PIA VPN is a honeypot! Tracing the financial dependencies at several levels, we come to a company with links to Israeli intelligence. The direct owner of PIA VPN has also bought several other previously popular and secure VPN service companies. If You do not belive me, track this finansial connection with chatbot.
I think the Gulf Wars created an unrealistic expectation of Western tanks being somewhat invincible. Yet still so many tanks are engaged by arty, drones and mines. With the odd shoulder launched jobby getting in on the act.
If the US Backed Coalition was defending Ukraine IN FULL FORCE (All assets and boots on the ground), Western Tanks would be making a way better showing. Drop Shipping Tanks to Ukrainian crews without the Multi-Tier support system they are designed to work within is making them fight blind-folded and one arm behind their back.
@@ShawnBoxIf US backed coalition will try to do smthg in full force, they will get much more coffins to their countries, and it will lead to a nuclear war. That's why they uses Ukraine as proxy and avoid direct conflict with Russia. Only idiots think "mad dictator" Putin attacked "small" Ukraine. Ukraine isn't small, they build fortifications for 8 years, they got help of 10x russian prewar military budget.etc and etc
The Gulf War was a massive combined arms operation with air supremacy. Ukraine was given a handful of tanks for its 1000 miles of frontage. If Ukraine had a massive coalition at its disposal it would be very different.
to me, no modern MBT in ukraine has "failed" or is bad. All are generally good or decent. The leopard was simply overhyped, so was hunted aggressively by russia (same for abrams and challenger) Applies to the T90M as well. I recently saw a video where it says how the T90M is bad cuz its from the T72 family and its so pathetic that russia upgrades the family. People are to hyper critical of these vehicles
The T-90M is objectively a bad thank because it's crew is unlikely to survive a penetrating hit due to the autoloader being directly in the middle of the crew compartment. That issue will never be resolved unless Russia is willing to use a bustle autoloader or a 4th crew man.
@Bigweave74 I've seen multiple videos of T90ms being hit on the top back of the turret (where they store some of its ammunition) by half a dozen drones and being fine. No ammo cook off. The crews didn't even abandon the vehicles immediately after the hits in both cases. I've also seen a video of a T90M shrugging off a javelin hit to its side. Of course some have been destroyed by ATGMs, but my point being the T90M can very much survive powerful dangerous hits and be fine
@@Bigweave74the autoloader usually isnt the reason the ammo detonates, usually it happens due to extra ammo that isnt in the autoloader being hit. The t series tanks get a lot of shit and most of it us undeserved imo
@@Bigweave74the problem is not about the autoloader but its abt the additional ammo who is not protected at all and the t90m is not the only tank that could be killed by a drone from the top, the leopard 2 can explode if it been hit from the top of the hull next to the driver, same goes for the challenger 2.
Just ask yourself if you would rather sit in Leopard/Abrams or T series tank. I think for any sane person the answer is obvious, so no - there are good and bad tanks.
The lack of HE shells proves the point that using something like a T54 is perfectly viable in this conflict. If it moves, can sustain small arms fire, and shoots HE, then it's a useful vehicle.
@@cathulhu-q7y well shortage is problem here , doesn't matter the tank have HE shell or not , the matter is tank crews on the frontline have those shell or not .
@@ThànhHoàngNgọc-w8r Yeah, pro-ukrainians forget often what they actually got. I remember when they were talking about the smart shells, ukriane got. They always forget that they got about a 1000 of them back in 2022. But they still talk about the accurate western shells.
I think the overhyping of Western tanks have made their deployment highly publicized and examined, which I can understand. There hasn't been a clash of armor in the modern digital age, moreover MODERN armors no less, so tank and military enthusiasts can't help themselves but feel attached to things that they grew up with in video games and medias.
Serious tanks vs tanks battles happened in early stages of the war but by the end of 2022 Ukrainian army lost so many tanks that they became rare till this idiotic "counteroffensive". And both sides already learned to use drones making harder to use big groups of AFVs.
No, it has failed as much as any tank has failed in Ukraine, people need to get Desert Storm out of their subconscious once and for all and accept that this is not Iraq, where ground forces advanced unopposed against obsolete and inferior forces and tanks
Back in the height of the Cold War, the German army fielded Leo 1s and 2s in the thousands. The doctrine of the day insisted that these tanks fight in large and well coordinated battlegroups from battalion level upwards with brigade level fire assets to support. The war in Ukraine has yet to call for such doctrine and thus - not just Leo 2 - but all MBTs are out of their element in this conflict. The IFV and drone will always be king for Ukraine's struggle.
RPG rocket is not ultimate weapon it only should give some antiprotection to the infantry. In reality tanks often survive a lot of hits and even penetrations can do no serious damage. So it usually takes a lot of drones to burn the tank down for sure. Even a tank without antidrone protection. But modern Russian tanks refurbished from storage and new built ones have a lot of antidrone improvements: additional armor in vulnerable places, nets, jammers. The last ones are deficit but the situation changes only in tanks' favor.
They had mines underneath them, artillery and Ka52s above them and Kornets lurking all around. How the hell is a tank meant to perform driving straight into the teeth of all that? Nothing is going to survive it.
Yeah the venerable “reverse speed” of western tanks proved to be useless in such scenarios as Ukraine. You can’t hide from drones or artillery, whether you’re going 70 kph forwards or -30 kph backwards. This myth got busted so badly in the Ukraine war.
Lol in current state of fire support you going to be killed by artillery or drones no matter, what you do. You physically cannot defend yourself from this weapons, they are too concealed and survivable. If you even do a perfect assault in the enemy positions you are going to lose a lot of equipment and men. If it was so easy, then there wouldn't be such small advancements. This is a lesson NATO will learn in next conflict.
Actually it fared better than Abrams or Challenger which went totally into invisibility mode after a couple of losses. It put up an actual fight unlike those.
well the thing is Leopard 2's were supplied in much larger numbers than the Abrams or Challenger, with around I think 71 or so Leopard 2's of all variants being sent? I believe the Spanish have also sent or are sending their second batch of Leopard 2's to Ukraine now as well, I believe it was likely the fact that there were just more of them with more spare parts that lead to them being used more, if the Ukrainians lose 15 leopards thats a big deal but they can recover, 15 abrams and thats half of their entire fleet, we'll see though with the new Australian promise of 50 or so Abrams tanks though
Yeah in my mind it goes something like leopard2/Abrams/modern t-series > the rest >>> challenger 2 which got it's entire fleet obliterated through emotional damage
@@iraeis7267 Very funny, but the Challenger has been okay, not amazing but okay. And out of the massive fleet of fourteen tanks sent, they have lost two through combat rather than any emotions.
@@ohnoes3084Abrams literally doesn’t have a dedicated HE round for infantry. What kind of “tank” doesn’t have such a round? With that alone any tank is better than the Abrams
As a user of PIA for very different reasons than in the promo, I can factually state that you CANNOT use it to access region locked streaming content from the likes of Amazon or Netflix. It will also trigger a ton of other sites that will deem you a bot and make you jump through captcha hoops on login or outright won't let you through. I'd avoid it.
that might be amazon or netflix, if they restrict by credit card but i understand netflix at least does not actually, you need to choose which country your IP is i'm not suprised if this stopped working but VPN did work previously with netflix
@@DarkShroom its just a cat and mouse game, if streaming services detects a lot of use from certain IP's they ban those IP's. Then the VPN services needs to change their IP adress, which they will only do when its in high demand. It's just a loop of banning and getting new ones
All MBTs in this war sucked. Not because of the tanks itself or by its crews, but because of the proliferation of better anti-tank weapons and tactics like better ATGMs and UCAVs. What everyone almost forgot is that both Russia and Ukraine doesn't have the overwhelmingly air power the Coalition had when they decimated the Iraqi army to make MBTs really effective.
Its really impossible to gain air superiority in a near peer conflict until one side is near collapse. This was pretty well demonstrated in both world wars.
I guess it depends on what you define as success. If 40 L2's were expected to allow Ukraine to win the war, then yes it has, but that is an absurd goal. For me it was supposed to give Ukraine a modern MBT to be able to fight T-90M and improve crew survivability. By that measure it is a success. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle. It has given Ukraine access to one of the best tanks in the world but also shown that the MBT does need to move with the times. Operationally it has suffered, but a lot of that is for the same reasons Russia has been endlessly ridiculed; poor use and deployment. The early days of the Ukrainian Offensive saw Bradley and L2 used poorly, and so took losses. For me the only tank that hasn't 'failed' per say is T-64, because at the start of the war, plenty predicted it would have no answer to T-72, T-80 and especially T-90, but here it is nearly three years later still performing a frontline role. It has suffered losses and is not really a match for T-90M, but seems to have generally held up. So T-64 has gone from being an old, out-dated, practically obsolete tank to being no less capable on a modern battlefield than any of it's T-Tank cousins.
In Soviet time T-64 wasn't considered as inferior to T-72 in battle capabilities. Just more expensive and less reliable. But many even modern Russian sources claim that T-64 is in many ways better than T-72.
@@manichaean1888 Interesting, I admit I'm not really aware of how T-64 was perceived by the Soviets, I know T-72 was created as a cheaper alternative and more widely adopted, and T-64 was retired by the Soviets but I was under the impression that the T-72 was preferred by Soviet commanders as it meant more tank for the buck.
@@deaks25 T-64 wasn't retired. It was produced in smaller numbers in Kharkov, which in 1991 became a part of independent Ukraine, and T-72 was produced in Urals region. Therefore, most of T-64s remained in Ukraine as some of the best first line divisions were armed with them. And T-72 as more mass produced tank was sent to second and third line divisions in Mother Russia. In terms of battle capabilities the latest versions of both tanks are more or less the same.
Let's be real here - Leopard 2's (and Abrams) goal was to break through the russian fortifications during the ukrainian so-called "counteroffensive" in 2023 and allow the ukrainian army to reach the Azov sea at least, Crimea at best. These tanks were never (initially) meant for defense, they were meant to be used entirely in the offensive. And they failed utterly and hopelessly. So, in a sense - yes, they were expected to allow Ukraine to win the war. That was exactly their intended role.
@@Fullgrym Yes and no. Ukraine had been begging for MBT's long before even the UK set things off; Poland had been steadily transferring it's entire stock of T-72s and it's own PT-91s basically since day one. The problem has always been numbers, Ukraine simply can't match the quantity being thrown at them, so needed a superiority gap to make up for it, ie L2 and Abrams, because that's exactly what they're designed for; overcoming a quantity problem with quality. However, you are correct, Ukraine did choose to use L2 in offensive operations, and those operations were a complete bust that cost a lot of men and material, but it's not a breakthrough tank, it's a combined-arms, manoeuvre-warfare tank, and Ukraine didn't use it in that role and instead just yeeted Leopards and Bradley's straight into prepared defences. Any tank, even a tank vastly superior to anything else, if it is used incorrectly is going to underperform. I think it's probably fair to say L2 hasn't been the 'game changer' Western media hyped it up to be, because war doesn't work like that. Same for Abrams as well.
