@@ericee-gn1jj sadly what I hear about is a Germany far far on the left. I mean. Can't Germans just stay in the middle somewhere and not go into an extreme? Or is that their survival mechanism? :)))
The main principle behind the Leopard, thats where the name comes from, is speed and mobility. Fire on the move! The Gun and the Stabilizer were always superior. If the Turks used it as a stationary Fortress in hopes it absorbs everything thrown at it, they did it completly wrong 🙈
That’s akin to saying ‘There’s something wrong with my car; every time I drive it into a tree, it gets wrecked’ 🤔 Don’t blame the equipment, blame the operators.
The loss of leopards have several reason. One is the lack of reactive armor, the tanks sent to Suria supposed to be in the west border defending, not to attack terorists in the south border. Second reason is lack of preparation and not planing enough. Because operation begun just 2 mont after the failed coup while forces begun the recover los of experienced officers. And i believe third reason was unexpected usage of atgms, ied and mines by terorists with gerilla tactics which Turk forces lacked at the time.
An army that actually believes its tanks are indestructible has already lost the war. Letting tanks fight individually and without infantry as flank protection in an urban environment shows total military ineptitude. Turkey will have to practice a little more.
Dude your comment is out of point, it's never said indestructible and that they figth individually. Nothing is indestructible after all. But this tank is a beast surpassing the Russian and American ones. Now where the fck Turkey 🇸🇦 🦃 came from?🤨🤔🤦
@@stephenstowe9711 in armament it does (the Abrams uses a German gun produced under license, the same gun mounted on older leopards like the 2A5) the Abrams uses a shorter barrelled (and thus weaker) 120mm L/44 gun then the leopard 2A6 and above which uses a 120mm L/55 gun. Though American tanks typically use depleted uranium shells which have better penetration then the German tungsten penetrators.
I just realized Germany spreading its formerly massive fleet of leopard 2s to NATO allies is actually great for NATO- their crews are basically now interchangeable and the pool of replacement parts and competent mechanics from many nations is now huge.
Hungary now replaces the old T 72 at Leopard 2A7+ ! They have already 12 pieces of 2A4 for training purposes, the rest 2A7+ comes when the factory finishes it the pieces. Hungary is the new country that is upgrading his armory with Leopard 2A7+ Tanks & Lynx KF41 !
Didn't hear that! Wow! They get the new Lynx, already got the PZH 2000 and now Leopard 2A7+? Hungarian ground troops really get the motherload of fantastic ground vehicles! 😱
Before and during the Second World War Hungary has its own tank factory with its own developed tanks, which has passed its place next to German tanks. When the Soviets occupied Hungary, they prohibited the tanks development and production. The Hungarian military industry could only produce hand weapon. ☹
@@hurryboi8558 Strange your cynical touch !? Do you know... we do not strive for global power !!! The 12 pieces Leo is designed to train soldiers !!! The German factory still has to deliver 62 pieces Leo 2A7 for the German military, and only then supplies the 44 piece Leo 2A7 ÷ for Hungary !!! We do not want to change the game, just the quality of the fight vehicle, O yes !!!
@@hurryboi8558 12 pieces ... but consider how big Hungary is. 12 tanks for them is like 400 tanks for US. 44 pieces is then like 1500 tanks for US. It IS a lot. And remember, Hungary is not alone.
I vlove how every country "gets" the L2A7 when it's for now Germany only, no export. And even we only got a fwq dozen until now. Plus Hungary can't afford the Tank, cuz we gon cut that sweet EU money, to your corrupt government.
Poorly made video tbh. Turks used 2A4s from the 80s. No ERA, no mine protection, no hard- or softkill capabilities. Turkish central command sent them into rather open field, with no recon whatsoever. Ofc these tanks didn't stand a chance against the fairly modern anti-tank weapons lol. The images showing burnt and destroyed Leopards are actually made after Turks bombed them with their F16s, so they can't be captured
haha! I saw a tank commander criticize this channel as well for not knowing what they are talking about. It seems to track that the people of this channel poorly research what they are talking about.
