It is technically still a 1A5, as the A5 designation is reserved for the new fire control system, and as such does not depend on what turret it is installed on. If it’s installed on a 1A1A1 turret, it’s a Leopard 1A5 or Leopard C2. If it’s installed on a 1A3 turret, it’s a Leopard 1A5, but since Denmark is the only country with this type it’s know as 1A5 DK
All the 1A5DK’s can fit dozer blades usually it’s only one for each platoon. Will be super useful for Ukraine when encountering dragons teeth and tank ditches.
Just to correct some of the confusion that seem to be, then the first 80 Leopard 1A5 that are being donated to Ukraine this year is the Danish 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK1 versions. Denmark purchased 110 German Leopard 1A3 and 1A4 in 1991 that then were upgraded to Leopard 1A5 DK standard, to be ready for service in 1993, and the changes and add-ons for the Danish version of the Leopard 1A5 were not done in Germany but upgraded to 1A5 DK by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993. So the 1A5 DK is not quite the same version but different than the German Leopards 1A5 in some aspects. They were upgraded and equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision. The commanders forward periscope and panoramic sight were extended and the gun received a thermal sleeve and a muzzle reference collimator at the end of the barrel among other things.
36 of these Leopards that were participating in the UNPROFOR/SFOR operation in Bosnia (look up Operation Bøllebank) were further upgraded by Falck-Schmidt to Leopard 1A5 DK-1 in 1994-95, with air-condition, new fire-suppression system, Honda generator, GPS, RAMTA mine ploughs, roof mounted "fast fittings" for close defence work and a rear mounted turret ammunition rack. Unlike the German 1A5, the two Danish 1A5 DK versions have a welded turret, so welded plates of rolled steel, much harder and stronger than casted steel with same thickness, but more complicated and slower to produce and more expensive than casting. The Leopard 1A5 DK have a 6x faster maximum reverse speed in comparison a Russian T-72, just like the Leopard 2A4 upgrade features will come in handy I'm sure. The Leopard 1A5 DK also has a turret which was designed to accept the newer 120 mm gun barrel from the Leopard 2A4, but this option was not originally added, but could be done now. The Leopard 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK-1 were all out-phased in 2005 and in 2010 they were handed over to German company FFG in Flensburg who keep, upgrade and sell older tanks and armored personnel carriers from both the Danish and German military, and who are responsible for their battle ready maintenance-upgrade, before they are handed over to the Ukrainians.
@@chris8612 I think welding needs some more specialized equipment and knowhow, but I could see it varying on the model of turret. A simple, rough, mass produced turret would be easy to cast, but a complicated and advanced and precise one wouldn't.
@@chris8612 ... Casted steel is made by pouring molten steel into a mold. This process makes it much quicker and easier for more complex shapes to be created, but can also introduce impurities into the steel. So casting is often used to "cut corners" or ease the process when components are either too large or complicated. Cast steel can be heat-treated to improve its strength, but is considered to be less strong than rolled steel.
@@chris8612 Welding affects the heat treatment. Also, for thick plates you need to "fill" the area between plates with welds (so you end up with extremely thick welds, and the quality assurance is an issue). Also, multiple hits on the same plate might shatter the welds, even with the plates surviving (how much that is a problem in current warfare is an exercise to the reader - but when the Soviets tested their anti tank weapons against the new German Panthers, the welds cracked after multiple hits that did not penetrate the armour - hits with increasingly powerful anti-tank weapons at different distances: 57mm, 76mm, 85mm, 100mm, ...) All in all, proper welding of tank armour is prone to many mistakes that can compromise the result (unlike casting which is prone to just a few mistakes that can compromise the result).
@@agffans5725 The main benefit of cast steel is not the speed of production, but rather that you can make round shapes, like we see on many early to mid Cold War tanks, such as the turrets of T-54/55, T-62, Chieftain, M60 and Leopard 1. Also of note is the turret and front hull of the M48. Rounded shapes were, at least until the introduction of long rod penetrators, quite good at deflecting incoming shots.
About weight in Leopard 1: Brazil has been trying several programs to get new and modern MBTs, but all so far have failed because the Brazilian infrastructure, specially in the frontiers, is quite poor. Thus every MBT trial the Brazilian army had ended up failing in weight, as a country with roughly the size of the European continent the Brazilian army takes great efford in mobility and logistics, cause it can't be everywhere at once, so it needs to move quickly through the country's bridges, barges, roads, forests etc... So Brazil has been modernizing its Leo 1 ever since, this last modernization program (undergoing on thermals, comms, electric turret) will be last one. Then Brazil will move to a medium MBT, like the CV90120-T. It will be interesting to see Ukraine dealing with the problem the brazilian army has been fearing for so long
Unpopular opinion: tank silhouette/profile doesn't matter as much as people think it does. Western tanks are all substantially larger than their Com Bloc counterparts, but have decisively defeated those smaller profile designs far more often than not. There are a lot of reasons for this; better optics, training, tactics, etc. but that merely illustrates my point. The size and weight of tanks affects logistics and transportation far more than these factors influence battlefield performance.
I only agree in part: They can use anything they can be provided with, true. BUT western politicians have to sell support packages to their voters. And giving away older stuff is usually easier to sell to voters. So sending massive amounts of slightly oder gear may be preferable, compared to smaller amounts of the newest stuff.
Nah, there's nothing that can help Ukraine at this point. The war is lost. The best thing Ukraine can do now is negotiate an end to the war before what's left of its working-age male population is killed off in meaningless offensives that will accomplish nothing.
Glad someone isn't buying into western propaganda. You can't find one article in the mainstream news admitting the dire situation. If the war was going that well as they say, Russia wouldn't even still 'be in Ukraine. Shooting every missile down, killing 8 Russians for every Ukrainian. It doesn't add up
So hand over weapons to a country with a HUGE NEO NAZI population? I was their in 2017 and it was the 1st & only place i saw many men with SS & SWASTIKA tattoos... even our cab driver had a nazi sleeve he proudly showed of... the ukrainians are legit nazi supporters
Leopard 2 is better suited for breaching operations. It'll plow through trenches and bunkers easily. They're very good at it. So you punch through defenses with that and then come through the breach with Leopard 1's and AFV's.
I'm sure artillery, HIMARS, and grenade/kamikaze drones are better for that, while heavy armor tanks support IFVs mopping up what's left of the trenches and bunkers.
Laut Oryx sind die eigentlich 85 Leo2s (inkl. der Schwedisch Strv 122 panzer denen mehr oder weniger einen 2A5 ist.) Nicht zu streiten welcher besser ist.
@@Boilerz1 Auch schon tatsächlich geliefert? Ich habe ehrlich gesagt nicht mehr den Überblick, was nur zugesagt wurde und was tatsächlich schon geliefert wurde. Wobei es sich natürlich mit dem Leopard 1 auch noch verzögern könnte.
@@neues3691 Keine Ahnung wie viel sind schon in der Ukraine, habe nur die Liste von wie viel werden versprochen. Kann mir vorstellen das es ändert sich Woche zu Woche wenn die nicht alle zusammen geliefert worden sind.
So viel ich mitbekommen habe was an Leo 2 Panzer hat die Ukraine bekommen bzw. wird bekommen Leo 2: A6 21 mal (18 von Deutschland und 3 von Portugal) + A5 10 mal(alle von Schweden) + A4 54 mal (10 von Spanien, 14 von Polen, je 8 von Kanada und Norwegen und 14 von Dänemark+Niederlande) Macht insgesamt 85 Leo 2 Kampfpanzer, noch dazu 14 Challenger 2 und 31 Abrams. In der Summe also mindestens 130 Kampfpanzer westlicher und moderner Bauart. Wisst ihr von mehr Kampfpanzer westlicher und moderner Bauart, die zugesagt wurden?
I largely agree with this analysis; right now, with a very large front, tank duels will remain very rare and the role of the tanks will likely continue to be in fire support and elimination of armored vehicles. The Leo 1 A5 is perfectly suited for the task, and may also be less affected by soft terrain than its later counterparts. Similarly, the French AMX10 RC provided should also be of great help; right now the more the better. If they can be accompanied by a few infantry teams wit good atgms, they should be able to face most combat situations. The situation is very different for planes, where recent technologies provide a massive edge: better electronics, radars and weapon systems that F16 or the like could provide would massively increase the survivability and efficiency of the planes, that need to operate in a SAM-rich hostile environment where Russian fighters can still intervene and intercept Ukrainian planes as soon as they fly at higher altitude, because planes can cover massive areas, contrary to tanks.
With regard to the reversing speed of the Leopard 1, a distinction must be made between the early production lots using the switch box with gear preselection and the later production lots with the automatic switch box. With the switch box with gear preselection, you can only reverse in the first two gears, with the automatic switch box you can reverse in all four gears.
@@atlantis173 Dutch tank commander here ... our Leo1V in the mid 80-ties had two reverse gears, so there might have been different versions with different gear boxes.
This is a very well done video on these tanks! I specifically enjoyed how you went in depth on the importance of the weight of these beasts and how that factored into the decision to send one tank to Ukraine over another. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for pointing this out. Leopard 1 A5 is more than sufficient to take on 95% of the junk tanks Russia has driving around Ukraine, and please remember that only a very low percentage of encounters are actually tank on tank. Also please dont forget that Ukraine has been fighting Russia to a standstill using much worse tanks than the Leopard 1 A5.
@@phunkracy you read too many fact sheets. There is more to tanks than the size of its gun. Among other things, actually hitting what you aim for with the first shot. A leo 1 A5 can drive at speed at night and hit an enemy tank with the first shot. Barely any Russian tanks in Ukraine can do that. Another way to look at it, is that the first Leopard 1 A5 was delivered in 1987. This means that it technologically speaking is closer to a T90 than a T72 classic, not to mention that judging by the Ukraine war so far, even a Russian T72B3 from 2010 can not do in real life what the Leopard 1 A5 could do in 1987. On paper the T72B3 its better, but something went wrong when they had to turn the paper stats into an actual tank. My money is on the T72B3 we see in Ukraine missing half the equipment they should have on paper, because some Russian general pocketed 50+ % of the money intended for the upgrade.
The Canadians had the best upgraded Leopard 1's I have ever seen in Kosovo. Upgraded armor but not too much, more powerful engine better firing system and optics. The Leopards they had used ammunition that would have beaten any T-72 from range further than the 72 could fire, the Canadians stated that the mobility of this tank was crucial as a hidden ambush was their best tactic. One more thing about tanks, or more specifically armor penetration by tanks in relation to ambushes. If you can stay hidden and use your mobility a moving target is harder to hit, and the T-72 does not have great firing systems. Also, if you can keep the distances down under 1200 meters the armor protection does not mean as much. The armor only becomes a factor as distances become greater and the sabot darts velocity decelerates. Close in ambush hit and scoots remove this advantage, the detraction is it works both ways. A second tactic would be to use the Leopard 1's in intimate support. This would free up the new upgraded models to exploit and cover from the flanks.
That part about having a better gun than any T-72 is utter nonsense. Do you not realize how many variants of the T-72 exist? And the most upgraded ones outperform any L1 variant in gun, optics and armor. The only thing the L1 is by default better, is mobility. Especially the ever important reverse speed.
@@Ganiscol exactly the leopard 1 has a 105mm gun whilst the t 72 has a 125mm, not to mention that the t-72 has an autoloader whilst the leopard doesn't which makes it extremely hard to reload on the move on rough terrain so shoot and scoot tactics would only really work if there is one tank which the Russians typically use vehicles in squads of 2, furthermore you would be much better off using ATGM mounted vehicles to take on modern tanks than a leopard with a 105mm gun simply because a damn chimp could properly use an ATGM and whether you're in a leopard 1 or ATGM mounted vehicle it won't matter if you get hit by a modern tank, also not to mention ATGMs and ATGM mounted vehicles are MUCH easier to conceal and are just about as fast as a leopard, whilst still have much better anti armor capabilities than a 105mm, realistically the best tactic for a leopard 1 in Ukraine would be either indirect fire support, or used as an infantry support vehicle and should only be used in an anti armor role as a LAST resort simply because it doesn't have the armor or firepower to properly take on a modern tank like a t-72 let alone a t-90 or god forbid a t-90m, especially if there is multiple of them, and this things armor is so weak it can literally be disabled by a lancet drone or artillery, while other modern tanks are able to typically withstand that kind of punishment with numerous videos to confirm this, so I wouldn't consider using a leopard 1 in an anti tank role because there are much better options for that and it can absolutely not go toe to toe with any modern tank that Russia possesses and to think otherwise is naive, unless said modern tank is exposed on the flank and you have the element of surprise but as I stated earlier it would only realistically work if there is one tank which basically means it's not going to happen because it would require an insane amount of situational luck for there to only be one tank exposed on the flank while you're concealed, also typically the Russians deploy tanks with drone support so the chances of you not being spotted by the drone or tank before you fire is extremely low, and let's say you do let off a shot and kill a tank, well you killed the tank but now your tank is spotted by the drone and now you have artillery and drones heading towards your position and this is considering there's only one tank if there's 2 or more the drone will spot your tank and notify the second tank commander of your position and you will subsequently be destroyed, like not to be arrogant or rude but the original comment is stupid because that tactic would absolutely not work in a war like Ukraine because the chances of you getting spotted by a drone or infantry and getting destroyed by a drone, artillery, or ATGM, is MUCH higher than the chances of you being able to destroy a tank and get out before you get spotted and destroyed yourself.
@@ivancho5854 I believe Canada’s leopard 1s were attempted to be sold off but that fell through. Some went to museums and the others were either scrapped or used as target on the firing range or at least that’s what an article from 2019 said was going to happen no idea if there was follow through on it I hope not id love to see them in Ukraine at least helping in some way
Whilst Leo 1 may be marginal in tank combat it has more than enough firepower to engage BMP's, MTLB etc, which are seen in vastly greater numbers than Russian tanks, the 105mm L7 is also just as useful in trench clearing as the Russian guns, and we see a lot of that going on, plus the rate of fire of the 105 L7 is superior to the Russian designed tanks. lastly you did not cover a major combat advantage the Leo has over it's adversaries, and that is the gun depression, the ability of the Leo to enage from hull down positions or back slopes means it becomes a very small target wheras the limited depression Russian tanks are required to expose the whole vehicle to get the gun down on a target, the Israeli's exploited this advantage in many of thier combats using higher depression turret designs like Centurion and M48, combine that with the Leo's ability to duck quickly with it's reverse speed and it's not a vehicle to be sniffed it!
The israelis had hills, but they are rare in some regions of Ukraine (if I remember correctly). Don't get me wrong, Leo1 will help. But don't get too excited if they are used against tanks or in offensives. I personally believe it is best kept as a guard unit to have more capable vehicles freed up for offensives. In guarding strong positions, Leo1 could use its strengths (depression, reverse speed) and leave the most dangerous work for the strongest tanks (Leo2, Abrams, Challenger2). We'll see what happens. By now, Ukraine seems to have been rather careful with their equipment and troops. I hope they can also save most of their people this time.
@@sebastianwendl603 Follow up modern MBTs and secure their flanks - even in the flat steppe of Zaporishye this is quite feasible on a breakout. In Donbas it's quite hilly, actually, if you zoom into topographic maps.
