Leopard 1 v Leopard 2: How do the tanks bound for Ukraine compare?
2023 ж. 13 Ақп.
49 633 Рет қаралды
Ukraine is to receive hundreds of tanks from Nato nations - including UK Challenger 2s - as part of their support for Kyiv's defence against Russian aggression.
The German-made Leopard 2 tank, widely regarded as the best of its kind in the world, is being sent to Ukraine.
Kyiv is also set to receive at least 100 veteran Leopard 1 tanks from Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands.
But what is the difference between Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks being sent to Ukraine?
www.forces.net/ukraine/leopar...
#forcesnews #ukraine #leopard2 #leopard1
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: instagram.com/forcesnews/...
Twitter: / forcesnews
Someone took German engineering seriously when parking those leopard 1's.
Ordnung muß sein ! 😃
Actually the hall is in Belgium
@@theodorebagwell141 The storage shown in this video is indeed in Belgium. Not the ones which are being refurbished and deployed.
Germany in one word: Efficiency
Or they liked to play a lot of Tetris growing up.
As long as they use it with caution it's better than no tanks at all I guess.
Better than no tanks at all? It is newer than a T62 or T64. Is it better than a T62 or T64? Aren't all the Leopard 1s under consideration of the Leopard 1A5 variant? So, if they were upgraded to 1A5, aren't they better than a Russian T72 that was never upgraded? Russia is still using some un-upgraded T72s. Is it better than a T72 that was last upgraded when the Leopard 1 was last upgraded? I dunno.
@@geoswan4984 With the Leopard 1, it depends very much on how it is used. As mentioned, its armor is rather weak. However, it has very modern optics and targeting systems for the time. It should be equal or superior to all tanks below the T72 when used properly.
@@geoswan4984 An original T-72 (or T-64) has basically the same 125mm gun as modern Russian tanks meaning it can fire the same modern ammunition. Leopard 1 has a worse 105mm gun that isn't compatible with modern NATO 120mm ammunition. The only Russian tank the Leo 1 is superior to is the T-62.
@@kwlkid85 FDK asserted that it was better than no tank at all, and I think that doesn't go far enough. (1) the leopard 1A5 was refitted in the 1990s, and has the same firing system as a Leopard 2A6. I think that is better than most Russian tanks. They say "first shot first kill". The superior 125mm tank is irrelevant if the Leopard 1A5 gets off the first shot, and destroys or disables the Russian tank. (2) and aren't most tanks destroyed by mines, artillery barrage, or RPG and ATGM? Isn't a Leopard 1 no more and no less vulnerable than any other tank? (3) The 105 mm tank gun is also a NATO standard.
@@geoswan4984 Most Russian tanks have similar fire control systems. Anyway getting the 1st shot doesn't matter if you don't penetrate. Leopard 1 would have to ambush a Russian tank to win because it can't penetrate the front of most tanks. If your strategy is to hide and ambush a tank you might as well just have an NLAW or something.
Leo 1: Finally, after 60 years, I can do what I was built to do
Killing people yes great.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. oh yeah, I'm sure if a country does not have a military, no one, and I mean NO ONE, would want to something with their own military. Like, why would a strong nation bully a smaller and weaker nation. Its nonsense!
@@michaelsimarmata5880 Read up on the history of the Ukraine and you will understand what is going on.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. "Killing people yes great." Doesn't sound like you were talking about Ukraine specifically
@@michaelsimarmata5880 Nothing good ever comes out of any war. Only young people think war is fun and cool. I can assure you it is nothing of the kind.
There's always a need for fire support. The Leopard 1's would free up the Leopard 2's, Abrams, Challengers, and T-72s for mainly anti-MBT duties and leading the counter-offensive. That 105mm gun is still a powerful weapon in many situations. They can fire into tree lines or buildings or those human wave attacks and can also destroy BMPs, BTRs and revived T-62s. Just have the Leo 1's overwatched by Bradleys or Javelin teams if necessary.
