Russian T-72 Destroys Leopard 2A6??
2023 ж. 1 Қар.
366 309 Рет қаралды
Several days ago we got a video and some pictures of a knocked out Leopard 2A6 and there are a lot of claims that it was taken out by a Russian T-72...
Patreon: / redeffect
Outro: "face away" - svard
I do not understand why someone thinks that Leopard is almost a wonderful weapon...Leopard can be destroyed like every other tank..
Yeah, people always act as if the tanks of their country are the best in the world and invincible. Annoying af
Atleast you can survive a hit.
Because before oikfensive happened (and failed) nafoids were drooling about leopards
@@user-me5oq3kl4h thank you for the excellent take, @user-me5oq3kl4h
To be fair, every country simps for their tanks.@@user-me5oq3kl4h
Leo crew didn't have FPE modification unlocked.
Bro is on that stock grind
Lol is not war thunder It's Real Life
@RaviKumar-gi4oy it's a joke
@@RaviKumar-gi4oyget a life, it's a joke
Guy was scouted by drone too
The T72 crew activated a 200% RP booster and they've been in matchmaking hell ever since
they already have 2 years of experience in this war vs leopard 2 with new kru
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa He made a Warthunder joke my dude
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa even experience have it limits, there are drones, fixed surveillance cameras, armored vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles and tanks as well if you are seen before you realise it, even couple of seconds can mean life or death, it is just a matter of time or luck that you have or don't have
He arty himself so the could'nt find him
@@carkawalakhatulistiwalawak itu Bo's... Bikin Malu aja
Pretty sure any 120mm gun can penetrate the side armor of any tank. Not from any angle, or any distance, but the best protected modern tanks just less likely to be destroyed, not invincible.
Russian tanks use a 125mm gun not a 120mm This issue is that we don't see a Russian tank nor is there any info about a Russian tank.
even the 100mm gun of the t-55 can do that.
It can use modern ammo, so probably it can destroy anything from any distance... Just the matter of spotting and targeting the enemy first, which is the biggest issue of T-72
@zeffy._440 you really think there's a big enough difference between a 120mm gun and a 125mm gun to be worth an entire comment? It's just the Russian caliber of a 120mm gun.
Depends on what ammo. A HE shell would only damage exterior parts.
Almost all modern tanks are vulnerable to even 30mm rounds if hit from the right angle in the right place. While certain tanks have advantages in optics, armor, or gun over other tanks, none of them are completely immune to older, weaker, or cheaper tanks.
But didn't NAFO folk say these tanks are invincible and impenetrable? That these can shrug off 70 rpg rounds a second? GAME CHANGER too irrc
@@lemieux-z8933 no
A lot of people will act like their countries tank is the best in the world and invincible (I have seen this in the UK about the challenger, which has good armour but ofc isn't invincible) NATO tends to think it's tanks are leagues ahead of Russia and China, when they are just better in soft features like crew comfort and sensors. The Leo doesn't even have as good armour as the T-90M
@@y0Milan That is not true at all lol, there's a lot of bot channels where people honestly believe that in the comments. Examples r/combatfootage, r/NCD
That's true, I'd rather prefer sitting in "modern" Western tanks instead of Russian ones. But then I also need to differentiate because I would love to be in an Abrams or Leo, but not a Challenger.
Media: this system will be a game changer. Experts: no system will be a game changer. -One system is lost in battle- Media: you lied to us, the system is not the game changer you promised. Experts: sigh
Media: this system will be a game changer. Western Experts: this system will be a game changer, pay more **One system is lost in battle** Media: you lied to us, the system is not the game changer you promised.
@@abobaabobus7010 to be honest, I have seen a few of those accursed CNN war overviews and interviews, all I can say is like I am looking at a paralel unviverse. An accurate assessment given how over hype, arrogant and out of touch of these so called experts.
@@abobaabobus7010”western experts” those aren’t experts we do have some experts but as this isn’t our war most people don’t do much research and use flashy headlines to get people to click on there link
Really "media" was the game changer. But now they are nomore
A lot of these old tanks still have teeth, A lot of them share a similar gun or even same gun to many of the modern 'current' tanks, and Ammo as well can be made to be deadly and used by older models as well.
Yea, idk why the average person underestimates older tanks.
Sure russian tanks use 125mm guns. But a T-72A will not be able to shoot 3BM60. I read somewhere that this has to do with the size of the breech and it not being able to withstand the "explosion" from the charge.
@@wessel2009 the T72A is no longer in russian military service, its the T72B3M that is.
@@user-jx3cf3gc2u No but they do use very old models of t72s which arent even service anymore because they cant keep up production of their currents tanks.
@@user-jx3cf3gc2u we've seen plenty of old T-72s, some without even ERA, deployed
Never take a Leopard to a Shovel fight
The t72 was equipped with armor piercinng discarding sabot fin stabilized shovels
@@Fred_the_1996 Actually im pretty sure the Russians were firing the RPG from Far Cry. it wasnt the t72 shovel rounds
@@onfiredragon3009 in any case, it wasn't stalin's fridge with the stalin-guided nuke shell of doom
You guys ever come up with anything new?
Boring
If it was indeed a T-72, then I don't think it would allow the Bradley to drive away or enemy crew to escape, it would most likely keep shooting. An ATGM crew seems much more likely culprit here.
not necessarily. They're fighting over a corner and the Bradley is hugging the treeline that is next to the railways. There's also the possibility that it's not from an ATGM crew because visibility is only good up to 50 meters during mornings. T-72s at this point of the battle are already operating around the Terrikon so they have LOS on the lower half of the Leopard's side.
Why would the ATGM crew allow the Bradley to escape, are they assigned a single missile.
well, that's difficult to say for sure. from most of the combat footage we've seen both sides have very poor battlefield awareness. we see a few videos of Russian tanks effectively taking out enemy combat vehicles, but that's due to better training. it's not that they have better intel they just have the muscle memory to act faster and change positions.