Lack of ammunition, especialy HE might also be why they are not burning as much, more ammo, even with insensitive propellent, will still burn, a tungston or DU dart wont burn as much as a larger volume HE round (modern explosives depending on the type can be safely burnt, C4 for example will not explode if ignited but will burn)
It's just a tank. It hasn't failed. Most of what has failed has been the supply of ammunition, training and misuse by commanders. This applies to all tanks in Ukr control. The most overhyped tank so far has probably been either the Challenger or Abrams, which people seem to assume are super ultra high tech western god vehicles, but in fact, are just 40 year old tank designs.
It's hypocritical of us because we have laughed at destroyed Russian tanks in beginning of war but when first abrams after 6 month arrival got destroyed in 20 minutes without firing a single shell, we say "it's normal", blame training misuse etc..
@@sleepyjoe7843 Challenger 2's mythical status was also btfo'd when the first one got destroyed 5km behind the front lines, and then we haven't seen another one enter combat untill last month i think.
I've been called a russbot for saying that the western armour will suffer the same as the soviet one, bc of the kind of war that is being fought. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
it's cause most people invested in this treat this like a sports game and don't know how war works. No Air Supremacy on the transparent battlefield means no deep exploitation, limited maneuverability. Literally the only reason, America won so quickly in Iraq but the fatties delude themselves so they can feel like they did something impressive.
Thats NAFO Section for you. The "anti russian propaganda that would fight with another propaganda" they are just as annoying as PETA. Boast of helping Ukraine but only attacking people that isnt bias to Ukraine...online... Nutsea Gestapo but redditor mod in nutshell
I think people misunderstand the Russian doctrine behind their tank designs, they understand that equipment is going to be destroyed in battle, no matter how advanced it is, so they design it with the idea that it must be possible to quickly and affordably build replacements and quickly train new crews to operate it. While the west builds the best tanks they can afford, Russia builds the best tanks they can replace.
True but thats also the Leopards biggest strength. We also know it will be destoyed - but we also know a freshly Trainer crew wont be anywhere near as effektive as an experinced crew. Thats why its build for Crew survivability, which seemed to have been an afterthought for the Russians all the way back to the T34
@@MyILoveMinecraft in most videos of a knocked out russian tank we always see the crew get out and flee the battlefield safely. So no crew protection was never an afterthought, the russian design philosophy is simply far more realistic within its visions that tanks will be lost and some crews will unfortunately die. So instead of making an invincible tank they want to make a the best tank that they can within those realistic expectation. A real weapon of war is one that has the ability to be mass produced, is easy to maintain and above all is reliable enough to withstand the harsh nature of the battlefield.
@@Silver_Prussian I mean where is the Leopards lacking in your point? Mass produced for decades, simply maintained and so reliable other nations keep buying its engine for their own projects, as its probably still the best on the market. But there are mayor differences in crew survivability, I remember reading an report earlier this year which claimed the chance to get out alive from a hit Leopard was roughly double compared to T72 in Russian service. But well its doing better in that regard than the T34, especially when one compares it to the Sherman for example
This is not ww2 when you had Tiger, panther and tiger 2 bounce allied shots. Modern ATGMs will disable any western tank. Modern artillery will do the same. There is not a single tank today that is made with top attack and drones in mind. Every tank today in Ukraine is a cold war design. Even mines today will immobilize a tank.
To be anywhere near the "game changer" that many had promised, ten times more Leopard2s would have had to be delivered immediately and in one large delivery, rather than in dribs and drabs over the course of a year In addition, enough spare parts and ammunition should have been delivered, not to mention the months-long dispute between Poland and Germany over the repair center for these tanks!
@@alispeed5095 Thats bullshit man Of course, drones have become an indispensable weapon, even against tanks, but they dominate the battlefield because there is a stalemate! Neither Russia nor Ukraine have enough material to end this stalemate quickly!
@@alispeed5095 Of course, drones have become an indispensable weapon, even against tanks, but they dominate the battlefield because there is a stalemate! Neither Russia nor Ukraine have enough material to end this stalemate quickly!
@@Jonsonsan This is an attritional war, that much is common knowledge and there is no need to end it quickly. Resources are the currency at the moment. Who can keep the grind going for the longest. So yes, like l said 2k leos wont matter because they wouldnt be enough. Drones would eat them faster. Russia has demonstrated this. They have at the moment lost over 1k tanks l think. Yet the war is still going. More leos will simply mean more leos trashed by drones. Who even came up with this "stalemate" idea. Do you have another meaning not based in english? The maps show movement, gradual movement for months now. How is that a stalemate?
@@alispeed5095 Drones will stop being so prevelant soon, neither nation has decent counter measures to them currently. But I'm betting you're a civvie and don't have a clue.
The Leopard 2 dates to the late 1970s. Yes, the T72 and T80 date similarly (the T90 being a decade+ newer). But that doesn't make the Leopard some exceptional piece of kit, just roughly comparable. And before you say "but it's been upgraded" 1) The Russians have upgraded their tanks, also, and 2) Ukraine is not given the newest versions of any tank, always outmoded ones which western armies are getting rid of.
@IceAxe1940 Seven, as far as I know, are counted as losses: 1 destroyed and 6 damaged. It's unknown how much of the damaged ones were recovered and repaired.
no point in correcting him our "objective guy" went with "full scale invasion" narative from the start despite being obvious to everyone with brain that there is no full scale invasion of any kind but a limited intervention that with time grew into something bigger for someone who likes to represent himself as objective RedEffect fails at that and few other issues or he does it on purpose not to make big portion of his viewer base angry
Tank on vehicle combat and crew survivability are important, but most of the battles are not conductive to armored warfare. All vehicles are put into the situations where losses are inevitable the way things are going for both sides. It just comes down to numbers and if losses can be recovered for reconstruction.
No weapon is a standalone item. They are meant to be part of a system. Ukraine doesn’t really have a full Western system so declaring any item a failure is unfair. (Besides the ones that outright can’t do their basic job like the GPS bombs/artillery shells that are easily jammed.). But with that said all NATO weapons are going to need upgrades seeing how much drones have changed modern combat.
Technically what your saying is true the Ukraine use of leopard 2 defer from the German use also not to mention Ukraine is literally a eastern tech user before the war so changing it in 1/2 years is more then hard
At the end of the day, they performed as they were designed to perform, but there just aren't enough of them for a protracted slugging fest. Tanks go to war, tanks take damage, tanks get destroyed. The main benefit the leopards offer is crew survivability. And in that front, they have done their job well. This is the kind of war that simply needs an armored vehicle with a big gun with HE. Leopards just aren't cost effective in their current numbers.
Yes, it's not a bad tank (in contrast to the Challenger 2, which has proven an overweight, clumsy and not very effective mistake, to add to its logistical problems using different ammunition from all other NATO tanks). Unfortunately, in a war this big, numbers are essential. 500 Leopards might be a "game changer". 40 or 50, definitely not.
The type of fast-moving, open warfare, supported by massive airpower, artillery & supporting infantry is what all modern MBT's excel at. That type of warfare just hasn't happened in Ukraine. So it's not just the Leopard, the same applies to all MBT's used on both sides of the conflict.
It "could" happen if NATO decided to fully defend Ukraine. You would see Sky to Ground coordination, jamming, advanced forward targeting, and the pace of retribution would be WAY faster than the meat-wave zombie walking Russia has been doing.
I have a friend from Ukraine who moved to Australia 15 years ago. His parents still live in Malyn, which is just outside of Kyiv. In March 2023, he volunteered as a tank crewman/gunner. He received training on the T-72 with the 47th Mechanized Brigade and later trained on the Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks. However, he only got to operate an Abrams tank in August 2024. From what he's told me, tanks remain a formidable force on the battlefield and have played a vital role in reclaiming regions occupied by Russia. The media often focuses on the negative aspects, such as tanks being destroyed by drones, because these stories make for better news. However, in reality, tanks continue to be significant in combat when operated by well-trained crewmen. In the wrong hands, they can be extremely ineffective and become large, easy targets don't believe everything you see on the news they love to spin stories that are complete BS.
well tank is a tank its purpose is to push and provide support for infantry as long the objective completed any tanks is good, the design is different with each nation having different doctrines, NATO is richer so they can afford more expensive tanks, while russia is poor, as soviet, so they made it cheaper, easier to repair, comparing russia and nato tank when we look closeup , nato tank is much better, better finishing, top quality, but when you look at russian its just well served its purpose for the money.
People love the story of some underdog thing (in this case, a cheap small drone) defeating some big scary thing. Likewise, Americans are obsessed with technology and futurism....it served them so well in the Vietnam War (see all the stuff Robert MacNamara's people cooked up). Of course, I am being sarcastic...the faith in technology above all leads to unpreparedness for anything demanding quantity/endurance in the face of attrition.
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Depends. If a success constitutes as "making a relevant change in the battlefield", any tank will fail, no matter which one you send, even the Abrams X. The only place 50 tanks will will against 10000, is in a fanfiction.
That's the point, huge numbers of production, ease of repair, I have seen Russians changing turrets of their damaged tanks only few km from the front nowhere in the fields, fast and efficient, no need factory or special equipment, only a mobile crane and some bolts...
@@somedudewithgrassgrowingou4177 western tanks only good when they face muslims with equipment what are outdated by 30-40 years also the same excuses could be applied for soviet tanks as ukro and western meda says about western stuff, that crew were untrained, vehicle was not properly used or lacked air superiority
Every tank did their job in this war as usual...until something called drone show up. But Leopard surely get a big plus with their reverse speed. I don't even need to talk about the castastrophic reverse speed of T 72s and T 90s.
modern battlefield heavenly favors the defender, unless you have air superiority or overwhelming artillery fire power. leopards are objectively better tanks then any soviet tank, but that's about it, you won't get far if arty or a drone spot you.
Because you all Shit yourself when WE produce more Tank Numbers Like bruh WE slightly increase the severly underfunded Bundeswehr and you all Scream Terror that the Wehrmacht IS Back. ON one Hand you whine that German Military IS weak ON the Other you are scared when WE try to BE slightly competent.
One thing this does show, is that the west doesn't have the industrial base to sustain a large scale conventional war. My own country, the UK, sent 14 Chally 2's. I always wondered what Ukraine was gonna do with 14 tanks, they needed 400 Challengers (that we don't have). The leo 6 is a fantastic tank but not in small numbers that they can become isolated. This war is a drone war with some artillery sprinkled on top.
