As a side note and to help people avoid confusion, the danish designated Leopard 1A5 are not regular Leopard 1A5, but Leopard 1A3 (with upgrades).

Just to correct some of the confusion that seem to be, then the first 80 Leopard 1A5 that are being donated to Ukraine this year is the Danish 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK1 versions. Denmark purchased 110 German Leopard 1A3 and 1A4 in 1991 that then were upgraded to Leopard 1A5 DK standard, to be ready for service in 1993, and the changes and add-ons for the Danish version of the Leopard 1A5 were not done in Germany but upgraded to 1A5 DK by Falck-Schmidt Defense Systems in Denmark in 1991 to 1993. So the 1A5 DK is not quite the same version but different than the German Leopards 1A5 in some aspects. They were upgraded and equipped with a new Leopard 2A4 fire control computer, a laser range finder and the Leopard 2A4 stabilized thermal sight, night vision. The commanders forward periscope and panoramic sight were extended and the gun received a thermal sleeve and a muzzle reference collimator at the end of the barrel among other things. 36 of these Leopards that were participating in the UNPROFOR/SFOR operation in Bosnia (look up Operation Bøllebank) were further upgraded by Falck-Schmidt to Leopard 1A5 DK-1 in 1994-95, with air-condition, new fire-suppression system, Honda generator, GPS, RAMTA mine ploughs, roof mounted "fast fittings" for close defence work and a rear mounted turret ammunition rack. Unlike the German 1A5, the two Danish 1A5 DK versions have a welded turret, so welded plates of rolled steel, much harder and stronger than casted steel with same thickness, but more complicated and slower to produce and more expensive than casting. The Leopard 1A5 DK have a 6x faster maximum reverse speed in comparison a Russian T-72, just like the Leopard 2A4 upgrade features will come in handy I'm sure. The Leopard 1A5 DK also has a turret which was designed to accept the newer 120 mm gun barrel from the Leopard 2A4, but this option was not originally added, but could be done now. The Leopard 1A5 DK and 1A5 DK-1 were all out-phased in 2005 and in 2010 they were handed over to German company FFG in Flensburg who keep, upgrade and sell older tanks and armored personnel carriers from both the Danish and German military, and who are responsible for their battle ready maintenance-upgrade, before they are handed over to the Ukrainians.

I love that you include the original wording and not just your translation. I think it really adds to the authenticity and integrity of this channel.

About weight in Leopard 1: Brazil has been trying several programs to get new and modern MBTs, but all so far have failed because the Brazilian infrastructure, specially in the frontiers, is quite poor. Thus every MBT trial the Brazilian army had ended up failing in weight, as a country with roughly the size of the European continent the Brazilian army takes great afford in mobility and logistics, cause it can't be everywhere at once, so it needs to move quickly through the country's bridges, barges, roads, forests etc... So Brazil has been modernizing its Leo 1 ever since, this last modernization program (undergoing on thermals, comms, electric turret) will be last one. Then Brazil will move to a medium MBT, like the CV90120-T. It will be interesting to see Ukraine dealing with the problem the brazilian army has been fearing for so long

Leopard 1s fighting T-62s. Just like in the good old days

Unpopular opinion: tank silhouette/profile doesn't matter as much as people think it does. Western tanks are all substantially larger than their Com Bloc counterparts, but have decisively defeated those smaller profile designs far more often than not. There are a lot of reasons for this; better optics, training, tactics, etc. but that merely illustrates my point. The size and weight of tanks affects logistics and transportation far more than these factors influence battlefield performance.

This is a very well done video on these tanks! I specifically enjoyed how you went in depth on the importance of the weight of these beasts and how that factored into the decision to send one tank to Ukraine over another. Keep up the great work!

You content is always amazing! ❤

Leopard 2 is better suited for breaching operations. It'll plow through trenches and bunkers easily. They're very good at it. So you punch through defenses with that and then come through the breach with Leopard 1's and AFV's.

Leopard until now have shown they are great targets...

Another excellent video.. thank you!

Thanks for the video and your insights!

With regard to the reversing speed of the Leopard 1, a distinction must be made between the early production lots using the switch box with gear preselection and the later production lots with the automatic switch box. With the switch box with gear preselection, you can only reverse in the first two gears, with the automatic switch box you can reverse in all four gears.