Tank or no tank, that’s the choice they face. An asset is an asset, just use it accordingly
Don't forget, that 105mm can penaterate the rear and side armour of T-72, T-80 and possibly from closer ranges T-90. I would definitely not however, deliberately send these tanks offensively into areas with known concentrations of enemy armour. The Leo 1's would have a bad day.
@@McTeerZor 105mm APFSDS round can penetrate 500mm armor. It's a bit too short for the front arc of most Russian tank but enough for rear an side indeed.
The US army is playing around with the idea of an MPF which isn't too far off from what the Leopard 1 is.
Hey.... they kick ass on the T62's which they have had to use. Also, they can be fitted with TOW or other AT weapons if needed. I guess they could have supplement armour if they had to
Having worked with both Leopard 1 & 2 variants . Don’t for 1 second doubt the lethal capabilities of Leopard 1 , especially in the hands of an experienced crew. Tanks support infantry and they would form a excellent mechanized combat team coupled with Marder , M-113 or BMP 1 or 2 . Far superior to what the Russians are using, scraping the bottom of the barrel with T54/T55 , T62 BTR 60
boohooo ...
The Germans did scraping the bottom and delivered the miserable Leopard 1. With the Leopard 1, the Germans supplied the Ukrainians with Scrap metal. That's why one can also read it in the media...Quote from The Independent: “Ukraine rejects defective Leopard 1 tanks from Germany after finding ‘serious faults’” Or a quote from Remix News: “‘Scrap metal’ - Ukraine rejects 10 German Leopard 1 tanks in need of repairs”!
You all sound ridiculous now. What a joke
Why send the Leopard 1? Because, it's better than sending nothing.
With some modern adjustments to the tank, I don’t see why it won’t do well on the battlefield, most of Russia’s tanks are Cold War era to. They may not be the best but they are in high numbers and will be good at swarming the enemy.
Mainly because it's 105mm gun isn't good enough. To change the gun you'd have to replace so much that it wouldn't be worth it. The reason you can upgrade Soviet tanks like the T-64 and T-72 to closer to modern standards is because they were built with 125mm guns. It's why the T-62 with it's 115mm is considered obsolete but the T-64 is still considered a decent tank worth modernising despite being designed and built at the same time.
Leopard 1A5 still a great tank. Served in the german “Panzertruppe“ among the Leopard 2A4. A Leopard 2A6/A7 is definetely another level.
Leo1A3 through 6 could probably use some tech upgrades, particularly a gen4 commander's independent day/night thermal, with or without remote MG. Ideally it would be used in the armored reconnaissance role, perhaps in mixed platoons of two 1A5(+), two IFV with cav scout dismounts, and a mortar carrier. Such units in companies and battalions could fight for intel, and exploit line breakthroughs.
@@jepkratz gen 4? The leopard 2 doesn't even have gen 2 gunner thermals.
It was in Cold War expected to fight with Soviet tanks. So yeah, at least for some current models used in Ukraine it's still good. And ofc great for support infantry with IFVs etc.
@@thor923 Right. There would be an ideal all around upgrade of the entire fire control suite, an active defense system as well as ERA and passive armor, etc, , but both time and money are an issue. The gunner needs optics/thermals just good enough to accurately lay rounds (center of white/green blob) within the 2km range 90%+ of combat takes place (even closer at night.) A commander's thermal install/upgrade allows the hunter/killer team to work, and a gen4 would place the best optics where its' most needed - with the decision maker for the entire vehicle and crew, and the one who reports intel upsteam.
Ė the
Even if the leopard 1 isn't that good they could still be used to guard north Western Ukriane while freeing up more capable tanks for the frontlines.