@@abramay1382 The Leopard 2A7+ is the export Version the Leopard 2A7V ist the Upgraded version of the Leopard 2A6 of the German Bundeswehr. One Battalion already has the Leopard 2A7V adopted and declared as combat ready
Leo2 is awesome, but anyone believing that there are 'invincible' tanks needs to grow up. And as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as the 'world's best tank'....with a well trained crew, any of today's 3rd generation MBTs could destroy each other. Remember, a tank (now matter how advanced) is just a pig pile of metal, completely useless without it's crew.
@@Suo_kongque exactly, especially when it comes to dogfighting. Beyond visual range there's isn't much a pilot can do except relying on his systems. In dogfighting tho, most of it is pure luck and pilot skill.
A tank is only good if the crew has a professional command of it. And the German tank soldiers, from company commander, platoon leader, tank commadant to driver, have mastered their craft. Note the Strong Europe Tank Challenge.
The days when Europe did not enter a war are long gone. No exercise can replace war. The Turks also have an army that is always engaged in exercises and has been drawn into the war much more than Europe. (Geography is your destiny) As a Turk, I somewhat agree with you. In this regard, I think our tank staffs were inexperienced. However, I doubt whether the European tankers would have been as successful as you think.
@@scorpioraptor our crews wouldn’t even have gone into battle without infantry protection. The Germans have been operating these since the 70’s, so YES. I bet they would do a lot better. The fact that Turkey put their tanks out there without using the concept these vehicles were initially designed for (combined arms warfare) AND then being arrogant enough to blame the Germans for making bad tanks shows how incompetent and stupid both the Turkish army staff and politicians are 🤡 But hey, as long as they have political prisoners to exchange I guess they’ll get their will. 🤷♂️ they shouldn’t be a part of NATO or the EU in the first place.
@@cold_raptor Then people should stop spouting non-sense as if crew training can overcome ATGMs. It can’t as proven again in Ukraine and Gaza. Germans would blow up the same if they fought against anyone above caveman Taliban tier.
We, Indonesia also using this tank we have the 2a4 variant and leopard 2 RI wich base on leopard 2 revolution. I think our military knows how brilliant this german engineering tank is.
As a Turk i have to clarify a couple of things. Leopard is not a bad tank and its usage is not bad by Turkish military either. Leopard is it was mentioned designed in 1970s against to face Russian armored cores. In Syria, there is no such thing. It is more like Stalingrad with various parties. If you go too much west you face Asad, too south Russians, too east Americans. There is not enough "play room" for such big targets. Urban warfare has never been a play ground of German wild cats in history. Destroyed Leopard were A4 model. So, they lack armor especially in sides. In order to legitimaze my thesis, you also need to check M60T Tanks. Those tanks were also used in the very same conditions. They didnt suffer such loses. Because Israel who modernized these tanks, have too many experience about Urban warfare since dealing with Hizbullah. In conclusion, there is a new type of warfare in the world and these cats arent ready for it. Maybe latest variants are but not A4's.
The few Turkish Leopard 2 lost were due to early mistakes. M60Ts arrived later and were used more carefully. As you said, Leopard 2A4 lacks a lot in armor department, especially on the hull. The reason why some Turkish Leopards were utterly destroyed was weak armor coupled with a huge ammo rack in hull which was detonated. Using tank more carefully in hull down scenario would help this issue, which it did with M60T and later M60TM further improved for asymmetric warfare. It is also worth to mention that Leopard 2A4 has very lacking optics by modern standards having just an x8 zoom commander's sight with no Thermals and Gen 1 low res Thermals for the gunner. This coupled with cons I mentioned earlier was a deadly issue.
@@23thenicu If Turkey uses its tanks tactically incorrectly, one should not be surprised at the losses. Main battle tanks are not designed for urban spaces. The Russians got their lesson in the Chechnya war despite the most modern tank technology. Main battle tanks have their strength in long-range operations, but not in asymmetrical house-to-house combat.