As a trained historian, I wanted to commend you and your supporters on the wonderful work you've done on this channel! I'm very impressed with the clarity of information delivery, and the efforts at researching the topics. Extremely professional and impressive, considering the platform! I was especially impressed by your work uncovering the German reports on the Churchill tanks recovered from Dieppe, and the overall reviews of the platform by the German military services. I was curious if you have, or plan to have, a similar review about the M4 Sherman line. Obviously, the tank came in so many forms, and fought on so many fronts, the German forces would be very familiar with the platform. However, with a dizzying array of sub-types and specialty versions, your aforementioned Churchill video made me curious about it. Regardless of your future projects, I'll continue watching with great interest! Thanks, and with kindest regards from Canada.
When Germany reunited they had T-72s and Leopard 1 tanks in their inventory. They compared them and the Leopard 1 was found to be a better "general purpose" tank with better range and visibility and that it was "capable of leading armored attacks" against Russian equipment. That is why the Germans stuck with the Leopard design.
The East German T-72, bmps, etc were earlier inferior versions of those platforms. The Soviets offloaded older versions of platforms en mass to Warsaw pact states so the lesser platforms would eat up the inital nato munition expense and drain nato stocks, so when the Soviet first echelon units flanked these assaults or followed them up top tier equipment would be facing reduced nato munitions or second echelon equipment
You just have to keep in mind, that the Leopard 1 was the 'NATO-Tank' and the T-72 the 'bad Soviet-Tank', so it wasn't necessarily a fair or un-prejudiced decision
Not sure I agree with the idea that leopard one is more suitable, and actually much of the video bears this out. If you are saying that the majority of losses on tanks are due to artillery, infantry AT weapons, drones etc then the superior armour and survivability of challenger and leopard 2 are important. In the fire support role the types of ammunition that can be fired by challenger are very beneficial, being excellent for bunker and building busting. Weight is unlikely to be an issue as bridges have a significant safety margin built in. Your average artic weighs 38+tons, and a bridge needs to be able to carry at least 2 of those at a time with a considerable safety margin. The only real advantages the leopard 1 offers are numbers and relative simplicity.
Gun depression is another important factor which adds to the Leo's overall capability package: the Leo 1 has a clear design philosophy, which is to prioritize the ability to crest and get the first shot off on Warsaw Pact-type AFVs from a defensive position. Hence the low armour (for better tactical and strategic positioning), the good gun depression (for cresting), the high profile (to allow the gun depression), the good reverse speed (to pop back down the crest), and the firing systems. And it is still an MBT, so it can deal with anything not a MBT just as well as any other MBT (but then, so can a T-55, probably), like combined arms support, suppression, assaulting fortified positions and the like. This capability is very useful to Ukraine, especially given the logistics constraints clearly outlined in this video.
One more thing you did not mention is the main gun depression -9° Leo 1 can thus easier fire directly a HE shell into a trench line when supporting storming infantry
But can it get close enough taking into account that there are RPG operators in basically every trench? Leopard 2 can take RPG in front with ease but Leopard 1 has inferior armor
@@TimothyZanyk you maybe right, but if you meet a leopard 1 on the battlefield, you can bet that infantry is nearby to keep those nasty RPG shooters down.
but did Ukraine receive fragmentation ammunition up to 105mm? In NATO, Leopard 1 tanks did not have this, only APFDS, HEAT and HESH. none of the above is effective against infantry.
the chieftain said something very useful about this: it is about the capabilities a 'thingy' (such as a tank) provides and not necessarily about it's weaknesses
When Challenger came in the rumour was a lot of max loads were simply shifted to 60 tonnes as the new class exceeded so many previous limits for bridges etc. However I was asked during training if I would prioritise armour over more mobility - Leapard 1 over Challenger and I instantly said armour (within reason) as even then infantry portable tank busting equipment was near ubiquitous and I feel partly vindicated by what we see today.
Load limits for bridges, at least in the civilized world, are more of a long term thing IIRC. The heaviest MBTs have no problem at all driving over any real bridge in a tactical sense. However strategically it might cause damage and failures in the long run hence why it is avoided in peacetime. A good example is how M1s wreck roads if they keep driving over them; but it doesn't mean the tank can't do it.
Can't rely on the bridges even being there, UK military understands this and Royal Engineers have options for bridges (MGBs) that can handle the heavier MBTs.
I`d take Jens Wehner's two cents as a military historian with actual experience as Leopard 1 operator over any Internet-Warriors ramblings :) Thanks a lot for this video. - a former Marder 1A5 "Heckklappensurfer" :)
Not an expert, but my personal opinion is that Germany has always made some if the finest weapons in history. I'm a Leopard 1 fan. In the army I would have had trouble hitting a tank with my Lance missile, especially a moving tank. Around it somewhere, sure......
Canada had just recently scrapped our Leopard 1 tanks. Thanks to our short sighted government for not seeing the potential in actually giving them to Ukraine. The one in the video that has the maple leaf on the side of the turret is a Canadian one.
Recently scrapped doesn't mean already melted down. I'm pretty sure they're still sitting in a field on some CAF base waiting to be auctioned off as scrap metal. A bit of Canadian politics: Doubtless JT is almost ideologically opposed to hurting Russia as to hurting China. And almost of Canada's many Ukrainian-Canadians live in the "deplorable" "red-neck" land of western Canada (one of our top 3 ethnic groups on the prairies, right up there after Brits and Germans). Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland is half ethnic Ukrainian, so it comes down to how much influence she is prepared to expend dragging JT onside.
@Wolf in 2021 the government announced that 45 of the tanks would be used as target practice and were sent to be prepared for that, so making the guns inoperable, removing all the interior and removing the engine. Others were made gate guardians. In the late 2000's about 30 were used as target practice. But we could have easily donated about 50 tanks I'd say
I know you started by saying you would not go in to special variants. But one thing to mention, the 96 Danish Leopard 1A5DK’s Ukraine are to get is all capable of fitting dozer blades, usually on almost all other Leopard variants and even other types of tanks it’s only one for each platoon that got the fitting for it. It will be super useful to remove fortifications like dragons teeth and tank ditches.
Not sure how much work this change is, but the Danish tanks are still in refurbishment and will be there for more than 6 months. So I would not be 100% sure the tanks they will get are the same as the once the danksh used
@@moritzm.3671 nope, the last might have take that long. But there were like 20 ready to send when the decision were made and the rest will arrive as they are done getting refurbished. It would be logical that it goes fast at first and then as they get to the more difficult last few times it will slow down as they will need the most work. Anyway lost of them have been delivered for training and some have been reported to be in Ukraine already a week ago.
@@moritzm.3671 all the 1A5DK’s are those Denmark used. The name says so, there will be added in a few German 1A5’s to make it a hundred. There reportedly were 96 1A5DK then they need 4 German in that order. But of cause there might be a few 1A5DK’s that can be made operational making the delivered order a bit different. But it did sound like all 96 were at a good maintenance level, and should be possible to refurbish. Others are delivering other 1A5’s think it was Holland and Germany, from what I remember it’s 100-200 to start with. But 200-300 Leopard 1A5’s will be enough to make a difference.
Honestly speaking, this makes sense but my only concern is the 105mm ammunition (common enough but sparsely produced or modified for other needs compared to the 120mm) Then the turret itself, when you can ask a company like cockirell to slap an electric and modern turret with thermals and little modification for replacing it completely. Why not go with that on some of them. I kind of agree with the cheiftan that the most use you'll get out of these guys is first shot sniping and clearing entrenched positions (preferably with combined arms). Its not meant to take a lot of hits from contemporary autocannons from ifvs or tank main guns that are in the 125mm range, not unless you put a good and well laid out armor package on it (rare modern packages exist). It'll be really great as a sniper and a rapid response tank to fill in the gaps on offense and defense. Cross country wise, its also great for Ukraine as it weighs relatively close to the T64s, T72s, and T80s to fit on most the bridges and roads without damaging them by sheer weight like most modern Western MBTs.
No worries! The Leo1A5 is designed specifically to accept easy upgrades, such as the 120mm barrel. Those can be done independent of other updates, and quite quickly.
@@RobinTheBot They tried upgrading the 120mm on it as is, it was easier to put a new turret on altogether with the thermals and modern fire control system. It also gained an autoloader (reducing the crew to 3, a thing they are used to) which made it less demanding.
@@stc3145 like I said earlier "common enough, but sparesley produced or modified..." You'll have a large stock from the EU or america initially, but through attrition and the fact there is no big demand (emphasis on big demand) for 105mm is the problem. Also it is possible to make 105mm more lethal that its pretty close to penetrating like a 120mm with modern milling and fabrication techniques, there's just no demand for it unfortunately.
@@stc3145 Stryker 105mm is not compatible. Availability of 105mm ammo is a big drawback and all the Leo1 are useless without the ammo. I doubt any NATO nations produce 105mm except for Turkey and South Korea.
I find these comparisons so odd. If you have get the question of “you are going to attack that trench/bunker/field/cityblock/infantry group/mechanized infantry/whatever and we want to know if you want this older model tank with you” the answer would almost always be “hell yes”. Even just balancing out a tank group it can be important to have a bunch of less capable tanks as support, if you can have an older tank who’s job it is to engage all the lesser armored vehicles and infantry while you focus on finding the few high-end tanks your scouts told you were present, you are going to be very happy not to be caught with the wrong ammunition focusing on a bunker somewhere. Tanks don’t fight alone, that is on both sides. Only exception would be bad training or being decimated beforehand.
@@ansgaryeysymontt7155 if Russians pushed their lesser tanks in almost exclusive support roles or only as MBT’s when supporting a high-tech MBT I would have agreed, but that isn’t the reality as far as I can tell. For example look at captured tank ratio’s and you’ll see a lot of less capable tanks being captured in mass-abandonments like Kherson/Kharkiv. Those tanks weren’t supporting a higher tech tank. And from what we see on frontlines the older tanks are pushed in as MBT’s rather than fire support tanks. Only exception being an indirect fire role.
Well it kinda depends. You wouldn't send Tigers and Panthers to Ukraine for obvious reasons. So you have to always look at the kind of equipment, that is still worth sending instead of just being another death trap for their users.
This is basically the point of the Army's new light tank. It's not designed to fight other tanks. It's designed to do everything else that an infantry unit might want for support, ie building "room" clearing by sending shells into the building instead of troops or counter sniper by sending an HE shell to a suspected sniper position, etc.
@@Texas240 Precisely. This is the same infantry-support doctrine the US used in WWII - the Sherman with the 75mm gun was superior in an infantry support role to the 76-mm Sherman because the HE round was more effective. Of course, the perspective of the guys in the tank may be very different as soon as a superior tank appears on the battlefield. The key is to make sure it works both ways - tanks operating in infantry support need to be supported by infantry with effective anti-tank (and artillery) capabilities. As the video suggests, correct employment of combined arms is key, and the more sophisticated that becomes, the harder it is to execute by non-first-class armies. Because all technology requires training to be effective.
And an important factor to consider is that countries like Italy and Canada have Leopard 1s by the hundreads in the reserve. Ukraine recieving another 100 Leopards 1 in 6 months is realistic.
Didn’t the Canadians dispose of most of their Leopard 1s to firing ranges? Which would be a shame if true since the Leopard C2s would be a good addition to go with the Leopard 1s already being sent
@Morten Overgaard There are like 99 of them in the possession of a German private company and Denmark, Netherlands and Germany paid for them and their reactivation. That is besides 88 Leopard 1s Rheinmetall had for years, they also purchased over 90 former Italian Leopard 1s. So we have good reasons to be optimistic.
Don’t know about Italy, but there are the Belgian ones that they sold to a private company. Their state is rather bad, so if Italy is not said much since then, then maybe theirs are wrecks that need 1 year till functionally ok. State of the old tanks decides how fast they can be in Ukraine. Canadian Leo1? In another video-discussion there were 1-2 canadians and I think, that there are mot so many left in a good working state… It’s a bit like with jordanian Challanger 1…
Leopard 1, although doesn't have the armour, is mobile, is well armed and most importantly easy to run/repair. Even changing the engine is no big operation. So there are big advantages to the original Leopard over the Leo 2.
@@Ganiscol Correct, L2 is basically superior in all ways except mass and cost, and the latter is not always a given. I think this "Leopard 1 better than 2" thing is just a cope and excuse to try to explain why countries didn't send Leopard 2 about a year ago when they were most needed.
The greater advantage of the leo 1 is that there are literally thousands of them hidden away in NATO countries, and up to their decommission they were maintained better than their russian counterparts. Just Italy has 900 of them (now 800, a first batch has been dispatched to Rheinmetall for "repurposing"): my thought is that since they are older and easier to use/repair, they might be used as support for the Leo2s units in a slighlty heavier than doctrine mechanized assault. Or simply dumped en masse on Europe's Eastern flank.
@@Ganiscol The Leopard 1 has been timed at 20 minutes to replace the engine. The Leopard 2 takes just over a day. Now that is still quick, but the whole point of the Leopard 1 was that everything could be fixed easily and quickly. Logistics and maintenance in Ukraine is key. So giving them the latest tech, isn't always be the right answer.
The Leopard 1A5 is a very versatile platform. The 1A6 is the most modern and up-to-date version but do not exist in very large numbers. But the 1A5 was made to easily integrate and make use of any component found on the 1A6 without needing a major overhaul, including swapping the 105mm barrel for the same 120mm barrel found on Leopard 2.
Let's not forget the hundreds of upgraded Challenger 1 tanks, no longer in service but held in dry storage in Jordan and Oman. Challenger 1s still hold the world record tank to tank kill distance. They devastated Soviet armour in the first Gulf War without a single tank being lost. Those would operate superbly alongside Leopard 1s, 2s and Challenger 2s.
Agreed. They would be great to get back to England and updated with modern optics, fire control for hunter killer and reactive armour. You've got to love HESH. Slava Ukraine.
Lets not forget. In the Gulf war British/US forces had air-superiority and used combined arms tactics. Well in Ukraine neither of sides have these requirements.
Unfortunately, there are strong rumours to the effect that the majority of the Jordanian Challenger 1's are U/S, and likely in very poor overall condition. If that's true, then since that's the only large scale supply, getting parts for refurbishment could be a nightmare.
To be honest, they havent even been destroyed that much lol, 4 of them are 100% destroyed, the rest of the leopard 2´s u seen in media is only damaged and the crew members have survived. Like 9 or maybe 10 have been damaged but could get repaired. 13-14 tanks on 2 months is nothing, So they are not getting destroyed at a high rate.
Great Video it was a great Tank … he is deep in my heart ❤️ I miss them .., and the super engine sound … Greeting from a Leo1a5 driver ( 1989 Germany) …
Infrared viewing is pretty important because lot of cold war Russian night vision is Infrared, which means if you got infrared as well, you can see them lighting up the area and revealing themselves, which in turn means they can't use that.