Leopard 1 is still a fantastic tank. Its range , optics, thermals and accuratecy should be better then all T55.T62 T64T72 T80 and even some T90A. India tried the t90m in field trials and stuggled to hit targets at 2km away so Russian tanks cant be that good , there always made crudely mass produced at a cheap price. That leopard 1 will be bulletproof from all 14.5 AP rounds and 30mm from the front ( if its 2km away and not short distance) its enough armour for most things. Its speed torque and acceleration is nearly the best of all tanks and the 105mm L7 can punch through 460mm at 2km with the best rounds, thats enough to take out nearly all russian tanks, even a T90 has weak spots making it suicide to drive straight into a 460mm pen Cannon sniping from a hill hoping you can deflect every single shot. The Leo 1 has the same fire control system from the early Leo 2 and layout it would in theory be equal to a CV90 with 105mm in most respects with regard to speed armour and firepower. I would use the Leo 1 to hold ground after you have captured it or as big 2nd tank force that comes up behind the main Leo 2 tank force and flanks for them or finishes off any retreating forces after the main force has pushed past first. They also would be perfect on the Belarus border or from any hill where they can shoot at max range 4km direct and 8km in indirect mode.
Every tank has it’s specifics and will make a difference if it is used wisely.
It also carry more ammo than a Leo 2. It could be very usefull firing HE in a direct mode.
Leopard 1 in an infantry support role will be first class….
It’s not the tank but how it is used if use it right with a good support (maintenance etc) you can play any tank to its advantage something Russia has struggled with
The Leo 1s will still be a very lethal weapons system when you combine them with the Bradlys and Marders as a mechanized infantry force.
absolutely , there completely bulletproof to 14,5mm everywhere, have great mobility and can hit you easily at 3km plus away even at night, thats a pretty usefull weapon . Leo 2 tank crews would also be able to drive the Leo 1 with very little training as they were very similiar especially the Leo 2 a4 ukraine is getting vs the Leo 1 a5 , almost the same tank just the Leo 2 has a bigger cannon and more armour.
"Who could have thought? Leopard I tanks, built 60 years ago to fight the Russians, now being used to fight the Russians."
*built to fight the Soviets. There was no Russia then.
The last Leopard 1s rolled off the assembly lines 40 years ago.
The Leopard1 armor is only designed to stop 20mm rounds, so even the frontal armor can be easily penetrated by Russian 120mm guns even at long ranges. Also, unless a reactive armor overlay is added, the low tech steel hull on the Leopard1 can't stop RPG rounds. In contrast, the Leopard2's composite armor is designed to stop both RPGs and 120mm rounds. So there is a huge difference in survivability.
It will not be asked to serve as a main battle tank but fill the role of light tank inbedded with infantry in their IFV. But you are correct in your observations. Do remember that the fire control system/thermal sight on the 1A5 is the same as the Leopard 2 so night prowling is something the 1A5 it will do well.
of course but whats your point? the Leo 1 should be able to fire first and the russian tank will be destroyed. The only time the Leo 1 will be very weak is when its driving accross an open field with many russian tanks at close range nearby. The best way to use a Leo 1 will be like a Wolverine US tank destroyer from ww2, get in cover get camo then at night fire away on anything that is in range or get on the high ground and fire then change location fire again, the russians will be nervious drving accross any field too with 105mm L7 shells in there sights
@@idawulan6789 The L7 with most modern ammo may not be able to kill Russia's T90 and newest T72 with best upgrades. There's that issue.
The Leopard 1 can still be used liked the StuG in WWII. Infantry support and, with HE ammo, fortification buster.
it also can out race any russian tank and retreat easy is faster, it can go over more bridges 39 tonnes for the Leo 1 vs 72 tonnes for the challenger 2 at its heaviest there are some bridges that will take 40 tonnes but not 70. The leo 1 will also have lower ground pressure and wont get stuck so easy
Well in my opinion is a good idea to have different sizes of Tanks because you do different jobs but they can go together as a group you got your dance you got your big heavy tanks you got your lightweight tanks you got your everything it's good to have a variation on the battlefield I am not an expert normally in a big tank group does normally support vehicles go with it all different sizes of Tanks carriers everything
Most of Ukraine’s tanks are currently being used for indirect fire - basically as mobile artillery. The Leopard 1 will work just fine like that and could free up T72 and T84 tanks to join the newer western tanks in offensive operations.
yep i had a house mate in about 2008 in Australia that told me the Leo 1 can fire from 8km away and has a specially arillery mode or indirect fire mode. So really LEO 1 can be used as mobile arillery and 8km is usefull its well out of the range of all russian tanks. The house mate was a tank driver for the AUS army and Australia had 100 of them only just stopped using them around 2009
Out come the bots 😂
As predictable as Putin's battlefield tactics
@@Eleftheria_i_thanatos even USA today admits that Russia is winning bit by bit. I can't wait to taste your nazi tears 😋
Chadimir Putin is possibly in Jail
Are the bots real humans?