@@andraslibal u are not exacly right (if u mean Leopard 2 beat M1 in some competitions for mbt replacement), when someone is not ofering the product its hard to buy it (i mean M1), i mean if someone would choose Leopard 2A7V instead of M1A2 sepv2 or sepv3 he should have some strong reasons, because M1 overall is better designed for war than Leopard 2, 2 basic and really important factors: ammunition storage and overall armour protection, Leopard 2 is cheaper to drive (not neccessary to operate overall), but i have to admit, 2A7V is a beauty, those for Norway looks really hot
@@oneautumnleaf9293 I followed more the Hungarian Army acquiring the Leopards recently. Getting American tanks with problematic logistics (parts etc have to be brought in from far) is problematic. Hungary is acquiring also the means for producing parts and vehicles from the Germans like the Lynx IFV. I do not know if the Americans even offered the MBT ... but it makes more sense to have a European made tanks and weapons.
@@andraslibal well i wanted to belive in it too, about having European made weapon systems, but sad reality is that it is false belive, its usually cheaper and much less logistic problems with US made weapons, mostly because of scale ofc
Im living in Germany and there is a wrong information in the Video , the Leopard 2A7V is the latest Field Version its already in use and got delivered to the Panzerbattalion 393 in Bad Frankenhausen
has anyone else noticed, that the space between the sprockets is different on the left side compared to the right side? Here's what I mean: The right track has got a steeper angle of attack when going over an obstacle. The first two sprockets are spaced tighter compared to the left side, where the attack angle is less steep and the distance between the first two sprockets is a little wider. In the back it is vice versa. I'm a little OCD and once I have seen it I just can't unsee it!!
It was not lack of experience of combined arms warfare that caused the demise of these tanks but trying to fight in an urban environment. Russia had the same problem with its T-72 tanks in Grossny and so developed the BMPT-Terminator with substantial firepower for urban use. It also protects Russian tanks on the battle field against infantry and its Kornet missile system can take out tanks and IFVs from a distance of 8 to 12 km depending on the warhead which is either laser of GPS guided. It also has thermobaric warheads which should should give a guide to Putin's statement to Germany that they will burn their Leopard tanks. That is no idle boast since during the years since Putin took over Russia has been developing means to counter NATO weapons whilst NATO has been fighting men in flip flops and even they have defeated the Leopard in Syria and the Abrams in Yemen using the basic Russian RPG and mines. NATO and US hubris is no substitute for Russian competence.
just to clarify for everyone sweden didn't buy the leopard 2a4 they got permission to build it themselves which became the strv 121 and they also got permission to make theyr own leopard 2a5 which ended up in the strv 122A/B with the newest version the B version that has a periscope so it dosn't have to expose itself and frontal armor that matches that off the leopard 2a7
No. 121s were leased A4s. Most were returned to Germany after 122s were delivered except chassis used for BGBV, IngBV BroBV variants (A4 refurbished chassis with swedish special sauce on top Regarding the Strv122 all you said is wrong. The B variant is modified with a armor package aimed at RPG/Mins resistace, and it does not have a special periscope. The swedish tanks do have their own swedish armor, periscope armor, top turret armor that no other leo members have. As for how effective it is, swedes have always been a bit better on protection, however i have a hard time thinking its better (but safer when you expect fighting at home) than the Chobham or other eg Reactive armor
@@SverkerSuper what you are saying is wrong the 121 was delivered by germany but only 29 of them wad the remaining 91 was license built in sweden bofors making the turret and hägglunds responsible for the chassis and integration Regarding as off the 122's The initial 20 systems were produced and delivered by germany where and the remaining 208 was made locally in sweden by bofors defense and alvis hägglunds and were all delivered by 2002 the strv 122 is also the only leopard to be fitted with the french smoke dispenser system
@@pr04l0w3 My response seem to have dissapeared. As i was saying before, you just isnt correct. I do not know where you get your info, but its not even remotley correct. The Strv121 (Leo2 A4) were leased (160 units) from Germany as part of the Strv122 deal, providing Sweden with a stop-gap solution (And the ability to train on Leopard system before delivery). The Strv122 (Leo2 A5+ (Or A5 SE depending on who you ask)), were first build in Germany (29 units), and later built in Sweden (91 units). This prompted the return (or not, who knows really, maybe there is 160 A4s in a barn somewhere in Sweden) of the A4s upon completion of the 122s in 2002. Chassis from the A4s were used for ARVs, Engineering vehicles etc thus not impacting the S122 units. You seem to be mixing the 121 and 122, and at the same time have incorrect info.
