Sure but only if the enemy has no tanks... the Russian have yet to use the T-14s and they have T-80s and T-90s in the field... Also the Leopard 1 was meant for highly mobile engagements(Which it woud need to flanks modern Russian tanks to pen.) but the Ukirnain-rusain war is now very WW1 like and not mid cold war gone hot... Is it useless no it's just a heavy light tank in a heavy medium tank world.

Not necessarily. The imaginary or unavailable tank in the catalog won't burn, won't embarrass you when it goes up in smoke, won't kill its crew when it does go up in smoke, and won't cost taxpayers any money.

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Leo 1 was highly mobile in the 60's - for which it sacrificed gun and armor. It's not particularly mobile by modern standards, and the gun and armor are now even weaker by modern standards. It was a bad idea 60 years ago. But it's "ideal" now lol.

T-14 is none factor really, not really any for combat, the only ones around are test beds for future development. The T-90s/80s and T-72s are the ones to watch out for though.@@GreenBlueWalkthrough

Ukraine annexed the Czech region of Carpathien Rus in 1945 and does not want to return it !!! It is a country of 13,352 km2 (5,155 sq mi) which is about the same size as Crimea. Historically, this territory never belonged to Ukraine. But Ukraine has only been growing for the last 300 years, occupying lands that do not belong to it.

well it is a Gepard 1a5 which is on a Leopard 1 Chasis so its a tiny bit bigger

Was my first thought too. That thing is huge.

Is it bigger than the Shilka ?

Leopard 1 is ideal because Germany would rather keep the best tanks and donate the obsolete ones.

​@@eighthelementGermany didn't own any Leopard 1 for decades. They buy refurbished ones back. It's not like they are delivering their scraps they don't need. They are actually buying and refurbish them for Ukraine. On the Leopard 2: They don't have that many anymore since they gifted a lot of stuff to new NATO allies since the 90s. All the tanks they currently have are needed for training and the one division they assigned to Lithuania.

@@walli6388 >They actually buy and refurbish them for Ukraine. This is correct. They buy Leopard 1 so that they can fulfill the donation quota. Smart move!

WW2 tank is even better.

Absolutely crazy thing is the leopard one has roughly what were ww2 medium tank armor and its gun would’ve been competitive for the 1950s.

😂

Wait the Leo was buffed?! How???

If you play on a decent team and you don't have to spot your own target.... leo1 is OP.

Imagine playing world of tanks and not warthunder

In wot blitz it was buffed The dpm goes crazy 5,5 sec for 360 alpha without adrenalin!​@@BENNO117

Thats a problem when you speak 2 languages - continualy throwing in a word of the wrong language. As an Englishman its embaarasing when I accidentally use a German word but unfortunatly I do it continiously. I also accidentally throw in lots of english words when speaking German but there are 80 million others doing that as well so its not so embarasing.

4:11 he said "and also, what's not to forgetten"

@@jonathanwebb8307 - But isn't it nice to see nowadays so many people around the world speaking fairly well one or two foreign languages and even understanding a great share of several others, even if they don't dare speak them ? Today we earthlings are connected more widely than ever before, and a lot of it must be credited to the Internet.

Which is the most widely spoken language in the world? - Bad English

@@Bakaroo-lo7rg- Sure, Shakespeare would be horrified, but languages evolve all the time adding new words "stolen" from bordering countries.

Here, have these Renault FT-17.

​@@radarradarovic2076you missed the "huge numbers" part. Museum exhibits dont count.

The lessons of WW2 are being relearned. High intensity conventional war chews up men and equipment like crazy, no matter how good. The Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams are great tanks, but they are complicated and expensive, the WWII equivalent of the German Tiger. And despite their enormous capabilities, they are still highly vulnerable. The older Leopard 1 isn't as well protected and its 105mm gun doesn't have as much punch as the 120mm, but it still hits hard. It is the M4 Sherman in this regard. The M4 Sherman in its day was a long way from being the best tank on the battlefield. But what made it great was its simplicity, reliability and the fact that we could build them in HUGE numbers. The trend for the future will be much less heavily armored tanks relying on advanced active protection systems to deal with side and top attack threats.