@@danLTa1 Does it make a difference?
The equivalent of the "STuG" in WW2? Cheaper, more plentyfull, general workhorse? Like Tigers and Panthers took all the attention in ww2, but the simple STuG was practically the backbone of the Wehrmacht ( turrets are expensive, complex, not to mention make it a bigger target) low small and a big long gun was great (for defense at least)
Put ERA and slat armor on. With night vision an excellent support vehicle
The Leopard 1 has less firepower and less strong armor than the Leopard 2.
Leopards 1s will still take out BMPs/BTRs etc and T62s.
By the time any western tanks get to ukraine, Russia won't have many tanks left and as long as all the armour is deployed correctly, it will be in crimea by July
It will all be over by Christmas 2022.
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. christmas 2022 was almost 2 months ago lol
@@samuelvos9653 That was my point. It was a reference to WW1. did you do WW1 at school?
@Graham "the Baron" Hesketh. ok, so this topic is something you are clueless about. I didn't even realize how much school lied to us about history. Not till I traveled around the country. The battle of the Alamo was a joke. And nothing for us to be proud about as a country. The entire state of Texas was stollen and paid for in the blood of the native people. Again Nothing to be proud about. Now, today, it's in the news all over the states. Republicans, Trumps in the school boards want to edit and sensor history taught to kids even more. And now we have an entire generation that think Hitler was a good guy and would let the Jews leave the gas chambers if they wanted to. Please stop being a jerk! Unless you are simply a troll, in which case everyone should block you before you cause stress to everyone!
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. your profile says you joined a year ago. I THINK YOU ARE A RUSSIAN BOT AND EVERYONE SHOULD BLOCK YOU. INTELLIGENCE
any tanks better than none i guess.and why not use old stock if its viable, supplies spare parts etc. will still do a job
Leo1a5 is a good match for most of what ruzzia fields now. T72s out of storage, T55s are mince meat. In tank warfare its first see first hit. And the Leo1a5 can certainly see and thus hit first. unless it comes up against a t72 upgrade, a t90 etc alone, it can prob still pen and if it cant, its 3 brothers will. Given what ruzzia is throwing at Ukraine, Leo1a5 is still potent, if used in the right way in the right areas. in a tank slugout, they will be popped. on a less intense battlefield, they will do well, after all, their big brother is now around to handle the tank battles
the leopard 1 more like a glorified infantry support vehicle, if employed correctly will be useful...
glorified infan support weapon that can take out 90 percent of russian armour at 3km plus ranges, thats a strange ISV. what is a t55 then? a humvee with a pea shooter ?
I think the problem is that it won’t be fighting tank v tank which they were designed for. An assault gun would be more practical. Unfortunately modern doctrine and costs have the tank doing multiple roles.
An MBT IS an assault gun in role as well. That's why they become standard.
What video war games do you play?
@@grahamthebaronhesketh. self proclaimed ‘baron’ lmboo what age are you 😭
@@VIDE0G0D Clearly at least 50 years older than you. Stick to your X-box
Come on, guys! Be better, people! Don't be jerks! F&%$ sakes!
i hope the L1s have updated optics.
It's not like most of the Russian tanks have modern optics, so I'm not really sure it matters. Ukraine has been doing fine with old tech. The bigger issue is that there is not much ammo for the older tank.
@@ckm-mkc Thousands of vehicles used that 105 mm cannon. I am surprised to read your assertion ammo is hard to come by. Don't the Israelis have a production line for arrmo for cannons of that class?