I disagree. I wouldn’t say they don’t have the industrial base. Western nations definitely are superior to Russia economically & industrially. They’re all just lacking the political will to start producing military products. Potential inflation & re elections are more important to politicians than Ukraine, which is what Russia is banking on. Unfortunately. Same thing happened pre-WW2.
The west absolutely has the industrial base to sustain. They just don't want to spend the money. The comparatively very small UK automotive industry alone can produce around 1.5 million cars and 85k trucks per year.
Why is it always talked like only russians capture west vehicles to test and examine? Ukrainanes also captrue even t90Ms but no one talks about it like it's nothing, like isn't this part of the war? Some equipment no matter what will get capture
I have seen many videos about Ukrainians capturing T90Ms in the past. It's treated as a bid deal, I don't know why you are saying nobody talked about it.
@rm4po4 i mean that yes, we do hear about capturing them but never in a way that we will learn all about their secret technology and shit, maybe I live in a information bubble but that's how it's always presented to me
@@mateuszreszka3033 I understand what you are saying, not arguing, but we saw that with the capture of new AK's from Russian soldiers, captures of T90M's, even the shoot down of their new fighter-drone. The was much 'fan-fare', is that the word for it?
Because the narrative is Russians are an army of zombies and junk. If the Ukrainians captured junk who cares, the Russians captured a unicorn from Germany and America. It's propaganda backfiring. Also, T90 is not that impressive of a tank anyways. It's basically a T72 with better safety features, the two aren't that different when you compare it to the T64 to T80 evolution.
This war demonstrates the need for tanks with assault guns like the Sheridan, Stryker MGS, or the ill-fated Patton "Starship"; any sufficiently armored tank that can move fast and deliver direct, howitzer-like fire towards trenches or fortifications. Basically, a modern Stug
Many people forget that tanks can’t be made to do everything and the Leopard 2s are exceptional tanks, for tank on tank combat. They’re not as good for tank vs. inf. and emplacements because that wasn’t their design goals. Wonderful video as always Red!
The big black hole in knowledge right now is the performance of the Swedish Strv-122s and CV90s. AFAIK Sweden has asked the Ukrainians to not feature their vehicles in combat footage, so its quite difficult to gauge whats happening with them from open sources.
Coming from a Canadian, I just think that the expectations set by the fact our tanks are so expensive and overengineered to the point they're considered "world beating," led us to heavily overestimate the capability and usefulness of said equipment. In reality Russian tanks and the ideology behind them is honestly more practical for war imo (cheap, easy to maintain, high volume production, "good enough" tanks).
After the western media having poked fun at Russian/ soviet origin tanks and having hyped up. Western origin tanks as game -changer, indestructible, invincible tanks and suddenly lots of western origin tanks being destroyed in huge numbers must have forced the western countries to pressurize ukraine from using these tanks in front lines.
@@sigma-sigma1capturing an intact tank really solidifies its quality. If the crew survives an immobilized tank that’s a good thing because you don’t lose the crew, soviet tanks tend to cook their ammo and erupt into flames taking the crew with it.
@@123Bratv If it’s of soviet/russian origin yes american there’s a much much better chance of survival because their ammo is stored in the crew compartment so a penetration is basically unsurvivable abrams have all their ammo protected by blowout panels. American tank design has crew safety as their #1 priority
It's because they did nothing. They aren't even good as mobile artillery, because they HE rounds are weaker and they aren't given HE rounds because they don't want the tanks to explode violently when hit like that one in Syria (most violent tank explosion ever), so they are basically useless and are kept in the back lines and always ran away fast in case of danger
Nobody relevant on the Russian side is actually mocking the L2A6 (we are mocking the Challengeour 2 but that's a shit tank). What we are mocking about the Leo2A6 is the propaganda that came with it. Ukrops even made promotional videos annoucing their arrival on the battlefield.
@@calypso2224 You can literally see the each individual record of a kill, any objections are instantly reviewed and removed if need be tf u talking abt
Also, the nature of all major tanks being MBTs with roughly similar design requirements means that no tank is likely to be as dominant as say, a Tiger or Konigstiger, whose opponnents would frequently be light or medium tanks weighing less than half as much, with much smaller guns. All the competition is just better or worse versions of the same general vehicle class.
True. Wait until the next generation, Leopard 3's and so on. There will be ideas like ball turrets with automated anti-drone / anti-missile systems similar to CIWS on ships (but smaller of course). Either that or they will learn to always travel with specialized support vehicles tasked with that job. I mean the doctrines around the Cold War armour formations actually did contain such ideas, in terms of tank groups having anti-aircraft support vehicles; they just never envisioned the enemy "air" threat being unmanned and so small & numerous.
there are anti drone technologies developed into the next-gen MBTs, and possibly standalone electronic warfare countermeasure systems. The cheap drones used in the Ukrainian war are only a temporary solution as their operational range cannot be extended reasonably and UAVs are just too pricey for their role.
"superior firepower" for real? it literally doesnt have proper ammo for fighting enemy in trenches and buildings! Those are the complains from Ukrainians who serve on Leaopards and Abrams.
You didn't mention the eight Leopard 2A4 Tanks that Canada sent. They were all prepared beforehand in Canada so were battle ready when delivered in January and February 2023. I don't know what happened to them.
The way I see it, every tank has failed in Ukraine. I’m guessing that’s down to the nature of this war more than the basic qualities of the tanks involved.
Tank is gone, maybe the crews survives. Meanwhile a humble modernized t72 costs a fraction of an abrams (as much as 10 times less) and it isn't a catastrophic loss when it explodes, because they do explode, since there are many more coming.
The main reason for the "explosion" of Soviet tanks is not their design, but the presence of a large number of high-explosive fragmentation shells inside. Leopards do not explode en masse, simply because there is nothing to burst into, there are ordinary "crowbars" lying there. Naturally, blow-out panels and protected containers for shells reduce the chance of detonation of the tank, but not much, the main reason is the lack of high-explosive shells.
-Russian media and propaganda has tried very hard to hit disabled & abandoned western tanks with outsize missiles or even guided bombs to create spectacular explosions. They want to say "See they're tanks are as stupid as ours" and reinforce Putins "They will burn" narrative. Much of the losses of western tanks can be traced to a lack of Western SHORAD suitable for destroying Russian attack helicopters at long ranges at which they were able to fire their long range LMUR and Vikhr missiles. -The Leopard 2A8 of which deliveries start in 2025 has a 360 degree protection by a APS trophy system able to repel not only ATGM but has software to detect and counter micro drones. Ukraine has never been given state of the art Western Tanks, most are 10-30 years old (eg M1A1) . The best it got was Leopard 2A6 and Challenger II whereas Russia is fielding new production weapons.
@@scatterlite2266 the main reason for Russian tank turret tosses is not the projectiles exploding but the propellants. Some of the latest Rheinmetal rounds have such a stable propellant they can actually absorb fragments of HEAT without exploding. Sometimes the British challenger of tank is criticised for not having blowout panels through all of its ammunition but that’s because only the propellant charges need blowout panels. The projectiles don’t need them and in the challenger the Projectiles and propellant are separate charges and stored separately
@@scatterlite2266 there’s nothing but Russian propaganda around the damage to challenger tanks. I don’t believe the information out there is trustworthy. You know Russian propaganda there’s a lot of professionals involved in spreading it
MBTs are very heavy and require forward support. They have their uses, but are much better as part of a combined arms approach, preferably with air superiority.
Comment section really went through the 5 stages of grief. -Denial: "Nooo, it's just russian proganda, no tanks were lost" -Anger: "well, the fucking russian tank explode and ours don't, blow up harder!" -Bargaining: "well, it's a tank, in a war, of course it gets lost. But just watch, they will perform better. (Sniff copium) - Depression: "well it's a war, everyone lose. It's just a fact of life. " -Acceptance: "Lol, the Ariete is the best tank since none were lost 😂. "
The Brits only sent 14 Challengers as political cover (Along with the American contribution of 31 Abrams tanks) to give Germany political cover to send and authorize other NATO countries to send Leopard 1 and 2. The Challengers are so few in number that the PR blow from losing one is more damaging for Ukraine than any damage to Russia from using them. At least 31 American Abrams sent to Ukraine has meant that the loss of a few hasn't been seen as a catastrophic loss for the Ukrainians, and those losses will be made up and the Abrams fleet nearly tripled by 49 ex-Australian army Abrams. And, the Leo1 and Leo2 fleets are still getting replacement units from Germany, Spain, Denmark, and other NATO states. Unless the UK can free up another 10 or 15 Challenger 2s, they are just not worth using in Ukraine.
Challenger has the same shitty ammunition storage like cold war soviet tanks. Leopards are far safer for the crew whilst the Challenger is probably actively worse that Ukraines soviet style tanks due to having the same weaknesses whilst having separate logistics and training
The issue is, that the Leo 2 was not designed how the ukraine uses them. Ukraine sends them (mostly) alone on missions where they are highly vulnerable. But a Leo 2 is designed to be used in the "combined arms combat". In Germany we say "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen". It needs protection from APCs and also not just one single tank, but at least 4 of them. And most likely, as we have drones as a big threat for tanks now, they also need a jammer around for those things. The Leopard 2 is the best Tank in the world, but only when used properly. And as every military vehicle, it can be destroyed and so far, it does it job very well in saving the crew.
@@КостюмчёрныйНиоченьIn addition to Russia maintaining a great propaganda network, many of you also love to make false claims that have no truth whatsoever.
Most Ukranian tanks never make it to the battlefield and if they do they don't last long, its a horrible place to fight in everyway especially against a fire power ratio we see in this war
The fact that it has to be sent back to Germany or Poland for repairs is a gigantic set back and a waste of resources and time. It's nothing that should be done when in a war. You need things you can repair on hand even if the entire hull is all that remains.
I've read that Ukraine only has one single facility capable of properly repairing Leopard tanks and it was actually built during the war. So it's better than... not repairing them, I guess.
Well that is just false, I don’t know if he purposefully left it out but Ukraine has repair facilities by knds and Rheinmetall inside Ukraine. I guess this is either a testament to bias or nearly no research.
It is refreshing to hear someone speak about the tanks in this war without bias. You tell it like it is, you don't sugar coat it, nor do you attack it without justification. Too often people talk about things the way they want them to be seen, not the way they really are. From the very beginning the idea of sending any western armor into battle piece meal was a disaster. The reason the west has been able to defeat their opponents has been by using a combined arms strategy. That way each piece has the protection of the others. All of the western tanks were going to be vulnerable because of the way they are being employed. It is not that the Ukrainian army wants to do it this way, they don't have the option to do it any other way. The Russians, on the other hand, have the ability to put together a combined arms attack, I just can't figure out why they didn't do it from the start. Now many of their best weapons are gone because they used them improperly. I fear that we are now entering a stage from which their is no return. When we war-gamed in the 80's while I was a cadet, when missiles were fired by us, the Soviets would fire missiles back. The next step in the progression would be for us to fire tactical nukes, and the Soviets would fire them back. Then cities were wiped out, and then everything was wiped out except the cockroaches. It really wasn't a slow burning fuse, it was more like flash powder. Once it was lit, it would be impossible to stop. I only hope that cooler heads will stop this war before it destroys not just Ukraine and Russia, but the entire world. Anyway, this comment went from a praising RedEffect to an old mans opinion no one asked for. I just wish none of this happened. It is a shame that when politicians fail, their citizens are the ones who suffer. Perhaps in the future, when politicians can't solve problems, the leaders of both sides will then fight it out amongst themselves. That way entire generations of young men aren't wiped out because they could not get along. That way we don't have to worry that someone is going to destroy the whole world because they didn't get their way.
