T-80 vs Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank Comparison
-In today's video we will be taking a look at one of the best tanks ever, Soviet and now Russian T-80 tank and German Leopard 2, both tanks came out in similar periods and went through massive upgrades, which lead to them being one of the best tanks in modern use. In this video we will take a look at different variants from different periods and compare them.
I no longer own the discord server. There is another one I made for Patreon supporters, if you want you can check it out.
=Sources:
"T-80 Standard Tank - The Soviet Army's Last Armored Champion" by Steven J. Zaloga
"Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-98" by M. Jerchel & U. Schnellbacher
thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.... - A lot of info on T-80
fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/AR...
fofanov.armor.kiev.ua - T-80 projectiles
btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/leopard2/... - Leopard 2 armor
www.cia.gov/library/readingro... - T-80B armor
www.t80leningrad.narod.ru/publ... T-80 engines (all variants)
www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm - Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A5 armor estimates
www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U... - T-80U (late, UK) armor estimates.
• Was T-80 really a FAIL... - If you want to find out more about T-80
I just want to point out that you should take the values from this video with a big pinch of salt since they are based on old information and are mostly overestimates.
Think you'll ever do updated versions of now outdated videos? Really like the vids by the by
Hello RedEffect. First of all I wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your videos. I also have a question concerning the Cobra-ATGM's fired by T80B. I wondered how they where loaded into the gun, as the missile itself seems to be way to long for the auto-loader. I am looking forward to your response, greetings from Germany.
Do one on Serbia's upgraded t55
fair video but wanna menation 1 point kontakt 5 makes a kinetic protectile 25 to 30% less effektiv i doubt it
@@wolfgangvicenzi8664 I also found some decent sources (Russian in fact) that described Kontakt 5 as having no significant infuence on protection against DU and TC darts fired out of L44 and L55/120 guns. Also Relikt ERA seems to be overestimated in this manner. Although it HAS some capabilities against APFSDS rounds, those vary a lot from what seem to be officialy claimed numbers. In case of Kontakt 5 the coverage was described as increased by 5-7% (compared to Kontakt 1-3) Relikt stated numbers had to be cut in half or even lower than this(!) It was mentioned that "For Relikt ERA, the designing and engineering effort, time spent and costs involved were not worth the effect at all". Kontakt 5 has been described as a "solid protection against modern ATGMs and HEAT projectiles. Nothing more than that."
I like how you end with the concept of the channel "tanks for watching"
The T-80 is a good tank but it gets alot of hate , i really want the T-80 to stay in service for at least 30 more years .
I agree, it is a very good machine, it is good that Russia decided to modernize T-80BV tanks to modern standards, hopefully expending its service for a long time.
THEFIGHTER0XX I heard it's being modernised to t80bvm
In some areas, it is superior to the T90
The reason it isnt in service is becuse the armor was a disaster it tried to hide many weakpoints in and somewhere about 2000 t80s were destroyed. In my oponion it should just get more armor and less weakpoints it is still a good tank sorry for my bad english im from sweden
mr wehraboo citation
Bob semple tank wins obviously
biased. Pz II is still the best tank ever.
lol
@@leutsssz I do agree on the whole "hype" surrounding the Bob Semple MBT but PzII is not that much different. Both doesn't stand a chance against beasts such as the Universal Carrier, Italian series of tankettes, and French Char 2C ultra heavy tank!
@@HanSolo__ no no no, best tank is fiat 2000, it's basically a better Bob Semple from Italy, the country everybody knows for it's overpowered CL3/33
@@davideb.4290 Bow to the might of Char Peugeot 1918! Bow and obey!
This video is suddenly very interesting once again
“And new variants of the T-80 tank will never suffer such a shame as the T-80B did in Grozny”. That one didn’t age quite so well.😂
The war in Ukraine has not been kind to reputation of Russian tanks.
Russians don’t have bad tanks… you think other modern main battle tanks would not ever die in Ukraine?
well, ukranians use soviet tanks mostly, so I don't think it's actually the machine's fault...
@@th3kgbdog385 at you saying Ukraine doesn’t lose tanks?
@@schutzanzug4518 they do, but since they use them in a better way they lose less tanks, no machine is invincible.
I just want to thank you for coming out with extremely informative and especially non bias videos. I have stayed away from most videos like this for a long time, because I could not find anything that wasn't biased to either side, and the comment sections were just depressing to read. You got another subscriber, and I look forward to viewing more of your videos. Excellent stuff. Keep it up! From a friend in Canada!