@@geoswan4984 Israel doesn‘t send weapons or ammunition to Ukraine.
The Leopard 1A5 is very similar to the Leopard 2A4 in that regard. The Leopard 1A5 got upgraded with a thermal imager, laser range finder, new fire control system etc.
@@geoswan4984 as does Italy, there main IFV and tank destroyer today uses the 105mm
slap ERA and a thermal sight on those leopard 1s and they're perfectly suitable as a self propelled gun, although shouldn't be relied on as a tank.
hey russia is using T55 and t62 in large numbers now and the Leo 1 a5 is FAR better then those tanks 1 vs 1 . The russian commanders would be saying to there t55 and t62 drives dont try to go up against a LEO 1 in an open field you will get beaten every time.... they will be more nervious then ukraine
This was probably the least informative informative video I've ever seen
Cheaper to send 'em to Ukraine than to maintain them in long-term storage.
The big question is will these tanks arrive in time like those fighter jet's Ukraines been asking for since last year:)
I think the older of time are more here to work on I'm more easy to get a control of very quickly bar the new thank you need to be trained quite heavily on them but I think you old dance would be quite easy to get the hang of and that would be very important and told the other tanks arrive
Upgrade the Leopard 1s with modern ERA and they will at least have much better protection from HEAT rounds. here in Canada we operated our Leopard 1s for decades, they were just retired in 2017. They were heavily upgraded with armor packages and modern fire control and optics. In 2019 the Canadian government was trying to find a buyer for 50 of the highly upgraded C2s as they were called but couldn't. The last I heard they were scheduled to be scrapped or used as range targets for the new Leopard 2s we got so I'm not sure if those 50 are still available. Still some tank is better than no tank and many of the Leopard 1s going to Ukraine will be newer and more capable than the T-62s Russia is also using i n this war.
There is talk of upgrading the leopard 1s with brand new cockerill 105mm turrets it would straight away give them modern fire control and optics.
kind of pointless, ERA is only good in urban settings , most anti tank teams need to be close less then 1km away, it would be easier for the LEO 1 just to fire at max range always then go anywhere near a city
they couldnt find a buyer is because the tank market is flooded with 2nd hand tanks, germany has thousands from 1989 as did Russia when the USSR collapsed , both countries could not afford to keep spending 16 percent GDP on defence so there were already too many 2nd hand tanks for sale ever since 1990. Australia had Leo 1s too and they were still working and they couldnt find a buyer. Silly to think now that Taiwan only spends 1.8 percent or so on defence and didnt buy all those cheap tanks from Australia and Canada they would of been better then most of the M48's and m60's there still using today. An upgraded Leo 1 tank for 100,000 USD is a bargain
Light, mobile with a gun that worked very effectively against T72s in iraq (USMC M60s had that gun). Most of the time tanks are shooting at things that aren't tanks.
That's a tier 10 Light MediumTank in the game World of Tanks. Is it also made of cheese in real life?
F o nerd! This is real, not some kiddy game.
@@mikeycraig8970 Even in the video, they say that they didn't care at all about the armour and focused on mobility, accuracy and firing power. That armor can only stop machine gun rounds.
A few hundred Leopard 1 tanks are better than none. Role is supporting infantry and can kill Russian APC's and maybe IFV's.
One tank, is better than no tank.. Get the hell in there and stop dragging your feet...... move.
With the Leopard 1, the Germans supplied the Ukrainians with Scrap metal. That's why one can also read it in the media...Quote from The Independent: “Ukraine rejects defective Leopard 1 tanks from Germany after finding ‘serious faults’” Or a quote from Remix News: “‘Scrap metal’ - Ukraine rejects 10 German Leopard 1 tanks in need of repairs”!
Yes they will provide good support and one of their rounds can easily disable the most modern tank, definitely destroy any APC out there too but they are also a huge drain on fuel supplies. Whoever is running the logistics for Ukraine both internally and US, UK or other nations must be an absolute legend.
It is so cynical to let Ukrainians fight in leopard 1's. We need to protect Ukrainians as our own. Lets send more leopard 2's.