A few months ago there was an interview on Danish Radio(P1/Danish version of BBC Radio), with a retired Danish tank commander(can't recall his name, sorry!), he was stationed in the Balkans during that conflict, 20 years ago. He mentioned similar things as in this YT video. The Leopard 1 is of course more primitive(older design!), it's easier to maintain for the Ukrainians(if spare parts are available, makes sense!), it's easier to train crews on, 4-6 months if in a hurry(quicker than on the more advanced Leo 2 platform, not surprising!). it's lower weight/armour, makes it more mobile. It can cross small bridges, it's less likely to destroy roads/infrastructure. It can "climb" hill/mountain roads more easily than a modern tank etcetera. He also mentioned that it was paramount that the Leo 1's are to be used in "mobility" tank warfare, quick flanking movements to hit the "Russians" from the rear or the side(the Leo 1's need to keep moving in order for the Ukrainians to build momentum/succeed and spread fear amongst the Russians, he said). Although the Leo 1 also has great range(think he mentioned an older 105 mm gun, but not sure?) and can hit "Soviet" made tanks at a distance of 3-4 km's with a trained tank crew(having night vision made a huge difference compared to Serbian T-62's & T-72's - according to him the Serbian's didn't have that installed back then. Not sure if he mentioned thermal sights?). He also had a final anecdote, when the Danish military replaced the Leo 1 with the Leo 2, they wanted to test the Leo 2's more modern gun and the weaker armour on the Leo 1, they took a single shot at a Leo 1's frontal armour(can't remember from what distance) and to their surprise, the Leo 1 actually withstood the shot "quite well". If in real combat, the Leo 2 would have killed one Leo 1 tank crew member and injured another crew member "badly", but the tank driver would have been able to put the Leo 1 in reverse and might have been able to save the tank/escape from further combat. The interviewer also asked the tank commander - if the Leo 1 were to be hit by a "modern Russian" T-72, what would be the result? If I recall correctly, he answered a bit wagely, as if he didn't exactly know(I don't know if he is not allowed to say, might be secret information?), but if hit by a trained Russian tank crew it might knock out the Leo 1 he hinted at(probably not very surprising). I think they also discussed the upgraded explosive armour on the newer built Russian T-72's, but can't remember his conclusion on that. *edit, the 100-120 Leo 1's are "old" Danish vehicles which were sold to a company in Northern Germany in or just outside Flensburg, Danish media outlets reported that the company wanted to upgrade/refurbish the tanks and sell them to a country in, I think South America(might have been Argentina?) but the deal didn't go through and the tanks were put in storage to collect dust until now. *enough rambling on my part, may this useless war come to an end as soon as possible, what a waste of human life!
In addition to the Ex-Danish A5DK(box-shaped welded turret) of FFG, Rheinmetall owns 88 A5(german or dutch ?) with the round casted turret,these are althaugh under refurbishment
@@hansulrichboning8551 Ok cool didn't know that. I remember seeing footage from inside FFG(the tanks they were working on looked like the "Danish" version, but I'm no expert). The version you mention, does that look like the Turkish version?, or maybe the Turkish version is even more of a basic version? *edit I'm gonna try to Google it! xd
It is worth noting that there are more modern ammunition types for the L-7 gun that should have no difficulty penetrating a T64, T72, or even T80 from the front that has been developed in the last 2 decades by and for the US army and especially by Israel.
Israel is pretending to be neutral in this conflict, although in reality it is delivering more support to Russia than it is to Ukraine; it won't sell modern 105mm ammunition to anyone that delivers it to Ukraine.
This is true..but just like when people saying ukraine getting the M55s from Slovenia .Ukraine doesn't have this shell..the question is will Ukraine get the shells in the leopard 1 package that they will receive?
@@iatsd for sure..but not all 105mm L7 rounds is same and have same performance..it's not about the quantity of the 105 round .it's about the specific rounds that Ukraine should use..
@@iatsd and for sure the current T64 tank use by Ukraine is better than Leo1 interns of firepower..not only because of the calibre..also variation of ammunition it can fire..the T64 have access to fire ATGM and High Explosive Fregmentation rounds that 105mm rifle gun can't do..this is a big disadvantage as HEF is vital to deal with Infantry
The Leopard 1 in Ukrainian service should ideally be used as an exploit vehicle after a breakthrough where it's lighter armor and weaker firepower are not as detrimental and it's higher speed, greater fuel range and better mobility are all key assets. With luck though, the war will be over before these tanks get there.
I love seeing how many midwits actually think NATO has good tanks, so the desperation behind their reasoning is entertaining. Im long past depression about the state of mind of average human, but enjoying their simplicity right now.
I have served at a main battletank battalion in the early 00s equipped with Leo 1 a5 When the time came to be replaced by leo 2 a5 gr the leos 1 wasn't retired On the contrary was sent to replace " M Series" tanks that wasn't upgraded to " molf" level by replacing the main gun with a 105mm one - the same as leo 1 and similar fire and control systems Although their Armour now days can be Pierced like tin foil those vehicles are are extremely Agile and their fire control system can be upgraded to leo 2 level Making them more than equal to any soviet era tank If not deadlier
The Leopard 1 is famed for reliability and ease of operation and maintenance. Spare parts are widely available, and there are hundreds of units in storage across Europe that can be sent to augment the 110 arriving in June and replace combat losses. At 42 tons, they can get around Ukraine's countryside during the muddy seasons that would confine heavier tanks to roadways where they are more vulnerable to destruction by ATGMs. The first 110 are Danish models returned to Germany for storage. The German's themselves have about 80 more and Belgium sold about 50 to a private businessman who is willing to sell them back for a "fair" price. Many more are in Dutch,Greek,and Turkish hands. I think Canada may have units in storage too.
I hope that the ones in Belgium will be bought and soon. As far as what constitutes a "fair" price is concerned, the military cost to store these tanks is bound to have been extortionate. Also, when you need a tank right now, you REALLY need it. Pay up - it's worth every penny. Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
@@Walterwaltraud I heard the Netherlands wants to buy 96 Leopard 1s from the Swiss and turn them over to Ukraine. The Swiss have been reluctant to sell the tanks out of neutrality concerns, but The Netherlands has submitted an official purchase request and a growing cross section of Swiss legislators seem willing to amend their countries stance to allow the sale.
@@TheLAGopher I suppose you are caught in a mixup here (unless I missed that one): Rheinmetall buys back 25 or so Leo 2A4 from Switzerland's "active reserve" to substitute the Leo 2s that Germany gave to Ukraine. Keeps Switzerland neutral and at only a slightly decreased stock. That was debated for some time, but the Swiss Leo 1s afaik were stored in Italy anyway and not Swiss property anymore. Perhaps you refer to those?
Some additions here 7:00 No the 105mm L-7 gun is way obsolete to being used as a tank main gun. It has a maximum armor penetration of about 400mm. The thing literally could not pen any russian MBTs frontally outside the T-62 and more obsolete tanks. Overall this whole tank is comparable with the T-62 with better optics. On the other hand This gun uses HESH rounds. Which are less effective than HE rounds against non tank targets. 7:38 Laser rangefinder is not a great thing nowadays. Actually this system is getting obsolete as new tank models like the T-90M has laser warning systems, and countermeasures. (Automatically turning the tank turret to the direction of the laser source.)
Update 7 months later and after we've begun to see what the Leopard 1A5 can do in Ukraine it's clear that the L-7 is far from obsolete. It has the same range as the Rh-120 (used by Leopard 2 and Abrams) and the 2A46 (used by T-72, T-80 and T-90) and a longer one than the L30 A1 (used by the Challenger 2) but unlike the Rh-120 and the 2A46 it has a rifled bore which increases its precision significantly. Since it's manually loaded and uses smaller and lighter projectiles, it also has a higher rate of fire than any other tank in Ukraine. The sights are about as modern as can be. The commander and gunner have to share the same optics but apart from that it's pretty much the same as the Leopard 2A5. --- Put your Leopard 1 in a relatively safe spot two miles behind the front line and you can still give your troops direct fire support, firing 20 rounds a minute and hit the enemy with 18 of them. Do the same with a T-90 and you can fire ten rounds a minute, hit the enemy with five or six of them and as likely as not your own troops with one. The modern western main battle tanks would perform somewhere in between those two extremes. This is how the Ukrainians use their Leopard 1s most of the time and so far it seems to be very effective.
I would agree that the Leo 1 is a good fit for Ukraine, primarily because of availability & logistics. My question would be on the real significance of the weight of the MBT's being sent (Challenger, Leo 2, M1A1) vs. the Leo 1. Outside of rasputitsa season, Ukraine has been described as good tank country; if the MBT's are too heavy to be used there, then exactly where are they supposed to be used? I understand Ukraine may not have the high degree of infrastructure that Western Europe has but once they have been delivered to Ukraine, where does the weight difference REALLY become an issue? If, hypothetically, NATO were to fight Russia, would they be holding these tanks back in Western Europe because they are too heavy to be used further east?
They weight issues have almost nothing to do with the terrain and more to do with logistics/road networks. If they have a small number of western heavy tanks, they pretty much have to use western provided recovery and maintenance equipment. I doubt soviet era maintenance, recovery and transport equipment were designed with 60+ ton tanks in mind when their tanks were only ~35-40 tons. So it's not longer about just providing tanks, you're basically supplying entire companies worth of equipment along with them.
Not an expert but Challenger2s have been on manoeuvres in Poland a few times and dont seem to have had much trouble plus Poland have ordered a bunch of Abrams, so it cant be that much of an issue everywhere, plus rail bridges would do the job where road bridges are weak, not to mention how fast things can be built or reinforced once urgent need beats budget and looks.
@@paidwitness797 (Great that you have such infinite amounts of different bridge options available to choose from everywhere you go. ^^) The person above you gets it. Terrain isn't the issue at all. Bridges is one, but not the only one: *Soviet area flatbed trucks, flatbed wagons, pontoon bridges and other pioneer assets already available to the Ukrainian forces are not built for the heavy modern Western tanks.*
@@JanFWeh Ukrainian rails are rated at 23.5 tons of load per axle, with at least 4 axles (six is also pretty common going by photos) per military flatbed.
Leopard 1 is more than capable given the current battlefield and less stress worrying about "what will happen if this gets blown up" Honestly this is great and hopefully we will start seeing more of these showing up.
You really think a 105mm main gun is sufficient to ensure dominance if T-72, T-80, T-90 are encountered? As an illustration, I think putting Leopard I's in the front echelons of a spearhead would significantly jeopardize the success of a full blown counteroffensive. They might have great optics, fire control, etc. but if they can't kill on the first scored hit... they could end up in a lot of trouble considering enemy armor is not the only thing trying to destroy them.
@@nicholasjohnson778 tanks don't kill tanks, jesus christ. We haven't had a single tank battle in this war and there have been like 5 duels recorded in total. Really doesn't matter how it compares to T72 or whatever.
@@Jimmy_The_Goat I guess you know more than all the tank designers and engineers. Tanks are designed to kill tanks and designed to withstand hits from other tanks. This is yet another silly ill informed topic put out by this channel. The idea that you can predict exactly what kind of engagements will come from looking back a few months is not a realistic way to look at warfare.
@@Jimmy_The_Goat How many major offensives have the Ukrainians launched to date? That's right... zero. They where able to exploit weaknesses in both the Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, but they have not yet (and maybe won't) commit division size elements into a major attack. If they do, I am certain that your predictions of an insignificant level of tank on tank engagements (based on small scale battles) won't age well. But even if you’re proven right, why on earth would you argue to fight with comparable equipment when you could have a superior advantage? More often than not, military contingency planning ends up with deployed equipment that wasn't needed... but you don't go forward with hindsight.
Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks being low in number but with high capability will be used as group leaders of Leopard 1s, T64s and Bradley fighting vehicles. This arrangement is similar to that employed by Germany in WW2 where Tiger tanks would play ‘mother hen’ to Panzer IVs and other armoured units. A big gun at the right time and place can be a battle winner.
One comment I'd make is the Leopard 1's gun is rifled and thus can use HESH and work more efficiently like artillery. Here the CH2's also will be very useful outside of tank v tank, ideally I'd keep a leo2 in each leo1 group in case they come up against T90's. I think while the leo1's lower weight will be useful the increased armour will prove important since the gulf war didn't show up problems with these tanks getting around, perhaps Ukraine will be vastly different but I have a feeling we get blinded all too often by seeing videos of exploding tanks while tanks that survive don't get video'd - armour is important.
You don't mix tank types in one platoon. For reasons of: Logistics, Command and Control, Unit Cohesion etc... All tough, you could theoretically take a javelin with you if you encounter enemy armor.
@@MrEddieLomax You would also want to have the same vehicles together because they have the same level of mobility. The allies usually ran platoons of Shermans. Maybe they had one 76' per platoon, but that's totally different from having a different tank in there.
The war in Ukraine has shown that 21st Century Warfare isn't a completely different kind of war like ww1 was, instead its similar to 20th century warfare with new additions like Drones. Older weapons that are considered "obsolete' are still very much effective as we have seen, and the Leo 1 will be lf great Service to ukraine
Only because Russia didnt have the ability to counter Ukrainian Air Defenses, and committed to a massive multipronged front, with the idea that Ukraine would capitulate quickly... The Ukrainians gutted the VDV at hostemel, and held off the Russian spring 2022 Offensive, the Russians had to reevaluate and pulled all there forces out of the North, and concentrated on the South/East. Meanwhile Ukraine kept receiving AID to make its Air defenses more capable, aswell as giving them more meaningful Artillery and offensive capabilities, while Russias forces weakened. Now you have the Russians who can't launch massive Air campaigns against Ukraine, that's Dug in, and Ukraine that can't counter Russian Air defenses either. Concentrated in the south and East, making breakthroughs difficult. The reason this war is the way it is is because Russia had massive holes in its capabilities and planning, and Ukraine had a 3rd rate military... Don't think this is what 21st century warfare between 2 half modern militaries would look like.
About the Leopard 1 age. The tank only needs to be there for its heavy armour and cannon. In the field their older tech will be a big disadvantage only if the tank is alone without support. If Leopard1s get used on the frontlines, they wont be alone but will be accompanied by IFVs with moderns systems like the CV90. Those platforms should be able support the tank well enough with minor modifications and training of crew.
In Brasil We Have Leopard 1M modernized and This Combat Car Is Excelent because its All Terrain and Fast and Easy Maintenance...We Have Different Scenarios around our country and Leopard Fits on All including Dunas on Northeast Region Beaches...
Ukraine needs air superiority first. Otherwise, Ka-50 will hunt them down on the minefields one by one. Leopard 1a5 or Leo 2a6, it doesn't matter which model they sent.
I agree, the Leo 1 is a better tank for Ukraine. I was ridiculed advocating for these vehicles but, I understood the high mobility, large stockpiles, readily available and lighter weight was more desirable.
Any tank is a good tank for Ukraine, purely due to the wear and tear that old Ukrainian stockpile have to experience by now. I’m still not convinced by argumentation about Leo 1 being better. It is decent, but protection is non-existant and argument about availability is false considering Turkey and Greece stockpiles are not really available for sending there.
Model, condition and upgrades are significant factors to consider. Good working condition is a priority for Ukraine which does not have the time and resources to return worn tanks to battle ready. There has been plenty of time for countries to prepare tanks for active service. Optics and armor upgrades are useful. Despite its weaknesses, a good condition Leopard 1 tank can still provide useful infantry support.
"Tanks are usually destroyed by artillery, mines or infantry weapons" the combat engineer was completely right, that's exactly how the Leo 2s got destroyed, (almost, add helicopters to that.) AFU sent their tanks on a night operation at 2am today, got discovered and pounded by all 4, mines, artillery, infantry AT rockets, and helicopters.
Ukrainian soldiers: adding reactive armor to leos 2A4, complaining about lack of armor in AMX 10-RC German engineer: actually ukrainians don't need tanks with good armor protection - it's inconvinient. If they die, they die
Except tanks aren't used as tanks due to shell shortages. So tanks kinda replace SPG's in that role. And a Leo 2 fire over the horizon is only marginally better at cosplaying as Pzh2000 than the MT-12 strapped to a MTLB.
