina_ (україна) "territory" and (окраїна) _okraina_ "borderland", but nevertheless the etymology of the name historically would have had на _(na)_ or 'the' before it. Over time this region developed a distinct and separate culture and language from what became their Russian cousins to the east. It is no longer a descriptive word, but the name of a place and people. Which is why modern Ukraine (Україна) wish to delineate its usage, and rightly so. Fast forward to modern times, and Russians saying "на Украина" _(na Ukraina)_ "The Ukraine" has a pointed political statement about it - it attempts to deny Ukraine's sovereignty as an independent state, and reduce it to merely a territory or borderland of Russia. However when British people say it, we are not aping the Soviet era and later Russians. It is simply one of those countries that traditionally had the definite article before it, like The Gambia, or The Lebanon. Nevertheless, Ukraine have requested since the 90s that we not use the definite article, so we should respect that. However, old habits die hard! It shouldn't be mistaken for a political statement though, like when Russians pointedly use it. It's just an anachronistic holdover.

[@johndean4998]

@@away2619 It matters profoundly to Ukrainians, and they're the ones who should decide how they are referred to, not you.

[@Walterwaltraud]

@@RoganGunn Thanks for the detailed explanation, had not seen that before but simply witnessed both versions used in English.

[@DefaultProphet]

@@RoganGunn30 years is more than enough time to break habits

[@tyrannosaurusinf1488]

When watching the Leopard 2A5 and beyond, I am reminded of the line by John Keats: "A thing of beauty is a joy forever."

[@simons1543]

Super impressed with David Willey's depth of knowledge and fluid presentation. Fascinating stuff

[@jkevinf5091]

I was absolutely delighted with your presentation about the tanks that would likely be used in Ukraine. It answered many questions I had. Thank you, I enjoy your channel very much.

[@MikaelKKarlsson]

Just today Poland revealed that the first Leopard 2 tanks have arrived in Ukraine. Good news.

[@marekkuran4956]

That's right. 4 first Leopards 2 arrived today to Ukraine. Let serve them well.

[@Camcolito]

Yeah, let's escalate to a nuclear war as soon as possible. Great stuff.

[@USN1985dos]

I can't wait to see the Russians return the favor of putting destroyed Polish and German tanks on display in front of their embassies.

[@marekkuran4956]

@@Camcolito Mhm, yeah... When Putin will walk thru Ukraine, then Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, arrive to your country, start killing kids, elders, pregnant women, will destroy whole cities - we also ask you to shut up and not to escalate

[@Camcolito]

@@marekkuran4956 1946 called and wants their strategic concerns back.

[@c.f.1833]

Worth to mention. The Leo2 got is upgrade with the L/55 with the A6 variant and not the A5 one. Anyway very cool video!

[@tommygun333]

The Abrams gun is much modified that in fact only the calibre is the same as the German counterpart. Thanks for covering PT-91 Twardy tank!

[@SunRaIV]

thank you, great report !

[@lukemus401]

we truly appreciate ur content

[@smarthandsomeguy]

Thank you from “The Germany” to “The Great Britain”.

[@r5u26d3]

And The Netherlands and die Schweiz

[@olanordmann2743]

The Kingdom of Norway, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (the Dutch must be doubly offended!), the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, the United States of America, the Swiss Confederation.

[@BigHorseFilm]

I'm pretty sure OP was making a comment on the curators constant addition of 'the' before saying Ukraine. It's just Ukraine. No 'the' required.

[@tommygun333]

​@@olanordmann2743and The Republic of Poland

[@hamishglenn4900]

Awesome work! Thanks

[@JFHeroux]

NOTE: We (in Canada) are actually providing Ukraine with 8 Leopard 2 tanks plus one Leopard 2 chassis-based service vehicle.

[@Mike-zx1kx]

Great. Can I ask? Do Canada have CAESARS or ARCHERS or similar in your arsenal?

[@alexpush]

Канадцев тоже присылайте! У нас много земли, в которой их можно похоронить

[@JFHeroux]

@@alexpush Наверное, места мало, так как уже 200 000 россиян удобряют прекрасные равнины Украины. Но вы должны сделать нам всем одолжение и пойти удобрять другую часть Украины. 😂 Иди прочь, русский тролль!