Soviet Strategy was allway reliant on the strenght the numbers could provide... and furthermore the soviets aimed for simplified logistics, in order to be able to keep the war machine working even under stress T-34, T-10, T-54/55, T-62, T-72 and T-90 are a testament of that... T-64 and T-80 might be a different story since the approach was more mid-term between classic soviet tanks and western "high quality tank" doctrine, but these weren't the majority of the tank stock. Of course Leo2 is a better tank than T-72 and T-64 (and even T80 and T-90, since these are reworks of the T-64 and T-72)... first because it was a direct response to those 2 designs... second because the NATO doctrine is different, NATO knew the western European countrys couldn't match Warsaw pact tank production in terms of industrial capacity... yet they had better/stronger financial structure, so they had to bet on better quality and better crew protection, to somehow even the numbers, since they had the money to build more advanced tanks. That being said, in small scale conflicts with somehow even numbers, the best quality will dominate the battlefield... but on a war of atrition the soviet concept of "good enough, with better logistics in extremely large numbers" imposes over the "top quality and better crew protection" concept of NATO. And please don't quote Desert Storm as a valid point against my statement... comparing M1A1 covered by extreme air dominance + advanced intel support to unprotected stock T-55 in a toe-to-toe battle isn't even worth answering
The Leopard didn't fail the west did. From what I understand I it did better than Abrams and the Challenger 2, but don't quote me on that. I try to save myself from the news of this terrible war.
Yes, Abrams and Challenger 2 are simply too heavy for this war. Leopard 2 has done the best out of the Western tanks but is still just a tank after all.
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 I kinda ended up prefering ex soviet machines and ideas. They are replaceable, they cost a fraction of any western tank, they are lighter. Yes they do often explode when penetrated, but when the tungsten enters your tank most of the crew is still likely gonna die and the tank isn't going home. The safety measure of soviet tanks is the fact they use 1 less crew per tank, that guy is the one that survives 100% of the time.
@@pierluigiadreani2159 you are almost correct on your statement but let me correct you somrthings. The wxploding kill crew is an mostly export version and just some cases russian it happened and thats a myth that russian tank crews are not survivable. Its been debunked. And many russian crews surviced. Heck even a btr-82 got hit by a tank and crews survived. So please do not spread that myth again.
Can you do a video about why the summer counter offensive failed? Maybe more specifically why the anti mine vehicles could not work their way through the minefields
Not if your consider war & chaos were the objective from the start, and one NATO power in particular getting all that it wants strategically, politically & economically, without risking any blood of its own people.
@@canadianoctopus1479 The only down side is the reverse gear, but in general it does the same as the leo 2a6 both are great and both have downsides and flaws, but I still agree T90M is cheaper and easy on logi. The BVM I don't like it as much becuase it doesn't have the commander sight with the remove MG, the laser warning and soone the ArenaM that is a very big plus compare to the BVM, so if you compare the T-90M to the BVM it as far more positives them negatives the only one being the reverse speed but it gets outshine by the other positive points I said.
Simple fact is that all tanks are vulnerable now - just as are all other pieces of equipment. It’s how you use them, the numbers, and being part of a well planned combined arms operation that makes all the difference.
Go to piavpn.com/RedEffect to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!
seggs
I am curious about the Centauro Italy sent to Ukraine, what happened to them?
Is oryx still updated their site regarding losses?
They did better than the Abrams.
PIA VPN is a honeypot! Tracing the financial dependencies at several levels, we come to a company with links to Israeli intelligence. The direct owner of PIA VPN has also bought several other previously popular and secure VPN service companies.
If You do not belive me, track this finansial connection with chatbot.
I think the Gulf Wars created an unrealistic expectation of Western tanks being somewhat invincible. Yet still so many tanks are engaged by arty, drones and mines. With the odd shoulder launched jobby getting in on the act.
What shoulder launched? Bth sides have ATGMs with 5-10km range
If the US Backed Coalition was defending Ukraine IN FULL FORCE (All assets and boots on the ground), Western Tanks would be making a way better showing. Drop Shipping Tanks to Ukrainian crews without the Multi-Tier support system they are designed to work within is making them fight blind-folded and one arm behind their back.
@@ShawnBoxIf US backed coalition will try to do smthg in full force, they will get much more coffins to their countries, and it will lead to a nuclear war.
That's why they uses Ukraine as proxy and avoid direct conflict with Russia.
Only idiots think "mad dictator" Putin attacked "small" Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't small, they build fortifications for 8 years, they got help of 10x russian prewar military budget.etc and etc
The Gulf War was a massive combined arms operation with air supremacy. Ukraine was given a handful of tanks for its 1000 miles of frontage. If Ukraine had a massive coalition at its disposal it would be very different.
@@matthewnewell4517not to mention this is a new form of warfare with kamikaze drones
to me, no modern MBT in ukraine has "failed" or is bad.
All are generally good or decent.
The leopard was simply overhyped, so was hunted aggressively by russia (same for abrams and challenger)
Applies to the T90M as well. I recently saw a video where it says how the T90M is bad cuz its from the T72 family and its so pathetic that russia upgrades the family.
People are to hyper critical of these vehicles
The T-90M is objectively a bad thank because it's crew is unlikely to survive a penetrating hit due to the autoloader being directly in the middle of the crew compartment. That issue will never be resolved unless Russia is willing to use a bustle autoloader or a 4th crew man.
@Bigweave74 I've seen multiple videos of T90ms being hit on the top back of the turret (where they store some of its ammunition) by half a dozen drones and being fine.
No ammo cook off. The crews didn't even abandon the vehicles immediately after the hits in both cases.
I've also seen a video of a T90M shrugging off a javelin hit to its side.
Of course some have been destroyed by ATGMs, but my point being the T90M can very much survive powerful dangerous hits and be fine
@@Bigweave74the autoloader usually isnt the reason the ammo detonates, usually it happens due to extra ammo that isnt in the autoloader being hit. The t series tanks get a lot of shit and most of it us undeserved imo
@@Bigweave74the problem is not about the autoloader but its abt the additional ammo who is not protected at all and the t90m is not the only tank that could be killed by a drone from the top, the leopard 2 can explode if it been hit from the top of the hull next to the driver, same goes for the challenger 2.
Just ask yourself if you would rather sit in Leopard/Abrams or T series tank. I think for any sane person the answer is obvious, so no - there are good and bad tanks.
You kids may not like it but after this war the Ariete is the only western mbt that never suffered any casualties. Peak performance.
Have there ever been Leclerc lost? Or for that matter, used in combat?
@@jnievele yes actually . saudi use them to fight in yemen
@@jnievelenope
Thanks for the chuckle 🙏
Italian stronk!
The lack of HE shells proves the point that using something like a T54 is perfectly viable in this conflict. If it moves, can sustain small arms fire, and shoots HE, then it's a useful vehicle.
Leo2 has HE shells and we have seen them in ukrainian service. there maybe a shortage in ukraine of those rounds. (DM11 HE-Frag)
@@cathulhu-q7y well shortage is problem here , doesn't matter the tank have HE shell or not , the matter is tank crews on the frontline have those shell or not .
@@ThànhHoàngNgọc-w8r Yeah, pro-ukrainians forget often what they actually got. I remember when they were talking about the smart shells, ukriane got. They always forget that they got about a 1000 of them back in 2022. But they still talk about the accurate western shells.
Well, except for the lack of ballistic computer. And thermals. And detection of laser rangefindera.
How would you feel to know all your country can give you is a 70 year old tank?
I think the overhyping of Western tanks have made their deployment highly publicized and examined, which I can understand. There hasn't been a clash of armor in the modern digital age, moreover MODERN armors no less, so tank and military enthusiasts can't help themselves but feel attached to things that they grew up with in video games and medias.
People are simply bias until humbled. Rinse repeat the process following the next topic. It never ends.
because there were "Western" expert saying bs like one leopard tank would defeat a whole russian company.
@@geronimo5537no lol. Most will never learn, or refuse reality
Turns out they burned as bright I guess
Serious tanks vs tanks battles happened in early stages of the war but by the end of 2022 Ukrainian army lost so many tanks that they became rare till this idiotic "counteroffensive". And both sides already learned to use drones making harder to use big groups of AFVs.
No, it has failed as much as any tank has failed in Ukraine, people need to get Desert Storm out of their subconscious once and for all and accept that this is not Iraq, where ground forces advanced unopposed against obsolete and inferior forces and tanks
Concurred
Not for t-72. Western media declared that t-72 is best tank in the world and ouperformed leopard and abrams combined
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 It isn't on it's own, it's ''The best'' for Russosphere areas
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 LMAO
Elaborate on how tanks have failed and why they are obsolete
Back in the height of the Cold War, the German army fielded Leo 1s and 2s in the thousands.
The doctrine of the day insisted that these tanks fight in large and well coordinated battlegroups from battalion level upwards with brigade level fire assets to support.
The war in Ukraine has yet to call for such doctrine and thus - not just Leo 2 - but all MBTs are out of their element in this conflict.
The IFV and drone will always be king for Ukraine's struggle.
Back in the height of cold war, it was west germany and east germany
They tried massed armour on the southern front and were massacred.
Mass tanks are just easy targets for drones. No matter how large your tank group is, there are more cheap drones out there waiting for you.
RPG rocket is not ultimate weapon it only should give some antiprotection to the infantry. In reality tanks often survive a lot of hits and even penetrations can do no serious damage. So it usually takes a lot of drones to burn the tank down for sure. Even a tank without antidrone protection. But modern Russian tanks refurbished from storage and new built ones have a lot of antidrone improvements: additional armor in vulnerable places, nets, jammers. The last ones are deficit but the situation changes only in tanks' favor.
@@beltar2you don't account for crew being spooked and running at first hit
They had mines underneath them, artillery and Ka52s above them and Kornets lurking all around. How the hell is a tank meant to perform driving straight into the teeth of all that?
Nothing is going to survive it.