@@christosswcbecause atgm crews usually change position after the first shot, esp because russian atgms don't have the ability to be aimed remotely
@@christosswc They would bail out, because they are much more vulnerable to return fire than tank.
I thought it was the Russian soldier with an axe that caused all of that
With a shovel
@@Spectre4490RPG,which shoots with shovels
"You see Ivan, we have a regular shovel, so why not have an anti-tank shovel. And maybe even a sniper shovel." "Sergei that's brilliant."
You mean this type of Axe? image.alza.cz/products/SG833/SG833.jpg?width=1400&height=1400
It was clearly the Ukrainians who threw a Molotov outside the cabin
For some reason, no matter how shit your tank was, once you get a handle on it, it always be good.
"Its not the tank mav, its the crewmates."
it's almost like modern tanks have similar performances Yes your tank reloads faster by 1 second, but most of the time it doesn't matter.
and especially so vice versa! :)
Not sure how this is your takeaway from this video but ok. Especially considering we see the superior western tank quality in not having your turret pop off as soon as you get hit, and even (incredible!) the entire crew surviving
umm yeah, but you'll lose 10x more tanks
Modern combat has this fact: if you can see it, you can kill it
As said soooo many times "Any tank is better than no tank"
@@juliuszkocinski7478except the bob semple
@@abas656thegodemperor9you called?
@@abas656thegodemperor9 what you mean the bob semple got the W
@@nhatthangnguyen-cy3oz thank you!
So this video originally was posted by 114th Motorized Rifle brigade, that does indeed have T-72s in its arsenal and they are stationed around Krasnogorovka (Near Avdeevka industrial zone), and they were the 1st ones to claim that a tank destroyed this Leopard. It could very well be that an HEAT-FS shell hit the tank, guys there have thought that it was an RPG (since as far as i know that Leo was geolocated a couple of kilometers from Russian positions). Also what is worth pointing out is that on that flank Russians have been extensively using tanks for main assaults, while infantry only comes after they made a breaktrough. So its either a HEAT-FS or an ATGM.
We shall not forget that T-72/80/90 can fire ATGMs from main gun, so it can be both T-72 and ATGM options at the same time!
Okay, the problem with that is tankers will instinctively keep shooting the other tank. They won't stop at just one round.
@@a-iz4pg That is right also, i must admit!
@@a-iz4pg No, not really, it all depends can they visually confirm its destruction and here they could, a fire is enough to say its completely lost, plus we have evidence that crew left it after the first hit. Most of the time Russians will fire 2-3 ATGMs at a single target.
@@a-iz4pg fake and g4y.. Not reason to do if the target don't move.. or do something.. When half a year ago a t80 alone fight 2 tank and 6(¿) humvee.. It didn't keep shooting the same target . It fast switch faster between targets. At this point youre just coping.
I don't know why people think that a Leopard being destroyed by an older T-72 is unlikely. We need to realize that many of these legacy Russian tanks have gone through heavy modernization programs to increase their combat capabilities. It seems that whenever the T-72 is mentioned, the image is that of the Gulf War where the Iraqis lost many of their T-72s to US Abrams. The difference is that these tanks are not the same (Again modernization) and are being operated by very well-trained Russian crews with superior tactics and situational awareness. But who knows, maybe the Leopard was destroyed by another weapon other than a T-72. The size of the explosion though leads me to believe in the possibility that the Leopard was indeed hit by another tank.
That’s true, the T-72s lost in Iraq were downgraded export models. However, the most numerous tank being lost by the Russian forces as of the last few months is the T-80BV, most of which have not seen modernization since the 80s and 90s. Russia is still managing to build new T-90Ms and refurbish T-72s and T-80s to the T-72B3M and T-80BVM standard; however, they are not being produced in sufficient numbers to supply the Russian forces. That is why the most numerous tank being lost is the T-80BV without extensive modernization. Russia and Ukraine have both also lost a significant portion of their trained tank crews, however the Western vehicles being received by Ukraine have superior optics, giving the units that receive them an edge in situational awareness over the Russians. In any case, however, a tank is a tank, and the first one to see the other has the advantage in landing an accurate shot. With the possible exception of the T-55s and T-62s, even the older models of tanks that Russia is fielding have sufficient firepower to damage or knock out a Leopard 2 tank.
That depends on which unit is operating the tank, if they are veteran units from before the invasion, without a doubt, but if they are mobilized, I doubt that they are better trained than the crews of the Republican Guard.
@@justindyer8911spot on. Iraqi T-72's were very very basic and their tank crews poorly trained
@@justindyer8911 Three phrases, "First see, first shoot, first kill". Situational awareness is everything in peer to peer combat and the US and allied forces had that in spades in both Gulf Wars against the Iraqis. That is the main reason why the Iraqis took such a beating not just in tank battles but in the air-to-air engagements. All factors being equal, I doubt the US and the so called "Coalition" would have enjoyed such a display of superiority over Saddam's forces as it would have turned into a long and protracted conflict. Russia has far better informational and situational awareness than Saddam's army ever did and yes, better trained and equipped. In the first half of this conflict, it seemed that Ukraine was giving the Russians a run for their money, but they enjoyed great support from the US and NATO with money, weapons and logistical feed, but in spite of all that, they have pretty much run out of luck lately. And little do most people here in the West realize is that it was never Putin's intention to invade the entire country or occupy it permanently, and hence why he instructed his generals to not engage in shock and awe level campaigns in order to minimize civilian casualties and damage to the infrastructure. Remember that Ukrainians and Russians are related. And it is sad and ironic that as long as the West continues to send weapons to Ukraine and oppose any talk of stopping this conflict, many more Ukrainian troops die and more damage to the infrastructure will happen. I know. Long reply to the discussion of main battle tanks but it explains the difference between Iraq and Russia's T-72 failures and successes respectively.