[@alexpush]

@@JFHeroux только под Бахмутом сдохло более 50 тысяч нацыков. 6-я волна мобилизации не спасёт последышей СС. Гореть вам всём в аду солнцепëков. И да, если 200 тысяч наших из 600 погибло защищая Родину, то почему ваша полутора миллионная армия не сомнëт оставшиеся 100 тысяч (ведь наших раненых должно быть не менее 300 тысяч) ? Где ваш контрнаступ?

[@JFHeroux]

​@@alexpush 😂Продолжайте пить свой местный аромат пропаганды и жить в своей альтернативной вселенной, той, где вы считаете себя величайшей нацией на Земле, в то время как ваш диктатор грабит вашу страну. Наслаждайтесь, пока еще можете. Вы больше не сможете притворяться. Через пару лет, как только вы, наконец, избавитесь от своего диктатора, будет слишком поздно спасать свою страну от разорения, а все народы, которым вы причинили зло в прошлом, придут просить возмездия. Тогда вы поймете, что на самом деле означает быть не на той стороне истории. Как ты думаешь, кто на этот раз пожалеет тебя? Мы все учились на своих ошибках. На этот раз мы будем рады видеть вашу страну в руинах. Когда вы упускаете самые элементарные вещи, а ваши границы размываются, мы все будем смеяться над тем, насколько жалкими были ваши заблуждения. А теперь уходите раз и навсегда, мне больше некогда тратить на вас время. Гни в своем воображаемом мире до конца своей жалкой жизни! 🤣😂

[@StuSaville]

I bet the Challengers boiling vessel will be popular with Ukrainian tank crews during the cold weather.

[@johnharrison6745]

@@elliotyourarobot ... the AIR-BURST of the "Russian anti-tank missiles" getting WASTED by the Challenger's anti-missile systems. 😏

[@gandydancer9710]

By the time they get there the weather probably won't still be cold. A small fridge might be more appreciated.

[@DumbSkippy]

Another fabbo video from the acclaimed British Tank Museum. Kudos and my thanks, for your video.

[@clanwaddell5628]

Seen many amazing videos here. Subscribed

[@ox2design]

@9:20 Leopard 2 is not from Rheinmetall but Kraus Maffei (now Kraus Maffei Wegmann), only the gun is made by Rheinmetall

[@user295295]

Great video! I would like to see an analysis of the top 5 Russian tanks likely to be seen used in the Ukraine.

[@wills2140]

That would be a useful video. We do know that T - 72 and its variants has been most used ( and most captured ).

[@Mortablunt]

By abundance (rough order since I can’t be bothered to crawl through detailed listings) 1. T72B3 2. T72A 3. T90A 4. T90 5. T90M And no I’m not a tank expert.

[@JimJonesKoolaid]

Such a great video topic!

[@stevebettany8778]

Great video with lots packed in clearly well thought through thank you.

[@mockier]

It's going to be interesting how deliveries of these tanks impact the war. My only concern is if they arrive too slowly, and in small batches that any impact will be blunted. If most of the arrive within a month of each other the impact has the potential to be impressive. I'm assuming they will be used in a focused attack on a weak point.

[@UsudUsud-ly9qr]

It doesn't matter anyway if they will attack in columns on theinefields like its 1944 or smh

[@andrewvanveen1804]

This is a brilliant piece. My view is that Mr Willey presented each tank's narrative concisely from development to current state,. A bit of an update: I believe that Canada is adding an additional 4 tanks to its initial offer. As a former tanker, I must admit that the addition of Leopard 1 (A3,A4,A5) troubles me. A great tank but my view is that she is too old to cope with the modern digital battlefield and would require substantial refit. Spares will be a huge issue.

[@callsigndd9ls897]

Even Ukraine's old T72s can cope with the modern, digital battlefield. Why shouldn't the Leo 1 be able to do that too. This tank is very maneuverable and has excellent aiming accuracy. These Leo 1s don't have to be in a tank battle MBT against MBT, but they are excellent for supporting infantry and rip up Russian IFV.

[@brucehemming9749]

Great video thanks for sharing 👍🍻

[@gastonpablogonzalezkriegel1178]

Great channel. Regards from 🇦🇷

[@paulsnell534]

OMG I never realised how small Russian tanks are. I was amazed how small the T-34 was at the tank museum but never thought this would continue

[@Lonewolfmike]

I think they had a height requirement for tankers and it still might be in place. I have a brother-in-law who was an Abrams driver and he is well over 6'.

