Australian leopard 1's where basted just north of Melbourne in the cool Southern state of Victoria for 20 years. In the 1990's it was decided to move them north to be basted just south of Darwin where it was discovered the laser range finder didn't work in the hot climate of the Australian desert.
I fully agree. Its a real pitty, but i guess some lobby reasons got them the abrams. We trained together with Leopard 2A4 and A5 while in the army, gives you confidence to have them on your side. ;)
@Bf2009 Supposedly the Leo 1 gun is only ranged out to 3999 Meters...However I have routinely watched our guys reach out and touch targets as far as 4200-4400 meters....
It was one of the best there was at the time. Its protection was good enough. 140mm frontal armor, taking the the 40° sloped armor in account. But i guess you have more experience in tank warfare than the entire german military ever had.
You can't be more wrong than that :D The Leopard 1 is still in service in quite a lot of countries. The Idea proved not to work? Man you are THE genius of tank warfare. I served in a german tank division, you served in front of your PC. Enough said ;)
Well Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Lebanon, Denmark, and Italy used it as a MBT. Guess they were all mistaken. Btw a tank is the worst you can take for recon or scout, way too loud.
nice documentary. Thanks for uploading! Also, Leo1 = no armor. 30-95mm armor, less than that of the Tiger 1. It was supposed to be fast, but it's anemic.
In that time the germans thought armor wouldn't matter Cuz heat and pads can pen 300 mm and it would be hard to make armor that thick so they just decide speed is key
he is comparing the advantages of a horizantal launched bridge like this one to that of the other type of bridge which is called a scissor bridge and launches its bridge up in to the air above a tree line for the enemy to spot from miles away before laying it over a river. Make sense? :-)
kinetic energy = 0,5*m*v^2. So velocity is more important. I guess they had to have bigger mass due to the propellant of the projectile. Gun powder burns with a certain speed, then the exit velocity will be proportional to that and to the heat created by the propellant, so my assumption is that modern shell had at some point hit this exit velocity limit and now the need to increase weight risen. having a nato 5.56 nato round close to speed of light would give it close to infinite mass.
30mm fire in the 1970s wasn't much. Penetration is generally through Ke transfer, weightXspeed concentrated on the hit point. A light shell will lose velocity at range faster due to air resistance, and is integrally limited in velocity; all shells are subject to a general speed restriction (usually around 5500ft/s generally speaking tho it varies) due to the propellant ignition speed and barrel metallurgy. Either way 30mm fire in 1970 was not enough. The chassis is good but the armor is bad.
hello TankNutDsve team, I'm admin of the modelkitindo channel, I ask permission to hanging this video on my channel, and I will enclose your channel name and link... thank you
well, it is true to an extent. say a 5.56 NATO was traveling at near speed of light? it wouldn't just destroy the tank, but it would likely cause a thermonuclear chain reaction. but I get what you mean.
Couldn't agree more mate the Leopard 1 or as we called it Leopard AS1 was a great tank for our country and what do we get a piece of shit Abrams which we have had some propblems. We should have had Leopard 2's. We almost sent our Leopard 1's into action in Timor. At least they have upgraded to Tusk on our Abrams but no du armour. We have monkey models they cost three times more to run them than our great old Leopard 1's. They were our longest serving tank.
well, the Leo2 and all other modern and subsequent western tanks are the polar opposite of the Leo1, so, maybe? 140mm is less than the 203mm on the stock T-55, certainly less than the Chieftain's 390mm or the M60. 250-350mm pen. was a given then. It expected to use speed to defend the crew, except it wasn't all that fast. If you can't even come close to protecting your crew from the expected threats of the battlefield from even optimal angles, you're not a very good tank.