Just my 2 cents regarding mobility. Last month i was at a tankfest in the Netherlands and both the T-72 and the Leopard 1 (and Gepard, dutch version PRTL) were there. There was a huge difference in mobility/agility between the Leo 1 and the T-72. Acceleration, doing tight corners, doing fast corners, just changing direction. One could clearly, very clearly see the big difference. I even talked about this with my friends who were with me. Like you were seeing a truck versus a van, really very clear to see.
@@zaco-km3suStill a big difference because not of weight but because of gears and general mobility and agility. It's a design problem - the soviet T-series tanks were designed to drive straight ahead at NATO positions in a steel wave. The Leopard 1 was designed to rush around defensive positions and ambush the oncoming soviets.
L7 is more than capable of dealing with any Russian tank. I used to crew Scorpion , Cheiftain and Cr 1. What’s important is the logistics chain and getting a battlegoup to work together effectively.
nope. If you think a rifled gun from late 1950s is effective against modern Russian tanks, then it's the exact type of NATO delusion that's causing such massive Ukrainian casualties. How about YOU get into a Leo 1 and go burn in the fields of Ukraine.
Ich frage mich allerdings ob die russische Armee noch RPG-7 in der Ukraine einsetzt. Falls dies der Fall ist, fährt man natürlich lieber in einem Leopard 2 als einen Leopard 1 😂
Yep. The Leo1 was designed to use it’s mobility to avoid more powerful AT threats like HEAT rounds and tank rounds. Cage armor, NERA, or ERA could help with this issue.
This reasoning is why have thought that the US should send Ukraine the M 60s in large numbers because they could be highly effective over in Ukraine. Frankly the Russian military is full of older tanks and with BMPs and other vehicles that are all vulnerable and the Ukrainians are good at using everything. So more tanks more better. Leopard 1s and M 60s would be better than just the small numbers of more modern tanks.
The m60 hasn’t existed in us inventory in a serviceable capacity in over a decade. Any still lying around in the boneyard in the desert are unlikely to even be serviceable. M60a3TTS likely had all their electronics and guns taken to put on other platforms
@@FreeOfFantasy not at all, we sent Ukraine bridge laying m60s, which are unarmed engineer vehicles. The m60a1s in the desert are unlikely to have even been run in 40+ years. You can’t just pull a tank hull out of storage and send it to the frontline. Most of them have been dry rotting longer than you’ve been alive, and likely had vital components removed/scrapped/damaged long ago. They’re sitting there because we have minor allies who still operate m60s and will buy the spare parts, but the vehicles as they exist are unlikely to be operable without years of work on them.
Well thanks for the input people. I guess that there aren't many M 60s that can be sent to Ukraine at least not without repairs and retrofitting. But if there were any available I still say that they should be sent. Frankly anything that could help would be beneficial in my book. Even if all they do is distract Russia forces and prevent them from destroying the more modern Leopard 2s and Abrams and Challenger 2s then they would have done some good. Even then they could potentially be used for ambush tactics and against lighter armor but if there aren't many available then I guess sending a lot is out of the question. That said if there are any available to be sent I still think that they could help. After all the Russians are sending T 55s to Ukraine and those are roughly contemporary with the Pattons. So bulking up the Ukrainian armored forces in any way would be good. I think that there will be huge armored battles in this war. Both the Ukrainians and the Russians seem to be focused on armor so they will eventually have a big fight with armor. I would prefer if Ukraine had an advantage in that department.
The fact that the Leopard 1 is more profuse globally is a great bonus as the video says for initial availability and of spare parts for it. Another thing not mentioned to consider also is that because it is lighter than more modern tanks, it is less likely to get bogged down in Ukrainian soils, as a more mobile unit it may be a good candidate for fast infiltration of enemy lines or for getting behind them.
Even if the Leos aren't going to be used for attacking tanks, or have proper infantry protection, they should still be given more than just added E.R.A for protection, maybe something like the "MEXAS" kit used by the Canadians?
i dont think there are enough quickly availible for that. And MEXAS has to be fitted properly. There are different kits for A3/5 and A4/5 (cast and welded turret) etc. Next problem is, that MEXAS only improves protection vs small to medium caliber guns (autocannons) and older light RPG´s
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 All things considered, I'm not sure if the kit is still being made, I just meant something like it that would better protect the tankers inside and give them a good chance. The less chance they have of dying from anything the better, but given the delays that happened when the Leo 2s were promised, the time it takes for the tanks to get there might endanger more lives. Even if it's just 2 layers of 10mm steel filled with fiberglass inbetween, I'd still want to give them that added protection, or maybe I'm a stickler for wanting to feel safer.
@@elaqgarahulelpon1479 they are still in production. But basicly every weapon you would use vs tanks that is more modern than 1970 will punch through, even with MEXAS. Leo1 is basicly a slightly better armored Stryker MGS on tracks
@@elaqgarahulelpon1479 they are still good Mobile Gun Systems, but as proper Battletanks their days are over. They were good when enemy tanks had no or bad stabilisers, no automatic lead and were firing primarily slow/slower rounds in ballistic arcs (like HEAT or APDS). There the mobility gave them the edge, as they were hard targets to hit when they were constantly moving. Modern MBT´s with modern Firecontrol Systems, APFSDS Rounds, automatic lead and stabilisers will be seriously dangerous (Like T-72B´s)
Didn't expect this, sounds interesting. Quite often, even those of us who know(and those of you who know much more than me) tend to look at things unconsciously on too simple terms, such as newer tank=better fit for the job, when it is rarely that simple.
I completely agree with you. it would have been better to give large numbers of Leopards 1 to Ukraine than to waste time, money and Energy with Leopards 2, Challenger 2 or Abrams. It’s not logistically tenable! Leopards 1 or even M60s in large quantities would have been much better. je suis complétement d'accord avec vous . il aurait mieux valu donner en grand nombre des léopards 1 a l'Ukraine que de perdre du temps , de l'argent et de l'Energie avec les léopards 2, les chalenger 2 ou les Abrams. c'est pas tenable sur un plan logistique ! des léopards 1 voir même des M60 en grandes quantités auraient été beaucoup mieux .
Thank you very much. It is crucial to have speed while maneuvering under attack plus a swifter targeting device. It's possible to increase the armor thickness where necessary.
They have decent guns and can move around. That's more than enough to make them useful for AFU. I'd love to see them as a tank component for light infantry brigades, such as TDF, which don't have anything like that right now. Even one tank company per brigade will be a significant force multiplier relative to what they currently have.
What I saw with my own eyes, the Russia's latest tank was hit by 2-3 US missiles and blown up or tank get disabled. But the American M1 Abrams and German Laopard2 tank exploded after one hit by the Kornet.🙂
An interesting point. The turret of the Leopard 1A5 was designed to be able to take the 120mm gun from the Leopard 2. As far as I know, no military has gone down this upgrade path, but it should still be available. This would simplify logistics, and make it a more lethal platform. Not sure how practical it would be, though.
@@Finleymcg Odd, Wikipedia states "The resulting Leopard 1A5 was based on 1,225 vehicles of the Leopard 1A1A1 model. The turrets were again modified for the 1A5, both in order to store all of the new equipment, as well as to move more of the ammunition into the rear of the turret, as opposed to the left side of the driver where it had previously been stored. The new turret was able to mount the newer 120 mm gun from the Leopard 2 if desired, although this option has not been used." Seems to suggest all 1A5's have the capacity for the upgrade.
@NoOneInParticular Wikipedia is nice to use as a starting point but not as a main source. As the paragraph you cited points to "move more of the ammunition into the rear of the turret, as opposed to the left side of the driver." According to the Hayne's manual, there are 39 rounds stored next to the driver. In addition, there are 17 stored vertically in the turret next to the loader. No variant of the Leopard 1 stores ammunition in the rear of the turret.
@NoOneInParticular it's alright. For what it's worth, the information on the proposed a6 version is accurate to discussions at the time, although such a variant would have competed with the Leopard 2 for sales.
I was a Leopard 1 crewman for 20 years. The disadvantages of the Leopard1 are tremendously outweighed by the firepower of the Leopard 2. I could show you in 5 minutes how to drive either the Leo 1 or 2 so no issue. Leo 1 reverse speed is 24 km/h but the Leo 2 is even greater. Military bridges are built for Leo 2 size so no issue. The thermal sight and cannon of the Leopard 2 are so superior to everything else that this whole discussion is actually rather silly.
Quote: *Military bridges are built for Leo 2 size so no issue.* Maybe you didn't notice that it was about an operation in Ukraine? There, neither bridges nor (already existing) transport or recovery vehicles are designed for the Leopard 2. So all that has to be delivered and maintained additionally. Therefore, ... well an issue.
Correct - what they are doing is called "cope" - they know they cannot give Ukraine more Leo 2 tanks so they are saying some old junk from 1960s is ... better than new stuff. They cope by saying Leo 1 has advantages - same as Mercedes from 1960s has advantages over one from 2020. I mean some Mercedes cars from 1980s made it past 2 million km (!) But who would rather have old car than new one???? It is just cope. Even in city fight Russian Wagner used latest T-90M - why they did not use upgraded T-62M? Come on, both have same reverse speed :)
It breaks down all the time. We had it in our brigade when I served in the Greek Army. More than half were constantly out of action. And their regular maintenance every Friday, was an 8-hour nightmare for the crews. If Ukraine is given 110, they will not manage to field even 50.
I do wonder if the lack of a high end IFV like a CV90 is the reason we see this sort of logic arise out of this conflict. If you had a powerful IFV that basically starts to fill the role of scout / light tank then having a heavy duty mbt to back you up makes a lot more sense. You get most of the fire power with either a 30mm or in some cases a 100mm or similar gun and better mobility and situational awareness as well as infantry riding along with you for built in infantry support.
As a side note and to help people avoid confusion, the danish designated Leopard 1A5 are not regular Leopard 1A5, but Leopard 1A3 (with upgrades).
It is technically still a 1A5, as the A5 designation is reserved for the new fire control system, and as such does not depend on what turret it is installed on. If it’s installed on a 1A1A1 turret, it’s a Leopard 1A5 or Leopard C2. If it’s installed on a 1A3 turret, it’s a Leopard 1A5, but since Denmark is the only country with this type it’s know as 1A5 DK
@@jasperb9233 And to make it even more confusing, we also have 1A5 DK-1, with air condition, honda generator, and a search light from the old M41's.
All the 1A5DK’s can fit dozer blades usually it’s only one for each platoon.
Will be super useful for Ukraine when encountering dragons teeth and tank ditches.
@@mwtrolle : Iff don’t Burnning after 🔥🔥🔥🔥💥😂😂😂😂😂
@@oreticeric8730 ?
I love that you include the original wording and not just your translation. I think it really adds to the authenticity and integrity of this channel.
Particularly if one can read both languages. I cannot, but I still appreciate it.
@@WhatIsSanity But in that way you can understand another language. Which is not bad
I agree. Sometimes words and phrases are capable of multiple, (honest, ) translations.
Just to correct some of the confusion that seem to be, then the first 80 Leopard 1A5 that are being donated to Ukraine this year is the Danish 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK1 versions. Denmark purchased 110 German Leopard 1A3 and 1A4 in 1991 that then were upgraded to Leopard 1A5 DK standard, to be ready for service in 1993, and the changes and add-ons for the Danish version of the Leopard 1A5 were not done in Germany but upgraded to 1A5 DK by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993.
So the 1A5 DK is not quite the same version but different than the German Leopards 1A5 in some aspects.
They were upgraded and equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision. The commanders forward periscope and panoramic sight were extended and the gun received a thermal sleeve and a muzzle reference collimator at the end of the barrel among other things.
36 of these Leopards that were participating in the UNPROFOR/SFOR operation in Bosnia (look up Operation Bøllebank) were further upgraded by Falck-Schmidt to Leopard 1A5 DK-1 in 1994-95, with air-condition, new fire-suppression system, Honda generator, GPS, RAMTA mine ploughs, roof mounted "fast fittings" for close defence work and a rear mounted turret ammunition rack.
Unlike the German 1A5, the two Danish 1A5 DK versions have a welded turret, so welded plates of rolled steel, much harder and stronger than casted steel with same thickness, but more complicated and slower to produce and more expensive than casting. The Leopard 1A5 DK have a 6x faster maximum reverse speed in comparison a Russian T-72, just like the Leopard 2A4 upgrade features will come in handy I'm sure. The Leopard 1A5 DK also has a turret which was designed to accept the newer 120 mm gun barrel from the Leopard 2A4, but this option was not originally added, but could be done now.
The Leopard 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK-1 were all out-phased in 2005 and in 2010 they were handed over to German company FFG in Flensburg who keep, upgrade and sell older tanks and armored personnel carriers from both the Danish and German military, and who are responsible for their battle ready maintenance-upgrade, before they are handed over to the Ukrainians.
I thought casting a turret is harder and more time consuming then welding?
@@chris8612 I think welding needs some more specialized equipment and knowhow, but I could see it varying on the model of turret. A simple, rough, mass produced turret would be easy to cast, but a complicated and advanced and precise one wouldn't.
@@chris8612 ... Casted steel is made by pouring molten steel into a mold. This process makes it much quicker and easier for more complex shapes to be created, but can also introduce impurities into the steel. So casting is often used to "cut corners" or ease the process when components are either too large or complicated.
Cast steel can be heat-treated to improve its strength, but is considered to be less strong than rolled steel.
@@chris8612 Welding affects the heat treatment. Also, for thick plates you need to "fill" the area between plates with welds (so you end up with extremely thick welds, and the quality assurance is an issue).
Also, multiple hits on the same plate might shatter the welds, even with the plates surviving (how much that is a problem in current warfare is an exercise to the reader - but when the Soviets tested their anti tank weapons against the new German Panthers, the welds cracked after multiple hits that did not penetrate the armour - hits with increasingly powerful anti-tank weapons at different distances: 57mm, 76mm, 85mm, 100mm, ...)
All in all, proper welding of tank armour is prone to many mistakes that can compromise the result (unlike casting which is prone to just a few mistakes that can compromise the result).
@@agffans5725 The main benefit of cast steel is not the speed of production, but rather that you can make round shapes, like we see on many early to mid Cold War tanks, such as the turrets of T-54/55, T-62, Chieftain, M60 and Leopard 1. Also of note is the turret and front hull of the M48.
Rounded shapes were, at least until the introduction of long rod penetrators, quite good at deflecting incoming shots.
About weight in Leopard 1: Brazil has been trying several programs to get new and modern MBTs, but all so far have failed because the Brazilian infrastructure, specially in the frontiers, is quite poor. Thus every MBT trial the Brazilian army had ended up failing in weight, as a country with roughly the size of the European continent the Brazilian army takes great efford in mobility and logistics, cause it can't be everywhere at once, so it needs to move quickly through the country's bridges, barges, roads, forests etc... So Brazil has been modernizing its Leo 1 ever since, this last modernization program (undergoing on thermals, comms, electric turret) will be last one. Then Brazil will move to a medium MBT, like the CV90120-T. It will be interesting to see Ukraine dealing with the problem the brazilian army has been fearing for so long
SELVA
@@G.D.9 AÇO!
K-21 120mm would also make a good choice and it floats.
How about the Lynx with 120mm cannon?