@@pr04l0w3 Oh, wow, you googled? Well, i worked on them for years, i have also worked with some of the people responsible for retrieving the 121s and 122s to Sweden in the first place, including testing and validation in the late 90s. And i am telling you, you are not correct. Much of what you "know" simply isnt correct, at all. _None_ of the 121s were built in Sweden, they were all leased from Germany as a stop-gap solution until the 122s could be delivered.
Yeh, well, but the real question will be: what's the future of MBTs? Brits used to build devastating marine vessels up to battleships, until the upcoming aircraft and aircraft carrieres rendered them quite obsolete. Something will replace the MBT one day.
The Bundeswehr army can compete on an equal footing only with third world countries, and even then with rather small ones. The German army has about 1000 tanks, but there are no more than 100 new Leopards. If you look at the total number of tanks that are quite modern today, you will get no more than 500 units, and half of them will be rather outdated modifications of the A5.
@@Nomis9918 I shared my information about the Bundesphere. I respect the Germans as soldiers, despite the fact that in the Second World War they killed all my relatives on the mother's side - my grandfather, grandmother and her younger sister by starvation in Leningrad, and my older brother at the front.
no MBT is undestructuble as any other man made weaponry, gorund, air or sea. I just wanted to add that leopards, at least a7, a7+, a7v are also using a round that i missed to see on the video, which are the depleted uranium ones
The Dutch sold their Leopard 2s to Indonesia. They lease Leopard 2s from Germany now. Germany should up the game and make them work environmental friendly. In stead of 1200 liter diesel for a full tank.
It was the Leopard 2 that had the 120mm Smooth Bore well before the Abrams procured the same gun because the first Abrams used a 105mm main gun. Rheinmetall is after all a German company as far as I know. Like the M1A2 Abrams Sepv3, the Leopard 2A7+ is a evolution over the years of a good MBT that is still evolving and continually receiving technological upgrades. I still have a favourite MBT and that is the Leopard 2A6 hands down.
The Abrams have a XM256 cannon and a Leopard has an L55 Cannon.. So how come you say they are the same? They aren't.. maybe its the same caliber and boths smooth bore but its not the same cannon.
@@toolfreak78 The US bought the license to manufacture the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 smoothbore gun from that company. However, there were a few changes made to the German gun to make it the M256, e.g. the breech block was rotated 90° and the US opted for a different recoil mechanism, as the turret layout of the Abrams was incompatible with the one used in the Leopards. The first Leopards variants up to the 2A5 used the L44 gun. Only from the 2A6 onwards was the L55 installed. The 2A7V got an upgraded version of the L55 gun, called L55A1, which can increase muzzle energy by up to 20% compared to the standard L55. The US did something similar with the M68 gun, which was a license to the L7 gun line from British arms manufacturer Royal Ordnance. Again, some changes were made before it was used, among others, in the M60, M60A1, M60A3 and the standard M1 Abrams, before it got the gun and turret upgrade to the 120mm smoothbore gun. Anyway, the XM256 and the service variant M256 are based on the L44 120mm smoothbore gun developed by Rheinmetall for the Leopard. Since there is a lot more that goes into designing a gun, buying an already tested gun is sometimes cheaper and better and the US is no stranger to that. Other nations that bought a license to the Rheinmetall gun are South Korea (K1 tanks), Japan (Type 90) and Turkey (Altay, with the L55 version).