Let's not forget the hundreds of upgraded Challenger 1 tanks, no longer in service but held in dry storage in Jordan and Oman. Challenger 1s still hold the world record tank to tank kill distance. They devastated Soviet armour in the first Gulf War without a single tank being lost. Those would operate superbly alongside Leopard 1s, 2s and Challenger 2s.

Thank you for the Video and explanation I hope it will help the decisionmakers

Gun depression is another important factor which adds to the Leo's overall capability package: the Leo 1 has a clear design philosophy, which is to prioritize the ability to crest and get the first shot off on Warsaw Pact-type AFVs from a defensive position. Hence the low armour (for better tactical and strategic positioning), the good gun depression (for cresting), the high profile (to allow the gun depression), the good reverse speed (to pop back down the crest), and the firing systems. And it is still an MBT, so it can deal with anything not a MBT just as well as any other MBT (but then, so can a T-55, probably), like combined arms support, suppression, assaulting fortified positions and the like. This capability is very useful to Ukraine, especially given the logistics constraints clearly outlined in this video.

I largely agree with this analysis; right now, with a very large front, tank duels will remain very rare and the role of the tanks will likely continue to be in fire support and elimination of armored vehicles. The Leo 1 A5 is perfectly suited for the task, and may also be less affected by soft terrain than its later counterparts. Similarly, the French AMX10 RC provided should also be of great help; right now the more the better. If they can be accompanied by a few infantry teams wit good atgms, they should be able to face most combat situations. The situation is very different for planes, where recent technologies provide a massive edge: better electronics, radars and weapon systems that F16 or the like could provide would massively increase the survivability and efficiency of the planes, that need to operate in a SAM-rich hostile environment where Russian fighters can still intervene and intercept Ukrainian planes as soon as they fly at higher altitude, because planes can cover massive areas, contrary to tanks.

As a trained historian, I wanted to commend you and your supporters on the wonderful work you've done on this channel! I'm very impressed with the clarity of information delivery, and the efforts at researching the topics. Extremely professional and impressive, considering the platform! I was especially impressed by your work uncovering the German reports on the Churchill tanks recovered from Dieppe, and the overall reviews of the platform by the German military services. I was curious if you have, or plan to have, a similar review about the M4 Sherman line. Obviously, the tank came in so many forms, and fought on so many fronts, the German forces would be very familiar with the platform. However, with a dizzying array of sub-types and specialty versions, your aforementioned Churchill video made me curious about it. Regardless of your future projects, I'll continue watching with great interest! Thanks, and with kindest regards from Canada.

One more thing you did not mention is the main gun depression -9° Leo 1 can thus easier fire directly a HE shell into a trench line when supporting storming infantry

Whilst Leo 1 may be marginal in tank combat it has more than enough firepower to engage BMP's, MTLB etc, which are seen in vastly greater numbers than Russian tanks, the 105mm L7 is also just as useful in trench clearing as the Russian guns, and we see a lot of that going on, plus the rate of fire of the 105 L7 is superior to the Russian designed tanks. lastly you did not cover a major combat advantage the Leo has over it's adversaries, and that is the gun depression, the ability of the Leo to enage from hull down positions or back slopes means it becomes a very small target wheras the limited depression Russian tanks are required to expose the whole vehicle to get the gun down on a target, the Israeli's exploited this advantage in many of thier combats using higher depression turret designs like Centurion and M48, combine that with the Leo's ability to duck quickly with it's reverse speed and it's not a vehicle to be sniffed it!

the chieftain said something very useful about this: it is about the capabilities a 'thingy' (such as a tank) provides and not necessarily about it's weaknesses

I know you started by saying you would not go in to special variants. But one thing to mention, the 96 Danish Leopard 1A5DK’s Ukraine are to get is all capable of fitting dozer blades, usually on almost all other Leopard variants and even other types of tanks it’s only one for each platoon that got the fitting for it. It will be super useful to remove fortifications like dragons teeth and tank ditches.

Very good video ! Thanks

Excellent video! Hopefully politicians and high ranking civil servants will watch it. They might learn a lot.