not really.... why bother with all that armour for what use?? the Leo is bulletproof from 30mm from back and sides at 2km range and the Leo will shred that IFV at 3-4km ranges. If you go higher than 30mm protection what do you really need it for, 90% of other tanks can beat another tank in 1 hit you have 600m-800mm armour now but you have 850pen shells. The US m1a2 had the best idea, yes most tanks can pen it from back and sides but that torrent from the front is bulletproof 1100mm armour and it needed a huge 65 tonnes 25 tonnes more than the LEO just to have that ability a bulletproof turrent, its Hull is still a target though
I am still surprised of your expertise in tank warfare. I guess the reason so many countries use the leopard 1 is, that it was such a bad tank, right? You are one of the guys that think a tank consists of armor thickness and big gun. Tank battles are not like a pc game where you got a few variables that define the tank. Have you seen a Leo1 in action, it is a lot faster than most other tanks of the period. Chiefttain: 48km/h, T55: same. Leopard1 : 65km/h
Je pense que c'est le Léopard 2 J'ai piloté le Léopard 1 qui est sorti fin des années 60 et ce modèle est un peu différent surtout au niveau de la tourelle !
What kills this tank is survivability. Very low. Best used at long range, cannot trade shots to tanks with thick special armor unless they swarm the tank.
There was no T72 in the 60s. You have never served in any tank, thats why you can only talk about armour thickness that you read in some database :) I hope you like to sit in your armchair. Btw, danish Leo1 fought T55 in bosnia. (and never compare french tanks to german tanks).
Quite literally, when they developed it, they said "we can't defend against these big HEAT rounds", so it's only armored against 30mms. That's not the case, and it wasn't then. It was a radical idea, which proved to not work. But back then people expected WW3, so they bought what they could get.
Yes sure :D, you are a genius, too bad you are not the military supervisor of EVERY country, cause they really need your help. Never been in a tank, but talking about armour and gun. You lack military education, thats why you wont understand. You never trained in a tank, you never drove in one. T-64 wasn't presented to public until 1985 and was not exported. The 125mm gun would pop any tank of the time. Leo 1 is awesome, thats why thousands of tankers love them. Go play PC games.
Didn't we see the concept of the "light tank" invalidated in 1941? Look, if it was so great, the Krauts would've made a successor. But the Leo2 is the polar opposite of the Leopard 1. That's common sense. Lighter tanks have no advantage in modern combat when in the role of a main battle tank. They specifically made it because they thought they couldn't defend against newer HEAT; it turned out with more weight they could. The chassis is reliable, but doesn't mean it's combat effective.
At the time it was the best they could get. If you couldn't buy a Chieftain or a Patton, or couldn't afford to maintain them... It's a light tank, without speed. A heavy tank, without armor. It's faster, yes, but gunnery optics even then were too good to make it matter. It's a reliable and cheap design, but it's not very good in combat. And that's why tanks like it and the AMX30 are not ever really used in combat--they are too weak to be used like heavier tanks.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
Best looking tank ever built.
This is my PREWORKOUT for playing Leopard A1A1 in WT.
You finish tech tree yet?
Best enginesound ever
Love that retro bgm.
Australian leopard 1's where basted just north of Melbourne in the cool Southern state of Victoria for 20 years. In the 1990's it was decided to move them north to be basted just south of Darwin where it was discovered the laser range finder didn't work in the hot climate of the Australian desert.
I fully agree. Its a real pitty, but i guess some lobby reasons got them the abrams. We trained together with Leopard 2A4 and A5 while in the army, gives you confidence to have them on your side. ;)
thats good to know now^^
4:04....deja vu ...could almost smell the diesel from back in the good ol' days chasing Leo's up and down the Lawfield corridor.
listen to this engine sound .amazing
@Bf2009 Supposedly the Leo 1 gun is only ranged out to 3999 Meters...However I have routinely watched our guys reach out and touch targets as far as 4200-4400 meters....
I not only got to sit in one of these bad boys today. I got to start it!!!!! Dream come true!
It was one of the best there was at the time. Its protection was good enough. 140mm frontal armor, taking the the 40° sloped armor in account. But i guess you have more experience in tank warfare than the entire german military ever had.