[@magnummax78]

A small tank has MANY advantages.👍🏿

[@r200ti]

yeh Russia took a very different approach to tank design. They have good reason, but from what i gather its not the advantage it was supposed to be.

[@TheMemeDynamics]

​@@magnummax78 and also many disadvantages

[@grandadmiralraeder9608]

@@r200ti indeed it isn't - because they forogt that humans aren't robots and need space to work

[@emty9668]

One of my late Uncles was a WW2 veteran, drove a MK3 and a MK4 Panzer and finally a Panther in France. Wounded twice he explained, "we had the better tanks, they just had more of them." While our tanks are formidable they are not impervious to a determined enemy. We need more of them.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

Laserpig would tell you you're wrong.

[@sergeipetrov_rzn]

he said it like "we were better but there were more of them" but in essence he was right - having a better tank in small numbers is way worse than having an OK tank in plentiful numbers. tanks are useless unless you have a lot of them to expend

[@samcox987]

The number of people involved in the credits at the end is nuts. Really impressed with The Tank Museum. Really well researched.

[@mbak7801]

I think that is the list of Patreon supporters.

[@peten748]

Very interesting and informative, thank you.

[@zbyszanna]

As for number 2, you start with PT-91, but I guess you should start with 250 modernized T-72 tanks that Poland sent last year, the PT-91 were much fewer in number (few dozen at most, plus the 30 you mentioned in 2023).

[@tomk3732]

As far as I know it's 50+60 pt91. Can be more. Essentially Poland is out of tanks and a lot of other defenses. Much weaker than before the war.

[@zpacula]

@@tomk3732 yes, but those 60 pledged pt-91 are yet to make it to Ukraine. What Poland donated was all the mothballed t-72 (there was a plan to upgrade them into pt-91 alikes, but it never happened)

[@zbyszanna]

​@@tomk3732 yeah, we don't really know the numbers, but my point is that those T-72 were given to Ukrainie not only before the Pt-91 but also in much higher numbers, so if we don't go by abilities of the tanks but rather their significance of the whole tank transferring process it feels like the t-72 were more important from this point of view. Also maybe it's just me, but I think it would be informative to mention that it is well over 300 tanks from the T-72 family that Poland passed to Ukraine and i wonder why this number was omitted. Was it just left out by mistake? Was it not considered important when it apparently was important when talking about every other tanks or is it so the Brits don't look bad in comparison? Normally I wouldnt assume anything like that from The Museum, but it's second video in a very short span of time that is doing something like that - the previous one was about most influential tank designs and there was Mark IV and little willy if I remember correctly but no ft-17 and it's French (and we can learn about British views on French in general from that very same video). Me personally, I think Brits are doing amazing job in helping out Ukraine and I don't want to talk bad about Brits here at all (I really think your response is great and it's very motivating), I'm just wondering about those recent omissions on the side of the museum. Of course it can be just my impression and I might wrong, but who knows, maybe I'm right! :)

[@tomk3732]

@@zbyszanna Everyone has a bias. T-72s Poland transferred are far and wide better than Leopard 1. But west is west and for the next 100 years Poland will only be "west". This is why a lot of "help" for Ukraine is in quotes. They well know that it is the US pushing government in Kiev towards war. I mean would you fight a war so you can join NATO to maybe not fight a war - even through "joining NATO" is not guaranteed at all and just an abstract point - especially if you loose the war.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@tomk3732 "Essentially Poland is out of tanks and a lot of other defenses. Much weaker than before the war." The US is selling them 250 Abrams M1A2s. The sticker price is over $1B, but there may be monetary incentives, as I'm sure there were with Morocco's upgrades.

[@hexo4yxa571]

Leopard 2 & M2A2 Bradley: comming soon in Kubinka !

[@josephmaurina8787]

I really enjoyed listening to you. You showed me the difference in tanks. Thanks

[@cris_the_coder]

love this type of content thank you

[@caterpillermiller]

This video was very relevant and shows how in touch The Tank Museum is with current global events. Excellent job!

[@fieldadmiralspartanryseb-8293]

It's a shame you guys don't have the leopard 2 in your collection. It just so happens to be my favorite tank!

[@alexmoos6858]

Yes, they don't have much.

[@sklell1622]

I was a challenge 2 crewmen and loved my job for 1 RTR from 2006 2012 unfortunately looking at new weapons and tactics I dont think many armored vehicles stand a chance..

[@bob_._.]