@@GlenCychosz The K-21 120mm has a serious problem with lack of ammunition storage, that's why the 105mm version was preferred.
Unpopular opinion: tank silhouette/profile doesn't matter as much as people think it does. Western tanks are all substantially larger than their Com Bloc counterparts, but have decisively defeated those smaller profile designs far more often than not. There are a lot of reasons for this; better optics, training, tactics, etc. but that merely illustrates my point. The size and weight of tanks affects logistics and transportation far more than these factors influence battlefield performance.
Silhouette has more to do whit weight,
Anyhow are russian tanks no longer low siluette with their silly cope cages.
It used to be importent. But with thermel imaging and fire control units its irrelevent now.
Not totally irrelevant but certainly less relevant
Tank vs tank combat is very rare.
Leopard 1s fighting T-62s. Just like in the good old days
Wann haben die Panzer gegeneinander gekämpft?
Leopard1s can fight till abrams they are pretty strong
@@lukasg.293908pio
Bring out the panzer and tiger tanks for a rematch! ⚡️⚡️
@@lukasg.2939 Prokhorovka tank battle, WW2
Anything that Ukraine can get in their current dire situation has to be considered good.
shut up u CIA bot
I only agree in part: They can use anything they can be provided with, true. BUT western politicians have to sell support packages to their voters. And giving away older stuff is usually easier to sell to voters.
So sending massive amounts of slightly oder gear may be preferable, compared to smaller amounts of the newest stuff.
Nah, there's nothing that can help Ukraine at this point. The war is lost. The best thing Ukraine can do now is negotiate an end to the war before what's left of its working-age male population is killed off in meaningless offensives that will accomplish nothing.
Glad someone isn't buying into western propaganda. You can't find one article in the mainstream news admitting the dire situation. If the war was going that well as they say, Russia wouldn't even still 'be in Ukraine.
Shooting every missile down, killing 8 Russians for every Ukrainian. It doesn't add up
So hand over weapons to a country with a HUGE NEO NAZI population?
I was their in 2017 and it was the 1st & only place i saw many men with SS & SWASTIKA tattoos... even our cab driver had a nazi sleeve he proudly showed of... the ukrainians are legit nazi supporters
Leopard 2 is better suited for breaching operations. It'll plow through trenches and bunkers easily. They're very good at it. So you punch through defenses with that and then come through the breach with Leopard 1's and AFV's.
Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Abrams can't be beat for breaching defenses.
@W1se0ldg33zer they can indeed be beaten by a variety of munitions
@@jamesgornall5731 that the Russians can't deploy properly or sufficiently
Leo 1 can be more practical for Ukraine because Russian doesn’t have much defense😂
I'm sure artillery, HIMARS, and grenade/kamikaze drones are better for that, while heavy armor tanks support IFVs mopping up what's left of the trenches and bunkers.
110 Leopard 1 sind vermutlich wirklich besser als 38 Leopard 2. Wobei es natürlich kein entweder oder ist.
Laut Oryx sind die eigentlich 85 Leo2s (inkl. der Schwedisch Strv 122 panzer denen mehr oder weniger einen 2A5 ist.) Nicht zu streiten welcher besser ist.
@@Boilerz1 Auch schon tatsächlich geliefert? Ich habe ehrlich gesagt nicht mehr den Überblick, was nur zugesagt wurde und was tatsächlich schon geliefert wurde. Wobei es sich natürlich mit dem Leopard 1 auch noch verzögern könnte.
@@neues3691 bereits geliefert wurden ca 30 2A4er und 30 2A6er
@@neues3691 Keine Ahnung wie viel sind schon in der Ukraine, habe nur die Liste von wie viel werden versprochen. Kann mir vorstellen das es ändert sich Woche zu Woche wenn die nicht alle zusammen geliefert worden sind.
So viel ich mitbekommen habe was an Leo 2 Panzer hat die Ukraine bekommen bzw. wird bekommen
Leo 2: A6 21 mal (18 von Deutschland und 3 von Portugal) + A5 10 mal(alle von Schweden) + A4 54 mal (10 von Spanien, 14 von Polen, je 8 von Kanada und Norwegen und 14 von Dänemark+Niederlande)
Macht insgesamt 85 Leo 2 Kampfpanzer, noch dazu 14 Challenger 2 und 31 Abrams. In der Summe also mindestens 130 Kampfpanzer westlicher und moderner Bauart. Wisst ihr von mehr Kampfpanzer westlicher und moderner Bauart, die zugesagt wurden?
I largely agree with this analysis; right now, with a very large front, tank duels will remain very rare and the role of the tanks will likely continue to be in fire support and elimination of armored vehicles. The Leo 1 A5 is perfectly suited for the task, and may also be less affected by soft terrain than its later counterparts. Similarly, the French AMX10 RC provided should also be of great help; right now the more the better. If they can be accompanied by a few infantry teams wit good atgms, they should be able to face most combat situations. The situation is very different for planes, where recent technologies provide a massive edge: better electronics, radars and weapon systems that F16 or the like could provide would massively increase the survivability and efficiency of the planes, that need to operate in a SAM-rich hostile environment where Russian fighters can still intervene and intercept Ukrainian planes as soon as they fly at higher altitude, because planes can cover massive areas, contrary to tanks.
You lied. Leopard 1 is Shit
AMC got was useless and got totally ripped. Same will happen here.
@@professorbean2059 You can say the same about training infantry. It is useless because artillery will just demolish them.😂
With regard to the reversing speed of the Leopard 1, a distinction must be made between the early production lots using the switch box with gear preselection and the later production lots with the automatic switch box. With the switch box with gear preselection, you can only reverse in the first two gears, with the automatic switch box you can reverse in all four gears.
War Kommanda t auf Leo 1. Hat nur einen Rückwärtsgang. Weiss nicht wovon du redest.
@@atlantis173 Dutch tank commander here ... our Leo1V in the mid 80-ties had two reverse gears, so there might have been different versions with different gear boxes.
This is a very well done video on these tanks! I specifically enjoyed how you went in depth on the importance of the weight of these beasts and how that factored into the decision to send one tank to Ukraine over another. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for pointing this out.
Leopard 1 A5 is more than sufficient to take on 95% of the junk tanks Russia has driving around Ukraine, and please remember that only a very low percentage of encounters are actually tank on tank.
Also please dont forget that Ukraine has been fighting Russia to a standstill using much worse tanks than the Leopard 1 A5.
Yeah. I mean the Leo was designed to defeat an invasion of these russian vehicles after all.
Leopard 1A5 is worse than T-64BV, what are you on lol. It's better than T-62 and that's it.
@@phunkracy you read too many fact sheets. There is more to tanks than the size of its gun. Among other things, actually hitting what you aim for with the first shot.
A leo 1 A5 can drive at speed at night and hit an enemy tank with the first shot. Barely any Russian tanks in Ukraine can do that.
Another way to look at it, is that the first Leopard 1 A5 was delivered in 1987. This means that it technologically speaking is closer to a T90 than a T72 classic, not to mention that judging by the Ukraine war so far, even a Russian T72B3 from 2010 can not do in real life what the Leopard 1 A5 could do in 1987. On paper the T72B3 its better, but something went wrong when they had to turn the paper stats into an actual tank. My money is on the T72B3 we see in Ukraine missing half the equipment they should have on paper, because some Russian general pocketed 50+ % of the money intended for the upgrade.
@@phunkracy maybe in warthunder
@@torben777 Yes, like armor, which the Leopard 1 don't really have.
The Canadians had the best upgraded Leopard 1's I have ever seen in Kosovo. Upgraded armor but not too much, more powerful engine better firing system and optics. The Leopards they had used ammunition that would have beaten any T-72 from range further than the 72 could fire, the Canadians stated that the mobility of this tank was crucial as a hidden ambush was their best tactic. One more thing about tanks, or more specifically armor penetration by tanks in relation to ambushes. If you can stay hidden and use your mobility a moving target is harder to hit, and the T-72 does not have great firing systems. Also, if you can keep the distances down under 1200 meters the armor protection does not mean as much. The armor only becomes a factor as distances become greater and the sabot darts velocity decelerates. Close in ambush hit and scoots remove this advantage, the detraction is it works both ways. A second tactic would be to use the Leopard 1's in intimate support. This would free up the new upgraded models to exploit and cover from the flanks.
That part about having a better gun than any T-72 is utter nonsense. Do you not realize how many variants of the T-72 exist? And the most upgraded ones outperform any L1 variant in gun, optics and armor. The only thing the L1 is by default better, is mobility. Especially the ever important reverse speed.
Very interesting and not really surprising. Do you know where are these Leopard 1s now? Ta.
@@Ganiscol exactly the leopard 1 has a 105mm gun whilst the t 72 has a 125mm, not to mention that the t-72 has an autoloader whilst the leopard doesn't which makes it extremely hard to reload on the move on rough terrain so shoot and scoot tactics would only really work if there is one tank which the Russians typically use vehicles in squads of 2, furthermore you would be much better off using ATGM mounted vehicles to take on modern tanks than a leopard with a 105mm gun simply because a damn chimp could properly use an ATGM and whether you're in a leopard 1 or ATGM mounted vehicle it won't matter if you get hit by a modern tank, also not to mention ATGMs and ATGM mounted vehicles are MUCH easier to conceal and are just about as fast as a leopard, whilst still have much better anti armor capabilities than a 105mm, realistically the best tactic for a leopard 1 in Ukraine would be either indirect fire support, or used as an infantry support vehicle and should only be used in an anti armor role as a LAST resort simply because it doesn't have the armor or firepower to properly take on a modern tank like a t-72 let alone a t-90 or god forbid a t-90m, especially if there is multiple of them, and this things armor is so weak it can literally be disabled by a lancet drone or artillery, while other modern tanks are able to typically withstand that kind of punishment with numerous videos to confirm this, so I wouldn't consider using a leopard 1 in an anti tank role because there are much better options for that and it can absolutely not go toe to toe with any modern tank that Russia possesses and to think otherwise is naive, unless said modern tank is exposed on the flank and you have the element of surprise but as I stated earlier it would only realistically work if there is one tank which basically means it's not going to happen because it would require an insane amount of situational luck for there to only be one tank exposed on the flank while you're concealed, also typically the Russians deploy tanks with drone support so the chances of you not being spotted by the drone or tank before you fire is extremely low, and let's say you do let off a shot and kill a tank, well you killed the tank but now your tank is spotted by the drone and now you have artillery and drones heading towards your position and this is considering there's only one tank if there's 2 or more the drone will spot your tank and notify the second tank commander of your position and you will subsequently be destroyed, like not to be arrogant or rude but the original comment is stupid because that tactic would absolutely not work in a war like Ukraine because the chances of you getting spotted by a drone or infantry and getting destroyed by a drone, artillery, or ATGM, is MUCH higher than the chances of you being able to destroy a tank and get out before you get spotted and destroyed yourself.
@@ivancho5854 I believe Canada’s leopard 1s were attempted to be sold off but that fell through. Some went to museums and the others were either scrapped or used as target on the firing range or at least that’s what an article from 2019 said was going to happen no idea if there was follow through on it I hope not id love to see them in Ukraine at least helping in some way
@@Arlind_34 Okay. Thanks. Such a shame. 😢
Whilst Leo 1 may be marginal in tank combat it has more than enough firepower to engage BMP's, MTLB etc, which are seen in vastly greater numbers than Russian tanks, the 105mm L7 is also just as useful in trench clearing as the Russian guns, and we see a lot of that going on, plus the rate of fire of the 105 L7 is superior to the Russian designed tanks.
lastly you did not cover a major combat advantage the Leo has over it's adversaries, and that is the gun depression, the ability of the Leo to enage from hull down positions or back slopes means it becomes a very small target wheras the limited depression Russian tanks are required to expose the whole vehicle to get the gun down on a target, the Israeli's exploited this advantage in many of thier combats using higher depression turret designs like Centurion and M48, combine that with the Leo's ability to duck quickly with it's reverse speed and it's not a vehicle to be sniffed it!
The israelis had hills, but they are rare in some regions of Ukraine (if I remember correctly). Don't get me wrong, Leo1 will help. But don't get too excited if they are used against tanks or in offensives.
I personally believe it is best kept as a guard unit to have more capable vehicles freed up for offensives. In guarding strong positions, Leo1 could use its strengths (depression, reverse speed) and leave the most dangerous work for the strongest tanks (Leo2, Abrams, Challenger2).
We'll see what happens. By now, Ukraine seems to have been rather careful with their equipment and troops. I hope they can also save most of their people this time.
gesundheit!
@@sebastianwendl603 Follow up modern MBTs and secure their flanks - even in the flat steppe of Zaporishye this is quite feasible on a breakout. In Donbas it's quite hilly, actually, if you zoom into topographic maps.
Ukrainians have lots of T72s to do the tank on tank thing. Put Leo 1 and Bradley’s behind them.
In Lebanon in the 1980s, the 105mm L7 gun easily dealt with T-72s of that vintage.
As a trained historian, I wanted to commend you and your supporters on the wonderful work you've done on this channel! I'm very impressed with the clarity of information delivery, and the efforts at researching the topics. Extremely professional and impressive, considering the platform! I was especially impressed by your work uncovering the German reports on the Churchill tanks recovered from Dieppe, and the overall reviews of the platform by the German military services. I was curious if you have, or plan to have, a similar review about the M4 Sherman line. Obviously, the tank came in so many forms, and fought on so many fronts, the German forces would be very familiar with the platform. However, with a dizzying array of sub-types and specialty versions, your aforementioned Churchill video made me curious about it.
Regardless of your future projects, I'll continue watching with great interest!
Thanks, and with kindest regards from Canada.
When Germany reunited they had T-72s and Leopard 1 tanks in their inventory. They compared them and the Leopard 1 was found to be a better "general purpose" tank with better range and visibility and that it was "capable of leading armored attacks" against Russian equipment. That is why the Germans stuck with the Leopard design.
The East German T-72, bmps, etc were earlier inferior versions of those platforms. The Soviets offloaded older versions of platforms en mass to Warsaw pact states so the lesser platforms would eat up the inital nato munition expense and drain nato stocks, so when the Soviet first echelon units flanked these assaults or followed them up top tier equipment would be facing reduced nato munitions or second echelon equipment
You just have to keep in mind, that the Leopard 1 was the 'NATO-Tank' and the T-72 the 'bad Soviet-Tank', so it wasn't necessarily a fair or un-prejudiced decision
Joseph, the Germans had been using the Leopard 2 for ten years before the wall fell.
@@seeleagentWouldnt matter, Nato equpiment are just soooo Much better and last 50-60 year have showen that.
Irrelevant in 2023 with all the upgrades the T-72 received in the meantime, while the L1 is pretty much stuck in the 1980's.
Not sure I agree with the idea that leopard one is more suitable, and actually much of the video bears this out.
If you are saying that the majority of losses on tanks are due to artillery, infantry AT weapons, drones etc then the superior armour and survivability of challenger and leopard 2 are important.
In the fire support role the types of ammunition that can be fired by challenger are very beneficial, being excellent for bunker and building busting.
Weight is unlikely to be an issue as bridges have a significant safety margin built in. Your average artic weighs 38+tons, and a bridge needs to be able to carry at least 2 of those at a time with a considerable safety margin.
The only real advantages the leopard 1 offers are numbers and relative simplicity.