You should change your first name to Kieth. Then you search for Keith T. Maxwell
As a Canadian, I'll always be bias towards the Leopard 2. Such a good all around tank! Reliable above all.
With warm greetings from Germany ;)
its not the best but one of the best
@@lazarjovanovic4388 whats the best then?
@@HAPPYFUNTIMEx2 is that really a question...?
@@lazarjovanovic4388 Yes. What is the best tank? Dont say t-14 lol
You are correct. Armor has to be used correctly to be achieve victory meaning TTPs (Training, Tactics, and Practices). Tanks cannot survive in modern combat without infantry. Infantry is very useful in looking for urban areas using their riflemen, snipers, machinegunners, and ATGM teams. The same they can do in wooded areas and open terrain. Chechnya happened before the US Iraq Invasion of 2003. American units utilized their infantry more by moving close to the enemy using night vision goggles with armor in support along with Bradley IFVs. Flush out the enemy RPG and ATGMs with infantry squads and teams, armor and IFVs take out machinegun strong points. This lesson was learned from the Russian experience of Chechnya, Berlin 1945, Stalingrad, Czechoslovakia 1968, and Hungary 1956. Urban combat is more costly like any frontal assault. That is why the US Army has moved the Armor School from Ft. Knox to Ft. Benning the home of the Infantry. Combined arms tactics can be practiced and studied using lessons learned in combat and implement new TTPs and equipment.
The tank that is best suited to fighting infantry and their anti tank weapons, is the best tank on the modern battlefield. I’ll let you decide which one fits the spot.
Weedus There were a large number of western tanks hit by ATGMs in the Middle East in the 21st century. Many were disabled. I don’t know who told you about only 1 tank being destroyed.
When we visited a german army tank school (Leopard2) in 1997, the tankers told us that no tank has any business in a city on its own.
Awesome video!!
Thanks!
I feel like ive seen you somewhere
eyy matty you two need to do a vid together
@@alientitimilk9073 hes a youtuber
sherman obviously wins.
NO! T-26 wins
RedEffect NO! Renault Ft 1 wins BAGGEHT!
KV-2 !
HM1199 Nah. T1 Cunningham wins
Fiat 2000 is the best tank in history
Really good video tovarish, it was a fair comparrison of both tanks, I like it very much!
One thing I wish you'd mentioned (I actually used this video as a source when Gaijin released the Leopard 2A4 in War Thunder and only then found out about the miscommunication)... The Leopard 2A4 from 1987 DID have these levels of protection, using the C and D technology armor packages, as well as access to DM-33 APFSDS, which was first produced that same year, but the original Leopard 2A4 of 1985 had much lower levels of armor effectiveness, only matching those values found on earlier Leopard 2's. These tanks would also not have had access to DM-33, (I've no idea when it comes to optics/imaging equipment).
When you look at the tanks in the context of their contemporary militaries, than you can savely assume that the C and D armor packages were pretty much not present in the Bundeswehr in the 1980's
Oh hello their I used to watch you
One thing with the Chechen war is a lot of the soldiers weren't payed so to get money they would take the explosives out of the ERA which didn't help to the protection of the tank during combat. And is also one of the causes to its failure. The Russian tankers where not trained very well also on the T80 leaving engines running and using a lot of gas with the Turbine. Hence why the T80UD was made with the diesel engine doing away with the gas guzzling engine. The Americans have the same option but have kept the jet engine and use an axillary unit for better fuel consumption. This is the M1A2 V3 and now V4 which will enter service in a couple of years.
Well crew from diesel T series were moved to T-80 tanks without any additional traning thus they had no idea gas turbines were wasting as much fuel on idle as on the move so they left them to idle and they ran out of fuel in no time which was one of the issues. In conclusion it wasn't the tank's fault but it was fault of Russian breaking economy in that time because of dissolation of USSR and no one had enough money for anything.. crew was selling ERA explosive on black market to get money, there was not enough money for additional training of the crew, etc. But situation economocly improved by the time of Second Chechen war and things changed with Russia losing only 4 tanks in entirety of second war which is more than 10 times less than they did in 1st war.