Great video, Mr. Willey. Just one point though, Lee-ma is in Peru; the city in Ohio with the tank factory is Lie-ma.

[@gregedmand9939]

This is a vital time to get your words as correct as your data: it's not "THE Ukraine", the Soviet Era provincial designation. It is simply Ukraine!

[@Ciridan]

Glad you enjoyed the video

[@johnharrison6745]

THE United States of America; THE United Kingdom; THE United Arab Emirates.....

[@wessexdruid7598]

@@johnharrison6745 But not THE Canada, THE Great Britain, THE Dubai, etc; or THE Ukraine, because they don't use the word 'United'.

[@Gravlar]

@@johnharrison6745 So confident, yet so irrelevant.

[@B.D.E.]

@@johnharrison6745 Yes, and it's Ukraine, not "The Ukraine". What a stupid comment.

[@Mike.Muc.3.1415]

The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed and produced by Krauss-Maffei (Wegmann), not by Rheinmetall. The same is true for the Leopard 1. Rheinmetall did produce only a limited number of Leopards, as one of several contractors. Their main accomplishment is the tanks' turret. Rheinmetall developed it in cooperaton with KKW.

[@callsigndd9ls897]

Yes, KMW is primarily a developer of military vehicles and Rheinmetall is primarily a weapons developer. The two work closely together in production.

[@anthonytofts9371]

A a retired lecturer, i know a fine disseminator of knowledge when I hear one. A riveting exposition of tank abilities. Thank you.

[@godallmighty1204]

As a former Abrams mechanic, I can attest to the validity of the intel put forth here on the Abrams. It, and the footage of the ice drifting Abrams tanks was a pleasant surprise to me! Thanks Tank Museum! It's been 24 years or more since I've been in an Abrams, but man, after watching this, I swear I can smell one!!

[@Wild_Buggy]

Thank you for the video 🙂

[@paulmarshall492]

Great review of the tanks going to Ukraine. I know that Abrams an Leopard 2 have stabilized guns I assume that is true for Challenger 2. Do the other tanks discussed have the ability to fire on the move ?

[@andrewkirkland1452]

Leopard 1 was one of the original tanks to bring in stabilized guns. There is a video of one with a pint of beer on its gun moving at full speed and not spilling a drop. I imagine the t72s will all be modernized to have gun stabilizers but not sure about the originals.

[@pluemas]

Challenger 2 has a stabilised gun. The polish T72 has an improved stabiliser. The original soviet built T72s does have a stabilizer but it seems to not be very good, requiring them to be used at slow speed. The Ukrainian T80s and the Russian owned T80s appear to have quite good stabilisers too.

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

@@andrewkirkland1452 Nearly all tanks from the 60s onwards have stabilisers. Centurion in 1945 had a stabiliser (given that it wasnt as effective but usable) and so did the shermans but thats a different kind of stab.

[@zimms87]

​@@andrewkirkland1452 You're thinking of the Leopard 2 video. Early Leo 1 versions didn't have a stabilizer, later versions did though.

[@michaeld.uchiha9084]

​@@julmdamaslefttoe3559early stabs on Centurion as example just work till 25kp/h. Leopard 1 and 2 can drive with 70kp/h and the stab is still working.

[@mackfisher4487]

Thank You David, for a very good overview of the tank debate. What is your view of the comment that the Leopard 2, being a lighter tank plus more ammunition available in European stocks make it more suitable for Ukraine than the Abrams?

[@gandogarsilberbart3528]

At least by prouducer of armarment, the Abrams and the Leo use the same Kannon (Rheinmetall L44 120mm) and the Leo has a combat weight of 62 tonns... so its not that huge of a difference to the abrams (i know im bot David, but i hope i dont bother you)

[@tessjuel]

The Leopard 2 and the Abrams use the same gun so the ammunition is not an issue here.

[@andromidius]

The ammo isn't the problem - spare parts are. Any replacements for Abrams would need to be shipped over from America, whereas Leopard parts are being produced just a few hundred miles away. And the Abrams is a thirsty boi, sure it'll take anything but it'll take everything you have and want more.