The Canadians had the best upgraded Leopard 1's I have ever seen in Kosovo. Upgraded armor but not too much, more powerful engine better firing system and optics. The Leopards they had used ammunition that would have beaten any T-72 from range further than the 72 could fire, the Canadians stated that the mobility of this tank was crucial as a hidden ambush was their best tactic. One more thing about tanks, or more specifically armor penetration by tanks in relation to ambushes. If you can stay hidden and use your mobility a moving target is harder to hit, and the T-72 does not have great firing systems. Also, if you can keep the distances down under 1200 meters the armor protection does not mean as much. The armor only becomes a factor as distances become greater and the sabot darts velocity decelerates. Close in ambush hit and scoots remove this advantage, the detraction is it works both ways. A second tactic would be to use the Leopard 1's in intimate support. This would free up the new upgraded models to exploit and cover from the flanks.

110 Leopard 1 sind vermutlich wirklich besser als 38 Leopard 2. Wobei es natürlich kein entweder oder ist.

Thank you!

I`d take Jens Wehner's two cents as a military historian with actual experience as Leopard 1 operator over any Internet-Warriors ramblings :) Thanks a lot for this video. - a former Marder 1A5 "Heckklappensurfer" :)

Not sure I agree with the idea that leopard one is more suitable, and actually much of the video bears this out. If you are saying that the majority of losses on tanks are due to artillery, infantry AT weapons, drones etc then the superior armour and survivability of challenger and leopard 2 are important. In the fire support role the types of ammunition that can be fired by challenger are very beneficial, being excellent for bunker and building busting. Weight is unlikely to be an issue as bridges have a significant safety margin built in. Your average artic weighs 38+tons, and a bridge needs to be able to carry at least 2 of those at a time with a considerable safety margin. The only real advantages the leopard 1 offers are numbers and relative simplicity.

Great Video it was a great Tank … he is deep in my heart ❤️ I miss them .., and the super engine sound … Greeting from a Leo1a5 driver ( 1989 Germany) …

Nigel, you did a beautifully built kit🎉

When Challenger came in the rumour was a lot of max loads were simply shifted to 60 tonnes as the new class exceeded so many previous limits for bridges etc. However I was asked during training if I would prioritise armour over more mobility - Leapard 1 over Challenger and I instantly said armour (within reason) as even then infantry portable tank busting equipment was near ubiquitous and I feel partly vindicated by what we see today.

I find these comparisons so odd. If you have get the question of “you are going to attack that trench/bunker/field/cityblock/infantry group/mechanized infantry/whatever and we want to know if you want this older model tank with you” the answer would almost always be “hell yes”. Even just balancing out a tank group it can be important to have a bunch of less capable tanks as support, if you can have an older tank who’s job it is to engage all the lesser armored vehicles and infantry while you focus on finding the few high-end tanks your scouts told you were present, you are going to be very happy not to be caught with the wrong ammunition focusing on a bunker somewhere. Tanks don’t fight alone, that is on both sides. Only exception would be bad training or being decimated beforehand.

Thaks for the information. Ian no tank enthusiast, but appreciate the information on the abilities of whats on the battlefield. Slava Ukraine

Excellent insight!

The Leopard 1A5 is a very versatile platform. The 1A6 is the most modern and up-to-date version but do not exist in very large numbers. But the 1A5 was made to easily integrate and make use of any component found on the 1A6 without needing a major overhaul, including swapping the 105mm barrel for the same 120mm barrel found on Leopard 2.

When Germany reunited they had T-72s and Leopard 1 tanks in their inventory. They compared them and the Leopard 1 was found to be a better "general purpose" tank with better range and visibility and that it was "capable of leading armored attacks" against Russian equipment. That is why the Germans stuck with the Leopard design.

Just my 2 cents regarding mobility. Last month i was at a tankfest in the Netherlands and both the T-72 and the Leopard 1 (and Gepard, dutch version PRTL) were there. There was a huge difference in mobility/agility between the Leo 1 and the T-72. Acceleration, doing tight corners, doing fast corners, just changing direction. One could clearly, very clearly see the big difference. I even talked about this with my friends who were with me. Like you were seeing a truck versus a van, really very clear to see.

Great stuff!

And an important factor to consider is that countries like Italy and Canada have Leopard 1s by the hundreads in the reserve. Ukraine recieving another 100 Leopards 1 in 6 months is realistic.