T-80UD was designed to lower the price of T-80U because gas turbines are more expensive, Russians did and do have APUs on T-80 tanks, it's just that crews that operated those T-80s in Chechen war previously had tanks with diesel engines and were reequipped with T-80s when the war started without getting any training on them or even being informed about gas turbines or the existence of APU, they left the tank running on idle and wasted a lot of fuel
Ya, training, and using tanks to their strengths is a must. Doesn't matter how good the tank is, if the crews aren't up to snuff, and the right tactics aren't used.
tasman006 Moron, the leader of the Chechen rebels was a former Soviet general. He knew Soviet tanks and tactics inside-out. 😎
You mean Maskhadov? he was an officer in the Military ...... he did not know 'soviet tanks and tactics inside-out' because he did not have any access to such intel, the fact of the matter is that the Russians fielded incompetent people and this caused them to make an ass out of themselves, nothing special about 'chechens' or their 'former soviet general' in command, they were more driven to fight a war than the people on the Russian side, only a moron will believe all the biased rhetoric the Chechen side spews and yet somehow failed to win the second commencement, obviously because the Russians deliberately fielded experienced people in the latter, unlike in the former, so they won that one, end of discussion.
Very good review!
Love these informative videos. Would love to see some comparisons with Challengers 2 etc. too.
Leopard 2 can actually get past 85 kmh . I know drivers of the leo 2 a4 who drove it that fast. But its forbidden because its not good for the tracks and has a very high fuel consumption.
swear a limiter stops you going over somewhere around 60kmh?
u are right someone in my family trained in leo 2 and he says it could go 85 on the road i am form the netherlands btw.
Your vids are great bro, love your tank knowledge. Keep it up!
Great info, good video, thanks for your time.
love when you get pictures of the internal armor structure
The T-80 also has advantage over the t-72 and its variants in arctic conditions, since the gas turbine engine takes way less time to start up compared to the diesel ones in the t-72.
and based on the actual experiment of Soviet MoD of T 64, T 80 and T 72 in the early 80s, T 80B was on top in every aspect, except for the fuel comsumption. That means the engine of T 80 was also the most reliable engine of these three kind of tank. T 80 is such a cool tank, unfortunately it suffered mostly from history event and poor tactic.
It also should be noted that using reactive armor somewhat reduces the combined tactics with infantry units. Which in turn reduces the number of use cases for the vehicle.
*Waiting to see sovietboos and Wheraboos fight*
Its Americaboos that are the most cancerous for praising the Abrams while ignoring lots of its faults and treating it as the coming messiah.
Kyle Hamlett well It's a good tank you know
Kyle Hamlett Except everyone keeps comparing every new tank design to it.....so either everyone's got their balls in a twist trying to one up us. Or maybe just maybe....maybe we know how to design tanks really well. Hmm...
Or maybe it's because it's the MBT of the largest Army of the world and thus a common target for comparisons. Talking about Sovietboos and Wheraboos and then take a 180 degree turn makes both of you look stupid.
The correct term is Bundeboo. This ain't WW2.
Hey i made some ignorant comments i apologize for those u do a great job with this channel.thank you
loving you content well resurched
it,s always fun to learn new thins aboyt tanks. you make interesting videos, i think your channel is one of best tank related channel.👍 😀
Great video!
quite smart covering up the lower front plate with a vertical sheet
That would intro is amazing. Please bring it back
After a long time waiting you finally make this video :) Thanks Redeffect... Edit: both tanks are good... Everything that are created by humans can be destroyed... Note:and it depends on the crew that are using it...
No problem :D
RedEffect wanna do AMX-56 vs Challenger ll on next video ? :v .. If no it's o.k because it's hard too find some info on something things that classified like both AMX-56 and Chally2 ...
I will see, I think I wont make literally AMX-56 vs Challenger 2, but I definitely need to give those two some attention.
RedEffect well.. It's o.k .. Cause information and statistics of this two MBTs are rare...
You sound like Shirvan from Caspian Report.
And in 2022, St. Javelin showed the T-80s win the turret tossing competition.
And then St.Shovel came and did the same to Leopard
What about saint Ka-52 and Leopards 😁
Both Javelin can destroy leopard and kornet ATGM can also destroy T 80
That s a very good quality video sir
ahhh ,, i love your videos man..
Thanks :)
Very interesting and informative comparison. Greetings from Croatia.
A very detailed video it was great.
Nice vid, have you done any vids the bmp series of personnel carriers? I've alway been quite curious about them.
A few tips for future videos: Include ground pressure for the vehicles Include ability to scale obstacles and trenches Include information about gun depression (and ability to fight in hull-down) and turret traverse speed. It should also be noted that the patent for the T-80 is held by the Ukranian state owned firm Kharkiv-Morozov,thus making it (in theory) a Ukranian tank.