You can't be more wrong than that :D The Leopard 1 is still in service in quite a lot of countries. The Idea proved not to work? Man you are THE genius of tank warfare. I served in a german tank division, you served in front of your PC. Enough said ;)
@7:35 "this helps conceal the vehicle from the enemy"... *retetetetetetetetete* sound of vehicle extending the bridge heard from miles away
Well Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Lebanon, Denmark, and Italy used it as a MBT. Guess they were all mistaken. Btw a tank is the worst you can take for recon or scout, way too loud.
Most recon and scout vehicle still use tank but more smaller such as Light Tank. Other than that is an IFV or Wheeled vehicle
I request permission to borrow a video to accompany my clip. thank you😊
They are MBT, the only MT in the world is Kaplan MT/Harimau
The glass turret Leopard was called PopeMovil in the Chilean Army
lol
Another good upload TankNutDave
True. But--the Leo1 was only able to stop 30mm fire, not 100mm main gun rounds.
How many 64s did they have? Not the many compared to there MASSIVE amounts of t-55s so that would be what they would mostly faced against.
nice documentary. Thanks for uploading!
Also, Leo1 = no armor. 30-95mm armor, less than that of the Tiger 1. It was supposed to be fast, but it's anemic.
In that time the germans thought armor wouldn't matter Cuz heat and pads can pen 300 mm and it would be hard to make armor that thick so they just decide speed is key
he is comparing the advantages of a horizantal launched bridge like this one to that of the other type of bridge which is called a scissor bridge and launches its bridge up in to the air above a tree line for the enemy to spot from miles away before laying it over a river. Make sense? :-)
I should explain my first line; the light tank is good as an expeditionary or scout vehicle but nto as a main battle tank.
Yes mate, ive got 8 M60 videos on my account :-) including the m60-a1 that is also from this documentry
I know this is a little late but do you know what this documentary is called? I've only ever seen clips.
0.12 An old Ford Consul is showing up. Nice
looks like a jadgtiger, an awesome tank all round
frontal ammo rack that gonna sting
kinetic energy = 0,5*m*v^2. So velocity is more important. I guess they had to have bigger mass due to the propellant of the projectile. Gun powder burns with a certain speed, then the exit velocity will be proportional to that and to the heat created by the propellant, so my assumption is that modern shell had at some point hit this exit velocity limit and now the need to increase weight risen.
having a nato 5.56 nato round close to speed of light would give it close to infinite mass.
30mm fire in the 1970s wasn't much. Penetration is generally through Ke transfer, weightXspeed concentrated on the hit point. A light shell will lose velocity at range faster due to air resistance, and is integrally limited in velocity; all shells are subject to a general speed restriction (usually around 5500ft/s generally speaking tho it varies) due to the propellant ignition speed and barrel metallurgy.
Either way 30mm fire in 1970 was not enough. The chassis is good but the armor is bad.
hello TankNutDsve team, I'm admin of the modelkitindo channel, I ask permission to hanging this video on my channel, and I will enclose your channel name and link... thank you
Thanks for the update!
better than the transmission aka engine in the front..
70mm of armour seems inadequate, compared to the m48 and m60 patton, as well as t-62's and t-64's
Shit this is old
well, it is true to an extent. say a 5.56 NATO was traveling at near speed of light? it wouldn't just destroy the tank, but it would likely cause a thermonuclear chain reaction. but I get what you mean.
Couldn't agree more mate the Leopard 1 or as we called it Leopard AS1 was a great tank for our country and what do we get a piece of shit Abrams which we have had some propblems. We should have had Leopard 2's. We almost sent our Leopard 1's into action in Timor. At least they have upgraded to Tusk on our Abrams but no du armour. We have monkey models they cost three times more to run them than our great old Leopard 1's. They were our longest serving tank.
. I am pretty sure Canada had the Leopard 1 in Kosovo, Bosnia and in Afghanistan.
un trés bon chard !! le meilleur !! je sais de quoi je parle !!
well, the Leo2 and all other modern and subsequent western tanks are the polar opposite of the Leo1, so, maybe? 140mm is less than the 203mm on the stock T-55, certainly less than the Chieftain's 390mm or the M60. 250-350mm pen. was a given then. It expected to use speed to defend the crew, except it wasn't all that fast.