@@edwardwongiii2229 Ah, I see you’re parroting some disproven lines about the war overall, so I’m afraid it doesn’t look like we’ll be able to find much common ground. The war ends as soon as Russian forces withdraw from Ukraine, Western aid has nothing to do with that fact. If we can’t even agree on the current state of the Russian forces, there’s no discussion to be had in that regard. I only hope that the war comes to an end soon, with Ukraine’s territory and sovereignty respected. Then the young men of both sides can go home to their families.
Whether true or not, is it surprising? At the short ranges common in the Ukraine war, with treelines limiting los in all directions, even a 50 year old tank gun is deadly accurate. If it hit the side or rear of the Leopard 2, a 125mm shell will almost always penetrate enough to immobilize or seriously damage it. No surprise.
And what does that have to do with the video?
@@fantastikboom1094Exactly as the comment said. It’s no surprise a tank got knocked out by a side shot
@@ThatsOk83ye except we DON’T know what actually destroyed the tank. It could’ve been a tank or it could’ve been a rocket
@@christiannguyen1266 He's saying it doesn't matter... most modern tanks have side armor slightly better than their WW2 counterparts if even that. It could have been a rocket or any type of munition, HEAT, HE, AP, ATGM, APDSFS or even HESH, the result would be the same. A disabled tank.
Even a 100mm can be incredibly lethal still if fired point blank into the side of any modern tank.
From the Ukrainian and Russian wars, we can see many superior tanks (example leo2a6 and chalanger2), most of which always win against camel breeders in the Middle East but are easily destroyed in Ukraine. So, maybe that's why Israel was too afraid to send theirs Merkava to Ukraine 🤔
I mean Russia still has a significantly higher lose ratio of tanks. They’ve literally had to pull out Soviet era vehicles from losing so many.
@@captainhellhound7451They use this old tanks as artillery dude or for defense positions , did you ever see a T55 advancing ? Did you really believe this BS ? 😅
@@5co756 there is literally photos of T-55s with their normal main gun that have a cope cage on it. It’s normal gun doesn’t work as artillery
@@captainhellhound7451 You dodged the answer. If they pulled out thousands of these vehicles, then why cant we get any evidence about them on the front? We had videos of Ukrainians using columns of T-64s and T-55s in offensives.
@@captainhellhound7451 Cope cage is for drone strikes and every tank can be used as short range artillery dude . We see lots of videos of tanks shooting HE shells guided by drones and for that this old T55 for example are good enough .
Reporter Andrey Filatov (legit source: man of honor and tough guy) which works with 114th brigade confirms that. Leo was hit by T-72 from covered position (like an artillery: without straight line of sight). That is why drone operator was so freakin emotional, shouting "WITH THE FIRST SHOT, WITH THE FIRST SHOT! LEOPARD IS DONE, UKRS ARE CREEPING OUT FROM IT AND RUNNING AWAY!"
@retoxnsk3942 Makes sense. The drone operator wouldn't have seen it or known of it either, so he would've just assumed it was infantry with an atgm/rpg probably since that was all he was aware was in that general location at the time.
One of the most absurd claims. Let me make sure I understand what you’re deeming “credible”: A t72 with no LOS to the tanks and operating as IDF at the leopard hit it first shot with what I assume are target coordinates from the drone? Yeah.. sounds .. real. 🙄 You’re talking about threading a fucking needle at range. This was an ATGM without a doubt.
@@DefinitelyNotBlackOpalDirect well, my friend, looks like i have absolutely no idea how combat tactics developing now, and have no idea how it happens at war: sometimes its just some luck + tiny bit of experience
@@DefinitelyNotBlackOpalDirectthey could have been zeroed on the field before that. Artillery have been hitting moving vehicles with unguided shells multiple times in this war
The fact that we are seeing this footage is still insane to me
Every part of this conflict is being recorded. This happened in the week where Ukraine lost 50 armoured vehicles in 5 days on one single part of the front. This war is over.
@@D64nzlol no its not over
@@D64nz I'll keep dreaming, wake me up when it ends already 😴
@@D64nzthe war isn't over, no way in hell. Give or take I'd say a year
@@D64nz The Ukrainians have lost their offensive potential, but the Russians have much less manpower. The Russians will not want to switch roles with Ukraine and go on a large-scale offensive, they may regain some territory or even a couple of cities, but no more. To end the war, one side must defeat the other, which is unrealistic for both sides as for now. At most, the conflict can be frozen.
another great video, thanks for continuing to produce great non bias reviews of these clips :D
It could be a 9M119, it makes a bigger explosion than that of a normal atgm and the t-72 could be kilometers away
This is the first time in history that we have so much video of tank battles. All previous conflicts, we've had to rely on main stream media, but now we get drone videos almost every day, so we can actually see what's happening. It's very eye opening to the realities of war.
És borzalmára amit eggyik országnak sem kívánok még az ukránoknak sem és az oroszoknak sem
there's quite a bit of combat footage from WWII that shows tank battles.
"It's very eye opening to the realities of war." Be aware however, that you're still not seeing even 1% of what's happening. And while Russia has removed the neartotal lockdown on posting videos, they're still posting a fraction of what Ukraine does. Also, even if it's a while since the last time Ukraine was caught trying to pretend their own losses were really Russian, they're still trying to pull tricks like that.
Thats what i really like, if this was the 1940's everyone would be only getting fed government issued propaganda films that never show friendly casualties or the realities of whats going on in the front This also might indirectly help people understand what war veterans have gone through since now everyone can see it on video
@@chost-059 "if this was the 1940's everyone would be only getting fed government issued propaganda films" Uh-huh... So you haven't actually noticed that this is exactly what the overwhelming majority of "the west" is seeing? Because according to most of western media and politicians etc, Ukraine should have advanced to the Pacific ocean by now.