No it's not Ukrainian. Ukraine had to change their T-80UD designation to T-84 to be able to further produce them because they did not have licence to make T-80 tanks any longer. They having the patent does not make it Ukrainian.
Wrong. T84 is an entirely different tank using dosmetic optics, etc. The other factor is that T84 was designed to be exported and at the time T80 had a really bad reputation.
well done good research
Why do I love Russian tanks so much? They are so beautiful
Very good video
"Luckily Russian military tactics have completely changed..." That didn't age well. 😂
I came to comment the same thing hahaha Poor T-80s, they know only suffering in the hands of the russians... Lucky are the ones who where given to SK as debt payment, at least those few could find a good loving home!
Same here, searched and found before commenting the same xD
@@prizrak-br3332 i can imagine sad russian tanks around a campfire and talking about how incompetent the russians are
Hey red effect .. Could you review the IDF Merkava ? Or compare it with Amx-56 or Altay? That would be great but require lots of time and research...
Micin Haha IDF is merkava is better. No question.
@@scudb5509 merkava has trophy system which make it more advanced
That last comment about Russia learning its lesson about armored warfare tactics must really sting right now...😕 All those values mean dick when pen comes from the sky.....
Hi i am an activ leopard 2 commander in germany and i am pretty courius where u get your numbers from ? i am searching for amor and penetration numbers for the leopard since 5 years and only ever could find estimates ... and nerver ones that could be realy trusted... so i would be quit happy if you could provide a source
Danke für deinen Dienst!
Where do you get these armor values from? I'd like to have that source! KMW?
The video description lists sources.
Can you compare the Abrams to the challenger
G tubedude I think, Abrams better. Why? Better gun and shells. Better protection
Neru Neru Prove it
ZRB BG Challenger penetrated by RPG-29, M1 invincible for it Also look to penetrarion CHARM shells and M829 shells
Neru Neru Where did the RPG penetrate? Front or side? Look, most, if not, all modern tanks are meant to take hits frontally.
ZRB BG RPG penetrated hull front www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html UPD: high quality image 2img.net/h/i180.photobucket.com/albums/x178/huyphuc1981_nb/sung_chong_tang/65156_RPG-29_penetrate_Challenger-2.jpg
Have you ever done a video on the PT76?
veryy veryy nice description on the time periods, but isnt t90 a competitor to leopard 2a6 ?
SparkySlow Yes. And T-72B3M is also a competitor to any modern tank.
Some possibility to see those beasts confront each other in Cyprus. Cyprus national guard operates with arround 100 T-80UD and turks have recently brought arround 70 Leo2A4.
It's pretty unfair to treat Kontact 5 values for armour as a direct comparison, considering the coverage is sporadic at best, and each plate can only function once. There are a number of small areas where the T-80U could claim more armour than the Leopard 2A4, but the Leopard had a greater coverage of strongest armour, which could withstand multiple hits, rather than just withstanding the first one. It's especially notable that there are areas on the front of the turret where the T-80U has zero ERA at all.
composite armor is equal to ERA in practice, mainly because composites tend to deform a lot after a single hit, losing efficiency just like how an ERA block is useless after being hit once, so yeah, you're really not saying much here mate
You should also talk about the gun elevation in all your videos.
I guess it should also be mentioned that the t-80UK was produced in small numbers, I have never seen any sources say more than 500 were made, most say 200, the main t-80 tank force was the t-80bv and the t-80U
As always, take russian/soviet performance data with big grains of salt. they routinely overstate the capabilities of their equipment. That they try to tell anyone that their extraordinarily short APFSDS have penetration capabilities even close to western rounds is laughable. Also Shtora-1 doesn't jam laser guided weapons. it can be set up to automatically dispense smoke to block line of sight, but in reality this does very little.
They on average have longer guns than their western counterparts to compensate for short penetrators. Most 120mm guns in services are L/44, while most 125mm guns are L/48. And also they do appear to have more powder than 120mm cartridges. But yeah, they split charge design of 125mm does limit the performance of APFSDS and Svinets-2 cannot compare to M829A3 or DM63 from my knowledge. Russia and 125mm operators definitely should upgrade to 2A83 or atleast a longer barrel 125mm gun if it wishes to keep up with the West.