In addition to both topics - turkish defeat and DM63: DM63 have a special propellant nearly impossible to cock off or detonate by heat. As Leo-II has a additional ammo storrage in the hull(beside driver), some people might think this shall be used in close combat. At least one picture show an internal detonation in exactly this position, which prooves impropper ammo placed where it shouldn't and finally faced the consequences.
I agree with this video tanks are not invincible, strategy and tactics plays a major role, when I see the news I already understand that ok those are the Leopard 2A4 so its not upgraded to latest combat environment where ATGMs exist.
And don't forget turkey deploy their leopard tanks without add on armor, at least add on at turret, they deploy the tanks naked, without infantry support vs anti tank and others threat. Thats why they lost lots of leopard but different with their m60 sabra, they deploy them with add on armor and the result was good🤔
Leopard 2 is designed to encounter Russian tanks in open field. On the other hand m60 sabra originally designed by Israel to encounter "terrorist" in city's, village's, narrow street's. That's why m60 sabra gonna be always good in those situations against leopard 2.
Yasin Gürsel but if leopard get their add on armor in that war, i think the results will be different, leopard will not easy to take down same like sabra. And of course with infantry support
Knew the video would be biased the moment someone compares the Leopard to an Abrams, since the Abrams is not even in the same league. It's like comparing a Dodge to a Mercedes. "Proven" against 60's soviet tech in the middle east also means nothing.
The Leopard 2 was used in Afghanistan by several NATO countries and I don't recall any losses there, so maybe Turkey's issue is with tactics and doctrine, not necessarily the tank itself.
As a Turk, I agree with you. They introduced tanks for the Syrian army. However, the real attack came with ATGM and suicide attacks from ISIS. They had to guess this. All of the casualties were already in the early part of the war. Then the Turkish massacre started and we are the country that killed the most ISIS terrorists! This is hardly known.
I believe the Singapore Army has the most modern version in service today. They have upgraded the Leopards to what is known as the SG version. These are very capable and looks very different from all other Leopard tanks out there. 👍✔️
The reason Panthers where WON by Russian t-34's and American Sherman's in WW-2 was the simple design solutions in both for mass production and field maintenance. With more moving parts and higher tech level there are more unknown things that can go wrong with deadly ramifications. Did you know that changing the engine or gear box of Panther on field took 3-4 times more time and effort then on their opponent tanks? Also the automatic gear box of Panther tank was the most common failure and reason for tank to stop function? In the end it is the crew that wins or loses with it skills. If the crew is dependable of high tech gear they will go completely useless without the tech.
I think Turks choosed between 2 bad choices. 1.Sent infantry over open terrain and risk mines, mortar and gun fire 2.Sent tanks first and risk atgm's. At the end, they took Al Bab with acceptable loses. Wars in '90 against low tech level conventional army such as Iraqi army have build impression in west that wars could be won without casualties which is not the case.
@@Kai-bj5ol The Armata has pretty much everything over the Leopard 2A7 on an individual level though. If we are going by a head on engagement then we know that the 2A7 definitely can't penetrate the front of the T-14's hull, but the Armata definitely can go through the Leo.
About Turkish army field experience and tank losses - some biass here, almost ANY tank is vulnerable from rear / side, and Turkish army has A LOT MORE battle experience than ever the germans will have, lol ! Is really dumb to say turkish army lack experience, when, unlike Eurpean countries, they have been involved in military operations involving armor for decades now ! They have A LOT of experience, lol. Far more than the germans, brits, french, etc. But Leopard is still an OLD design MBT, sure - with last generation of upgrades, a formidable gun - but is only that much you can upgrade an old design. And the lack of active protection , lack of support armor on urban environment, will take a heavy toll on ANY MBT. We saw that in Syria, Afghanistan, especially Yemen, and the list can go on.