Never bring a tank to the shovel fight
Oh, shove it.
@@ameerhamid89*shovel it
@@AndRei-yc3ti hardy har
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It's crazy to me how many people doubt the effectiveness of a tungsten rod traveling at 4500+ FPS. I wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of that regardless of what tank was firing or what tank is the target.
1600 -1700m\s
@@user-ti7sp4jg7gthat sounds really fast but I have no idea what measurement unit that is because im an American
You think Russia is using tungsten rounds?😂😂 they have been shown in many many pictures to have DU. Early eat it was different from what I remember.
@@zackzaney5563I'd imagine they probably use quite the mix. I can't imagine their production can match their usage, so they are probably pulling from some very old stockpiles as well. Plus they don't need to use the latest and greatest considering the age of vehicles they're facing.
They use either, but tungsten is the most used.@@zackzaney5563
From the original video's audio track it was pretty clear that the Leo 2 was a hit by a T-72 from a covered position, meaning used as artillery. The shell struck the front of the Leo 2 from the top and burst its fuel tank, which caused a fire which destroyed the Leo 2.
it is damaged and not destroyed, it has already been confirmed
@@DeMp4DeeZ confirmed by who? :D
@@JL-hz3px im just gonna take a wild guess and claim that a slow burning fuel tank might not be enough to cause most tanks to become destroyed.
Great analysis, as always 👍
Evidence: A tank was destroyed in combat The tank had fired a sabot shortly before being destroyed Contemporary observers refer to infantry with AT equipment Conclusion: There is not nearly enough evidence to draw any kind of conclusion from this footage
THIS are news to make my day so better, thanks redeffect
It was a 125mm HE-Frag hit from 7km via in-direct fire. Due to the proliferation of drones, Tank Gunners are now drone operators directly or have a feed from a drone to guide their fires.
cool, but frag is unguided. ARmor was penetrated. HEAT work. Bad hit, still sufficient.
It's probably a TGM (tank-guided missile).
RPG is just a callname for any infantry-mounted anti-tank weapon. It could as well be an ATGM and it could still be referred to "RPG" in colloquial speech. Especially if don't know exactly what was used but we want to convey that it was infantry that did it.
RPG is a Russian abbreviation for "Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher", so RPG can't be an ATGM
@@fgoose5121sure, and stinger is something in a bee's ass, yet it is used to refer to any MANPADS.
RPG is Rocket Propelled Grenade, not just the most popular RPG-7 there up to RPG-32
I think that something important to note which I haven't seen people mention is that while the T-72s design is old it's tech isn't. This T-72 is so different to the ones that existed and served in the 70s and 80s that it could be considered a new tank. Similar to how the f16 is 50 year old technology yet it still serves today through extensive modernization.
it's still old
@@user-mn8lz7gf6dSo are the abrahams and the leopards
@@user-mn8lz7gf6dIf you look at it like that then every leopard and abrahams model that exists today is hella old aswell, that’s because T-72, leopard and abrahams are well known and good platforms, it’s more cost effective and less risky to modernize them instead of just making a new platform which is extremely hard to develop and has a chance of being total trash.
@@5gurus-bimiseveriz no, the tech is hopelessly obsolete even in comparison to other tanks. I would not use the word 'modernize' when talking about russian tanks.
If it was an RPG then this was indeed a very nice shot, since not only did they hit the leo on the first try, they also perfectly took out the engine compartment, which is definitely not easy to do - the chances of guessing wrong and shooting high or low are definitely significant and if you even miss by a little and only hit the track you would probably get an HE shell flying back at you within the same minute. Im very curious to see if theyre gonna be able to recover this one aswell, really depends on who manages to secure this area in the next week
Russia has already pushed them back in this area, as large parts of the northern frontline collapse.
It really does look like a shell impact, whether it was from a tank or some other direct fire artillery is a fairly trivial question. Russian MoD now claims it was a T-72BVM.
i pretty sure it not RPG, or rpg crew and bradley can start the fight or rpg team shoot tankers. It most likely tank with Refleks rocket.
It is not true. An experienced person with an RPG hits exactly where he aims.
Good point. If it was an rpg then it was almost a miracle, and once in a lifetime shot. More likely that it was a tank.
hey red effect can you make a video about south african olifant tank and its problems ?
People shocked that their favourite tank can be destroyed. Welcome to reality😂
Только разница в живучести))) советские танки этим не славятся
Back snap to the reality
In Russian dreams, yes. Afterall, they only take into account what the media says. The people, on the other hand, has already expected this, and aren't surprised by a destroyed leo. And for every leo that's been lost, Russia has lost more. That's what's important. I do hope you're a civilized person that doesn't believe in Russian propaganda, because Russian propaganda doesn't allow counter arguments. You either comply or you die. Western bias, despite the propaganda, won't kill you for having counter arguments. This makes people listening to western media more critical than people listening to russian lies.
Survivability and reverse speed too@@user-qr3yb6pk9d
Anyone that knows about tanks is not surprised.
I wouldn't rule out an enemy tank, what speaks to that it might have been a tank on tank engagement, is that i'm fairly certain the Leopard fires an APFSDS in the start of the video. At 0:27 you can see the Leopard fire, and something hits the ground ~150 meters infront of it, that is most likely a petal from the sabot. Also in the lower right corner, just below the play mark and the red circle, we can see some trees or branches get hit, either by a petal or the rod itself. So the Leopard shoots first and misses (or there is more than 1 russian tank), enemy tanks returns fire and hits, with what i would assume to be a HEAT shell. An APFSDS wouldn't deal that much external damage and HE-FRAG would do much more external damage, but unlikely to enter the engine compartment. I dont believe it was an RPG, nobody fires at the Leopard in the picture, and the Bradley has cleared the hedgerovs next to it, and has eyes on the front. So the shot comes from out of range of an RPG. ATGM or a HEAT shell from a tank is my best bets. I still go with the tank, because the Leopard fires an APFSDS in the only direction the shot could come from.