Gotta get their numbers up somehow

It can carry pretty much any type of NATO 105x617mmR ammo you choose to supply them with. Maybe not WP (WP has soecific storage requirements), but I don't think anyone really uses WP in tank guns anymore.

No because theres no 105 HE/HE-Frag in storage for that

@@geodkyt except NATO countries dont produce HE for the 105 ... my point still stands. Too lightly armored for tank on tank combat, too usless as a infantry support tank without HE

Infantry can be supported by ammunition that is not HE, too. That's not ideal, but sufficient.

HESH is still very effective as a general purpose HE shell and has its advantages in some cases. It's not as black and white as you present it.

@@baronvonslambert There's also cumulative damage from overload, which means a lot of stuff won't break immediately when overloaded but regularly overloading it will shorten its service life i.e. make it wear down sooner rather than later. But in active combat situations, obviously, the durability over years is much less of a concern than it woud be during peace time.

Or if Ukraine will plan use them in long therm, it will make more sense start proudciotn again, even other contries, who operate them might be intrested in this production of parts.

Except that even nato armies still use the leo 1 and there is no shortage of spare parts.

@@T.efpunkt Army of Greec and Turkey, opereted by mandatory service soldiers and be know for having big part of weapons in non operational conditions lol.

Greece still uses about 502 Leopard 1A5GR and a dozen or so Leopard 1A4. Turkey also has about 170 upgraded Leopard 1T "Volkan" and another 184 Leopard 1A4. Brazil and Chile also still use the main battle tanks, while Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Indonesia, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and Romania still use the ARV or AEV variants. As such ammunition is still produced from various suppliers, and spare parts are pretty abundant.

​@@DOMINIK99013 you mean... like russia?

Wait few months! It will be like 1945 in Germany!

you really think russia will win with dwindling BMP-stocks, as of now they are only using BMP-1s in high numbers aswell. Seeing BMP-3s and 2s are sooo rare to see.@@tomk3732

Do you realize how many Lance's are failing....the vast majority

cope@@lukeamato423

⁠​⁠@@lukeamato423 ”the vast majority“ Lol where are you are you getting your info from, 30 sec UKposts shorts made by american mutts? What is a percent of “vast majority”? 50%, 80% failure rate? I think if you knew the percentage for western missiles failures you would find that the discrepancy between western dud rates and Russian is probably not as drastic as you are trying to say. Regardless, Ukraine is losing just like they always have been and this fake and ghey war was just another money laundering operation for the military complex and the liberal media to enrich themselves off of. And when the next fake war psy op comes around, which will probably be with Iran, the braindead public will all be waiting to lap up the lie vomit from the media again.

@@lukeamato423 And?

Do you realize how many more Lancets russia has than ukraine has tanks?@@lukeamato423

Well, they are already sporting M113

No, Sherman or T-34.

Yeah… how corrupt and evil these people are to change their lies every time their masters changes tune. This is just like Mr. Stache in the bunker 1945, zero connection to reality.

they dont want the WORLD to see the new LEOPALD II exploding, just like the CHALLENGER. 😂 otherwise nobody will the LEOPALD II again. #humiliation

@@buravan1512 That do not matter, ANY tank is but a expensive heavy coffin if not used right, if used just a little wrong it is for sure a coffin, or at least a empty hull just sitting there. Russian tanks as we have seen again and again, well they for sure are coffins. I am sure any Uranian driving a old Russian POS tank would gladly change it for the L1A5, just for the thermal optics alone. If he dont, well he is Russian mindset and they should ditch his ass ASAP.

Total cope, LOL! Soon we see "Why T-34/85 is great!"

@@pliashmuldba didn't UK ask UKRAINE not to use the CHALLENGER in risky areas? What does that mean 😂

What thing?

The only people claiming the counter-offensive failed are Germans and Austrians, who also happen to be somewhat allied with Russia.

​@@ArchOfficialIn wich universe it was successful ? It was a big failure man .