What proved to be critical for tanks in this war are thermal imager and mobility

MHV- Informative & credible analysis... IMHO! 👍🏾

Thanks for including symbols and history for us non-Germans who understand your war history. Great work on the video!

I have served at a main battletank battalion in the early 00s equipped with Leo 1 a5 When the time came to be replaced by leo 2 a5 gr the leos 1 wasn't retired On the contrary was sent to replace " M Series" tanks that wasn't upgraded to " molf" level by replacing the main gun with a 105mm one - the same as leo 1 and similar fire and control systems Although their Armour now days can be Pierced like tin foil those vehicles are are extremely Agile and their fire control system can be upgraded to leo 2 level Making them more than equal to any soviet era tank If not deadlier

Infrared viewing is pretty important because lot of cold war Russian night vision is Infrared, which means if you got infrared as well, you can see them lighting up the area and revealing themselves, which in turn means they can't use that.

Well said.

Honestly speaking, this makes sense but my only concern is the 105mm ammunition (common enough but sparsely produced or modified for other needs compared to the 120mm) Then the turret itself, when you can ask a company like cockirell to slap an electric and modern turret with thermals and little modification for replacing it completely. Why not go with that on some of them. I kind of agree with the cheiftan that the most use you'll get out of these guys is first shot sniping and clearing entrenched positions (preferably with combined arms). Its not meant to take a lot of hits from contemporary autocannons from ifvs or tank main guns that are in the 125mm range, not unless you put a good and well laid out armor package on it (rare modern packages exist). It'll be really great as a sniper and a rapid response tank to fill in the gaps on offense and defense. Cross country wise, its also great for Ukraine as it weighs relatively close to the T64s, T72s, and T80s to fit on most the bridges and roads without damaging them by sheer weight like most modern Western MBTs.

It is worth noting that there are more modern ammunition types for the L-7 gun that should have no difficulty penetrating a T64, T72, or even T80 from the front that has been developed in the last 2 decades by and for the US army and especially by Israel.

By modern standards, Leo 1 is basically a light tank. Even in its day, it was lighter and more mobile than even AMX-30.

An extra 105 on a platform with good mobility is a welcome addition and can provide effective fire support.

The Leopard 1 in Ukrainian service should ideally be used as an exploit vehicle after a breakthrough where it's lighter armor and weaker firepower are not as detrimental and it's higher speed, greater fuel range and better mobility are all key assets. With luck though, the war will be over before these tanks get there.

The Leopard 1 is famed for reliability and ease of operation and maintenance. Spare parts are widely available, and there are hundreds of units in storage across Europe that can be sent to augment the 110 arriving in June and replace combat losses. At 42 tons, they can get around Ukraine's countryside during the muddy seasons that would confine heavier tanks to roadways where they are more vulnerable to destruction by ATGMs. The first 110 are Danish models returned to Germany for storage. The German's themselves have about 80 more and Belgium sold about 50 to a private businessman who is willing to sell them back for a "fair" price. Many more are in Dutch,Greek,and Turkish hands. I think Canada may have units in storage too.

Regardless of the preferences, i am proud our countries are sending a lot of aid! 🇳🇱❤🇺🇦

Having now seen the western tanks in operation it seems one the the stand out features are the crew saving ability if the tank is breeched. Does Leopard One offer the crews the same chance after if had been breeched.

Great stuff ta chap

I believe it’s more then 100, if you total up all the countries that are pooling them together, it totals around 300-350 Leopard 1s.

Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 tanks being low in number but with high capability will be used as group leaders of Leopard 1s, T64s and Bradley fighting vehicles. This arrangement is similar to that employed by Germany in WW2 where Tiger tanks would play ‘mother hen’ to Panzer IVs and other armoured units. A big gun at the right time and place can be a battle winner.

I appreciated the 'Not great, not terrible,' reference 😂

As you mentioned, it's all in the manner of use. I think they're going to do really well, obviously there's better performers available, but maybe not so in the numbers & parts needed.

thanks!

I would think the best tank for Ukraine is any tank provided.