I suspect the ground impact and the tree impact were caused by the same sabot petal.
yes the shot of the Leo might have been directed at a tank, but the shot that took the Leo out of combat came from a completely different direction.
its possible a t-72 took out the leo2a6, and people tend to forget russian MBTs are capable to launch ATGM from the barrel, if not a HE or apfsds took out the leo2a6, and the projectile is too big for a regulat RPG then my guess is it was an ATGM fired from a t-72, but im not a military analyst, its just my guess on the topic
Probably not as this area has treelines in many directions as well as dense fog cover. Tank visibility would be severely limited
love your vids man!
Maybe it was a heavy RPG, either the RPG-29 Vampir or RPG-30. Both systems fire a 105 mm warhead so maybe that explains the large explosion upon impact.
only an rpg 29 can penetrate a heavy tank armout especially a leo 2 A6 all this so called experts have not even seen an actuall rpg been used in combat not fire one and know what damage it really does to a tank and if the engine compartment and fuel tank caught fire without active fire suppresion i would like to know how the rest is not going to get destoyed by the fire especially the electooptical equipment but also recover and fix it later only idiots on youtube believe that fix what no engine left no fuel tank no suspension and gearbox system no electropotical eqiuipment might as well biult a new one
RPG-29 "Sapog" is being widely used in that area by Russian army UPD: I meant SPG-9
"Sapog" Spg-9 not RGP-29@@al1sa920
@@losres6787 oh, shit, my bad. Thanks for correction
@@losres6787 even the one with old warhead have around 300mm of penetration more then enough for a side shot
I saw on a russian telegram, they claimed it was a T-72B (not the b3 , b3 2016 or b3 2023 model) but they didnt show any footage. If its true then these older tanks are still very formidable because ive seen footage of a ukrainian T-64B ( not the modernized models) destroying an abandoned T-90A through the front armor a few months into the war.
Could you link to that footage please, if possible?
Unlikely at least from what evidence we have. Like RedEffect said most likely is RPG or ATGMs.
Just a small correction my friend the hit was under the armour mostly though the turret ring
When you have a 125 mm gun you can pretty much kill anything that exists on the battlefields if it hits the right place especially. And an APFSDS from t72b would murder a leopard from the lower glacis or the side or rear. People always brag about tank armor but they don’t realize it’s mostly centered in the front upper glacis of the tank and the turret the rest of the tank has relatively moderate armor which can be penetrated by a varied array of weapons. He’ll even auto cannons like 25 and 30 mm can penetrate side armor of tanks If shot enough times.
@@mattbanco4406This. The sides of MBTs are vulnerable to even early cold war APDS. If you out maneuver your opponent, how modern your tank is ceases to matter.
RedEffect: You cant see T-72, so it wasnt T-72
There's dense treelines in almost every direction as well as fog cover. It's possible that it was a T72, but very unlikely. ATGM team is a more likely suspect
@@mcnuffin1208a T-72 would have to have a range past 5 miles, a T-72s range is not impressive. Why would a T-72 shot it, and allow the crew to Evacuate….and not fully destroy it?
@ebperformance8436 I highly doubt its optics are even good enough to see that far.
@@mcnuffin1208 Good point! The fact that the leopard 2 was disabled, and not destroyed, it took only one shot on the lower side, catching the engine on fire, a Bradley won’t be that wreckless enough to stage a rescue’ if a tank was in the area. The leopard 2 would definitely be destroyed with a second shot….a T-72 it wouldn’t just sit there and leave the leopard 2 recoverable to Ukrainian forces, you got another point….A T-72 can’t fire that far. If a anti tank Missile was mounted on a T-72…..it would have the ability to use its main cannon, to finish it off. The T-72s up and down turret Radius, wouldn’t allow it to fire at a Ridiculous range….I hear people claim a T-72 was camouflaged, and it’s smoke screen being used….a Tank crew would never use its smoke screen, when it has the element of suprised, a smoke screen would give its hidden location away.
@ebperformance8436 the footage does cut out, so we don't know if the Leo takes another hit, one a bit more devastating than the first.
Could infantry have hit the tank with a RPG but not shot the crew as the left ? Was the smoke already deployed when the crew left ?
Could’ve been an atgm or long range rpg. Too long to hit with rifle rounds accurately
Could also just let them go. You know, humans may decide that the other guys are poor bastards, who are forced to fight. Russia saw enough Ukrainian soldiers who gave up and told their story and of course they also see how the coup regime grabs people from the street to force them to the front. Don't forget: Russians evern forgave the germans - who wanted to genocide all of them and killed over 27 millions, 2/3 of that civilians.
Maybe an ATGM like Kornet.
ATGM could have been on a hill over a km away. Not easy to shoot infantry at that range with regular guns, plus if it was a dedicated AT team, they usually have small crews of like 3, they dont usually carry long range rifles as far as im aware. Another likely reason is they fired and hit and immediately repositioned for their own safety, if the tank took the hit and was fine, that turret would have swung around and sent a shell straight at them within seconds and if not the tank, another armoured vehicle in the same squad. Shoot and scoot tactics
or maybe they bailed since there was still a bradley that could shoot them
I mean the T-72 doesn't have a terrible gun whatsoever. Most modern tanks don't have the raw armor thickness of old WW2 and Cold War tanks because it hinders mobility. I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever if even a Tiger or the IS-2 could easily penetrate the side of modern tanks
T-72 can also fire a n anti-tank missile through it's main gun from a distance greater than 4kms. That drone was monitoring the Ukrainian assault, it's quite plausible that a T-72 responding to the threat found itself within that range, without that unit being directly coordinated by the drone operator.
too poor visibility for 4km
NO. There's almost a 0% chance this was the work of a t-72 tank (or any tank for that matter). This particular location is literally right next to the teracon and is surrounded by dense fog and a treeline... if there was a tank in the area that could see and shoot the Leopard, then it would 100% have at least fired and destroyed the Leopard once or twice more. This is almost certainly an infantry-based rpg or a squad ATGM.