@@ArchOfficial brother here is still living in the alternate universe, someone help him wake him up 😭

@@5co756 30:1+ operational structure destruction ratio, 10:1+ platform destruction ratio and 3:1+ infantry casualty ratio is a big failure?

Not to forget accompanying parts of the counteroffensive in the Black Sea and on the logistical chain.

Well, NATO have 105mm gun - Striker MGS and another "wheeled tanks".

Especially HE rounds which are mostly used in Ukraine...

105mm is everywhere...

@@Leo80310 Yes, but different ammo than Leo 1.

Ac130 still have 105mm

Yea, like sending t-62s and t-54/55s.

Well, a leo1a5 is more armored, but not much more, than a bmp3. With era in the equation, the leo1 is actually worse, armor wise.

If that's all you got from that video, yeah, definitively a joke, carry on.

The point is that IFV operate on the front line just as MBTs. Still, an MBT with more armor than an IFV is considered "useless" for some reason...

Tank on tank combat is the exception anyway. So having a tank vs tank comparison isnt really more useful. Seems like the joke is your comment.

The Leopard has very thin armor for an MBT. It was designed during a completely different era. There's 30mm APFSDS that can pen the UFP

They'll need them when Ukraine can't hold Russia off with obsolete tanks.

No tank can hold off a Lancet@@MutatedPizzaBoi

Far from obsolete, maybe more accurate term would be obsolescent.

​@typorad obsolete is the correct term... it's underarmored & undergunned for any task it's going to be assigned as Armor. Radically different than when Russia is using modernized T-64s which are also obsolete as Armor BUT Russia isn't using them as MBT instead as basically IFVs to support Infantry as a main gun (cause it's gun actually isn't obsolete unlike the Leo-1.)

​@@nationalsocialism3504the L7 105 is still one of the better guns out there...

Amen brother 😢

The leopard 1 is way better than t64

You're not intelligent at all

Can a t64 shoot accurately on the move ....no it can't. It can barely shoot accurately standing still

​@@lukeamato423 nice try :D but it`s definetly not.

Harder to find. Otherwise I'd say your spot on.

Maybe They Can Buy It From Vietnam

They'll probably start buying whatever they can from third world countries, T-55s and its Chinese and NK copies, T-72s, M47s, M60s...

😂 right?

correct. This idiotic videos.

Lmfao best comment so far 🤣

@@hedwigugla8836 no doubt

Except it might not be. Because men diverted to provide difficult logistics for hella old obsolete and proprietary tanks might be taken away from artillery logistics support which WOULD detract from fighting power. So no tank would honestly be better.

@@TheStaniG artillery IS the defining weapon in this war. I completely agree

This is very much a cope video.

@@carlosthejackal87I’d rather have more 155 mm SPGs than Leopard 1s if I was Ukraine.

@@grahamstrouse1165 i agree

That's basically what's being supplied

You do realize that right .They're getting hundreds of them over time

​@@lukeamato423The comment section is entertaining, isn't it?

Precisely, that's why the logistics are going to provide some advantages that could outweigh the benefit of 'better' tanks supplied in their dozens. In a war where most tank work is infantry support against poorly armed, poorly supplied and often poorly trained fodder, the Leopard 1 is ideal and the fact that hundreds of them (and their variants) are being supplied to Ukraine is a big deal. Heavy armour rarely meets on the battlefield and even then, the Leopard 1 has advantages over many of the tanks in Russian service. We'll see if that changes next year but for now, most mechanised Russian forces consist of old, outdated and often unimproved armour or modern, lightly armoured vehicles. In many areas where the Leopard 1 is currently serving, it is rare for the trenches staffed by Russian 'volunteers' and conscripts to have something as simple as an RPG-7 available. It's just the nature of war between two poorly prepared forces. Ukraine often lacks modern armoured hardware of its own and Russia overstretched is forces after wasting too many vehicles / personnel around Kyiv and Kharkiv. Sadly, for Russia, the kit of infantrymen tended to stay with their bodies and many caches were overran or destroyed. It all leads to a war dominated by poor, often mismatched and inconsistent logistics where old equipment is worthwhile if it's numerous and good enough to get the job done.