A few months ago there was an interview on Danish Radio(P1/Danish version of BBC Radio), with a retired Danish tank commander(can't recall his name, sorry!), he was stationed in the Balkans during that conflict, 20 years ago. He mentioned similar things as in this YT video. The Leopard 1 is of course more primitive(older design!), it's easier to maintain for the Ukrainians(if spare parts are available, makes sense!), it's easier to train crews on, 4-6 months if in a hurry(quicker than on the more advanced Leo 2 platform, not surprising!). it's lower weight/armour, makes it more mobile. It can cross small bridges, it's less likely to destroy roads/infrastructure. It can "climb" hill/mountain roads more easily than a modern tank etcetera. He also mentioned that it was paramount that the Leo 1's are to be used in "mobility" tank warfare, quick flanking movements to hit the "Russians" from the rear or the side(the Leo 1's need to keep moving in order for the Ukrainians to build momentum/succeed and spread fear amongst the Russians, he said). Although the Leo 1 also has great range(think he mentioned an older 105 mm gun, but not sure?) and can hit "Soviet" made tanks at a distance of 3-4 km's with a trained tank crew(having night vision made a huge difference compared to Serbian T-62's & T-72's - according to him the Serbian's didn't have that installed back then. Not sure if he mentioned thermal sights?). He also had a final anecdote, when the Danish military replaced the Leo 1 with the Leo 2, they wanted to test the Leo 2's more modern gun and the weaker armour on the Leo 1, they took a single shot at a Leo 1's frontal armour(can't remember from what distance) and to their surprise, the Leo 1 actually withstood the shot "quite well". If in real combat, the Leo 2 would have killed one Leo 1 tank crew member and injured another crew member "badly", but the tank driver would have been able to put the Leo 1 in reverse and might have been able to save the tank/escape from further combat. The interviewer also asked the tank commander - if the Leo 1 were to be hit by a "modern Russian" T-72, what would be the result? If I recall correctly, he answered a bit wagely, as if he didn't exactly know(I don't know if he is not allowed to say, might be secret information?), but if hit by a trained Russian tank crew it might knock out the Leo 1 he hinted at(probably not very surprising). I think they also discussed the upgraded explosive armour on the newer built Russian T-72's, but can't remember his conclusion on that. *edit, the 100-120 Leo 1's are "old" Danish vehicles which were sold to a company in Northern Germany in or just outside Flensburg, Danish media outlets reported that the company wanted to upgrade/refurbish the tanks and sell them to a country in, I think South America(might have been Argentina?) but the deal didn't go through and the tanks were put in storage to collect dust until now. *enough rambling on my part, may this useless war come to an end as soon as possible, what a waste of human life!

Thanks, Bernhardt...

Gratulieren! Sensible analysis, I concur with the assessment. Leo 1 can be a formidable ''weapon system'' when operated competently in a combined arms deployment by able large commanders.

Leopard 1, although doesn't have the armour, is mobile, is well armed and most importantly easy to run/repair. Even changing the engine is no big operation. So there are big advantages to the original Leopard over the Leo 2.

Thank you for pointing this out. Leopard 1 A5 is more than sufficient to take on 95% of the junk tanks Russia has driving around Ukraine, and please remember that only a very low percentage of encounters are actually tank on tank. Also please dont forget that Ukraine has been fighting Russia to a standstill using much worse tanks than the Leopard 1 A5.

The first issue I thought of was the MLC. Most bridges in Soviet countries were built with the weight of Soviet armor in mind. Challenger 2's and Leo 2A5's or A6 and M1A2 may find they cannot cross many bridges in Ukraine.

Loving the teddy icon for a tank you can live in.

Anything that Ukraine can get in their current dire situation has to be considered good.

One comment I'd make is the Leopard 1's gun is rifled and thus can use HESH and work more efficiently like artillery. Here the CH2's also will be very useful outside of tank v tank, ideally I'd keep a leo2 in each leo1 group in case they come up against T90's. I think while the leo1's lower weight will be useful the increased armour will prove important since the gulf war didn't show up problems with these tanks getting around, perhaps Ukraine will be vastly different but I have a feeling we get blinded all too often by seeing videos of exploding tanks while tanks that survive don't get video'd - armour is important.

About the Leopard 1 age. The tank only needs to be there for its heavy armour and cannon. In the field their older tech will be a big disadvantage only if the tank is alone without support. If Leopard1s get used on the frontlines, they wont be alone but will be accompanied by IFVs with moderns systems like the CV90. Those platforms should be able support the tank well enough with minor modifications and training of crew.