Show me a tank that is not accurate and deadly--clowns.
t72a terrible at everything , average armour for its size, easy to cook off shells and terrible to drive and use with the worst sights that cant even hit anything at night... it uses search lights ww2 tech and instant death now if a tank used lights to find a target
Doesn't the reluctance to share modern tanks by all countries suggest that current tank technology isn't actually suited for warfare? It's become far too valuable to actually deploy in the field and lead times to replace them are far too long.
You could be right....we will find out soon i guess
No, that is not necessarily the problem. Although modern tanks are quite complicated, they are still designed from the ground up to be a deadly war machine. The problem is the support they require. You cant just send modern tanks into a middle of the field and tell them to do their thing. They require huge logistical chains, constant maintenance, spare parts and an obscene amount of fuel, lubricants and ammo. If all that is in place, then western tanks are some of the most lethal weapon systems today. So sending tanks to Ukraine isnt a problem - sending all the other stuff is. Sending 200 tanks means sending tens of thousands of tons of supplies.
Several reasons I can think off 1. We (they) don't have that many 2. Don't know how they'll stand up in battle 3. Don't want certain tech to fall to the enemy 4. Afraid to escalate the situation (eventhough that ship has sailed I guess)
The answer to all the above is no.
Some serious commentators have pointed out the very serious logistics problems that Ukraine will face if it tries to maintain and repair (1) original Soviet era tanks; (2) 100-200 Leopard 2 tanks; (3) 100-200 Leopard 1 tanks; (4) 3 or 4 dozen M1 Abrams; (5) about a dozen UK Challenger tanks; (6) about a dozen French Leclerc tanks; (7) Marder and Bradley IFVs. Are the Abrams, Challenger and Leclerc tanks really of anything more than symbolic value? Donor countries should recognize Ukraine can use them in just one battle, because, after that battle they won't be able to maintain or repair them. Poland uses M1 Abrams. And, if I am not mistaken, Poland has still has some older Soviet era tanks. Wouldn't it have been better for Ukraine if the USA had given Poland those Abrams, on the condition that Poland give Ukraine more Soviet era tanks? Sure, the Soviet era tanks might not be as "good", but Ukraine would not need to train technicians to repair them, would not need to maintain an inventory of spare parts, just for them. And Ukrainian soldiers wouldn't need retraining in how to use them
Email and 🇪🇪👍
a cheap simple drone will take out this overpriced junk.
Russki?!
I'd love one of those! Don't waist them in Ukraine they will be turned to scrap in no time.
Everybody's been making fun of Russia for bringing the T-62 back into service. The thing is, the T-62 was specifically designed to counter the Leopard 1. So Germany's basically giving Ukraine a lot of expensive scrap metal. Even with upgraded sights, it's still got paper-thin armour and an obsolete gun.
Only obsolete for anti-tank work. I don't think BMP's or infantry or any number of other targets care if they are being shot by a 105mm or a 120mm, the result is the same.
Excuse me, but how can the T-62 be designed to counter the Leopard 1 when it was developed before the Leopard 1. As for why Russia chose to dust off its stock of mothballed T-62 before dusting off stock of more recently mothballed tanks, could it be due to the simplicity of of the T-62 design? As I understand it the T-62 is the lineal descendant of the very successful T-34 and T54/55 designs. As I understand it the T-62 was the last in that line of very simple and robust tanks. The T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 are harder to dust off because they are more complicated. Russia is under an embargo on electronics. Is it possible that the chip embargo affects the later and more sophisticated tanks in ways that don't affect the T-62, because it may use electronics too old to be subject to the chip embargo?