@@aymonfoxc1442 very

There is one in Seymour, Vic, Australia 🇦🇺 I think the Australian army took the power pack out of them.

@@barrythatcher9349 correct, all the M113 and Leo AS1 on public display are missing the powerpacks

@@ravenof1985 which means the Aussie should still have the powerpacks. They could supplied the powerpacks and the Aussie Leo's AS1's could go to the Ukrainians.

@@barrythatcher9349 depends on the condition, if the 60 remaining AS1's have sat outside since 2007 they will be in poor condition, they would be a good source of parts

About as well as a t-72

They use FPV drones as lancet can over penetrate ;)

Same as t-55 and t-62, and the L1 can score hits from longer distances than the t-55/62 tanks with their sh*t optics.

Well Ukraine was never shouting that they are a second military in the world. Russians did, and seeing old T series tanks brought to fight is kinda funny.

​@@juslitor The t-62m has an ok fcs, it can fire GLATGM's, a 115mm cannon and they have uncooled 2nd gen thermals, it wont have a problem sniping from far distances away. But that doesnt really matter as the t-62s/t-55's see little frontline action and act mostly as indirect fire support with drone correction against enemy positions and my point was leo-1's aren't ideal for Ukraine not which obsolete cold war tank is better in this conflict, what is ideal for ukraine is more t-64's, t-80s, t-72's and even t-62's lmao. We don't know if leo-1's will be even used like t-55's/t-62's, the leo-1 has much better offensive capabilities then defensive and we've already seen a damaged and abandoned leo-1 that was immobilized by a artillery round from a failed Ukrainian counterattack. We can assume that the Ukrainians will use this tank for offensive operations which isn't good as I said before it has poor armour and will be vulnerable to anything, including mobilik Ivan with his rpg-7. Even the older t-series have better armour and have added composite armour/era.

​@@punish01 The Russians are still producing and modernizing tanks such as the t-90m, t-80bvm,t-72b3, t-62m/t-55 and of course other military vehicles/aircraft. They are capable of producing massive amounts of artillery rounds, producing drones such as lancets, fpv drones and gerans. The Russians have outproduced the West and Ukraine in terms of quantity, that we've seen Russian artillerymen use shells from the 1990's while Ukrainians have to use shells sparingly from its western allies or from foreign exports. But yes its very funny because Russia deployed old tanks that only see very little frontline combat and act as mostly artillery and muh 2nd military power in the world as if Nato could last as long as Russia in Ukraine. There is a very real chance of Russia winning this war and absorbing Ukraine becoming a even bigger superpower and being a bigger threat to Europe/Nato.

@@romanelite4121 I would not call russians a superpower considering it takes them this long to take a country, well not an entire country a part of it. "t-90m, t-80bvm,t-72b3, t-62m/t-55" why not Armata? "They are capable of producing massive amounts of artillery rounds" not a big suprise since they switched their economy from peacetime to war. Same thing would happen in the West, and West works on peacetime economy. "old tanks that only see very little frontline combat and act as mostly artillery" so an army which is known for artillery does not have enough artillery and has to use old tanks as fire support? Ah alright "as if Nato could last as long as Russia in Ukraine" remember Iraq? Remember air superiority? Russia cannot achieve air superiority. Ukraine war with NATO would end significantly faster. "becoming a even bigger superpower" superpower which cannot conquer a neighbouring state, losing a vessel to navy less country is not a superpower to begin with "and being a bigger threat to Europe/Nato." without air superiority? ahhh yeah sure

Bub, smoke less, sleep more, talk like Yoda you does.

lepard 1 has seen combat once in ukraine and it got destroyed after firing 4 times. it is crap

@@bolshevik1017 Well in that exact situation, a M1A1 would probably have been smoked too, any tank if you do not use it right are little more than a expensive heavy coffin. But i will agree so far i have not seen much proper use of tanks by the Uranians, and dont get me started on the Russians. But i have seen Uranians drive forward, fire a round then reverse a little, and this is not in and out of a depression in the terrain which would make sense Of course mine fields ASO could easy make it impossible to traverse parralel with the front line and fire shots into it As i have said MANY times before, compared to what the Russians are fielding, the L1A5 is more than enough, on many parameters it often is far ahead of the Russian stuff.