0:50 Leo casually flexing it's reverse speed to T-72's behind the camera
MOGGED
Germans love being able to run away towards Berlin 😂
@@PitchBlackYeti slower reverse speed is sigma
Advancing like Ukrainians in reverse.
Yeah the venerable “reverse speed” of western tanks proved to be useless in such scenarios as Ukraine. You can’t hide from drones or artillery, whether you’re going 70 kph forwards or -30 kph backwards.
This myth got busted so badly in the Ukraine war.
Un supported armor will lead to armor losses. Pretty straightforward.
Lol in current state of fire support you going to be killed by artillery or drones no matter, what you do. You physically cannot defend yourself from this weapons, they are too concealed and survivable. If you even do a perfect assault in the enemy positions you are going to lose a lot of equipment and men. If it was so easy, then there wouldn't be such small advancements. This is a lesson NATO will learn in next conflict.
That is the essence of it. All the rest is blablabla.
How you gonna support a tank in modern war?
Even properly supported armour will have losses vs a peer or near peer opponent
@@jevgenijjankovskij8537 same as any other. with dismounted infantry and combined arms.
Actually it fared better than Abrams or Challenger which went totally into invisibility mode after a couple of losses. It put up an actual fight unlike those.
well the thing is Leopard 2's were supplied in much larger numbers than the Abrams or Challenger, with around I think 71 or so Leopard 2's of all variants being sent? I believe the Spanish have also sent or are sending their second batch of Leopard 2's to Ukraine now as well, I believe it was likely the fact that there were just more of them with more spare parts that lead to them being used more, if the Ukrainians lose 15 leopards thats a big deal but they can recover, 15 abrams and thats half of their entire fleet, we'll see though with the new Australian promise of 50 or so Abrams tanks though
Yeah in my mind it goes something like leopard2/Abrams/modern t-series > the rest >>> challenger 2 which got it's entire fleet obliterated through emotional damage
@@iraeis7267 Good lord, you civvies don't half talk some shit.
@@iraeis7267 Very funny, but the Challenger has been okay, not amazing but okay. And out of the massive fleet of fourteen tanks sent, they have lost two through combat rather than any emotions.
@@ohnoes3084Abrams literally doesn’t have a dedicated HE round for infantry. What kind of “tank” doesn’t have such a round? With that alone any tank is better than the Abrams
3:38 You know the HE rounds situation is bad when the tank is filled with a typical Leopard 2 War Thunder loadout.
As a user of PIA for very different reasons than in the promo, I can factually state that you CANNOT use it to access region locked streaming content from the likes of Amazon or Netflix. It will also trigger a ton of other sites that will deem you a bot and make you jump through captcha hoops on login or outright won't let you through. I'd avoid it.
This is truth
that might be amazon or netflix, if they restrict by credit card but i understand netflix at least does not actually, you need to choose which country your IP is
i'm not suprised if this stopped working but VPN did work previously with netflix
@@DarkShroom its just a cat and mouse game, if streaming services detects a lot of use from certain IP's they ban those IP's. Then the VPN services needs to change their IP adress, which they will only do when its in high demand. It's just a loop of banning and getting new ones
Thanks!
All MBTs in this war sucked. Not because of the tanks itself or by its crews, but because of the proliferation of better anti-tank weapons and tactics like better ATGMs and UCAVs.
What everyone almost forgot is that both Russia and Ukraine doesn't have the overwhelmingly air power the Coalition had when they decimated the Iraqi army to make MBTs really effective.
Not for russian tanks like t-72. It was declared by the western media it outperformed all modern tanks like abrams, leopard. Its a fact
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 in what regard and what western media said this? have yet to see anybody say that
Its really impossible to gain air superiority in a near peer conflict until one side is near collapse. This was pretty well demonstrated in both world wars.
@@armadillo3454 how about you google national interest about t-72?
@@armadillo3454 national interest is a good start for you to google
I guess it depends on what you define as success. If 40 L2's were expected to allow Ukraine to win the war, then yes it has, but that is an absurd goal.
For me it was supposed to give Ukraine a modern MBT to be able to fight T-90M and improve crew survivability. By that measure it is a success. I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle. It has given Ukraine access to one of the best tanks in the world but also shown that the MBT does need to move with the times.
Operationally it has suffered, but a lot of that is for the same reasons Russia has been endlessly ridiculed; poor use and deployment. The early days of the Ukrainian Offensive saw Bradley and L2 used poorly, and so took losses.
For me the only tank that hasn't 'failed' per say is T-64, because at the start of the war, plenty predicted it would have no answer to T-72, T-80 and especially T-90, but here it is nearly three years later still performing a frontline role. It has suffered losses and is not really a match for T-90M, but seems to have generally held up. So T-64 has gone from being an old, out-dated, practically obsolete tank to being no less capable on a modern battlefield than any of it's T-Tank cousins.
In Soviet time T-64 wasn't considered as inferior to T-72 in battle capabilities. Just more expensive and less reliable. But many even modern Russian sources claim that T-64 is in many ways better than T-72.
@@manichaean1888 Interesting, I admit I'm not really aware of how T-64 was perceived by the Soviets, I know T-72 was created as a cheaper alternative and more widely adopted, and T-64 was retired by the Soviets but I was under the impression that the T-72 was preferred by Soviet commanders as it meant more tank for the buck.
@@deaks25 T-64 wasn't retired. It was produced in smaller numbers in Kharkov, which in 1991 became a part of independent Ukraine, and T-72 was produced in Urals region. Therefore, most of T-64s remained in Ukraine as some of the best first line divisions were armed with them. And T-72 as more mass produced tank was sent to second and third line divisions in Mother Russia.
In terms of battle capabilities the latest versions of both tanks are more or less the same.
Let's be real here - Leopard 2's (and Abrams) goal was to break through the russian fortifications during the ukrainian so-called "counteroffensive" in 2023 and allow the ukrainian army to reach the Azov sea at least, Crimea at best. These tanks were never (initially) meant for defense, they were meant to be used entirely in the offensive. And they failed utterly and hopelessly.
So, in a sense - yes, they were expected to allow Ukraine to win the war. That was exactly their intended role.
@@Fullgrym Yes and no. Ukraine had been begging for MBT's long before even the UK set things off; Poland had been steadily transferring it's entire stock of T-72s and it's own PT-91s basically since day one.
The problem has always been numbers, Ukraine simply can't match the quantity being thrown at them, so needed a superiority gap to make up for it, ie L2 and Abrams, because that's exactly what they're designed for; overcoming a quantity problem with quality.
However, you are correct, Ukraine did choose to use L2 in offensive operations, and those operations were a complete bust that cost a lot of men and material, but it's not a breakthrough tank, it's a combined-arms, manoeuvre-warfare tank, and Ukraine didn't use it in that role and instead just yeeted Leopards and Bradley's straight into prepared defences. Any tank, even a tank vastly superior to anything else, if it is used incorrectly is going to underperform.
I think it's probably fair to say L2 hasn't been the 'game changer' Western media hyped it up to be, because war doesn't work like that. Same for Abrams as well.
Lack of ammunition, especialy HE might also be why they are not burning as much, more ammo, even with insensitive propellent, will still burn, a tungston or DU dart wont burn as much as a larger volume HE round (modern explosives depending on the type can be safely burnt, C4 for example will not explode if ignited but will burn)
It's just a tank. It hasn't failed. Most of what has failed has been the supply of ammunition, training and misuse by commanders. This applies to all tanks in Ukr control.
The most overhyped tank so far has probably been either the Challenger or Abrams, which people seem to assume are super ultra high tech western god vehicles, but in fact, are just 40 year old tank designs.
It's hypocritical of us because we have laughed at destroyed Russian tanks in beginning of war but when first abrams after 6 month arrival got destroyed in 20 minutes without firing a single shell, we say "it's normal", blame training misuse etc..
@@sleepyjoe7843 Challenger 2's mythical status was also btfo'd when the first one got destroyed 5km behind the front lines, and then we haven't seen another one enter combat untill last month i think.
@@thesayxx but but challenger ate 7 billion rpg hits
@@sleepyjoe7843yup, no offense but that's western stereotype
Challenger was probably the most embarrassing one, comparing the hype to actual performance
I've been called a russbot for saying that the western armour will suffer the same as the soviet one, bc of the kind of war that is being fought.
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
it's cause most people invested in this treat this like a sports game and don't know how war works. No Air Supremacy on the transparent battlefield means no deep exploitation, limited maneuverability. Literally the only reason, America won so quickly in Iraq but the fatties delude themselves so they can feel like they did something impressive.
Hyped people are the worst in talking they want to win the talk not achieve information of it
Thats NAFO Section for you. The "anti russian propaganda that would fight with another propaganda" they are just as annoying as PETA. Boast of helping Ukraine but only attacking people that isnt bias to Ukraine...online... Nutsea Gestapo but redditor mod in nutshell
Once again, i am calling you a russbot.
And once again, not because you said that western armour will suffer loses,
but because you play warthunder.
gore of my comfort character
Those bastards
oh god don't remind me of that tag
Oh, that's comfort of my gore character ☹️
if you never want to see your toys fail never take them out the box
4:33 CZECH REPUBLIC MENTIONED🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿
Which war did the czech ever win 🤣🤣🤣 your country is a joke 🤣🤣💩
ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA NAVŽDY🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿🇨🇿
Congrats! 😂
I think people misunderstand the Russian doctrine behind their tank designs, they understand that equipment is going to be destroyed in battle, no matter how advanced it is, so they design it with the idea that it must be possible to quickly and affordably build replacements and quickly train new crews to operate it. While the west builds the best tanks they can afford, Russia builds the best tanks they can replace.
True but thats also the Leopards biggest strength. We also know it will be destoyed - but we also know a freshly Trainer crew wont be anywhere near as effektive as an experinced crew. Thats why its build for Crew survivability, which seemed to have been an afterthought for the Russians all the way back to the T34
@@MyILoveMinecraft in most videos of a knocked out russian tank we always see the crew get out and flee the battlefield safely. So no crew protection was never an afterthought, the russian design philosophy is simply far more realistic within its visions that tanks will be lost and some crews will unfortunately die. So instead of making an invincible tank they want to make a the best tank that they can within those realistic expectation.
A real weapon of war is one that has the ability to be mass produced, is easy to maintain and above all is reliable enough to withstand the harsh nature of the battlefield.
@@Silver_Prussian I mean where is the Leopards lacking in your point? Mass produced for decades, simply maintained and so reliable other nations keep buying its engine for their own projects, as its probably still the best on the market.
But there are mayor differences in crew survivability, I remember reading an report earlier this year which claimed the chance to get out alive from a hit Leopard was roughly double compared to T72 in Russian service.
But well its doing better in that regard than the T34, especially when one compares it to the Sherman for example
@@MyILoveMinecraft T72 and T34 are American tanks. You're missing the dash in the middle
have a surviving crews is still better than have no crew alive. At the end of the day survivability is still better than replacement rate.