[@nekophht]

Abrams and 2A4/2A5 use the same gun as Silberbart stated. Their ammo is fully cross compatible. The 2A6/2A7 have the 120mm L55 (longer barrel), and I'm not sure if ammo designed to take advantage of that longer barrel would be "backwards compatible" with the L44 version but I believe the ammo designed for L44 would work in the longer barrel, just not taking full advantage of the length. Fuel isn't as much as a concern. They'll almost certainly get SEP v3, which comes with an APU. That means that the turbine only needs to start up when the Abrams is about to move out, and if they'll be stopped longer than a certain amount of time, they can turn off the turbine. Plus, despite adding 11ish tons to the design, the SEP v3 IIRC has very similar MPG to the M1/M1A1 (the shorter range is mostly due to reduced fuel capacity). And yeah, the turbine is multifuel, so they can dump diesel into it all day long without an issue. The bigger issue is what andromidius notes - Leo 2 factory is in Germany. Abrams factory is across the Atlantic and then a quarter of the way across the country after that. Leo 2s have a much shorter round trip in the event they need to be sent back to the factory for repair/replacement. And spare parts have a much shorter travel time from Germany.

[@brianreddeman951]

Leo 2s are ideal logistically because everything you need to service it will be right in Europe and basically next door to Ukraine.

[@Justone372]

Very interesting review! Thank you. 🇬🇧

[@Grayman58]

Great talk and very informative keep up the professional doc.

[@rogerkidd2121]

I am pretty sure the Leopard 2A5 has retained the L44. It is the 2A6 that has the L55 120mm.

[@williamzk9083]

The L55 on the 2A7 was further upgraded with new metallurgy to allow operation at higher pressures. The later versions have a smart breach so that programmable ammunition can be configured. For instance a round can be air burst, contact burst or delayed burst after penetration into a building. The British reluctance to move to smooth bore till recently was due to their focus on infantry support and predicated on the poor ability over smooth bore to fire HESH or HE.

[@rogerkidd2121]

@@williamzk9083 I was only referring to the 2A5 vs the 2A6.

[@williamzk9083]

@@rogerkidd2121 yes, of course, just adding information.

[@nathaniellong4281]

Could there be a possible number 6? There has been speculation that Jordan's recently retired Challenger 1 tanks could somehow get to Ukraine. What's going for the Challenger 1 is the numbers: Jordan got 402 of them back in 2002. Of course, probably not all of them are operational. Given the tank's age, there could be similar problems to the Leopard 1, but one of them won't be the ammunition, because the Challenger 1 uses 120mm ammunition. But, the Challenger 1 also has a rifled gun, like the Challenger 2, so it trades the Leopard 1 ammunition problems for the Challenger 2 ammunition problems. Though, there has also been speculation that the Challenger 1's could be refurbished to use 120 mm smooth bore guns, so there won't be any more ammunition problems. I just hope Jordan can be somehow convinced to send them to Ukraine, somehow.

[@grandadmiralraeder9608]

well if the US offered Abrams to Jordan, and Jordan sent (say 200) Chally 1s to Ukraine that'd be nice By the way - is Chally 1 120mm rifle ammo compatible with Chally 2 120mm rifle ammo?

[@williamzk9083]

The Challenger is a classic British tank with emphasis on cross country ability, track protection and supporting infantry with a gun able to support HESH. The ability of a smart breech on the smooth 120mm bore gun able to program smart munition has meant the British Army has finally relented on rifled ammunition needed to fire HESH and quality HE rounds.

[@gordonwallin2368]

Thanks, very informative. Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.

[@johnschmit6815]

Sounds like you haven’t heard US has exhausted its’ 155mm shells.

[@victorsturdivant4731]

What you aren't saying is that the Ukrainians are removing the Western reactive armor and replacing it with the Russian system as it actually works.

[@Janissarius1]

It should be noted that the Leopard 1A5 was designed to be able to be upgraded to the 120mm/L44 gun that was used on the Leopard 2. There are also other systems upgrades available to make this old warrior more formidable on the modern battlefield.

[@beepseatsfindingfoodtreasu8756]

As a straight leg, there's nothing more comforting than the rumbling of the ground as you feel your 6 being covered by heavy steel. Along with the range and sights I for one would feel a lot better on the front line knowing Who's got superiority.

[@jerrycornelius5986]

But also, Ukraine showed in Kharkiv that mobile forces can break through Russian defensive lines and manoeuvre and capture territory. That’s where highly trained brigades are useful.

[@r200ti]

There were virtually no Russian forces deployed there and no fortifications or defences. If Ukraine try that again itll be a bloodbath - Russian forces are far more numerous and have setup defensive lines. They have now also eliminated the Ukrainian s300 systems so can use air support along with drones and artillery to take out any offensive forces. Best tactic is peace talks. Ukraine are just haemorrhaging men and equipment.