@@user-xp5id1kh4r They may had the only one 9M119 ATMG in the tank (they almost never use them). And they may have fired from a distance over 5 km. So that's why they didn't shoot another one, but were trying to shoot a regular HE (or HEAT) instead, without much of a luck because of the distance. Some rare explosions (misses) are clearly seen in the video.
NO. Did you even read my comment??? This particular location (i.e., specific) is literally right next to the teracon hill on the northern pincer vector of Russia's current attack direction. AND, its on the OTHER SIDE of the railroad tracks/buffer just S/SE of Stepove. There's literally NO WAY for a line-of-sight shot against the Leopard at this location/point unless the apparent "T-72" was literally on top of the teracon hill. The likelihood of that is literally ZERO, because it would immediately be targeted and destroyed.@@RustedCroaker
you have to wonder why the ukrainians didnt have drones covering their threat areas as well... both sides seem to be masters of doing only one thing at a time, correctly, as opposed to several things in coordination with each other.... of course that is just my armchair perspective.... both sides have an extremely tough job.
The drone operators enthusiasm is pretty great lol
APFSDS would also create little damage on the outside, at the impact point. However, as you stated, we see no other tanks in the vid. There is simply too few evidence to say whatever hit him... Either way, it was out of battle.
I doubt it was a apfsds since there isnt any sparks and it probs would have gone straight through the engine.
I think it could have been a guided artillery round.
You didnt mentione the localization. It was north of avdiivka, South of the rails so chanses of T72 having a clear line of sight from russian side was pretty slim. Anyways i love your vids keep it up.
Avdiivka*
@@highjumpstudios2384*Avdeevka
@@highjumpstudios2384*avdeevka
T-72 didn't see th leo, it was in artillery mode.
@@highjumpstudios2384 *pulls up maps of Don Host lands dated back in 1800's....its Avdeevka.
Bradley coming in clutch
Excellent video mate 👍👍👍
I heard the tank was fireing HEAT (a common round in the field) from closed position. Hitting a target from closed position with fiorst round is rare, hitting a driving tank and incapacitate it is rather impossible. This explains excitment of the drone operator.
Unbiased analysis. Good job
I agree with what You said, but there is a lot of smoke that could maybe hide the tank or too far too be seen with the drone. And let's not forget that some T-72 tanks are able to use missiles: AV, B, BM, and other versions
Only T72B T64B and T80B start to use ATGMS the older variants no
@@AlexSosa-0098 I know that
There was a longer video where you can clearly see a tank for a short moment moving up the opposing direction - it is very small moment to see though and not sure where I saw it, but it was this case for sure because I see the terrain is the same just more zoomed out. That being said that could still mean the tank was in the battle, but the blow could still possibly done by rpg, anti-tank, whatever. It is battle and they use anything at hand.
I was also looking for the T-72, but whay I only saw is an another flash when the tank gets hit. Just a simple question, do tanks have something like gun camera just like on aircrafts?
Not all, but some tanks have.
The T-72 is like “Yeah! Who’s the b**** now?!
NO T-72 did this. Did you even watch the video?
Well, kinda they are considering how much of them have been destroyed lol...
Is the T72 in the room with right now ?
Would a T-72 taking out a Leopard 2A6 be a hard thing for people to imagine?
Some dumb people have it in their minds that Iraq was an accurate example of how well Western tanks would do against Russian tanks, all well forgetting that the Iraqi tanks had inferior fire control systems and trash locally produced shells as well as a lack of air power protecting them.
Depends how deep the western indoctrination has penetrated there brain. I think many people got a distorted view on western vs Soviet tanks during the Iraq war.
Great job.. Nice report!
based on the fact the crew ran towards the wood line to the APC (which was on the side of the tank that got hit) indicates that there was no enemy in that Wood line, meaning an RPG is unlike the munition used. In the video there does not appear to be any other location within say 200m in which a well aimed RPG would of been able to hit the target where it did. So either a Tank or a long range ATGM.
Actually that tree line is the gray zone. In fact, the commander that was with the reporter(his drone) lets the Bradley escape and calls off artillery because he had people in the area.
I think it's funny how this war has been killing the hype around a lot of "wonder" tanks.
And the Israel Hamas war as well
You have to remember that the tank is replaceable. The point of western tanks is to keep the crew alive not the tanks. The experienced crew can live to fight another day, but you know who can’t? The Russian crew who just got sent fucking sky high.
The claim itself seems plausable. I'm quite confident the Leopard 2A6 isn't immune to 125 mm smoothbore gun fire.
Lfp:👁️👄👁️
Finally!! I was waiting for this video. It is only you who can confirm since I saw the video. ❤❤
@redeffect do you have any information of that tank beeing captured, after the retreat from Advika?
Title should be: Shovel Destroys Leo 2A6
shovels did this...
finally! you shared again! have a nice day as well.
there are many videos where they work with a closed position, the tank itself works as an artelery
Well we dont know the crews fate judging by how many bradleys where knocked out its very likely the crew could have been killed while retreating. But this is just speculation
Thanks for the Backlight🔥🇳🇱
Do you know the difference between an RPG (immediate mine) and a (cumulative mine)? The immediate one is activated upon impact and the explosion is not very big, while the cumulative one has a devastating and larger explosion.
when will people realize tank armament really hasn't changed all that much in the past 50 years, and neither has the armor employed by these vehicles. Just because a tank is "newer" than another doesn't make it invincible lol
especially if the tank is deployed improperly, which both sides seem to love to do...