This is not ww2 when you had Tiger, panther and tiger 2 bounce allied shots. Modern ATGMs will disable any western tank. Modern artillery will do the same. There is not a single tank today that is made with top attack and drones in mind. Every tank today in Ukraine is a cold war design. Even mines today will immobilize a tank.
To be anywhere near the "game changer" that many had promised, ten times more Leopard2s would have had to be delivered immediately and in one large delivery, rather than in dribs and drabs over the course of a year
In addition, enough spare parts and ammunition should have been delivered, not to mention the months-long dispute between Poland and Germany over the repair center for these tanks!
Numbers wouldnt have changed shit. Only one game changer exists in this war and thats drones. Tanks will never be, not even 2k leos
@@alispeed5095
Thats bullshit man
Of course, drones have become an indispensable weapon, even against tanks, but they dominate the battlefield because there is a stalemate! Neither Russia nor Ukraine have enough material to end this stalemate quickly!
@@alispeed5095
Of course, drones have become an indispensable weapon, even against tanks, but they dominate the battlefield because there is a stalemate! Neither Russia nor Ukraine have enough material to end this stalemate quickly!
@@Jonsonsan This is an attritional war, that much is common knowledge and there is no need to end it quickly.
Resources are the currency at the moment. Who can keep the grind going for the longest.
So yes, like l said 2k leos wont matter because they wouldnt be enough. Drones would eat them faster. Russia has demonstrated this. They have at the moment lost over 1k tanks l think. Yet the war is still going. More leos will simply mean more leos trashed by drones.
Who even came up with this "stalemate" idea. Do you have another meaning not based in english? The maps show movement, gradual movement for months now. How is that a stalemate?
@@alispeed5095 Drones will stop being so prevelant soon, neither nation has decent counter measures to them currently.
But I'm betting you're a civvie and don't have a clue.
the simple answer is the overhype.
If you compare a 70 years old grandpa to a navy seal, both will die if you shoot them. But the seal will be a lot more effective fighter.
A navy seal will be a worse fighter if the grandpa has an AR
The Leopard 2 dates to the late 1970s. Yes, the T72 and T80 date similarly (the T90 being a decade+ newer). But that doesn't make the Leopard some exceptional piece of kit, just roughly comparable. And before you say "but it's been upgraded" 1) The Russians have upgraded their tanks, also, and 2) Ukraine is not given the newest versions of any tank, always outmoded ones which western armies are getting rid of.
@@WangMingGe the 2a6 is rather close to the most modern version.
The germans still use these as of today.
Yeah the gradnpa being the Leo in that case lol
@@VIT-ey8wo Until enough 2A7 have been ordered and delivered
Ukraine has also received a number of Swedish STRV 122 tanks.
Strv 122,s are just upgraded 2a5's
@@ArkdudeHokna I know they are, I just want to know their loses if any.
@IceAxe1940 Seven, as far as I know, are counted as losses: 1 destroyed and 6 damaged. It's unknown how much of the damaged ones were recovered and repaired.
@@ArkdudeHokna yep and that's why it's suprising for me why RedEffect didn't mentions them. they are just leo2's with some very minor changes.
@@narodwpsanialy1940 They have more armor on the front and roof otherwise the same.
War started in 2014 !!! 0:03
Yap yap
@@ryanchoudhury2060 yap yap kursk 2.0 failed
"Full Russian invasion". Everyone knows what he meant, even you.
no point in correcting him our "objective guy" went with "full scale invasion" narative from the start despite being obvious to everyone with brain that there is no full scale invasion of any kind but a limited intervention that with time grew into something bigger
for someone who likes to represent himself as objective RedEffect fails at that and few other issues or he does it on purpose not to make big portion of his viewer base angry
@@Reikianolla Its not a full invasion
Tank on vehicle combat and crew survivability are important, but most of the battles are not conductive to armored warfare. All vehicles are put into the situations where losses are inevitable the way things are going for both sides. It just comes down to numbers and if losses can be recovered for reconstruction.
No, the Leopard 2 has not Failed in Ukraine; however, the Abrams is Failing.
Leopard 2 lacks HE shell even in Warthunder 😭😭😭😭
No 2a5 2a6 2a7 and pso all have PHE
@@PretzelMuncher08 ok thx
@@PretzelMuncher08 nope only PSO and 2A7 have the HE with timer, unless they added them to A6 and A5 not long ago
@@revan22 recent update mate
@@PretzelMuncher08 nope, just checked, neitehr the 2a5 nor the 2a6 have HE for germany
No weapon is a standalone item. They are meant to be part of a system. Ukraine doesn’t really have a full Western system so declaring any item a failure is unfair. (Besides the ones that outright can’t do their basic job like the GPS bombs/artillery shells that are easily jammed.). But with that said all NATO weapons are going to need upgrades seeing how much drones have changed modern combat.
Technically what your saying is true the Ukraine use of leopard 2 defer from the German use also not to mention Ukraine is literally a eastern tech user before the war so changing it in 1/2 years is more then hard
At the end of the day, they performed as they were designed to perform, but there just aren't enough of them for a protracted slugging fest. Tanks go to war, tanks take damage, tanks get destroyed.
The main benefit the leopards offer is crew survivability. And in that front, they have done their job well.
This is the kind of war that simply needs an armored vehicle with a big gun with HE. Leopards just aren't cost effective in their current numbers.
Yes, it's not a bad tank (in contrast to the Challenger 2, which has proven an overweight, clumsy and not very effective mistake, to add to its logistical problems using different ammunition from all other NATO tanks). Unfortunately, in a war this big, numbers are essential. 500 Leopards might be a "game changer". 40 or 50, definitely not.
The type of fast-moving, open warfare, supported by massive airpower, artillery & supporting infantry is what all modern MBT's excel at. That type of warfare just hasn't happened in Ukraine. So it's not just the Leopard, the same applies to all MBT's used on both sides of the conflict.
It "could" happen if NATO decided to fully defend Ukraine. You would see Sky to Ground coordination, jamming, advanced forward targeting, and the pace of retribution would be WAY faster than the meat-wave zombie walking Russia has been doing.
@@ShawnBox more likely we'd see ICBM's flying back and forwards if that happened.
@@thesayxx I don't think so. I would say Putin would rather loose a war than loose his life and wealth.
@@MrNebelschattenbruh...... rule of thumb man, if you play roulette when you bet everything you have, you will never stop.
@@MrNebelschatten He straight out said there will be no world without Russia. meaning if ww3 starts so do the nukes.
Having a salad of tanks is a logistical nightmare for years to come.
I have a friend from Ukraine who moved to Australia 15 years ago. His parents still live in Malyn, which is just outside of Kyiv. In March 2023, he volunteered as a tank crewman/gunner. He received training on the T-72 with the 47th Mechanized Brigade and later trained on the Leopard 2 and Abrams tanks. However, he only got to operate an Abrams tank in August 2024.
From what he's told me, tanks remain a formidable force on the battlefield and have played a vital role in reclaiming regions occupied by Russia. The media often focuses on the negative aspects, such as tanks being destroyed by drones, because these stories make for better news. However, in reality, tanks continue to be significant in combat when operated by well-trained crewmen. In the wrong hands, they can be extremely ineffective and become large, easy targets don't believe everything you see on the news they love to spin stories that are complete BS.
well tank is a tank its purpose is to push and provide support for infantry as long the objective completed any tanks is good, the design is different with each nation having different doctrines, NATO is richer so they can afford more expensive tanks, while russia is poor, as soviet, so they made it cheaper, easier to repair, comparing russia and nato tank when we look closeup , nato tank is much better, better finishing, top quality, but when you look at russian its just well served its purpose for the money.
People love the story of some underdog thing (in this case, a cheap small drone) defeating some big scary thing. Likewise, Americans are obsessed with technology and futurism....it served them so well in the Vietnam War (see all the stuff Robert MacNamara's people cooked up). Of course, I am being sarcastic...the faith in technology above all leads to unpreparedness for anything demanding quantity/endurance in the face of attrition.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Depends. If a success constitutes as "making a relevant change in the battlefield", any tank will fail, no matter which one you send, even the Abrams X.
The only place 50 tanks will will against 10000, is in a fanfiction.
They did work as originally advertised (when they were originally bought), but they didn’t fulfill the unrealistic expectations of some.
That's the point, huge numbers of production, ease of repair, I have seen Russians changing turrets of their damaged tanks only few km from the front nowhere in the fields, fast and efficient, no need factory or special equipment, only a mobile crane and some bolts...
Fanfiction or desert storm
@@somedudewithgrassgrowingou4177 (air support)
@@somedudewithgrassgrowingou4177 western tanks only good when they face muslims with equipment what are outdated by 30-40 years
also the same excuses could be applied for soviet tanks as ukro and western meda says about western stuff, that crew were untrained, vehicle was not properly used or lacked air superiority
Every tank did their job in this war as usual...until something called drone show up.
But Leopard surely get a big plus with their reverse speed. I don't even need to talk about the castastrophic reverse speed of T 72s and T 90s.
No. The Abrams and Leopard failed to do their job because they are maintaince queens built for the horrendously ineffective "air land" doctrine.
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Horrendously ineffective doctrine that has steamrolled every single opposing force with minimal casualties.
Ask the Ukrainians if they care about the reverse speed.
Don't forget the higher crew survival rate, because nearly no turret pops!
modern battlefield heavenly favors the defender, unless you have air superiority or overwhelming artillery fire power.
leopards are objectively better tanks then any soviet tank, but that's about it, you won't get far if arty or a drone spot you.
and then its sudenly worse tank, because it harder to replace, hide, supply, tug, repair and operate.
It costs 10 times more then the most expensive Russian tanks. If it ain't somewhat better it would be the clear failure.
"objectively" yea..
@@RustedCroaker A lot of that boils down to German labor costs and low production numbers.
Because you all Shit yourself when WE produce more Tank Numbers Like bruh WE slightly increase the severly underfunded Bundeswehr and you all Scream Terror that the Wehrmacht IS Back. ON one Hand you whine that German Military IS weak ON the Other you are scared when WE try to BE slightly competent.
Will you be showing/analyzing some of the interesting footage coming from the Kursk region?
One thing this does show, is that the west doesn't have the industrial base to sustain a large scale conventional war. My own country, the UK, sent 14 Chally 2's. I always wondered what Ukraine was gonna do with 14 tanks, they needed 400 Challengers (that we don't have). The leo 6 is a fantastic tank but not in small numbers that they can become isolated. This war is a drone war with some artillery sprinkled on top.
I disagree. I wouldn’t say they don’t have the industrial base. Western nations definitely are superior to Russia economically & industrially. They’re all just lacking the political will to start producing military products. Potential inflation & re elections are more important to politicians than Ukraine, which is what Russia is banking on. Unfortunately. Same thing happened pre-WW2.