@@MPdude237 4 Calibres is almost irrelevent, changes to the penetrator, propellent and maximum pressure make a far greater difference. Most Rh-120 guns in service are L/44 because the soviet union collapsed, and there was reduced need for the superior penetration offered by the L/55 version. The 2 part design of tank round enormously decreases maximum performance. the british use a 2 part system for challenger series which has severely limited it's abilities, as does the arjun series. it's an obsolete system that increase loading times and decreases performance. The 2A83 isn't in production so nobody can switch to it. it and it's ammunition also won't fit on T-72 and T-80 series vehicles as the gun and ammunition are far to large and heavy. russia is limited in it's options by it's large legacy tank fleet and it's weak economy. the 2A82 also can't be retrofitted to the T-72 and T-80 series and the2A46M series is really at it's limits, it also can't afford a new tank. perhaps they could build a new larger turret, possibly increasing the turret ring, to allow it to mount a larger gun, but that would also be expensive.
Redeffect, where did you get numbers for T-80U's front turret? Actually, BTVT says it's 630 mm, not 780 mm though.
NATO and Russian values are fairly different. For comparison russian ammunition tests require 80% of armor penetrated. American ones only require 20% But when it comes to armor it's a mess because armor specs are differently tested. However the 630mm figure comes from the sides when you don't have ERA installed.
0:19 I Like How The Translation Say "And Our Russian"
Hey i heard the T80 is a tank for "elite troops", and T72 is a tank for "regular troops". Does Germany has a tank for it's "regular troops" also? I spoke with my friend in german millitary academy, he said that only "the best" will get a Leo 2A7, but in the end, every leo will be modernized to 2A7 standard right? Do Russia and Germany has different organization of their armored forces? Given Russia created some "elite" tank divisions, while Germany tends to standardize?
Yes back in the Soviet times they had the More technological advanced T-80 and T-64 was reserved for elite troops and T-72 was made to be an cheaper option and was used to make up the bulk of the armed forces. But I don’t know how Russia has changed their doctrine from back then to today. Not sure on the leopards and germans tho
Love your videos. But I still can't believe the Abrams glacis is ~55mm.... I'd like to see your source for that.
My money's on the Leo 2. Russian tanks are tiny inside making it hard for the crews to operate efficiently. Also the automatic loading system is notorious for loading the gunners arm with the projectile, precisely because of the cramped conditions. That and the armor rating of Russian tanks is overblown because how much armor can you put on a 45 to 55 ton tank?
@Blaz Blaz Ya, maybe it's you who has heard a lot of misinformation. For one the Black eagle was never produced, the Russians said it was obsolete, so they didn't produce it. As for firing an atgm, so what? You think that is new or scary? Because an atgm that can fit in a 125 mm barrel is not likely to take out the leo 2 in most current models. Ever heard of Grozny? Donbass? Because the reality is different from the hype. The proof is in the performance, and in the Balkans and Afghanistan the leo 2 performed well, however, the t-80 has a poor combat record. Turbines are neat, but they don't go far. They are not "bullet proof," which is why later models have diesel engines.
this video totally deserves a remake, especially with more updated info coming from ukraine.
Why does it need to be remade?
@@voidtempering8700 these are estimates and weren't really put up to the test.since Syria and Ukraine, both tanks have seen serious action. With a little bit of digging and paid information, you could find real data on the performance of the T-80.
@@91plm No T-80 has engaged an enemy tanks, there are a few instances of T-80BVMs destroying tanks in Ukraine, but the vast majority of destroyed vehicles come from ATGMs or RPGs fired from rooftops down onto the vehicle.
There are a million leo 2 variants, im confused as to which one ur talking about. The 2a4 or the 2a5/6/7?
He talked about ALL of them in order and compared them to around same age T-80 variants to have more fair comparison between the two. You should pay attention more carefully as he clearly mentions which versions of the tanks he is comparing.
Вы проанализировали 2 двигателя назад. Немецкий двигатель более экономичный и имеет более высокую максимальную скорость, но газовая турбина в Т-80 дает ему больше мощности (лошадиная сила и крутящий момент) сразу, что позволяет большее превосходство.
lol at the end TANKS for watching xD
Germany's V12 back then was considered revolutionary. Very good engine and it's been improved upon since
I think the penetration numbers are a bit off but still a great video
Awesome.