[@kirktierney]

Excellent. Just and excellent summary.

[@HoseTheBeast]

That Leo 1 with the grey paintjob and the Bundeswehr iron cross is a vibe.

[@Mortablunt]

What was all that “never again” stuff, Germany?

[@norsenomad]

Add to that, at least twenty-one (21) Leopard 2 MBTs from the Nordic countries to Ukraine: 🇫🇮 Three (3) Leopard 2 mine clearing tanks from Finland (off. confirmed on 23 Feb), 🇸🇪 Ten (10) Stridsvagn 122 (Leopard 2 SE-variant) from Sweden (off. confirmed on 24 feb), 🇳🇴 Eight (8) Leopard 2 NO-variant + four (4) support vehicles for the Leopard 2 from Norway (off. confirmed on 14 Feb). In addition, they donate funds for Leopard parts and 120mm ammo via the European Peace Facility fund.

[@gandydancer9710]

"European Peace Facility" is a locution that sounds very like very like "friendly fire". Does anyone remember that the US once had a Department of War? Too honest?

[@blackmantis3130]

Damn I guess those mine clearing vehicles trending on Twitter

[@norsenomad]

@@blackmantis3130 Speaking of trending: how is the Ruble doing, nowadays? Heard USD/RUB went exponential, What, is it 110 Rubles on a US Dollar, or still plummeting? Better for CBR to yank Russian key interest rates above today’s 12%, then, to make Russian citizens appreciate the cost of Putin’s barbaric and highly illegal war of aggression. Primitive.

[@blackmantis3130]

@@norsenomad lolx . Bro you seem hurt by my statement. But honestly at the rate of losses of western equipment and manpower this offensive is pretty much dead.From what I know alot of people travel to Russia still and compared to Ukraine Russian seems to offer alot more to the world. Facts don't lie , do they?

[@norsenomad]

@@blackmantis3130 Aw, that’s so sweet… worrying about my emotions. Don’t. So, go home now, start worrying about your future and your personal economy - not least, your childrens’ future economy and lost opportunities. Interest rates will rise, there will be foreclosures, jobs will vanish. Better plan well, and act sooner than later. Think. Bye, bye now.

[@jannarkiewicz633]

I love listening to a polite tank nerd (said with love and respect) as I write software. Great episode tying it all together. A+ for talking about parts/ammo and not just tanks. So, I have been to Lima, Ohio the city where Abrams are made. Plan 1 was to create new tanks without the most modern armor. The U.S. does not need tanks but the plant has to keep producing them to keep the factory open so that line will never shut down (unlike say Stinger, Javalin, etc.). As of February 20, 2023 there are rumors that the U.S. may pull the tanks from existing stocks.

[@gandydancer9710]

As far as I can see it will have to. FY23 production of Abrams was scheduled to be 22 (twenty-two), last I heard.

[@randallturner9094]

There are no “new” Abrams being produced, and haven’t been since 2015. All “new” Abrams are refurbished units from storage, usually M1A1’s - they rip it down to the chassis, then add all new internals. They’re “like new”, but they’re ALL pulled from existing stocks.

[@randallturner9094]

@@gandydancer9710 no, partner, that’s the number of tanks scheduled to be produced for the US Army alone. Lima is currently producing 15 tanks per month, and is expected to expand to service orders from Ukraine, Poland and iirc Taiwan.

[@jannarkiewicz633]

@@randallturner9094 Good knowledge. What I heard (in some Youbute podcast) was wrong.

[@gandydancer9710]

@@randallturner9094 Thanks. I did suggest that the FY23 number might have been augmented since last July by Ukraine aid (but obviously not before the "31" from-new-production announcement), and knew about the Polish order for 250 (but didn't think of the implications for production, I admit), but your comment still leaves open the question of where 13/mo or so have BEEN going. But I'm not averse to being informed about that, and the 15/mo figure is new to me. Just saw a Task&Purpose video which indicates that the Brits have only 47 Challenger 2 runners out of 450 or so produced, from which the... 14?... sent to Ukraine are subtracted. But if I understood what was said -- I need to watch it again -- some of those 47 are being sent to Poland with Brit crews as part of encouraging Poland to send T-72s (and the local derivative) to Ukraine.