The west absolutely has the industrial base to sustain. They just don't want to spend the money. The comparatively very small UK automotive industry alone can produce around 1.5 million cars and 85k trucks per year.
USA could have sent a large number of m1 tanks. They choose not to.
There are double digits of FABs being thrown every day and hundreds of drones and thousands of arty rounds
@@griggsgibs3933gow about you don't get involved in Slavic affairs?
Why is it always talked like only russians capture west vehicles to test and examine? Ukrainanes also captrue even t90Ms but no one talks about it like it's nothing, like isn't this part of the war? Some equipment no matter what will get capture
I have seen many videos about Ukrainians capturing T90Ms in the past. It's treated as a bid deal, I don't know why you are saying nobody talked about it.
@rm4po4 i mean that yes, we do hear about capturing them but never in a way that we will learn all about their secret technology and shit, maybe I live in a information bubble but that's how it's always presented to me
@@mateuszreszka3033 I understand what you are saying, not arguing, but we saw that with the capture of new AK's from Russian soldiers, captures of T90M's, even the shoot down of their new fighter-drone. The was much 'fan-fare', is that the word for it?
Because russia use it heavily for propaganda
Because the narrative is Russians are an army of zombies and junk. If the Ukrainians captured junk who cares, the Russians captured a unicorn from Germany and America. It's propaganda backfiring. Also, T90 is not that impressive of a tank anyways. It's basically a T72 with better safety features, the two aren't that different when you compare it to the T64 to T80 evolution.
This war demonstrates the need for tanks with assault guns like the Sheridan, Stryker MGS, or the ill-fated Patton "Starship"; any sufficiently armored tank that can move fast and deliver direct, howitzer-like fire towards trenches or fortifications. Basically, a modern Stug
Many people forget that tanks can’t be made to do everything and the Leopard 2s are exceptional tanks, for tank on tank combat. They’re not as good for tank vs. inf. and emplacements because that wasn’t their design goals. Wonderful video as always Red!
Expectations killed Leopard's fame
What conflict did this tank fight in before this to gain fame?
@@AnthonySmith-x5z No peer-to-peer conflict, but anyone with the technical knowledge knows it's one of the best, right up there with the Abrams.
@@AnthonySmith-x5z just over hyped by keyboard generals , everyone believe in this "german superior engineering" bs for decades .
@@AnthonySmith-x5z correct, it has anyway, thanks to western flexing
@@AnthonySmith-x5z leopard 2s were deployed to Syria by the Turkish army with catastrophic results for the Leo
I think by far the most impressive aid has been the bradley but notice it was sent in larger numbers
The big black hole in knowledge right now is the performance of the Swedish Strv-122s and CV90s. AFAIK Sweden has asked the Ukrainians to not feature their vehicles in combat footage, so its quite difficult to gauge whats happening with them from open sources.
most people assume tanks are invulnerable when they are meant to be used in combined arms along with air support and artillery
If the crew has servived the Leopard 2 has not failed. Yes, everybody expected more but without air support there is always an opening.
I don't know. Seeing your buddy hit by an APFSDS round is a +100% PTSD and -75% morale debuff for the entire enemy unit.
sure it would evaporate any infrantry it hits, but it would be extremely impractical.
it is but very impractical, an apfsds is basically just an oversize dart. HE on the other hand, just lob it to enemy position and called it a day
@@hetzerinovka4689he knows, idiots.
Too heavy for mud. Vulnerable to mines and drones.
but at least can reverse and save the crew life.
You cannot have an ammo storage explosion if you don't have ammo in the storage
Coming from a Canadian, I just think that the expectations set by the fact our tanks are so expensive and overengineered to the point they're considered "world beating," led us to heavily overestimate the capability and usefulness of said equipment. In reality Russian tanks and the ideology behind them is honestly more practical for war imo (cheap, easy to maintain, high volume production, "good enough" tanks).
After the western media having poked fun at Russian/ soviet origin tanks and having hyped up. Western origin tanks as game -changer, indestructible, invincible tanks and suddenly lots of western origin tanks being destroyed in huge numbers must have forced the western countries to pressurize ukraine from using these tanks in front lines.
Today there are video clips that show russians captiring an almost intact m1 a1 abram tanks.
@@sigma-sigma1capturing an intact tank really solidifies its quality. If the crew survives an immobilized tank that’s a good thing because you don’t lose the crew, soviet tanks tend to cook their ammo and erupt into flames taking the crew with it.
The tank seems to have been hit in the tracks in the rear, hence the tank was immoblized and abandoned by the crew.
@@RoCK3rADany tank with cooked ammo most likely have cooked meat inside aswell.
@@123Bratv If it’s of soviet/russian origin yes american there’s a much much better chance of survival because their ammo is stored in the crew compartment so a penetration is basically unsurvivable abrams have all their ammo protected by blowout panels. American tank design has crew safety as their #1 priority
Sweden gave 10 strv 122 that are basically modified leopard 2 a5
Why haven't we been seeing lots of videos of Leopard 1s? You'd think we'd see lots of vids since so many were sent.
It's because they did nothing.
They aren't even good as mobile artillery, because they HE rounds are weaker and they aren't given HE rounds because they don't want the tanks to explode violently when hit like that one in Syria (most violent tank explosion ever), so they are basically useless and are kept in the back lines and always ran away fast in case of danger
There's been several
I love your videos keep up the good work 👍
Drones have changed warfare ,tanks need active protection but i dont know if any system can protect against top attack .
Rheinmetall TAPS is designed for that.
Leopard 2's fought like Tigers while Challenger being Challenged.
Chally won turret toss competition in kursk!
The Leopard is simply a more rational, practical design (a big factor being it isn't so darned heavy)
Nobody relevant on the Russian side is actually mocking the L2A6 (we are mocking the Challengeour 2 but that's a shit tank).
What we are mocking about the Leo2A6 is the propaganda that came with it. Ukrops even made promotional videos annoucing their arrival on the battlefield.
ok but the "be fearful enemy" with ai slop images was kinda funny
Challenger 2 is outstanding.
Youre asking sheep to use logic when all they know is propaganda
tbf the video was fire
@@matthewnewell4517 it is a heavy piece o junk with a ridiculous cannon. Crippled from design
Oryx has been known to be very very imprecise and inacxurate in their ability to count losses, theres a ballpark estimation
@@calypso2224 You can literally see the each individual record of a kill, any objections are instantly reviewed and removed if need be tf u talking abt
@@TRPilot06YT it shows you never compare oryx with other sources, event reliable OSINT never use Oryx, he is bad freaking bad..
It’s a breath of fresh air to see an analysis that doesn’t fall for the cope/hype of either side.
Strdvgn-122's additional turret and hull roof armor are making a major difference for it against FPV's.
The crews say it is better than the Leo2A6...
the Leopard 2 is a very good tank but not unbeatable... A German is talking.
Also, the nature of all major tanks being MBTs with roughly similar design requirements means that no tank is likely to be as dominant as say, a Tiger or Konigstiger, whose opponnents would frequently be light or medium tanks weighing less than half as much, with much smaller guns. All the competition is just better or worse versions of the same general vehicle class.
No currently available tank was constructed for a battlefield which is essentially dominated by drone warfare
True. Wait until the next generation, Leopard 3's and so on. There will be ideas like ball turrets with automated anti-drone / anti-missile systems similar to CIWS on ships (but smaller of course). Either that or they will learn to always travel with specialized support vehicles tasked with that job.
I mean the doctrines around the Cold War armour formations actually did contain such ideas, in terms of tank groups having anti-aircraft support vehicles; they just never envisioned the enemy "air" threat being unmanned and so small & numerous.
there are anti drone technologies developed into the next-gen MBTs, and possibly standalone electronic warfare countermeasure systems. The cheap drones used in the Ukrainian war are only a temporary solution as their operational range cannot be extended reasonably and UAVs are just too pricey for their role.
Of course not, they serve their purpose of a tank, protecting the crews and offering superior firepower
If its done its job, its not a failure.
Which it didn't. So a fail@@flakcannonhans
Stop the cap it can't even move in Ukraine without struggling every 5 minutes
"superior firepower" for real? it literally doesnt have proper ammo for fighting enemy in trenches and buildings! Those are the complains from Ukrainians who serve on Leaopards and Abrams.
Except it's not exactly superior firepower if they have no high explosive.
You didn't mention the eight Leopard 2A4 Tanks that Canada sent. They were all prepared beforehand in Canada so were battle ready when delivered in January and February 2023. I don't know what happened to them.
Glad to see you brought back svard face away as your outro.
Leopard 2 needs to be modified for these new combat conditions just like any other tank out there
happend... there are Leopard 2 A8
2:35 end of advertisement
Have Sponsorblock
25 seconds ago is a violation
fr
The way I see it, every tank has failed in Ukraine. I’m guessing that’s down to the nature of this war more than the basic qualities of the tanks involved.
I would like to see the K2 Black Panther, which has excellent maneuverability and accuracy, in Ukraine.
A British, a German and a Russian go into an argument about ammo safety.
The American walks out with his burnt Abrams (no turret toss so I win)
Lol that's a good one
even though the Abrams has protected ammo rack?
Yeah, because he definelly is not driving from that (the APU melted into the engine)
@@gunmasterx1164 it flew right over your head, didn't it?
Tank is gone, maybe the crews survives. Meanwhile a humble modernized t72 costs a fraction of an abrams (as much as 10 times less) and it isn't a catastrophic loss when it explodes, because they do explode, since there are many more coming.
The main reason for the "explosion" of Soviet tanks is not their design, but the presence of a large number of high-explosive fragmentation shells inside. Leopards do not explode en masse, simply because there is nothing to burst into, there are ordinary "crowbars" lying there. Naturally, blow-out panels and protected containers for shells reduce the chance of detonation of the tank, but not much, the main reason is the lack of high-explosive shells.
-Russian media and propaganda has tried very hard to hit disabled & abandoned western tanks with outsize missiles or even guided bombs to create spectacular explosions. They want to say "See they're tanks are as stupid as ours" and reinforce Putins "They will burn" narrative. Much of the losses of western tanks can be traced to a lack of Western SHORAD suitable for destroying Russian attack helicopters at long ranges at which they were able to fire their long range LMUR and Vikhr missiles.
-The Leopard 2A8 of which deliveries start in 2025 has a 360 degree protection by a APS trophy system able to repel not only ATGM but has software to detect and counter micro drones. Ukraine has never been given state of the art Western Tanks, most are 10-30 years old (eg M1A1) . The best it got was Leopard 2A6 and Challenger II whereas Russia is fielding new production weapons.
HEAT shells are still explosive as the name implies.
And for the second very obvious part : propellant is explosive.