Model, condition and upgrades are significant factors to consider. Good working condition is a priority for Ukraine which does not have the time and resources to return worn tanks to battle ready. There has been plenty of time for countries to prepare tanks for active service. Optics and armor upgrades are useful. Despite its weaknesses, a good condition Leopard 1 tank can still provide useful infantry support.

Great, great...now do one about what happens to any tank of any kind when the enemy has air supremacy.

Think challenger 2 was just the key in the door to get others into the battle 😊 as number of challenges is not there in enough numbers.

fact is the 105mm can handle SABOT Uranium shells, this shells can penetrade T80 and T90 too, so Leopard 1 is a good choise too

Canada had just recently scrapped our Leopard 1 tanks. Thanks to our short sighted government for not seeing the potential in actually giving them to Ukraine. The one in the video that has the maple leaf on the side of the turret is a Canadian one.

In Brasil We Have Leopard 1M modernized and This Combat Car Is Excelent because its All Terrain and Fast and Easy Maintenance...We Have Different Scenarios around our country and Leopard Fits on All including Dunas on Northeast Region Beaches...

Agreed. Lots of them to give away!

By interspersing the Leopard 1’s in amongst the Leopard 2’s and Challengers the Leopard 1’s and French AMX’s can effectively be fire support for the infantry clearing trenches with HE rounds. The Leopard 2’s and Challengers can concentrate on tanks and artillery pieces at longer ranges.

"Tanks are usually destroyed by artillery, mines or infantry weapons" the combat engineer was completely right, that's exactly how the Leo 2s got destroyed, (almost, add helicopters to that.) AFU sent their tanks on a night operation at 2am today, got discovered and pounded by all 4, mines, artillery, infantry AT rockets, and helicopters.

Didn't expect this, sounds interesting. Quite often, even those of us who know(and those of you who know much more than me) tend to look at things unconsciously on too simple terms, such as newer tank=better fit for the job, when it is rarely that simple.

Can we add bar armor and reactive armor on? Can we boost the engines? What would be the weight gain?

Nice Video. In my opinion we should delivery everything that the Ukrainians want/need in quantity as fast as possible. I do agree with most point made in this Video. But then again I have doubts about some others. My biggest problem with the Leo 1 in Ukraine is its armour. It is substancially weaker then the one of Leo 2. Even if there is non Tank on Tank combat, that still holds true against all other threats. Which connects to my second area of head scratching. The main armour of the Leo1 was its superior tactical and to an extend operational mobility (dont get hit by nukes because your unit is not where it was). But as I showed in a recent Video of mine, the tactical mobility of the Leo2 is actually higher then the one of the Leo 1. It has a higher power to weight ratio and its suspension allowece for a higher speed over terrain. It also accelerates faster. That advantage diminishes with the newer and heavier versions, but it is still there. At least on paper :) But now the weight. Which is a point. And I, a keybord warrior , ask myself how much of a problem it really is. First of all, the relative weight per whatever unit of square space measurement of the Leo 2A4 is actually lower then the one of the Leo1. But later versions overtake the Leo1 A5 in that measure. Which means the main problem is the absolute weight of the Leo2 with regards to bridges etc. And for pionier bridges and equipment I get that. But often peopel also talk about road bridges. And there I ask myself: "How much weight does a normal road bridge hold?" Or more to the point, top what standard did the Ukrainians build theire bridges? Because of you have to big trucks passing each other on a normal bridge, you will also have quite some weight on your bridge and I would think that road bridges at least are not that much of a Problem. All in all this entire discussion is of course a lot of tank top trumps and we will see what the Ukrainians say in the comming years.

Leopard 1 is more than capable given the current battlefield and less stress worrying about "what will happen if this gets blown up" Honestly this is great and hopefully we will start seeing more of these showing up.

They have decent guns and can move around. That's more than enough to make them useful for AFU. I'd love to see them as a tank component for light infantry brigades, such as TDF, which don't have anything like that right now. Even one tank company per brigade will be a significant force multiplier relative to what they currently have.

This doesn't come as a huge surprise, but I'm glad UKposts is catching up.

The prodigious clouds of exhaust smoke must be a problem in most situations, (unless you are deliberately laing down a smoke screen). They frustrate any attempt at concealment, and give clear warning of any movement. They're also a symptom of poor fuel/air mixture control. Is there some way to mitigate them?