Gun depression is another important factor which adds to the Leo's overall capability package: the Leo 1 has a clear design philosophy, which is to prioritize the ability to crest and get the first shot off on Warsaw Pact-type AFVs from a defensive position. Hence the low armour (for better tactical and strategic positioning), the good gun depression (for cresting), the high profile (to allow the gun depression), the good reverse speed (to pop back down the crest), and the firing systems.
And it is still an MBT, so it can deal with anything not a MBT just as well as any other MBT (but then, so can a T-55, probably), like combined arms support, suppression, assaulting fortified positions and the like.
This capability is very useful to Ukraine, especially given the logistics constraints clearly outlined in this video.
One more thing you did not mention is the main gun depression -9°
Leo 1 can thus easier fire directly a HE shell into a trench line when supporting storming infantry
It won't get close enough to do so. Obvious.
But can it get close enough taking into account that there are RPG operators in basically every trench? Leopard 2 can take RPG in front with ease but Leopard 1 has inferior armor
@@TimothyZanyk you maybe right, but if you meet a leopard 1 on the battlefield, you can bet that infantry is nearby to keep those nasty RPG shooters down.
@@Acin75пехота осталась гнить в поле 😂🤡😊
but did Ukraine receive fragmentation ammunition up to 105mm?
In NATO, Leopard 1 tanks did not have this, only APFDS, HEAT and HESH.
none of the above is effective against infantry.
the chieftain said something very useful about this: it is about the capabilities a 'thingy' (such as a tank) provides and not necessarily about it's weaknesses
This thingy provides a decently big gun on a very manouverable chassis. So from that perspective... sounds like it works
When Challenger came in the rumour was a lot of max loads were simply shifted to 60 tonnes as the new class exceeded so many previous limits for bridges etc. However I was asked during training if I would prioritise armour over more mobility - Leapard 1 over Challenger and I instantly said armour (within reason) as even then infantry portable tank busting equipment was near ubiquitous and I feel partly vindicated by what we see today.
Load limits for bridges, at least in the civilized world, are more of a long term thing IIRC. The heaviest MBTs have no problem at all driving over any real bridge in a tactical sense. However strategically it might cause damage and failures in the long run hence why it is avoided in peacetime. A good example is how M1s wreck roads if they keep driving over them; but it doesn't mean the tank can't do it.
Can't rely on the bridges even being there, UK military understands this and Royal Engineers have options for bridges (MGBs) that can handle the heavier MBTs.
I`d take Jens Wehner's two cents as a military historian with actual experience as Leopard 1 operator over any Internet-Warriors ramblings :) Thanks a lot for this video. - a former Marder 1A5 "Heckklappensurfer" :)
I get the sentiment, but even experts can get it wrong, every now and then.
Not an expert, but my personal opinion is that Germany has always made some if the finest weapons in history. I'm a Leopard 1 fan. In the army I would have had trouble hitting a tank with my Lance missile, especially a moving tank. Around it somewhere, sure......
Canada had just recently scrapped our Leopard 1 tanks. Thanks to our short sighted government for not seeing the potential in actually giving them to Ukraine. The one in the video that has the maple leaf on the side of the turret is a Canadian one.
Recently scrapped doesn't mean already melted down. I'm pretty sure they're still sitting in a field on some CAF base waiting to be auctioned off as scrap metal.
A bit of Canadian politics: Doubtless JT is almost ideologically opposed to hurting Russia as to hurting China. And almost of Canada's many Ukrainian-Canadians live in the "deplorable" "red-neck" land of western Canada (one of our top 3 ethnic groups on the prairies, right up there after Brits and Germans). Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland is half ethnic Ukrainian, so it comes down to how much influence she is prepared to expend dragging JT onside.
Have they at least gifted the remainder of the 70mm stock? I read they were due for destruction?
Canada is actively destroying Leo 1s? No idea. Seems crazy not to give them to Ukraine.
@Wolf in 2021 the government announced that 45 of the tanks would be used as target practice and were sent to be prepared for that, so making the guns inoperable, removing all the interior and removing the engine. Others were made gate guardians. In the late 2000's about 30 were used as target practice. But we could have easily donated about 50 tanks I'd say
@@Walterwaltraud I'd be shocked if we did. But hopefully
I know you started by saying you would not go in to special variants.
But one thing to mention, the 96 Danish Leopard 1A5DK’s Ukraine are to get is all capable of fitting dozer blades, usually on almost all other Leopard variants and even other types of tanks it’s only one for each platoon that got the fitting for it.
It will be super useful to remove fortifications like dragons teeth and tank ditches.
Not sure how much work this change is, but the Danish tanks are still in refurbishment and will be there for more than 6 months. So I would not be 100% sure the tanks they will get are the same as the once the danksh used
@@moritzm.3671 nope, the last might have take that long. But there were like 20 ready to send when the decision were made and the rest will arrive as they are done getting refurbished.
It would be logical that it goes fast at first and then as they get to the more difficult last few times it will slow down as they will need the most work.
Anyway lost of them have been delivered for training and some have been reported to be in Ukraine already a week ago.
@@moritzm.3671 all the 1A5DK’s are those Denmark used.
The name says so, there will be added in a few German 1A5’s to make it a hundred.
There reportedly were 96 1A5DK then they need 4 German in that order. But of cause there might be a few 1A5DK’s that can be made operational making the delivered order a bit different. But it did sound like all 96 were at a good maintenance level, and should be possible to refurbish.
Others are delivering other 1A5’s think it was Holland and Germany, from what I remember it’s 100-200 to start with.
But 200-300 Leopard 1A5’s will be enough to make a difference.
Honestly speaking, this makes sense but my only concern is the 105mm ammunition (common enough but sparsely produced or modified for other needs compared to the 120mm)
Then the turret itself, when you can ask a company like cockirell to slap an electric and modern turret with thermals and little modification for replacing it completely. Why not go with that on some of them. I kind of agree with the cheiftan that the most use you'll get out of these guys is first shot sniping and clearing entrenched positions (preferably with combined arms). Its not meant to take a lot of hits from contemporary autocannons from ifvs or tank main guns that are in the 125mm range, not unless you put a good and well laid out armor package on it (rare modern packages exist). It'll be really great as a sniper and a rapid response tank to fill in the gaps on offense and defense.
Cross country wise, its also great for Ukraine as it weighs relatively close to the T64s, T72s, and T80s to fit on most the bridges and roads without damaging them by sheer weight like most modern Western MBTs.
No worries! The Leo1A5 is designed specifically to accept easy upgrades, such as the 120mm barrel. Those can be done independent of other updates, and quite quickly.
@@RobinTheBot They tried upgrading the 120mm on it as is, it was easier to put a new turret on altogether with the thermals and modern fire control system. It also gained an autoloader (reducing the crew to 3, a thing they are used to) which made it less demanding.
The Americans have 105 with the Strykers. Also dont think they would send so many if there wasnt a good source of ammo
@@stc3145 like I said earlier "common enough, but sparesley produced or modified..." You'll have a large stock from the EU or america initially, but through attrition and the fact there is no big demand (emphasis on big demand) for 105mm is the problem. Also it is possible to make 105mm more lethal that its pretty close to penetrating like a 120mm with modern milling and fabrication techniques, there's just no demand for it unfortunately.
@@stc3145 Stryker 105mm is not compatible. Availability of 105mm ammo is a big drawback and all the Leo1 are useless without the ammo. I doubt any NATO nations produce 105mm except for Turkey and South Korea.
I find these comparisons so odd. If you have get the question of “you are going to attack that trench/bunker/field/cityblock/infantry group/mechanized infantry/whatever and we want to know if you want this older model tank with you” the answer would almost always be “hell yes”. Even just balancing out a tank group it can be important to have a bunch of less capable tanks as support, if you can have an older tank who’s job it is to engage all the lesser armored vehicles and infantry while you focus on finding the few high-end tanks your scouts told you were present, you are going to be very happy not to be caught with the wrong ammunition focusing on a bunker somewhere. Tanks don’t fight alone, that is on both sides. Only exception would be bad training or being decimated beforehand.
Russians knew it for long time ..
@@ansgaryeysymontt7155 if Russians pushed their lesser tanks in almost exclusive support roles or only as MBT’s when supporting a high-tech MBT I would have agreed, but that isn’t the reality as far as I can tell. For example look at captured tank ratio’s and you’ll see a lot of less capable tanks being captured in mass-abandonments like Kherson/Kharkiv. Those tanks weren’t supporting a higher tech tank. And from what we see on frontlines the older tanks are pushed in as MBT’s rather than fire support tanks. Only exception being an indirect fire role.
Well it kinda depends. You wouldn't send Tigers and Panthers to Ukraine for obvious reasons. So you have to always look at the kind of equipment, that is still worth sending instead of just being another death trap for their users.
This is basically the point of the Army's new light tank. It's not designed to fight other tanks. It's designed to do everything else that an infantry unit might want for support, ie building "room" clearing by sending shells into the building instead of troops or counter sniper by sending an HE shell to a suspected sniper position, etc.
@@Texas240 Precisely. This is the same infantry-support doctrine the US used in WWII - the Sherman with the 75mm gun was superior in an infantry support role to the 76-mm Sherman because the HE round was more effective. Of course, the perspective of the guys in the tank may be very different as soon as a superior tank appears on the battlefield. The key is to make sure it works both ways - tanks operating in infantry support need to be supported by infantry with effective anti-tank (and artillery) capabilities. As the video suggests, correct employment of combined arms is key, and the more sophisticated that becomes, the harder it is to execute by non-first-class armies. Because all technology requires training to be effective.
And an important factor to consider is that countries like Italy and Canada have Leopard 1s by the hundreads in the reserve. Ukraine recieving another 100 Leopards 1 in 6 months is realistic.
Didn’t the Canadians dispose of most of their Leopard 1s to firing ranges? Which would be a shame if true since the Leopard C2s would be a good addition to go with the Leopard 1s already being sent
actually denmark alone is sending around 100 leopard 1 tanks. so ukraine will likely receive 200+ leopard 1s soon..
@Morten Overgaard
There are like 99 of them in the possession of a German private company and Denmark, Netherlands and Germany paid for them and their reactivation.
That is besides 88 Leopard 1s Rheinmetall had for years, they also purchased over 90 former Italian Leopard 1s.
So we have good reasons to be optimistic.
@@thepulle4722
That would have been retarded.
Maybe the older Leopard 1s, not the Leopard C2s.
Don’t know about Italy, but there are the Belgian ones that they sold to a private company. Their state is rather bad, so if Italy is not said much since then, then maybe theirs are wrecks that need 1 year till functionally ok. State of the old tanks decides how fast they can be in Ukraine.
Canadian Leo1? In another video-discussion there were 1-2 canadians and I think, that there are mot so many left in a good working state…
It’s a bit like with jordanian Challanger 1…
I would think the best tank for Ukraine is any tank provided.
Thanks for including symbols and history for us non-Germans who understand your war history. Great work on the video!
Leopard 1, although doesn't have the armour, is mobile, is well armed and most importantly easy to run/repair. Even changing the engine is no big operation. So there are big advantages to the original Leopard over the Leo 2.
The L2 is just as mobile, the power pack is just as easy to replace. These are no advantages.
@@Ganiscol Correct, L2 is basically superior in all ways except mass and cost, and the latter is not always a given. I think this "Leopard 1 better than 2" thing is just a cope and excuse to try to explain why countries didn't send Leopard 2 about a year ago when they were most needed.
The greater advantage of the leo 1 is that there are literally thousands of them hidden away in NATO countries, and up to their decommission they were maintained better than their russian counterparts. Just Italy has 900 of them (now 800, a first batch has been dispatched to Rheinmetall for "repurposing"): my thought is that since they are older and easier to use/repair, they might be used as support for the Leo2s units in a slighlty heavier than doctrine mechanized assault.
Or simply dumped en masse on Europe's Eastern flank.
@@giuseppeanoardi3973 Thanks, I knew there were quite a few of them, but didn't know that many.
@@Ganiscol The Leopard 1 has been timed at 20 minutes to replace the engine. The Leopard 2 takes just over a day. Now that is still quick, but the whole point of the Leopard 1 was that everything could be fixed easily and quickly. Logistics and maintenance in Ukraine is key. So giving them the latest tech, isn't always be the right answer.
The Leopard 1A5 is a very versatile platform. The 1A6 is the most modern and up-to-date version but do not exist in very large numbers. But the 1A5 was made to easily integrate and make use of any component found on the 1A6 without needing a major overhaul, including swapping the 105mm barrel for the same 120mm barrel found on Leopard 2.
IMHO the Leo 1 turret is far too small for the 120m.- proof?
@@christians6734 They have tested the L44 on the leopard 1 but never adapted it.
I was wondering where they are going to get 105 mm ammunition for the Leopard 1
@@mrdriver511 They will probably have to reopen factory, but NATO might still have stocks.
There is no such thing as a Leopard 1A6. There was a prototype mounting a 120mm gun, but that was never adopted and never called 1A6.
Let's not forget the hundreds of upgraded Challenger 1 tanks, no longer in service but held in dry storage in Jordan and Oman. Challenger 1s still hold the world record tank to tank kill distance. They devastated Soviet armour in the first Gulf War without a single tank being lost. Those would operate superbly alongside Leopard 1s, 2s and Challenger 2s.
Agreed. They would be great to get back to England and updated with modern optics, fire control for hunter killer and reactive armour. You've got to love HESH.
Slava Ukraine.
Lets not forget. In the Gulf war British/US forces had air-superiority and used combined arms tactics. Well in Ukraine neither of sides have these requirements.
Irrelevant.
What matters is the famously unreliability of Challenger 1.
If you want to help Russia, give Ukraine Challenger 1.
Unfortunately, there are strong rumours to the effect that the majority of the Jordanian Challenger 1's are U/S, and likely in very poor overall condition. If that's true, then since that's the only large scale supply, getting parts for refurbishment could be a nightmare.
@@Ganiscol Lets see how it performs with much shittier conditions.
At the rate the Leopard 2 is getting destroyed it's now time to send the Leopard 1.
Lmfao
To be honest, they havent even been destroyed that much lol, 4 of them are 100% destroyed, the rest of the leopard 2´s u seen in media is only damaged and the crew members have survived. Like 9 or maybe 10 have been damaged but could get repaired. 13-14 tanks on 2 months is nothing, So they are not getting destroyed at a high rate.
Ändert nichts, die haben keine Ahnung von Taktik und Führung.
@@atlantis173Trust me, they know better than you
Great Video
it was a great Tank … he is deep in my heart ❤️
I miss them .., and the super engine sound …
Greeting from a Leo1a5 driver ( 1989 Germany) …
Infrared viewing is pretty important because lot of cold war Russian night vision is Infrared, which means if you got infrared as well, you can see them lighting up the area and revealing themselves, which in turn means they can't use that.
Most of the old Russian Tanks are upgraded with infrared and the without are working in the Background or held there Targets from other upgraded ones.