@@scatterlite2266 the main reason for Russian tank turret tosses is not the projectiles exploding but the propellants. Some of the latest Rheinmetal rounds have such a stable propellant they can actually absorb fragments of HEAT without exploding.
Sometimes the British challenger of tank is criticised for not having blowout panels through all of its ammunition but that’s because only the propellant charges need blowout panels. The projectiles don’t need them and in the challenger the Projectiles and propellant are separate charges and stored separately
@@williamzk9083 the only 2 lost challengers exploded though. Quite litteraly the same you see from your average T-72.
@@scatterlite2266 there’s nothing but Russian propaganda around the damage to challenger tanks. I don’t believe the information out there is trustworthy. You know Russian propaganda there’s a lot of professionals involved in spreading it
Thank you for being neutral in your analyses, RedEffect.
MBTs are very heavy and require forward support. They have their uses, but are much better as part of a combined arms approach, preferably with air superiority.
yes.. it faced the unrealistic expectations of being an other "game changer" which is not.. it is just a good tank though an expensive one
Comment section really went through the 5 stages of grief.
-Denial: "Nooo, it's just russian proganda, no tanks were lost"
-Anger: "well, the fucking russian tank explode and ours don't, blow up harder!"
-Bargaining: "well, it's a tank, in a war, of course it gets lost. But just watch, they will perform better. (Sniff copium)
- Depression: "well it's a war, everyone lose. It's just a fact of life. "
-Acceptance: "Lol, the Ariete is the best tank since none were lost 😂. "
It probably hasn't failed per se, but it was very overhyped, and now we all see it for what it is: a mediocre machine
If you have to say “per se” it failed at least in terms of what was expected of it at the time.
Tanks are expendable. And Leo2 are less useless than Challenger ones, due to their mobility through black soil mud.
The Brits only sent 14 Challengers as political cover (Along with the American contribution of 31 Abrams tanks) to give Germany political cover
to send and authorize other NATO countries to send Leopard 1 and 2. The Challengers are so few in number that the PR blow from losing one
is more damaging for Ukraine than any damage to Russia from using them. At least 31 American Abrams sent to Ukraine has meant that the loss of a few hasn't been seen as a catastrophic loss for the Ukrainians, and those losses will be made up and the Abrams fleet nearly tripled by 49 ex-Australian army Abrams.
And, the Leo1 and Leo2 fleets are still getting replacement units from Germany, Spain, Denmark, and other NATO states.
Unless the UK can free up another 10 or 15 Challenger 2s, they are just not worth using in Ukraine.
Challenger has the same shitty ammunition storage like cold war soviet tanks. Leopards are far safer for the crew whilst the Challenger is probably actively worse that Ukraines soviet style tanks due to having the same weaknesses whilst having separate logistics and training
Challenger ain’t useless. It’s a mobile tea kettle. Never underestimate the morale boost of a hot cuppa.
yup leo is better than chally.. chally sucks..
Challenger 2... sorry but no - I prefer Leopard 2.
Something I think is important to mention is that a lot of western MBTs were built for combined arms warfare, which isn't really feasible for Ukraine
The issue is, that the Leo 2 was not designed how the ukraine uses them. Ukraine sends them (mostly) alone on missions where they are highly vulnerable.
But a Leo 2 is designed to be used in the "combined arms combat". In Germany we say "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen".
It needs protection from APCs and also not just one single tank, but at least 4 of them. And most likely, as we have drones as a big threat for tanks now, they also need a jammer around for those things.
The Leopard 2 is the best Tank in the world, but only when used properly. And as every military vehicle, it can be destroyed and so far, it does it job very well in saving the crew.
Наблюдал в Москве подбитый Леопард, он вполне себе выглядел целым снаружи, внутрянка походу выгорела.
The T-90M burns from outside and inside, win win condition I guess 😅
@@fpa7153 так есть и полностью сгоревшие леопарды, а вспомнить выгоревшие абрамсы в Ираке от попадания 1 РПГ. Так что твой сарказм не уместен.
@@КостюмчёрныйНиоченьIn addition to Russia maintaining a great propaganda network, many of you also love to make false claims that have no truth whatsoever.
Most Ukranian tanks never make it to the battlefield and if they do they don't last long, its a horrible place to fight in everyway especially against a fire power ratio we see in this war
The fact that it has to be sent back to Germany or Poland for repairs is a gigantic set back and a waste of resources and time. It's nothing that should be done when in a war. You need things you can repair on hand even if the entire hull is all that remains.
I've read that Ukraine only has one single facility capable of properly repairing Leopard tanks and it was actually built during the war.
So it's better than... not repairing them, I guess.
Well that is just false, I don’t know if he purposefully left it out but Ukraine has repair facilities by knds and Rheinmetall inside Ukraine. I guess this is either a testament to bias or nearly no research.
@@gamingsu-sauer3530 Ok, good to know.
It is refreshing to hear someone speak about the tanks in this war without bias. You tell it like it is, you don't sugar coat it, nor do you attack it without justification. Too often people talk about things the way they want them to be seen, not the way they really are.
From the very beginning the idea of sending any western armor into battle piece meal was a disaster. The reason the west has been able to defeat their opponents has been by using a combined arms strategy. That way each piece has the protection of the others. All of the western tanks were going to be vulnerable because of the way they are being employed. It is not that the Ukrainian army wants to do it this way, they don't have the option to do it any other way. The Russians, on the other hand, have the ability to put together a combined arms attack, I just can't figure out why they didn't do it from the start. Now many of their best weapons are gone because they used them improperly.
I fear that we are now entering a stage from which their is no return. When we war-gamed in the 80's while I was a cadet, when missiles were fired by us, the Soviets would fire missiles back. The next step in the progression would be for us to fire tactical nukes, and the Soviets would fire them back. Then cities were wiped out, and then everything was wiped out except the cockroaches. It really wasn't a slow burning fuse, it was more like flash powder. Once it was lit, it would be impossible to stop. I only hope that cooler heads will stop this war before it destroys not just Ukraine and Russia, but the entire world.
Anyway, this comment went from a praising RedEffect to an old mans opinion no one asked for. I just wish none of this happened.
It is a shame that when politicians fail, their citizens are the ones who suffer. Perhaps in the future, when politicians can't solve problems, the leaders of both sides will then fight it out amongst themselves. That way entire generations of young men aren't wiped out because they could not get along. That way we don't have to worry that someone is going to destroy the whole world because they didn't get their way.
Soviet Strategy was allway reliant on the strenght the numbers could provide... and furthermore the soviets aimed for simplified logistics, in order to be able to keep the war machine working even under stress
T-34, T-10, T-54/55, T-62, T-72 and T-90 are a testament of that... T-64 and T-80 might be a different story since the approach was more mid-term between classic soviet tanks and western "high quality tank" doctrine, but these weren't the majority of the tank stock.
Of course Leo2 is a better tank than T-72 and T-64 (and even T80 and T-90, since these are reworks of the T-64 and T-72)... first because it was a direct response to those 2 designs... second because the NATO doctrine is different, NATO knew the western European countrys couldn't match Warsaw pact tank production in terms of industrial capacity... yet they had better/stronger financial structure, so they had to bet on better quality and better crew protection, to somehow even the numbers, since they had the money to build more advanced tanks.
That being said, in small scale conflicts with somehow even numbers, the best quality will dominate the battlefield... but on a war of atrition the soviet concept of "good enough, with better logistics in extremely large numbers" imposes over the "top quality and better crew protection" concept of NATO. And please don't quote Desert Storm as a valid point against my statement... comparing M1A1 covered by extreme air dominance + advanced intel support to unprotected stock T-55 in a toe-to-toe battle isn't even worth answering
People proclaimed this tank to be the best with 0 real conflicts before this one lol😂
Leopard 2A6's got used in Afghanistan, by Canadians and others - but the Taliban was never the kind of opponent that could really fuck with it.
Remember all the rage and hype when everyone was shouting to the streets "Let the Leopards free!!!"
brics: MANGO MANGO MANGI MANGO 💀
Gay ukrop: Do I hear boss music?
The Leopard didn't fail the west did. From what I understand I it did better than Abrams and the Challenger 2, but don't quote me on that. I try to save myself from the news of this terrible war.
T-72 outperformed all of them. Best tank in the world by western media
Yes, Abrams and Challenger 2 are simply too heavy for this war. Leopard 2 has done the best out of the Western tanks but is still just a tank after all.
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 I kinda ended up prefering ex soviet machines and ideas. They are replaceable, they cost a fraction of any western tank, they are lighter. Yes they do often explode when penetrated, but when the tungsten enters your tank most of the crew is still likely gonna die and the tank isn't going home. The safety measure of soviet tanks is the fact they use 1 less crew per tank, that guy is the one that survives 100% of the time.
@@pierluigiadreani2159 you are almost correct on your statement but let me correct you somrthings. The wxploding kill crew is an mostly export version and just some cases russian it happened and thats a myth that russian tank crews are not survivable. Its been debunked. And many russian crews surviced. Heck even a btr-82 got hit by a tank and crews survived. So please do not spread that myth again.
@@pierluigiadreani2159 the West has fallen
Red effect, please analyse how idf uses their merkava tanks.
They do have some unique formations which others can learn from
Can you do a video about why the summer counter offensive failed? Maybe more specifically why the anti mine vehicles could not work their way through the minefields
A 32 member alliance representing half the world's GDP has failed in Ukraine.
Not if your consider war & chaos were the objective from the start, and one NATO power in particular getting all that it wants strategically, politically & economically, without risking any blood of its own people.
the Greater Cohenland is being build as planned though.
@@wyldhowl2821so in the other word, proxy war
Leopards are an endangered species.😅
dude how are you having a 2 min add in a 9 min video?
Honestly I believe the T-90M can do practically the same things the Leopard 2A6 can while being much cheaper and easier on logistics
Reverse gear though, I was thinking the T80BVM due to the better reverse gear
@canadianoctopus1479 not a big issue. T-72 declared by qestern media to be best tank in the world. It outperformed all modern tanks
Everything ?? Crews survive in the Leopard, Not so much in russian toasters!!
@@canadianoctopus1479 The only down side is the reverse gear, but in general it does the same as the leo 2a6 both are great and both have downsides and flaws, but I still agree T90M is cheaper and easy on logi.
The BVM I don't like it as much becuase it doesn't have the commander sight with the remove MG, the laser warning and soone the ArenaM that is a very big plus compare to the BVM, so if you compare the T-90M to the BVM it as far more positives them negatives the only one being the reverse speed but it gets outshine by the other positive points I said.
@@toddsterling4949 thats a lie. Ukrainias admit leopard and abrams fail to protect its crew. A 50/50 chance.
Simple fact is that all tanks are vulnerable now - just as are all other pieces of equipment. It’s how you use them, the numbers, and being part of a well planned combined arms operation that makes all the difference.