​@@bolshevik1017 Could you show me the source that claimes which Western tanks are undistructable? How desperate are you guys, if blowing up one tank is considered a propaganda victory?

Well, I guess the point was that even Russia does not have unlimited amounts of modern battle tanks. Basically saying that the Russian army is much weaker than they have let us believe.

In total, there are about 300 leo 1 available, but there is a problem because so far, the vast majority of them are not accepted in Ukraine. that is, tanks after renovation are simply still not working. although as far as I know, 20-30 leo1 reached Ukraine.

Agreed. The double standards are hilarious. NAFO types sound like a cult.

More or less irrelevant, since russia doesnt have any tanks to field except the old soviet scrap iron.

Well it is kinda funny when a nation that proclaims itself a second military power in the world brings up museum pieces into a fight

@@punish01 But it's really funny when a bloc of more than 30 first world countries (including the world's _first_ military power) does it.

@@KrazyIvan69 has to do what? Send them or fight with such equipment?

Yeah, but the Pz IV was a medium tank + - on par with vehicles of a similar class from other countries on the battlefield. Leo 1 was a strange "tank" at the time of its creation.

@@Scrap_Lootaz How is the leopard 1 strange? M60, AMX-30, Centurion, Type 74 were all similar. Steel tank with 105mm.

@@BloodyCrow__ , Well, for example, missing tank armor? 70 mm in the forehead is not serious, thin side armor that can be penetrated by automatic cannons. I know that the decision to neglect the reservation was conscious, because the designers then thought that it was impossible to defend against HE-AP ammunition. However, they forgot that weapons with HE-AP ammunition are not the only ones on the battlefield and, for example, this greatly reduces survivability against artillery fire. The very tactics of using Leopards 1, from ambushes where only a tower sticks out from cover, and so on. Don’t you think that this will remind you not of tanks, but of anti-tank self-propelled artillery guns, like the M10 or M36?

@@Scrap_LootazReal life isn't world of tanks. Standard Nato doctrine is firing from defilade. Modern MBTs can be penetrated by autocannons in the side. Modern MBTs are just as vulnerable to artillery.

@@BloodyCrow__ Ha ha, what a joke (not). Well, yes, the NATO Doctrine is crap? But we are talking about the tank, not why it is like this. Tanks are needed to stand in ambush, acting as a cannon, and not to develop an offensive (sarcasm). The problem is that the side armor of Leo 1 is 2 times thinner than, for example, that of the T-62. Do you know what this means? That the explosion and fragments of an artillery shell are more dangerous for Leo 1 at a greater distance from the explosion. And so with literally everything, the question is the degree of vulnerability. A direct hit from a 150 mm shell will destroy anyone, but how often do shells hit the target exactly? and not at 5 meters or 10 meters and will the armor withstand, and Leo’s armor is 1, cardboard. This imposes a bunch of other problems, for example the inability to use ERA normally.

Most of them are destroyed due to the KSE treaty. There is a facility in Germany owned by Krauße Maffei Wegmann in a small town named Roggensußra in Thuringia. At that place hundreds of tanks and thousands of other armoured vehicles were destroyed after the end of the Cold War. So no great stocks are available in Germany anymore.

Most of the dismantled tank parts were sold to Brazil

@@pzakp311 How far the glorious 1989 Bundeswehr has fallen. It used to have 7,000 MBTs, thousands more AFVs, hundreds of planes, 500,000 men, and millions of reservists. If they'd kept all that equipment it alone probably would have been enough. I'll never forgive Ursala von Der Leyen. She got every job through political connections and now after gutting the Bundeswehr to cut costs they decide she's the best person to run the EU into the ground.

Well their armour isn't going to make much difference when it comes to artillery and drones, as both weapons have already proven lethal to more modern and more heavily armoured tanks. A leopard 2 or leopard 1 that gets immobilised by 152mm shell fire are in the same boat.

And I've seen people argue that there are in fact no more spare parts, because the remaining users just cannibalize old tanks to keep their active fleet running.