A few months ago there was an interview on Danish Radio(P1/Danish version of BBC Radio), with a retired Danish tank commander(can't recall his name, sorry!), he was stationed in the Balkans during that conflict, 20 years ago. He mentioned similar things as in this YT video. The Leopard 1 is of course more primitive(older design!), it's easier to maintain for the Ukrainians(if spare parts are available, makes sense!), it's easier to train crews on, 4-6 months if in a hurry(quicker than on the more advanced Leo 2 platform, not surprising!). it's lower weight/armour, makes it more mobile. It can cross small bridges, it's less likely to destroy roads/infrastructure. It can "climb" hill/mountain roads more easily than a modern tank etcetera. He also mentioned that it was paramount that the Leo 1's are to be used in "mobility" tank warfare, quick flanking movements to hit the "Russians" from the rear or the side(the Leo 1's need to keep moving in order for the Ukrainians to build momentum/succeed and spread fear amongst the Russians, he said). Although the Leo 1 also has great range(think he mentioned an older 105 mm gun, but not sure?) and can hit "Soviet" made tanks at a distance of 3-4 km's with a trained tank crew(having night vision made a huge difference compared to Serbian T-62's & T-72's - according to him the Serbian's didn't have that installed back then. Not sure if he mentioned thermal sights?). He also had a final anecdote, when the Danish military replaced the Leo 1 with the Leo 2, they wanted to test the Leo 2's more modern gun and the weaker armour on the Leo 1, they took a single shot at a Leo 1's frontal armour(can't remember from what distance) and to their surprise, the Leo 1 actually withstood the shot "quite well". If in real combat, the Leo 2 would have killed one Leo 1 tank crew member and injured another crew member "badly", but the tank driver would have been able to put the Leo 1 in reverse and might have been able to save the tank/escape from further combat. The interviewer also asked the tank commander - if the Leo 1 were to be hit by a "modern Russian" T-72, what would be the result? If I recall correctly, he answered a bit wagely, as if he didn't exactly know(I don't know if he is not allowed to say, might be secret information?), but if hit by a trained Russian tank crew it might knock out the Leo 1 he hinted at(probably not very surprising). I think they also discussed the upgraded explosive armour on the newer built Russian T-72's, but can't remember his conclusion on that.
*edit, the 100-120 Leo 1's are "old" Danish vehicles which were sold to a company in Northern Germany in or just outside Flensburg, Danish media outlets reported that the company wanted to upgrade/refurbish the tanks and sell them to a country in, I think South America(might have been Argentina?) but the deal didn't go through and the tanks were put in storage to collect dust until now.
*enough rambling on my part, may this useless war come to an end as soon as possible, what a waste of human life!
This wasn't rambling but rather more precise, knowledgeable info than we get even on quality media, so thanks. The company is FFG btw.
His comment on momentum is on the money. They need to keep moving toward their objective. A lot of caffeine needed.
In addition to the Ex-Danish A5DK(box-shaped welded turret) of FFG, Rheinmetall owns 88 A5(german or dutch ?) with the round casted turret,these are althaugh under refurbishment
@@Wolf-hh4rv Yeah I'm afraid the Ukrainians are going to need a lot more than caffeine to succeed, if only that would do the trick.
@@hansulrichboning8551 Ok cool didn't know that. I remember seeing footage from inside FFG(the tanks they were working on looked like the "Danish" version, but I'm no expert). The version you mention, does that look like the Turkish version?, or maybe the Turkish version is even more of a basic version?
*edit I'm gonna try to Google it! xd
It is worth noting that there are more modern ammunition types for the L-7 gun that should have no difficulty penetrating a T64, T72, or even T80 from the front that has been developed in the last 2 decades by and for the US army and especially by Israel.
Israel is pretending to be neutral in this conflict, although in reality it is delivering more support to Russia than it is to Ukraine; it won't sell modern 105mm ammunition to anyone that delivers it to Ukraine.
This is true..but just like when people saying ukraine getting the M55s from Slovenia .Ukraine doesn't have this shell..the question is will Ukraine get the shells in the leopard 1 package that they will receive?
@@enverhoxha545 The 105mm L7 rounds are produced all over the world. Supply should not be an issue.
@@iatsd for sure..but not all 105mm L7 rounds is same and have same performance..it's not about the quantity of the 105 round .it's about the specific rounds that Ukraine should use..
@@iatsd and for sure the current T64 tank use by Ukraine is better than Leo1 interns of firepower..not only because of the calibre..also variation of ammunition it can fire..the T64 have access to fire ATGM and High Explosive Fregmentation rounds that 105mm rifle gun can't do..this is a big disadvantage as HEF is vital to deal with Infantry
Leo 1 or 2?
Makes no difference. All of them will end on Ukraine scrap yards soon….
The Leopard 1 in Ukrainian service should ideally be used as an exploit vehicle after a breakthrough where it's lighter armor and weaker firepower are not as detrimental and it's higher speed, greater fuel range and better mobility are all key assets.
With luck though, the war will be over before these tanks get there.
Leopard 1 is Shit
yup, Russia is closing its end successfully
The war will be over🤡 Comment when Ukraine finally reaches the first line of defense instead of some shed in the grey zone.
I love seeing how many midwits actually think NATO has good tanks, so the desperation behind their reasoning is entertaining. Im long past depression about the state of mind of average human, but enjoying their simplicity right now.
I have served at a main battletank battalion in the early 00s equipped with Leo 1 a5
When the time came to be replaced by leo 2 a5 gr the leos 1 wasn't retired
On the contrary was sent to replace " M Series" tanks that wasn't upgraded to " molf" level by replacing the main gun with a 105mm one - the same as leo 1 and similar fire and control systems
Although their Armour now days can be Pierced like tin foil those vehicles are are extremely Agile and their fire control system can be upgraded to leo 2 level
Making them more than equal to any soviet era tank
If not deadlier
The Leopard 1 is famed for reliability and ease of operation and maintenance. Spare parts are widely available, and there are hundreds of units in storage
across Europe that can be sent to augment the 110 arriving in June and replace combat losses. At 42 tons, they can get around Ukraine's countryside
during the muddy seasons that would confine heavier tanks to roadways where they are more vulnerable to destruction by ATGMs.
The first 110 are Danish models returned to Germany for storage. The German's themselves have about 80 more and Belgium sold about 50 to a private
businessman who is willing to sell them back for a "fair" price. Many more are in Dutch,Greek,and Turkish hands. I think Canada may have units in storage
too.
I hope that the ones in Belgium will be bought and soon. As far as what constitutes a "fair" price is concerned, the military cost to store these tanks is bound to have been extortionate. Also, when you need a tank right now, you REALLY need it. Pay up - it's worth every penny.
Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
Dutch as well? Never heard about that one yet!
@@Walterwaltraud
I heard the Netherlands wants to buy 96 Leopard 1s from the Swiss and turn them over to Ukraine. The Swiss have been reluctant to sell
the tanks out of neutrality concerns, but The Netherlands has submitted an official purchase request and a growing cross section of
Swiss legislators seem willing to amend their countries stance to allow the sale.
@@TheLAGopher I suppose you are caught in a mixup here (unless I missed that one): Rheinmetall buys back 25 or so Leo 2A4 from Switzerland's "active reserve" to substitute the Leo 2s that Germany gave to Ukraine. Keeps Switzerland neutral and at only a slightly decreased stock. That was debated for some time, but the Swiss Leo 1s afaik were stored in Italy anyway and not Swiss property anymore. Perhaps you refer to those?
August still no 100 promised tanks😢
Some additions here
7:00 No the 105mm L-7 gun is way obsolete to being used as a tank main gun. It has a maximum armor penetration of about 400mm. The thing literally could not pen any russian MBTs frontally outside the T-62 and more obsolete tanks. Overall this whole tank is comparable with the T-62 with better optics.
On the other hand This gun uses HESH rounds. Which are less effective than HE rounds against non tank targets.
7:38 Laser rangefinder is not a great thing nowadays. Actually this system is getting obsolete as new tank models like the T-90M has laser warning systems, and countermeasures. (Automatically turning the tank turret to the direction of the laser source.)
Update 7 months later and after we've begun to see what the Leopard 1A5 can do in Ukraine it's clear that the L-7 is far from obsolete. It has the same range as the Rh-120 (used by Leopard 2 and Abrams) and the 2A46 (used by T-72, T-80 and T-90) and a longer one than the L30 A1 (used by the Challenger 2) but unlike the Rh-120 and the 2A46 it has a rifled bore which increases its precision significantly. Since it's manually loaded and uses smaller and lighter projectiles, it also has a higher rate of fire than any other tank in Ukraine. The sights are about as modern as can be. The commander and gunner have to share the same optics but apart from that it's pretty much the same as the Leopard 2A5.
---
Put your Leopard 1 in a relatively safe spot two miles behind the front line and you can still give your troops direct fire support, firing 20 rounds a minute and hit the enemy with 18 of them. Do the same with a T-90 and you can fire ten rounds a minute, hit the enemy with five or six of them and as likely as not your own troops with one. The modern western main battle tanks would perform somewhere in between those two extremes.
This is how the Ukrainians use their Leopard 1s most of the time and so far it seems to be very effective.
As a German, I just can't ignore this accent xD
I would agree that the Leo 1 is a good fit for Ukraine, primarily because of availability & logistics. My question would be on the real significance of the weight of the MBT's being sent (Challenger, Leo 2, M1A1) vs. the Leo 1. Outside of rasputitsa season, Ukraine has been described as good tank country; if the MBT's are too heavy to be used there, then exactly where are they supposed to be used? I understand Ukraine may not have the high degree of infrastructure that Western Europe has but once they have been delivered to Ukraine, where does the weight difference REALLY become an issue? If, hypothetically, NATO were to fight Russia, would they be holding these tanks back in Western Europe because they are too heavy to be used further east?
They weight issues have almost nothing to do with the terrain and more to do with logistics/road networks. If they have a small number of western heavy tanks, they pretty much have to use western provided recovery and maintenance equipment. I doubt soviet era maintenance, recovery and transport equipment were designed with 60+ ton tanks in mind when their tanks were only ~35-40 tons. So it's not longer about just providing tanks, you're basically supplying entire companies worth of equipment along with them.
Not an expert but Challenger2s have been on manoeuvres in Poland a few times and dont seem to have had much trouble plus Poland have ordered a bunch of Abrams, so it cant be that much of an issue everywhere, plus rail bridges would do the job where road bridges are weak, not to mention how fast things can be built or reinforced once urgent need beats budget and looks.
@@paidwitness797 (Great that you have such infinite amounts of different bridge options available to choose from everywhere you go. ^^)
The person above you gets it. Terrain isn't the issue at all.
Bridges is one, but not the only one:
*Soviet area flatbed trucks, flatbed wagons, pontoon bridges and other pioneer assets already available to the Ukrainian forces are not built for the heavy modern Western tanks.*
@@JanFWeh Ukrainian rails are rated at 23.5 tons of load per axle, with at least 4 axles (six is also pretty common going by photos) per military flatbed.
By modern standards, Leo 1 is basically a light tank. Even in its day, it was lighter and more mobile than even AMX-30.
it was always light. it was basically just superficially armoured
That's not true, AMX-30 weights around 37 tons, the lightest Leopard 1 weights 40 tons
6:27
And what would be a heavy tank then? Or super heavy? Maybe germany could finally build that P1000 Ratte to help ukraine retake country
Leopard 1 is more than capable given the current battlefield and less stress worrying about "what will happen if this gets blown up"
Honestly this is great and hopefully we will start seeing more of these showing up.
You really think a 105mm main gun is sufficient to ensure dominance if T-72, T-80, T-90 are encountered?
As an illustration, I think putting Leopard I's in the front echelons of a spearhead would significantly jeopardize the success of a full blown counteroffensive.
They might have great optics, fire control, etc. but if they can't kill on the first scored hit... they could end up in a lot of trouble considering enemy armor is not the only thing trying to destroy them.
@@nicholasjohnson778 tanks don't kill tanks, jesus christ. We haven't had a single tank battle in this war and there have been like 5 duels recorded in total. Really doesn't matter how it compares to T72 or whatever.
You lied
USA will provide war to the last Ukrainian
West makes things SO, that Ukraine losses => max
@@Jimmy_The_Goat I guess you know more than all the tank designers and engineers. Tanks are designed to kill tanks and designed to withstand hits from other tanks.
This is yet another silly ill informed topic put out by this channel. The idea that you can predict exactly what kind of engagements will come from looking back a few months is not a realistic way to look at warfare.
@@Jimmy_The_Goat How many major offensives have the Ukrainians launched to date? That's right... zero.
They where able to exploit weaknesses in both the Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, but they have not yet (and maybe won't) commit division size elements into a major attack.
If they do, I am certain that your predictions of an insignificant level of tank on tank engagements (based on small scale battles) won't age well.
But even if you’re proven right, why on earth would you argue to fight with comparable equipment when you could have a superior advantage? More often than not, military contingency planning ends up with deployed equipment that wasn't needed... but you don't go forward with hindsight.
An extra 105 on a platform with good mobility is a welcome addition and can provide effective fire support.
Excellent video! Hopefully politicians and high ranking civil servants will watch it. They might learn a lot.
Been real quiet on the western front lately
Regardless of the preferences, i am proud our countries are sending a lot of aid!
🇳🇱❤🇺🇦
The levels of cope in this video is impressive.
I believe it’s more then 100, if you total up all the countries that are pooling them together, it totals around 300-350 Leopard 1s.
sure, but still nothing better than a t72, russia has still some 6.000 in reserves.
Another excellent video.. thank you!
Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks being low in number but with high capability will be used as group leaders of Leopard 1s, T64s and Bradley fighting vehicles. This arrangement is similar to that employed by Germany in WW2 where Tiger tanks would play ‘mother hen’ to Panzer IVs and other armoured units. A big gun at the right time and place can be a battle winner.
That's a very bad idea for logistics and unit cohesion.
Why everyone is now saying old trash is the best when last year everyone laugh at it?
Cmon, stop hooliganing this war.
Great, great...now do one about what happens to any tank of any kind when the enemy has air supremacy.
Right but this Point is mostly out of there Heads.
Simple and numerous is more advantageous than low number and highly complex ones.
Thaks for the information. Ian no tank enthusiast, but appreciate the information on the abilities of whats on the battlefield. Slava Ukraine
Really what a shock Germany would prefer to get rid of all their obsolete tanks.
They did 20 years ago.
One comment I'd make is the Leopard 1's gun is rifled and thus can use HESH and work more efficiently like artillery. Here the CH2's also will be very useful outside of tank v tank, ideally I'd keep a leo2 in each leo1 group in case they come up against T90's.
I think while the leo1's lower weight will be useful the increased armour will prove important since the gulf war didn't show up problems with these tanks getting around, perhaps Ukraine will be vastly different but I have a feeling we get blinded all too often by seeing videos of exploding tanks while tanks that survive don't get video'd - armour is important.
As a Brit I gotta love mine some HESH. 😁👍
Slava Ukraine.🇺🇦🇬🇧
You don't mix tank types in one platoon. For reasons of: Logistics, Command and Control, Unit Cohesion etc...
All tough, you could theoretically take a javelin with you if you encounter enemy armor.
@@firetecstudios1146 The German's and allies did this in WW2, it adds to the logistics but not too much for the benefits.
@@MrEddieLomax You would also want to have the same vehicles together because they have the same level of mobility.
The allies usually ran platoons of Shermans.
Maybe they had one 76' per platoon, but that's totally different from having a different tank in there.
I doubt 105mm HESH is more effective than 120mm HE. Caliber matters a lot
The war in Ukraine has shown that 21st Century Warfare isn't a completely different kind of war like ww1 was, instead its similar to 20th century warfare with new additions like Drones. Older weapons that are considered "obsolete' are still very much effective as we have seen, and the Leo 1 will be lf great Service to ukraine
Only because Russia didnt have the ability to counter Ukrainian Air Defenses, and committed to a massive multipronged front, with the idea that Ukraine would capitulate quickly...