@@xisotopex your situational awareness will never be 100%, especially in a tank, and with how quickly these situations evolve what was once a properly emplaced tank is now a dead one. Such is life
Leopard was still researching upgrades ffs, dont put it against a Premium T72 😒
T-72AV(TURMS-T) has no ATGM
When looking at the explosion frame by frame, it looks to me that something hit the tank underneath. . . ? Or is it just how the blast went from the side hit?
It looks like a low hit below the sponson near the last road wheel, the view afterwards shows a blackened area there. That will put the round into the engine compartment and also why the blast goes out and low on the tanks left side and a jet straight up out of the back. The armour is thin there compared to the rest of the tank as it’s very hard to hit it that low.
The fuel cell obviously took a hit but that doesn't show any sign of damage from any specific weapon system. If they'd been hit by an APFSDS round or a HEAT round from the side, the entire crew wouldn't have bailed out so quick, injured personnel evacuate much more slowly so not a tank round hit unless it was a HE round which down around the tracks wouldn't have caused any significant damage but I doubt it was a 125mm HE round either. RPG is the likely weapon.
I watched that video and the guy was deffinetly screaming that a t-72 destroyed that leo
Red: There is nothing to substantiate the claim that a T-72 was behind this hit Comments: The T-72 still has it boys!!!!
Yep.
Wait you don't agree that T72 still has it? It's literally the same gun, as T90.
Maybe not the video by itself, but the possibility that it was a tank still definitely exists, especially considering the forces operating on the part of the front.
@@korana6308 It's not that I don't think the gun can kill shit. It's just the funny bit of the comments saying it's a T-72 with no evidence to substantiate the claim
@@Registered_Simp then you must've missed the evidence then. It's been confirmed by the Russians, even though it might be biased it's still the evidence. Also it has been geo located and there are those brigades and tanks there.
Was that Bradley square you just shown?
that leo has hit a mine! notice the fuel spill from bottom leaking into the tank track.
I really dont know why people are surprised by this, even a t34 can penetrate a modern tank through the side
Yeah modern western tanks are designed for long range engagements typically from a hull down position if possible. How Ukraine is using them is contradictory to their designed doctrine. The current battlefield of Ukraine is tailored more towards the cheap and low profile Russian/Soviet Tank designs
@@ICECAPPEDSKY i think its more just because ukraine is on the offensive, and that entails highers risks like minefield, which russia are using quite effectively and artillery. The reason western engagements like the invasion of iraq didnt siffer that problem is that they were fighting a smaller nation with far less resources and had overwhelming air superiority, ukraine has neither of these luxuries
@@madlad1511 what confuses me is why Ukraine is going offensive. Should they play defensively they should take less losses and have more the advantage with all the tech. Unless the offensive is in an attempt to demoralize the Russians idk
@@ICECAPPEDSKY my guess is that due to the massive russian incompetence at the beginning and low moralle they got a bit overconfident. Also its probably a political move more than a strategic one, the more they can make themselves seen as beating back big bad russia the more the west will be willing to support them, like what happened with the f16s at first they said no but after a bunch of succesfull operations they sent some over
@@ICECAPPEDSKY Ukraine is in a weird situation right now. either they stay defensive and give the Russians the ability to prepared they're next offensive, or just keep putting pressure with no real success to it.
T-72 or not, it's still a loss and It got destroyed by something even more low tier than a tank, an RPG.
If im being honest an rpg is better than a tank at destroying other tanks. An rpg operator is a small target, he can blend in with the environment more easily then a tank and technically he's more mobile because he can get into places where a tank couldn't.
@@bixy_4357 you have a point.
Wtf are you talking about? ATGMs and RPGs are literally designed to knock out enemy armour, tank ARE NOT made to fight other tanks, they merely have the capability to. Please stop applying your WarThunder logic to real life.
@@thatonelocalauthority2809 comparing an RPG with a Tank, is like comparing a Pea shooter with an Ak-47. If we're talking about size and intimidation. And for your record, the RPG-7 is old tech, Not even designed for fighting against modern Tanks, but rather IFVs and APCs. If you want an Anti Tank RPG, look no further than a RPG-29. I would also appreciate if you would actually be chill and not act insulted by every comment you see on the internet like a 9 year old.
I think that a PG-7VR RPG head would be capable to do that if it hits in the back or the sides, where the armour of the tank is thinner
Slat armor on a Leopard? How uncivilized!
First! Always good to see another video from Red Effect. 😇
the cannon is older but always shoots straight,that´s what my wife tells me
Russian army: loses 150 tanks a month Also Russian army: We HiT oNe lEoPaRd!!1
One of the reasons the Nazis lost last time was that they had few tanks. It's the same now. The Nazis would have lost long ago if they had not stolen huge reserves of Soviet tanks.
tanks are replacable, manpower is not, who is running out of men? its not the russians.
@@MultiNike79ok smooth brain. Are the Nazis in the room with us now 😂
Stupid propaganda makes you think that there are no losses on the "light side". Ukraine lost all its operational tanks and large number of tanks from east europe. Now they compensate the losses with extremly expencive leos and bradleys. They are lost in stupid frontal attacks, through minefields and right into AT- assets and russian attack helicopters. One Ka-52 scored 5 tanks only in one flight... and russians make dozens flights per day.
@@volhv2548 Yes, Ukraine lost 111555 tanks, one AK-47 hit 45 Leopards, and flagship Moskva is still afloat. I'm Russian, I'm near the frontlines and got immediate updates daily. Where from your information, Nazi sympathizer? TerroRussia Today?
nice content bro
Make a video on a STRV-122 that was hit and blow out panels popped, and the crew survived and ran away, I am curious what was the aftermats and if the tank is still recoverable.