They didn't cover their flanks, which is something that you won't find happening with the German Army. The Bundeswehr will use Marder or Puma and their infantry as flank protection. Sending tanks, no matter the type, into an urban area and without proper flank protection, like the Turks did, is asking for tanks to be destroyed. All this on top that they used the 1985 2A4 standard tanks and not the newer projected ones with upgraded hull and turret armor, that would have had better protection against the modern ATGM that were used against them.
@@jonny2954 well you do know who won world war 2 and remember Stalingrad casualties compared to total US and British casualties combined, just check out what gen. Mark milley said in April 2016 about Russian military capabilities in Europe, you will get a surprise
@@jonny2954 Well yeah, it's like 8 or 9 major countries versus one.. Although most modern Russian MBTs are very good, I wouldn't say quantity over quality applies to them anymore
@@therealmp40 yes some of there older tanks are still underperforming but the t90m is on a similar level to most NATO tanks and the t-14 easily outperforms anything NATO has
The Leopard is a good Tank. It depends on his crew. You can destroy every Tank with modern anti Tank weapons. Your legs are shaking if hear sound of a Leopard.
well, i did service on these things decades ago and they were complicated compared to the Leo1. I fear nowadays they are overengineered and to fat and heavy and still sitten ducks vs modern AT weapons. Tanks will face more and more the same end like battleships in WW2. Expensive to build and keep in service but easy to kill.
Not really, is still a modernized old MBT. Good one, indeed, still an old design. T14 Armata is a generation ahead, and arguably a much better design, with much better crew protection. Even so, Leopard is on last legs - the future belong to gen IV MBT like Armata assisted by AI armored .
@@tocu9808 There's no reason for it not to be good on the field, on an individual level it has everything a tank could ask for and that should translate into great actual performance. The only real issue the Armata has is that Russia is the country that made it, so it will take a while for it to be fielded in significant numbers.
@@therealmp40 - There's lots of reasons to be skeptic about that tank's capability. Russians tend to brag much about their weapons but reality has shown they didn't perform that well. T-72, T-80, T-90, Pantsir, Buk, S-300, S-400 ... Indeed, they are good at creating robust sttructure, frame, rocket engine, but not as good in efficient power train, precison tools, sophisticated high tech equipments.
nice video but Germany has already Leo2 A7 The delivery was from a few month ago. And you forgot Switzerland, we have also the early version in the army. A4 If I remember right
I think a video on How Powerful The Russian/Chinese militaries are. like how you did with The Iranian armed forces. It’ll be interesting to compare and contrast each of our adversaries military capabilities now that tensions are escalating
@@MW-dd8vk They are definitely more advanced in terms of tank development, but the US lags behind most of NATO in that sense, though I know they are in the process of coming up with new designs for an MBT and looking into a replacement for the Bradley which are both much needed. The thing when it comes to the US and Russia is that while the latter is up to par or even ahead in some areas, the Russian military has a quarter of the budget the US has, so even if they have superior designs like the T-14, Ka-52s and arguably the Su-35M (compared to NATO non-stealth fighters) they aren't able to make enough of them to counter the number of vehicles the US has. Not to mention infantry, even though the russians have been shrinking their army to better equip the average foot soldier with all the bells and whistles of a western soldier, they still have a long way to go. Thankfully, there's little reason for them to fight, unless the US decides that Ukraine is their problem now and they get involved, but I doubt that the US will risk starting WW3 over a pissing contest. I pray we will never have to test who is stronger in actual combat.
I see tanks in the future to be a skeleton of steel fitted with composite panels made out of some sort of stiff yet stretchy material absorbing about anything thrown at it. Lacking a gun entirely in favor of infantry supporting mortar and AP- rockets. Almost like a IFV today
Wenn du Panzer brauchst dann roll dir einen Russischen T72 den Kannst Treibstoff Tanken was eine Mischung aus Pisse Scheiße Benzin Diesel ist der Panzer Schluckt es weg.