The Ukrainians gutted the VDV at hostemel, and held off the Russian spring 2022 Offensive, the Russians had to reevaluate and pulled all there forces out of the North, and concentrated on the South/East. Meanwhile Ukraine kept receiving AID to make its Air defenses more capable, aswell as giving them more meaningful Artillery and offensive capabilities, while Russias forces weakened.
Now you have the Russians who can't launch massive Air campaigns against Ukraine, that's Dug in, and Ukraine that can't counter Russian Air defenses either. Concentrated in the south and East, making breakthroughs difficult.
The reason this war is the way it is is because Russia had massive holes in its capabilities and planning, and Ukraine had a 3rd rate military...
Don't think this is what 21st century warfare between 2 half modern militaries would look like.
About the Leopard 1 age. The tank only needs to be there for its heavy armour and cannon. In the field their older tech will be a big disadvantage only if the tank is alone without support. If Leopard1s get used on the frontlines, they wont be alone but will be accompanied by IFVs with moderns systems like the CV90. Those platforms should be able support the tank well enough with minor modifications and training of crew.
You content is always amazing! ❤
In Brasil We Have Leopard 1M modernized and This Combat Car Is Excelent because its All Terrain and Fast and Easy Maintenance...We Have Different Scenarios around our country and Leopard Fits on All including Dunas on Northeast Region Beaches...
In Brasil We Write With The First Word Of Every Letter Capitalized…
From what we know, all Brazilian tests with the modernised Leo1 failed due to its weight, that's why Brazil army will adopt the new Sweden light tank.
And lots of coke
Ukraine needs air superiority first. Otherwise, Ka-50 will hunt them down on the minefields one by one. Leopard 1a5 or Leo 2a6, it doesn't matter which model they sent.
I agree, the Leo 1 is a better tank for Ukraine. I was ridiculed advocating for these vehicles but, I understood the high mobility, large stockpiles, readily available and lighter weight was more desirable.
It’s an assault gun that slings HE if it had better optics you could pass it off as modern
Any tank is a good tank for Ukraine, purely due to the wear and tear that old Ukrainian stockpile have to experience by now. I’m still not convinced by argumentation about Leo 1 being better. It is decent, but protection is non-existant and argument about availability is false considering Turkey and Greece stockpiles are not really available for sending there.
Our guys were getting first round hits with HESH at 2300 meters in Afghanistan. The A5 tanks are good stuff.
Model, condition and upgrades are significant factors to consider. Good working condition is a priority for Ukraine which does not have the time and resources to return worn tanks to battle ready. There has been plenty of time for countries to prepare tanks for active service. Optics and armor upgrades are useful. Despite its weaknesses, a good condition Leopard 1 tank can still provide useful infantry support.
I appreciated the 'Not great, not terrible,' reference 😂
"Tanks are usually destroyed by artillery, mines or infantry weapons" the combat engineer was completely right, that's exactly how the Leo 2s got destroyed, (almost, add helicopters to that.)
AFU sent their tanks on a night operation at 2am today, got discovered and pounded by all 4, mines, artillery, infantry AT rockets, and helicopters.
Ukrainian soldiers: adding reactive armor to leos 2A4, complaining about lack of armor in AMX 10-RC
German engineer: actually ukrainians don't need tanks with good armor protection - it's inconvinient. If they die, they die
Except tanks aren't used as tanks due to shell shortages. So tanks kinda replace SPG's in that role. And a Leo 2 fire over the horizon is only marginally better at cosplaying as Pzh2000 than the MT-12 strapped to a MTLB.
Just my 2 cents regarding mobility. Last month i was at a tankfest in the Netherlands and both the T-72 and the Leopard 1 (and Gepard, dutch version PRTL) were there. There was a huge difference in mobility/agility between the Leo 1 and the T-72. Acceleration, doing tight corners, doing fast corners, just changing direction. One could clearly, very clearly see the big difference. I even talked about this with my friends who were with me. Like you were seeing a truck versus a van, really very clear to see.
The Leopard 1 is not that far off from the T-72 in weight.
@@zaco-km3suStill a big difference because not of weight but because of gears and general mobility and agility.
It's a design problem - the soviet T-series tanks were designed to drive straight ahead at NATO positions in a steel wave. The Leopard 1 was designed to rush around defensive positions and ambush the oncoming soviets.
Thank you. Very educational
I am from the future i can confirm that Leopard 1s would have made a better impression burned then the Leopard 2s and Bradley's
L7 is more than capable of dealing with any Russian tank.
I used to crew Scorpion , Cheiftain and Cr 1.
What’s important is the logistics chain and getting a battlegoup to work together effectively.
nope. If you think a rifled gun from late 1950s is effective against modern Russian tanks, then it's the exact type of NATO delusion that's causing such massive Ukrainian casualties. How about YOU get into a Leo 1 and go burn in the fields of Ukraine.
For whom, and what kind of shells will leopard 1 shoot?
Ich frage mich allerdings ob die russische Armee noch RPG-7 in der Ukraine einsetzt. Falls dies der Fall ist, fährt man natürlich lieber in einem Leopard 2 als einen Leopard 1 😂
Yep. The Leo1 was designed to use it’s mobility to avoid more powerful AT threats like HEAT rounds and tank rounds. Cage armor, NERA, or ERA could help with this issue.
Use distance and keep the tanks covered.
@@stc3145Combined arms. 👍
Thank you for the Video and explanation I hope it will help the decisionmakers
Thanks for the video and your insights!
This reasoning is why have thought that the US should send Ukraine the M 60s in large numbers because they could be highly effective over in Ukraine. Frankly the Russian military is full of older tanks and with BMPs and other vehicles that are all vulnerable and the Ukrainians are good at using everything. So more tanks more better. Leopard 1s and M 60s would be better than just the small numbers of more modern tanks.
The U.S. doesn't have any M60s, all have been scrapped or exported.
The m60 hasn’t existed in us inventory in a serviceable capacity in over a decade. Any still lying around in the boneyard in the desert are unlikely to even be serviceable. M60a3TTS likely had all their electronics and guns taken to put on other platforms
The US has a few thousand older model A1 parked in the desert, it could send some of those no problem.
@@FreeOfFantasy not at all, we sent Ukraine bridge laying m60s, which are unarmed engineer vehicles. The m60a1s in the desert are unlikely to have even been run in 40+ years. You can’t just pull a tank hull out of storage and send it to the frontline. Most of them have been dry rotting longer than you’ve been alive, and likely had vital components removed/scrapped/damaged long ago. They’re sitting there because we have minor allies who still operate m60s and will buy the spare parts, but the vehicles as they exist are unlikely to be operable without years of work on them.
Well thanks for the input people. I guess that there aren't many M 60s that can be sent to Ukraine at least not without repairs and retrofitting. But if there were any available I still say that they should be sent. Frankly anything that could help would be beneficial in my book. Even if all they do is distract Russia forces and prevent them from destroying the more modern Leopard 2s and Abrams and Challenger 2s then they would have done some good. Even then they could potentially be used for ambush tactics and against lighter armor but if there aren't many available then I guess sending a lot is out of the question. That said if there are any available to be sent I still think that they could help. After all the Russians are sending T 55s to Ukraine and those are roughly contemporary with the Pattons. So bulking up the Ukrainian armored forces in any way would be good.
I think that there will be huge armored battles in this war. Both the Ukrainians and the Russians seem to be focused on armor so they will eventually have a big fight with armor. I would prefer if Ukraine had an advantage in that department.
The fact that the Leopard 1 is more profuse globally is a great bonus as the video says for initial availability and of spare parts for it. Another thing not mentioned to consider also is that because it is lighter than more modern tanks, it is less likely to get bogged down in Ukrainian soils, as a more mobile unit it may be a good candidate for fast infiltration of enemy lines or for getting behind them.
Even if the Leos aren't going to be used for attacking tanks, or have proper infantry protection, they should still be given more than just added E.R.A for protection, maybe something like the "MEXAS" kit used by the Canadians?
i dont think there are enough quickly availible for that.
And MEXAS has to be fitted properly.
There are different kits for A3/5 and A4/5 (cast and welded turret) etc.
Next problem is, that MEXAS only improves protection vs small to medium caliber guns (autocannons) and older light RPG´s
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 All things considered, I'm not sure if the kit is still being made, I just meant something like it that would better protect the tankers inside and give them a good chance.
The less chance they have of dying from anything the better, but given the delays that happened when the Leo 2s were promised, the time it takes for the tanks to get there might endanger more lives.
Even if it's just 2 layers of 10mm steel filled with fiberglass inbetween, I'd still want to give them that added protection, or maybe I'm a stickler for wanting to feel safer.
@@elaqgarahulelpon1479 they are still in production.
But basicly every weapon you would use vs tanks that is more modern than 1970 will punch through, even with MEXAS.
Leo1 is basicly a slightly better armored Stryker MGS on tracks
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yeah that's fair.
@@elaqgarahulelpon1479 they are still good Mobile Gun Systems, but as proper Battletanks their days are over.
They were good when enemy tanks had no or bad stabilisers, no automatic lead and were firing primarily slow/slower rounds in ballistic arcs (like HEAT or APDS).
There the mobility gave them the edge, as they were hard targets to hit when they were constantly moving.
Modern MBT´s with modern Firecontrol Systems, APFSDS Rounds, automatic lead and stabilisers will be seriously dangerous (Like T-72B´s)
Nigel, you did a beautifully built kit🎉
Very good video ! Thanks
All I have to say about that ranked list is that only points 3 and 4 are going to liberate your country, and only if 3 has 4 to genuinely support
Think challenger 2 was just the key in the door to get others into the battle 😊 as number of challenges is not there in enough numbers.
Didn't expect this, sounds interesting. Quite often, even those of us who know(and those of you who know much more than me) tend to look at things unconsciously on too simple terms, such as newer tank=better fit for the job, when it is rarely that simple.
I completely agree with you. it would have been better to give large numbers of Leopards 1 to Ukraine than to waste time, money and Energy with Leopards 2, Challenger 2 or Abrams. It’s not logistically tenable! Leopards 1 or even M60s in large quantities would have been much better.
je suis complétement d'accord avec vous . il aurait mieux valu donner en grand nombre des léopards 1 a l'Ukraine que de perdre du temps , de l'argent et de l'Energie avec les léopards 2, les chalenger 2 ou les Abrams. c'est pas tenable sur un plan logistique ! des léopards 1 voir même des M60 en grandes quantités auraient été beaucoup mieux .
Thank you very much. It is crucial to have speed while maneuvering under attack plus a swifter targeting device. It's possible to increase the armor thickness where necessary.
They have decent guns and can move around. That's more than enough to make them useful for AFU.
I'd love to see them as a tank component for light infantry brigades, such as TDF, which don't have anything like that right now. Even one tank company per brigade will be a significant force multiplier relative to what they currently have.
You might be more useful. so why not go. Every bullet shot at you is one less for some poor Ukrainian sod.
What I saw with my own eyes, the Russia's latest tank was hit by 2-3 US missiles and blown up or tank get disabled. But the American M1 Abrams and German Laopard2 tank exploded after one hit by the Kornet.🙂
😂😂😂bullshit rusky tavarish
Kornets were specifically made to destroy western tanks....these NAFO-bots are delusional.
Schon lange kein Video mehr veröffentlicht,hoffe alles ist ok!
Ja, meine Hände sind "verletzt" :(
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Ui, hoffe nichts ernstes und ich wünsche dir gute Besserung.
Und bloß keinen Stress! Körperliches Wohl ist unbezahlbar!
An interesting point. The turret of the Leopard 1A5 was designed to be able to take the 120mm gun from the Leopard 2. As far as I know, no military has gone down this upgrade path, but it should still be available. This would simplify logistics, and make it a more lethal platform. Not sure how practical it would be, though.
That's false. Only 1 1A1A1 turret was ever modified to accept the L44. The rest of the A5 turrets never got this modification.
@@Finleymcg Odd, Wikipedia states "The resulting Leopard 1A5 was based on 1,225 vehicles of the Leopard 1A1A1 model. The turrets were again modified for the 1A5, both in order to store all of the new equipment, as well as to move more of the ammunition into the rear of the turret, as opposed to the left side of the driver where it had previously been stored. The new turret was able to mount the newer 120 mm gun from the Leopard 2 if desired, although this option has not been used." Seems to suggest all 1A5's have the capacity for the upgrade.
@NoOneInParticular Wikipedia is nice to use as a starting point but not as a main source. As the paragraph you cited points to "move more of the ammunition into the rear of the turret, as opposed to the left side of the driver."
According to the Hayne's manual, there are 39 rounds stored next to the driver. In addition, there are 17 stored vertically in the turret next to the loader. No variant of the Leopard 1 stores ammunition in the rear of the turret.
@@Finleymcg fair enough
@NoOneInParticular it's alright. For what it's worth, the information on the proposed a6 version is accurate to discussions at the time, although such a variant would have competed with the Leopard 2 for sales.
I was a Leopard 1 crewman for 20 years. The disadvantages of the Leopard1 are tremendously outweighed by the firepower of the Leopard 2. I could show you in 5 minutes how to drive either the Leo 1 or 2 so no issue. Leo 1 reverse speed is 24 km/h but the Leo 2 is even greater. Military bridges are built for Leo 2 size so no issue. The thermal sight and cannon of the Leopard 2 are so superior to everything else that this whole discussion is actually rather silly.
Quote: *Military bridges are built for Leo 2 size so no issue.*
Maybe you didn't notice that it was about an operation in Ukraine?
There, neither bridges nor (already existing) transport or recovery vehicles are designed for the Leopard 2. So all that has to be delivered and maintained additionally.
Therefore, ... well an issue.
Correct - what they are doing is called "cope" - they know they cannot give Ukraine more Leo 2 tanks so they are saying some old junk from 1960s is ... better than new stuff.
They cope by saying Leo 1 has advantages - same as Mercedes from 1960s has advantages over one from 2020. I mean some Mercedes cars from 1980s made it past 2 million km (!) But who would rather have old car than new one????
It is just cope.
Even in city fight Russian Wagner used latest T-90M - why they did not use upgraded T-62M? Come on, both have same reverse speed :)
@@potator9327 Leo 1 A5 is not that much lighter than Leo 2. Leo 1 A5 is 43t and Leo 2 A4 is 55t.
@@tomk3732 The Leopard 2 therefore is 12 tons or ca. 1/4 heavier. That ist much.
It breaks down all the time. We had it in our brigade when I served in the Greek Army. More than half were constantly out of action. And their regular maintenance every Friday, was an 8-hour nightmare for the crews. If Ukraine is given 110, they will not manage to field even 50.
No...the Leopard 1 is out dated junk. There is no argument. Ukraine just wants as many tanks as it can get.
I do wonder if the lack of a high end IFV like a CV90 is the reason we see this sort of logic arise out of this conflict. If you had a powerful IFV that basically starts to fill the role of scout / light tank then having a heavy duty mbt to back you up makes a lot more sense. You get most of the fire power with either a 30mm or in some cases a 100mm or similar gun and better mobility and situational awareness as well as infantry riding along with you for built in infantry support.
Ukraine has 50 CV90s
MHV-
Informative & credible analysis... IMHO! 👍🏾
Why Leopard 1 is better than Leopard 2 for Ukraine? Because it's better when Leopard 1 gets destroyed instead of Leopard 2.