Hey man,a little late like a year late but,can you compare the challenger 2 with the leopard 2 Cause I've been seeing some comments..And i just think the leopard is a +2 on the advanced tech and main gun,cause...Germans but when it comes to armour the challenger is a +2 on that one..So yeah i just want a comparison
I know this was comparing the best of both models, but the modern T80 most often in russian service is T80B represented as the T80BV and BVM
swedish trails showed difference results... also DM53 was introduced on 2A5
You should do a video on the Soviet IS-3 and its record of service and performance in U.S.S.R , China , Middle East . Most videos ive seen are either video game footage or they just skim over it . Not a lot of good info
are you talking about leopards as a whole? or just the outdated ones
But one thing I have to know , does the t80 also have the ammorack blowoffs ?
RedEffect, Im very curious to see how these 2 tanks perform against each other in reality very soon.
Relay love both these tanks
Looks like this video will get its test of time, REAL SOON!
How could i join the discord channel?
About the T-80 reverse speed, i read somewhere that it had 10-11 km/h but in most sources it is claimed the 4km/h as T-64/72/90. Which one is true?
alanch90 probably the 11kph
alanch90 The T-80s engine is different, 1100hp, and it is a heavy tank designation so I'm not sure if you should trust any of these sources but at the same time they may be true because the gun hasn't got slow reload.
yes the T-80 has better reverse and every T-64,T-72 and T-90(except late versions) has 4 kph reverse... I think they drank too much vodka
How much better? I expect somewhere in 18kph at least.
10-15kph, don't know exactly
Please add cost of the tank and production numbers to put them in perspective
You forgot to mention the gun stabilisation of the leopard 2
Exactly. That combined with the thermal imager and the mobility means the Russian one is basically toast.
Gun stabilization has been around since the Sherman and twin axis stabilization has been around for awhile now.
@@Seth9809 yes but that doesn't matter because ww2 german and ussr mostly didnt use stabilizer
Who knew these theoretical fight comparisons would actually come true
The Leopard 2 protections estimates are bit too high given the revelation of the R. Lindström presentation of the Swedish Tanks trials. Leopard 2A0-A4 (B-tech armor) seems to have turret cheek KE resistance of around 390-420 mm RHAe. Leopard 2A4 (C-tech armor) seems to have KE resistance of around 500-550 mm RHAe. Leopard 2A5 (D tech armor) turret cheeks seem to have a KE resistance of around 850 mm RHAe. The glacis of the hull of a fully uparmored Strv 122 (Leopard 2A5S) did not exceed 650 mm RHAe. A bare Leopard 2A5 humm will have offer less KE protection.
You are incorrect, the leopard 2 improved "German Solution" had around 670 vs KE on the hull and the "Swedish solution" had 750 vs KE on the hull (most likely add-on armor). The turret values are both similar though. C-tech composite most likely at the LOS the 2a5 has on the armor gets 600-700 vs KE which is actually the 2a4 estimations (2a4 had C-tech armor too). One thing to note is that the armor on the Leopard 2 improved was a D-tech wedge and B-tech composite, if you were to make the B-tech to C-tech you could possibly achieve 1000-1100 vs KE for turret armor, but that is with the turret wedge that was not improved upon.
I heard Russian Cold War era tanks were slow in reverse drive and also required a lot of maintenance, if the the gun or engine would break down. Compared to NATO using bayonet lock for the gun or the really fast engine swap time of the leopards i would have at least liked to hear some comments on that in your video. Nontheless the video was quite informative and gave a neat overview over the development of both tanks along the time. (One summarising) Source (German, no subtitles, sorry for that): kzhead.info/sun/gN18pq6imWerpqs/bejne.html
The prime example of misuse of tanks is Saddam's National Guard and their T-72s. Complete lack of maintenance and misuse of mobility lead to enormous casualties.
new Т-80BVM a real power !!!
Must interject a distinction: Multicore is not necessarily better against composite armor, at least not as a monolith. It may have been better against whatever West Germany was using as I don't think they use the NERA composite armor but armor closer in style to later Soviet T-series turrets. Multi core projectiles are actually worse against NERA than monoblock. They're better against ERA due to the sacrificing of the first section to the shearing force from ERA and the rest of the projectile striking composite layers as a whole. NERA however, such as Chobham/Burlington, have reactive armor layers, (rubber blocks expanding to shove multiple layer-plates at a penetrator, like Relikt, but without explosives) which means that the first section's sacrifice does not mean that the second does not encounter a inert composite set. It actually also encounters Reactive armor. And since the shorter cores have less length keeping them straight individually, they're substantially worse against NERA. Soviet ammo was not actually a threat to contemporary NERA until they got longrod APFSDS.