You’re absolutely right.

Problem being if you are actually close enough to engage them with coax, they can engage you with even RPGs. Not sure if LEO 1 can survive older RPG7 much less the newer iterations

@@erwinvalken154 no way Leo 1 can survive any RPG shoot even from 1960. Armor comparable to PZ4 and earlyer panthers from 1944 can be beaten even from t-34 from any proection.

Don't get me wrong air superiority still matters but with how common drones are in these modern conflicts even with "air superiority" many heavy vehicles still get knocked out by these inexpensive drones with a mortar round duct taped to it.

You'll notice that none of the NAFO keyboard warriors are volunteering to operate one of these antiques on the Ukrainian battlefields.

@@PatRiarchy-qw6cp yup, they’ll just say, “well, it’s actually great because…”

Soviet scrap iron has crap optics, you cant shoot what you cant see,

Indirect fire enters the chat@@juslitor

@@juslitor soviet old tanks have much better armor protection. 30mm autocannon on bmp-2/3 can go through side armor of leo1. Not so much on T-55/62. Some modernised versions of T-55 can launch ATGMs. All of these old tanks (west and soviet) were modernised in 80s/90s, so they are up-armored and have 2nd gen thermal sights, so they are on same level and can be useful

@@usiak13 And some of those upgrades were sold off by corrupt soldiers.

@@contentsdiffer5958 that is possible, but there are literaly thousands of these old tanks. There is no issue in picking most complete ones. If I recall correctly, there is even whole factory in Siberia, that is repairing and upgrading T-62Ms...

Dont eat the yellow snow Bub, it contains Stalinium.

Meanwhile Russia is mining for copium and keeps ancient copium as it thinks it's the real ancestor of Rome

Amazing, isn't it? Did you know, BTW, how this "chemical industry" of today was created?

Thankfully its not fighting on a modern battlefield, but against a 3rd world country opponent.

@@nattygsbord Yeah, right. Look how gloriously the Wunderwaffe Leo 2 failed to have any impact. Just dream on!

@@SplendidMisanthropy Just western propaganda. In Ukraine all know leopard 2 and pzh2000 is piece of shit

​@@nattygsbordyeah the "3rd world country" is destroying our western equipment with bombs dropping from 300 dollar drones

From what I know those all have been sent already 2022, mainly from other countries.

The later m-60s were very good tanks. Ukraine could make good use of them. The 105mm cannon is more than adequate for the vast majority of missions. Ukraine needs numbers and the M-60 would be a great addition. There were proposals from US manufacturers to create a modern turret for them, but honestly it probably isn't needed in Ukraine when they are facing off against refurbished T-55's,

Honestly I don't know how much of these we really have in storage. A lot of them have been sent abroad and the ones that are still in the States have been sent to be Lawn ornaments on Military posts and for VFW's. But man I love the M60....All it takes is for you to climb on top of one and you are "This is a tank"

To the best of my knowledge, like the Leopard I, most M-60 tanks were sold or donated to allies in the 80s and 90s. The only tank that any western military has in substantial reserves are older Abrams. The Ukrainian military doesn't need tanks by the dozens, but by the hundreds. Bradleys are apparently performing quite well.

They can't stop coping 😂😂😂

The problem is mine detection and clearing and counter-drone operations. Come up with a solution to those 2 problems and you will have a massive advantage. Its much like the battle of the atlantic; british technological innovation eventually got one step ahead of the german u boats and methodically eliminated them until they couldn’t move out of port without being immediately attacked and sunk. But its worth remembering that by the end of ww2 the germans had created genuine submarines, capable of operating at speed underwater for very long periods of time. Unfortunately for the germans the destruction of their industries meant only a handful were ever built, but they illustrate the point that military problems require innovative thinking. Perhaps small remote controlled land drones - akin to remote controlled toy cars - could be developed to identify and mark mines for targeting by airborne drones swarms. I dont know. But some form of more effective, wider coverage signal jamming is probably the solution to airborne drones. I dont know. But my point is, the solutions are technical and require innovation - which is what took place in ww1 and ww2 on both sides, but especially on the winning side.