I would agree that the Leo 1 is a good fit for Ukraine, primarily because of availability & logistics. My question would be on the real significance of the weight of the MBT's being sent (Challenger, Leo 2, M1A1) vs. the Leo 1. Outside of rasputitsa season, Ukraine has been described as good tank country; if the MBT's are too heavy to be used there, then exactly where are they supposed to be used? I understand Ukraine may not have the high degree of infrastructure that Western Europe has but once they have been delivered to Ukraine, where does the weight difference REALLY become an issue? If, hypothetically, NATO were to fight Russia, would they be holding these tanks back in Western Europe because they are too heavy to be used further east?

It breaks down all the time. We had it in our brigade when I served in the Greek Army. More than half were constantly out of action. And their regular maintenance every Friday, was an 8-hour nightmare for the crews. If Ukraine is given 110, they will not manage to field even 50.

I do wonder if the lack of a high end IFV like a CV90 is the reason we see this sort of logic arise out of this conflict. If you had a powerful IFV that basically starts to fill the role of scout / light tank then having a heavy duty mbt to back you up makes a lot more sense. You get most of the fire power with either a 30mm or in some cases a 100mm or similar gun and better mobility and situational awareness as well as infantry riding along with you for built in infantry support.

Light tanks definitely find their niche amongst the other vehicles and weapon systems. Where they could use improvement is in countering mines and minefields; until there is a hard counter to mines, armoured assaults will remain crippled, bogged down, and bombarded to junk.

L7 is more than capable of dealing with any Russian tank. I used to crew Scorpion , Cheiftain and Cr 1. What’s important is the logistics chain and getting a battlegoup to work together effectively.

The fact that the Leopard 1 is more profuse globally is a great bonus as the video says for initial availability and of spare parts for it. Another thing not mentioned to consider also is that because it is lighter than more modern tanks, it is less likely to get bogged down in Ukrainian soils, as a more mobile unit it may be a good candidate for fast infiltration of enemy lines or for getting behind them.

3:05 I think it is not possible to create an general Ranking. It is always depending from what the enemy has. And in such question of Support, what does the supported has in quality and quantity. One example. When the enemy uses a lot of drohnes, then you may need a lot of Elektronic Warfare to prevent this.

Greece has 520 2/3 are in active units and 1/3 active reserve less than a week to activate this is to be maned by the tankers that finish theyr Conscription in the last 6 months.

There already is improved 105mm ammunition for the L7 gun - the IMI APFSDS (DU) round for the L7 has already been used with tremendous effect against the earlier T72 variant. I have served on the 1A5 tank. There were no problems with having manual loading - you could actually get rounds off faster that the T 72 carousel (in ideal conditions of course). Having a manual loader also allows the CC to change ammo types in mid engagement if required (AP to HEAT for example). Having the 4th man really assists on tank maintenance, re-load, and other crew tasks including watch. Problem - really modest protection and a hydraulic turret. Get penetrated and the crew gets sprayed with the fluid including all the other unpleasantness. The point about the "shoot and scoot" capability is well made. But she is an old girl.

Ich frage mich allerdings ob die russische Armee noch RPG-7 in der Ukraine einsetzt. Falls dies der Fall ist, fährt man natürlich lieber in einem Leopard 2 als einen Leopard 1 😂

If they can bolt an anti tank missile on a humvee seems like they could bolt one on to an early model leopard tank for that rare instance where they have to deal with a newer enemy tank

Some additions here 7:00 No the 105mm L-7 gun is way obsolete to being used as a tank main gun. It has a maximum armor penetration of about 400mm. The thing literally could not pen any russian MBTs frontally outside the T-62 and more obsolete tanks. Overall this whole tank is comparable with the T-62 with better optics. On the other hand This gun uses HESH rounds. Which are less effective than HE rounds against non tank targets. 7:38 Laser rangefinder is not a great thing nowadays. Actually this system is getting obsolete as new tank models like the T-90M has laser warning systems, and countermeasures. (Automatically turning the tank turret to the direction of the laser source.)

Ukrainian soldiers: adding reactive armor to leos 2A4, complaining about lack of armor in AMX 10-RC German engineer: actually ukrainians don't need tanks with good armor protection - it's inconvinient. If they die, they die