You should do a speculation video on rail guns. Apparently the US Army is obsessed with that.
Until scientists will find out how to minimize the size of a cannon without making it like a pneumatic gun, there is a poor speculations only, instead of good analysis...
Sadly Russia learned nothing on how to protect their tanks. Ukraine is getting German Leopards so you should be able to do an updated video. Thanks for sharing your insights!
ARE YOU YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND NOW???
2A4 and 2A5, even if weight increased, it didn't affected top speed, the engine was remained, neither acceleration was changed.
Japanese Type 4 "Ho-Ro" can kill both.
Honestly it's pretty incredible seeing such a like-dislike ratio on a video like this
I have to wonder what the point is in having an ATGM that can hit 5km when you can only identify targets at half that range.
I like how he always ends the videos with "tanks for watching"
I think it's his accent
We get tanks for watching.
Just how tough is our tanks anyways anybody really know im just kinda wondering because most other countrys are still bumping up there tank abilities what was the last thing we up graded on our tanks lol
Can't wait for T-34/120 vs Tiger III
Please do video on is3 or t10
Majority of ammo listed also doesnt have the penetration to reach that „exposed“ ammunition near the driver
On the leopard 2
The DM33 has around 550mm of pen at 2km, not 600mm. Also, DM53 is around 760mm at 2km.
in war thunder 440 und 570
Note that penetration values for Russia / west are measured quite differently. Thus if Russians say we certify it will penetrate 500 - in the west this would be 600+.
not necessarily, the testing regimes are so different that the numbers are hard to compare. AFAIK, russian testing has more favorable angle requirements for the projectile, but has higher expectations for a hit to qualify as penetration.
@@paavobergmann4920 it is rather always correct, because if I remember well the penetrator has to maintain 20% of its mass after penetration to be considered capaible of defeating a certain type of armour, while in the west it just has to create a hole through wich the other side can be seen...
Great video! Again in the spirit of me being a nit picking dickhead I have to make a point about the T-80U armor.. There are two common versions of the T-80U turret arrays that I know of. One with two rows of polymer filled cells and cast steel backing. This one was earlier more expensive and more focused against CE protection. The second later development found in the T-80UD,consisted of two high hardness steel plates and silicon carbide inserts inside cast steel turret. The layout suggests protection focused more against KE threats while retaining very good protection against CE. I don't know of any upgrade after that. A rumor floated around boron carbide was introduced but in small amounts as an anti radiation liner not an armor upgrade. I am going to be rather bold and state that Russia in the 1990s was not replacing the silicon carbide with boron carbide in the 1990s. At the time the cost was at least 3x as much and Russia would have had to import it. I am happy to read anything that counters this point.. The Ukrainians upgraded the T-80UD/T-84 with a welded turret but kept the same array essentially just made the plates thicker and replaced the cast steel with welded RHA (SK-2Sh and SK-3Sh steel). I would dump armor estimates from the ARMOR site... His estimates for the Leo-2A5 turret seem way way to high also. Most newer estimates of the T-80UD are with the Ceramic HH steel inserts. 500-550mm vs KE and 700-800 vs CE. (k5 not included) For a thickness of 825mm LOS this gives a good for the late 1980s early 1990s thickness efficiency TE of 0.67 for KE and .87 against CE. Estimates of the first batch of Leo-2A4s turret armor for 860mm LOS is about 570mm vs KE and about 900 vs CE. The estimates for the Leo-2A4 of 690mm KE from what I can tell are refering to a later production run. That said RHA equivalent is of little use. The T-80UD turret might not be much better against KE (when measured with RHA) then the T-80B turret but it would be far better against monoblock APFSDS that it was expected to face.