If you can't even come close to protecting your crew from the expected threats of the battlefield from even optimal angles, you're not a very good tank.
not really.... why bother with all that armour for what use?? the Leo is bulletproof from 30mm from back and sides at 2km range and the Leo will shred that IFV at 3-4km ranges. If you go higher than 30mm protection what do you really need it for, 90% of other tanks can beat another tank in 1 hit you have 600m-800mm armour now but you have 850pen shells. The US m1a2 had the best idea, yes most tanks can pen it from back and sides but that torrent from the front is bulletproof 1100mm armour and it needed a huge 65 tonnes 25 tonnes more than the LEO just to have that ability a bulletproof turrent, its Hull is still a target though
I am still surprised of your expertise in tank warfare. I guess the reason so many countries use the leopard 1 is, that it was such a bad tank, right? You are one of the guys that think a tank consists of armor thickness and big gun. Tank battles are not like a pc game where you got a few variables that define the tank. Have you seen a Leo1 in action, it is a lot faster than most other tanks of the period. Chiefttain: 48km/h, T55: same. Leopard1 : 65km/h
Got wrecked in Syria
Anything like this on the M60A3 Dave? Great vid.
Je pense que c'est le Léopard 2
J'ai piloté le Léopard 1 qui est sorti fin des années 60 et ce modèle est un peu différent surtout au niveau de la tourelle !
Canadian army right?
Thin crappy armor witha really really good gun, basically a glass cannon
it was desighned in the ATGM era ... at that time germans saw that armour was useless
more a Panther to me it was the BEST BATTLE TANK ever.the Leppard 1 was the Best in it's TIME.
Зато фугасики от Фв215б183 отлично заходят в корму))))
this tank owns witht he turkish volkan fire system upgrade ,
What kills this tank is survivability. Very low. Best used at long range, cannot trade shots to tanks with thick special armor unless they swarm the tank.
There was no T72 in the 60s. You have never served in any tank, thats why you can only talk about armour thickness that you read in some database :) I hope you like to sit in your armchair. Btw, danish Leo1 fought T55 in bosnia. (and never compare french tanks to german tanks).
Quite literally, when they developed it, they said "we can't defend against these big HEAT rounds", so it's only armored against 30mms. That's not the case, and it wasn't then. It was a radical idea, which proved to not work. But back then people expected WW3, so they bought what they could get.
"Medium"?
Yes sure :D, you are a genius, too bad you are not the military supervisor of EVERY country, cause they really need your help. Never been in a tank, but talking about armour and gun. You lack military education, thats why you wont understand. You never trained in a tank, you never drove in one. T-64 wasn't presented to public until 1985 and was not exported. The 125mm gun would pop any tank of the time. Leo 1 is awesome, thats why thousands of tankers love them. Go play PC games.
Can't wait to see these things in action in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
Didn't we see the concept of the "light tank" invalidated in 1941? Look, if it was so great, the Krauts would've made a successor. But the Leo2 is the polar opposite of the Leopard 1. That's common sense. Lighter tanks have no advantage in modern combat when in the role of a main battle tank. They specifically made it because they thought they couldn't defend against newer HEAT; it turned out with more weight they could. The chassis is reliable, but doesn't mean it's combat effective.
0:40 Uhm I think it kinda looked like a JagdTiger
At the time it was the best they could get. If you couldn't buy a Chieftain or a Patton, or couldn't afford to maintain them...
It's a light tank, without speed. A heavy tank, without armor. It's faster, yes, but gunnery optics even then were too good to make it matter. It's a reliable and cheap design, but it's not very good in combat. And that's why tanks like it and the AMX30 are not ever really used in combat--they are too weak to be used like heavier tanks.
becuse it dident turn its turret
iraq should bye leo1s
We thought the Russian army is 2nd strongest in the world, now we know they are 2nd strongest in Ukraine.
7:10 Bieber? Justin Bieber? :D
Michal Kravec beaver maybe