@@geoswan4984 T-62 was produced when the T-64 was proving very complicated to make, so they went back to tech that was tried and tested. So yes, it is a descendant of the T-34, T-44, T-54/5 lineage, but it wasnt planned as such from the outset
@@geoswan4984 you're right, I got it confused with T-64, which entered service a bit after Leo 1. The T-62 is a contemporary of Leo 1 but can't be said to be "made to counter it" since it's design started earlier, my bad. You're right about Russia finding it hard to get electronics, even with many French and German companies still selling to Russia through third-country intermediaries. As a result, the T-62 is brought back but it's just not up to scratch compared to contemporary tanks. It's not even about having an old gun or armour (no Russian tank, even the latest T-90s, is able to withstand modern NATO armour piercing rounds) but mostly about poor sights, no thermals (or very, very poor thermals), and lack of situational awareness. In practice, if we're talking about tank-on-tank combat, the one to get off the first shot usually wins, so being able to spot the enemy, engage and hit them, while remaining on the move, is more important than having slightly more armour. But Leo 1 also isn't there. Even with the upgrades of 1A5 it's still a 1950s/1960s tank.
the t62 wasnt even designed after the Leo 1 was mass produced so thats impossible. how do you counter a LEO 1 when the russians would of known the LEO 1 had the best mobility and best gun and most accurate gun. Yes the soviet gun had more power but it could never fire as far or spot the target and was less accurate
Mission creep proxy war style , the announcements are one thing, always designed in some way to deceive and deflect from what's actually going down , and for sure the NATO planners would have identified the training needs months ago and put in a programme well in advance !
Maybe they have and we just don't know about it. One of the UK grandees let slip they have been training Ukrainians on Challengers "for months" and there was a similar report on F16 training. Plus the helicopter crash that killed the interior minister was a European model (Aerospaciale?), so clearly they have received and been trained on NATO standard weapons.
And they will all end up as so much scrap metal. If they even get there in time to be of any use. Another case of too little too late. The overwhelming amount of Russian artillery and air superiority will crush them as soon as they are spotted. I feel sorry for their poor half-trained and inexperienced (on these tanks) crews.
What air superiority - they were flying helicopters to resupply Mariupol early in the war and their air defenses have gotten infinitely better since then. Given that the average lifespan of a new Russian soldier on the frontlines is 4 hours, it's the Russians who are getting crushed.
Russian artillery? I think they are suffering from decreased shell supply due to HIMARS hitting the ammo dumps.
Which obviously is false or Russia wouldn't be the side taking the massive losses and losing huge amounts of territory. Another 170+ tanks for a military that obviously knows how to do maneuver warfare is huge. Ukraine will be able to add three new tank brigades from all the Leopard 2s and 1s it is getting alone. Ukraine personnel are also experts at adapting what they have, you can count on all those Leopard 1s hitting the battlefield with upgraded armor and whatever else Ukrainian mechanics and tankers can come up with. Team these up with the 110 Bradleys already on the way and you have a winning combined arms team that will make rapid advances and take out ANY Russian tank in front of it.
What a waste of money, cannon fodder.
Perfectly to support infantry.
@Steve Insidious PAH! You're a waste of money in the first place, hypocrito
Cope harder Ivan.
@@Retrosicotte He's more likely a traitor
@@theincrement4898 Steve Insidious es un traidor
I pray that Ukraine becomes a graveyard for Leapord , Challenger and M1 Abrams tanks
Pray on 🙄
prayer is your last resort. :)
More like the graveyard of the entire Russian army 😂
@@Wolfie_96 even USA today admits that Russia is winning. Your nazi mates are getting battered by the Wagner group 🎻
Lol, no room, after all the dead Russian orcs left behind by the coward Putin
Well, the leo 1s have no armour basically. :) Most Leo 2s don´t have the L/55 though..
They have the same armour as a fully upgraded US bradly IFV
300 Challender 3's for the UK please
Both are limited........just not protected enough on the sides or back !!
One of the worlds finest as demonstrated by the Turkish army 🤣🤣🤣
waay to short videos..not even worth me too subcribe
Love how all the ruSSians and ruSSian bots can't cope and get butt hurt over a Leopard 1, it means they still fear it 🤭 I have no doubts they will be used in either infantry support role or as additional mobile artillery pieces, seen plenty of footage to suggest used as artillery as why engage mobiks and wagner scum 1v1 when you can destroy them with indirect fire. 💪🔵🟡