Makes no difference, Ukrainians have abandoned some undamaged Leo2 tanks in the middle of the field as they did not feal like using them, or safe, or something. This tin can is much worse.

@@MartinMaarva is that the ‘undamaged’ Leo2 that was mission destroyed by several remote detonated mines and then got hit by artillery about fifteen minutes later…? That one? Where the crew ran for it because they had nothing that could safely recover it before artillery would strike it and… where Ukrainian artillery then returned the party favour and shot the Russian artillery that destroyed the Leo2…

@@yannichudziak9942 Why did you stop only after two examples, there is plenty more. I meant the one in Kupiansk area abandoned in the middle of the field nor far from the frontline. Obviously Russians destroyed the tank afterwards but there was no apparent damage nor clear visible reason why it was abandoned. Anyway, driving Ukrainian tank is usually a suicide mission.

"after getting a sufficient fire advantage (both arty, long range strike, and ideally air power)" They are at all three types in the disadvantage

@@jetfighter200 both of them are never going to happen

​@jetfighter200 lmao that's never gonna happen Ukraine just gonna get more fabs dropped on them in thier defense position has well

​@jetfighter200 if one smokes enough crack, one begins to believe Ukraine will have that advantage

Agreed.

last i checked, they are still shipping home russians in boxes.

And 8x that many on the Ukrainian side.

@juslitor *Ukranians

Quite infantile to imagine the ukrainians would be taking 8x casualties with a smaller army to begin with. One would imagine the russians would have won even before they invaded with such marvellous statistics@@dudeonyoutube

@@juslitor I see that you are an enthusiastic consumer of propaganda. The Russian army's strength is defense. So basically they have been playing defense for about 1 1/2 years now using their notorious "meat grinder strategy". In a nutshell, this means building a tripwire line backed up by three real lines. The attackers then gradually destroy themselves from just attacking the first two lines. They never pierce the 3rd and 4th lines. Russian artillery plays a key role in the 8:1 KIA ratio. Its infantry gets to just watch the massacre. The attacker invariably suffers more casualties than the defender. Looks like you haven't noticed that it's been Ukraine on the attack for well over a year. They have lost so many men that now the average age in its army is 43 and they are recruiting women into combat. Talk about proof for my position that Ukraine 's army has been destroyed. Read last month's Time article on the war. They interviewed high up Ukrainian officials who admitted Ukraine has lost not only the war but an entire generation of young men. Here's my advice to you: follow some serious military channels to understand what has happened. Finally, the Ghost of Kiev is a great example of propaganda too. Don't fall for it either.

No, those are Artillery ammunition.

That's because they don't ever have to sit in one on the actual battlefields

That's because this is a propaganda channel... they say whatever the regime wants then to say at that exact moment.

Good one 😂

they have thermals

Stopping the russian advance is a pretty damn significant difference, bub.

HIMARS and Patriot, as well as 155 mm artillery actually made a huge difference in turning this "3 day special operation" into two year affair and counting.

Not without air support.

@FalconekL2 You’re still falling for that 3day lie?

@juslitor They haven’t done anything. Just more chubs for the grinder.

Big open fields lol

It’s not ideal, but FPV’s and ATGM’s are making mince meat of basically every armored vehicle on the battlefield that comes under concentrated fire. Crew survivability probably won’t be as good as a Leo 2, challenger 2, or Abrams. But the lighter weight may make a big difference in mud and snow. The 105 and the A5’s fire control should be fine for 98% of engagements with the higher round count making up for the smaller round in the fire support role that has been the overwhelming use of tanks in Ukraine. Finally, like uncle Joe said, quantity has a quality all its own.

@@TJ24050 Not a good time to be a crew members...

Seldom is, when fighting begins in earnest@@deejaylucolivier5955

The t-54, t-55, T-64, t-72, t-80, t-90 are pretty shit too.. so there's that.

EVERYTHING gets ERA in Ukrainian service

@@ravenof1985 That explains price tag...

Yes, this is indeed true. These obsolete vehicles are logistical nightmare for Ukraine, contrary to what video says.