*One with two rows of polymer filled cells and cast steel backing. This one was earlier more expensive and more focused against CE protection.The second later development found in the T-80UD,consisted of two high hardness steel plates and silicon carbide inserts inside cast steel turret. The layout suggests protection focused more against KE threats while retaining very good protection against CE.* -The first one is the early one, the one found in T-80UD is also found in later models of T-80U (1989... such as T-80UK). i.imgur.com/hU3sPa3.jpg i.imgur.com/xy0OTOF.jpg There is also another turret for T-80UD (apparently proposed) with metal/ceramic inserts. i.imgur.com/SL34hQf.jpg Apparently all later T-80U variants got the same armor package as T-80UD i.imgur.com/Ean21vm.png which consisted of ceramic plates instead of textolite found on early T-80U tanks. *I would dump armor estimates from the ARMOR site...His estimates for the Leo-2A5 turret seem way way to high also.* -I do kinda agree, but estimates are estimates, no armor will behave the same when hit with different types of APFSDS, estimates are for the sake of the video only, this video would have been 3 times longer if I went into detail on their armor protection, but the purpose of the video is to entertain with as much info as possible :) *Most newer estimates of the T-80UD are with the Ceramic HH steel inserts. 500-550mm vs KE and 700-800 vs CE. (k5 not included)* -Yeah, thats the new turret, but where did you get that info? I find that amount for KE protection on older T-80BV and T-80U tanks, although it could be possible since KE protection did not increase much on base armor of T series until T-84 and T-90A/S were introduced with welded turrets. *Estimates of the first batch of Leo-2A4s turret armor for 860mm LOS is about 570mm vs KE and about 900 vs CE.The estimates for the Leo-2A4 of 690mm KE from what I can tell are refering to a later production run.* -Well it kinda is, first batch of Leo2A4s did not have the improved armor, but as soon as it was introduced all were upgraded to that standard. *That said RHA equivalent is of little use. The T-80UD turret might not be much better against KE (when measured with RHA) then the T-80B turret but it would be far better against monoblock APFSDS that it was expected to face.* -Agreed.
-Yeah, thats the new turret, but where did you get that info? I find that amount for KE protection on older T-80BV and T-80U tanks. Can't remember exactly might have been on a Russian or Polish form. But it makes sense based on the known materials and thicknesses. The ballistic properties of HH steel, and silicon carbide developed in the USSR is rather well known. It makes the base turret very well protected against BM-42, Dm-33, M829, l23A1. " KE protection did not increase much on base armor of T series until T-84 and T-90A/S were introduced with welded turrets." This is also true of western tanks. The only reason the M1 M1A1, Challenger 1 and early Leo-2 were considered protected against KE was because the USSR didn't have advanced mono-block rounds until the very last days of the USSR (BM-46). That round would have worked just fine at expected engagement ranges. The M1 wasn't well protected against Bm-32 of Bm-42 which by the mid and late 1980s were issued to front line tank crews. The Americans didn't actually worry as much about KE as they did ATGM fired from aircraft, Helos and infantry. When it appeared that the USSR would introduce new tanks with thermals, advanced FCS and new better APFSDS they spent billions to introduce new armor packages for the M1A1.
Well I have to say that I agree with everything youve said, cant remember where, but Ive read that when M1 was introduced, the USSR APFSDS could penetrate its main armor (dunt know what range), but the latest ATGMs could not even harm it, so it goes along well with the idea that US did not worry much about APFSDS as much as they worried about HEAT protection, which was very good, Soviets fixed the HEAT protection with rather "lazy"(not actually lazy, but its much cheaper than developing new armor and upgrading all tanks with it), but effective way by introducing Kontakt-1.
It is tough to say. Based on RHA the rounds introduced at the time should have little trouble. Rounds such as the BM-22/26/29 were composite designs with a steel body and tungsten carbide slug. Great performance against steel, or steel, textolite, steel targets...Terrible performance against spaced armor targets. The M1 with BRL-1 is a tougher target. From what we know (or think we know) the armor is RHA, then HHS, polycarbonate HHS plates at high angle, maybe (I am not sold) a perforated steel back plate and a 160mm RHA back plate at angle. Turret we don't have any info on but rumor abounds that some ceramics are used. Very high chance the composite round rounds break apart, start to tumble, and fail against the backing plate. NERA with thin plates are often Bi directional and better vs HEAT, T-72B has one moving plate with thicker front plate, better against KE. So it isn't that the armor is great VS KE. 125mm Vant would not have an issue at normal combat ranges but would fail against T-72B. This is in no way agreed on, Tankograd is of the opinion that the M1 armor would defeat these rounds. Guys on tank net are split. I am of the opinion that BM-22 fails and Bm-26 is a coin toss because of the rear mounted slug. A side note a IIRC British engineer leaked that the challenger 1 turret was ~600 KE-1000-900CE. That is their fancy way of saying, they shot it with the newest 120mm monoblock ammo (l23a1) 500mm point blank and it stopped it cold....That lower hull though.........
PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO WITH LEO2A4Hel *VS LEO2A4 GREECE-TURKEY (*btw Hel means Hellas they did it because of the special ads on it)..Greece has from 2010 184units leo2a4.