In that vid, it appears to be rather torched on the inside. They'd have to replace a lot of electronics but I doubt the tank is completely destroyed.
Lesson of the day? Nothing is invincible, you should know this
Y'all seem to always forget that when talking about russian tanks losses tho
@@glaurung_7967 I’m on the wrong side of the fence to think that way. Russia has lost nearly 6000 tanks
@@jamesonaudette8744give a source
@@jamesonaudette8744 That is more than their entire active force. They wouldn't have a tank force. People just can't think these days.
Those russian rocket propelled shovels are crazy..
Actually it's the projectile what defeats the armor not the tank. They compare between tanks but they don't talk about the main cannon and it's projectile. Without the cannon and crews a tank is just a steel coffin.
Russian tank gets knocked out: "Trash tanks as usual!" Foreigner tank gets killed: "Not every tank is invincible!"
No matter if a Leo gets destroyed or not, the fact that, at least for the most confirmed disabled or destroyed vehicles, the crews managed to bail thus didnt get killed speaks for the ability of the tank to keep its crew alive.
Which is something we've seen on most tanks in this war, including the russian tanks.
i've seen this same text in every destroyed tank,i'm pretty sure it still applies for any war tank, and we know that if tanks get damaged (not obliterated) they are already kinda lost,so what's the point ?
Yes but there are only so many leopards left.
@@jesseterrell2109 Many got repaired. According to a (now admittely a little dated) report, most Leopards could be salvaged and repaired resulting in, back then, only 5 total losses out of 71 Leopards. But still, a destroyed or disabled tank, even when it can be repaired, still takes time for its maintenance, so yes, Ukraine has to be careful with its cats. Then again, its not like the lost leos mean a loss for Ukraine, the same goes for Russias T-90s. The Article was by forbes, posted on the 28th of August. As I said, a little dated, but as of now, the only base for my information.
@@jesseterrell2109 With this ratio of leopards loses, leopards becomed endangered spicies
it might just have been one of these shovels..
Probably not an T-72 otherwise why didn't that fire on the bradley? no instead, it was likely some sort of ATGM (with the drone as spotter scout) or RPG opportunity shot.
Yes this feels more likley. I would even add that the T-72 could have been used to bait out the Leoperd for the AT. Tanks want to kill other tanks especially if they feel superior. Its just nature.
How is it an opportunity shot the armour has rolled straight in to a killbox as an ex anti tanker its the perfect geography with plenty of defalade this is shows as the number of Bradley's taken out later its a planned killing area you seem to think the Ruskies ain't tactical aware enough to plan and excute this simple the Ukrainian intelligence on the area failed to spot the defensive position and they stupidly came back for seconds.
@@physetermacrocephalus2209 и ты учи русский, болван, тогда не будешь выглядеть така глупо.)))
The Bradley wasn't engaged because it was hiding behind a tree line/cover whereas the leopard was in the open. The problem with this logic is that you can apply that logic to the rpg team or atgm team, why didn't they fire again at the damaged leopard? To completely destroy it, which is possible when the bradley retreats. Now we aren't entirely sure what destroyed the leopard, but there were claims that the t-72 was being used as artillery/indirect fire. Which we do see in the video with rounds falling around the area.
Question: "HE" shell or "AG" shell? is there such a thing called "AG", or "attack ground"?
Nope, just HE.
Shovels are one hell of a weapon
Leopard 2A6 Vs. Shovel. Who would win?
Wow, judging by the comments, those shovel gags really stung.
I can’t believe a shovel managed to kill a tank!
Looks like the tank was applied to a poorly trained crew and/or with bad intel on enemy presence
At least the camo isn't really what Germans do. And I miss the rest of the platoon. But when in Ukraine, do like the Ukrainians do. Aside of this, this video doesn't show much about the rest of the battle. If it would be a German unit, there would be still three Leopard 2 tanks off screen, doing their game against the Russian formation that is also off-screen. Its really hard to tell anything about this aside of a hit against the engine compartment of the Leopard 2.
I like how some biased guys that were saying ( oww a nato tank can surely take hundred rpg hits ) are here concluding that " no tank is invincible " lmao. Where did these incredible invincibility claims gone only god knows. Btw the whole thing was knocked out with just one rpg hit🤣
T 72 Years of development from 1967 to 1973, Years of operation since 1974...
That rear location hit would disable/immobilize tank fuel/ oil leak, no reason to hang out, get out get safe, then figure out next move.
A couple days ago we saw a fpv drone hit the leopard blowout ammunition but it seems the crew was mid reloading its gun so we saw fires within the crew compartment.
Source?
@@PrivateMemo RT or some propaganda bullshit
@@PrivateMemo you want me to give the source? It’s on telegram
No, you could NOT see fire within the crew compartment on that video. All one could see was the blowout panel fly off and fire shoot out of the blowout panel. However, people did SPECULATE that since the drone struck the tank just after it fired a shot, that the blast door theoretically COULD have been open in order for the crew to reload... BUT, the tank's barrel was still in the "up" position when this occurred, meaning that a new tank round physically could NOT be loaded at that specific time, meaning that there's a chance that the blast doors were still closed as well. SO, its inconclusive what happened to the crew, but, it is telling that the number of cuts and edits in the video could have been done to create the narrative that the crew did not survive... but we just don't have the evidence to prove it either way.
@@user-xp5id1kh4r theoretically if the blast door is not breached the crew compartment is safe and the driver can actually still use the vehicle to get out of there. However we see in the video that the tank stops completely and has multiple fires occur at the top. This can suggest that the driver either got out because of inexperience or the tank suffered crew compartment breach. Either way the tank is destroyed or abandoned on the front of robotino.