When I learned at the start of the Ukrainian war that we (Germany) do the same shitty weaopon deals as the USA, I was realy wondering how common it is? I mean everyone in Europe as of the last decade insists on ITAR freeness on procurements and I'm very much in support of that. Germany realy should drop these ownership defeating policies on our weapon sales.
More weight = more fuel. Bigger tank = larger target. No barrel launched ATGMs. Ukraine does not produce 120mm ammo. Extra crewmember = more casaulties. And so on. A realy bad idea.
The tanker is right with his concerns. But I think if you have eyperience driving a T-64 through terrain and know how to spot obstacles that will make you lose your track you will also be able to do so inside of the Leopard 2. On the other hand the West has to make them get used to western equipment because the stockpile of Soviet-Era equipment in western countries is rather limited. Leopard 2 would be a good start especially when other countries send the PzH 2000 wich shares many automotive components of Leopard 2.
Its not only about spotting them. You can't spot snall rocks that can come between the Track and the Sprocket. Thr thing is that Leopard 2 is forwards and in reverse way faster then T64. You have to get this feeling for loosing the track in both directions. I have seen young drivers who just recently came from driving school who lost the track because of steering to the side on a normal field. However, even if the track is about to come down and he notices it in the right time, he can stop and its possible to rescue the track with an old tanker trick. Put Rubberpads from the track into the sprocket and drive slowly so the track gets back into it.
I don't think giving the issue is they should give Ukrainian more T-series tanks but rather the Western countries are running out of Soviet-era equipment to Ukrainian since only former Warsaw Pact countries have those and they have been giving those to Ukraine therefore it's going to a point that the Ukrainian have to start using Western equipment like these Leopard tanks, M119, and artillery etc.
@@thomaslacornette1282 A significant part of it percentage-wise, from Non-Serbia countries, have already gone to Ukraine at this point. I’m Slovenian, follow it first-hand. Also, with Serbia being half-imperialistic in the open, operational readiness of some sort is needed here ALL THE TIME. ^^
@@thomaslacornette1282 croatian and slovenian m84s had their systems for fire, navigation and thermal imiging replace with more modern ones, m84 in its basic form already uses a lot of systems diffrent from t72, and this modernization made it even more diffrent, ukranians would not be able to logisticly upkeep the tanks and would have to be trained from scratch on how to use these systems
@@elektrotehnik94 1. Serbia doesn't claim any Slovenian land, nor does any Serbian nationalist or whatever 2. we've all heard of famous Slovenian army and their glorious battles and victories, I'm sure no one dares to even look your way, let alone think about invading
Having talked to a friend of mine who was an Abrams tanker, he says learning to drive one is stupid easy, and that most systems on them are designed as "keep it simple stupid". From what he's told me it's as if crew cohesiveness/communication and overall communication with the rest of the tank unit and higher ups are more important. Of course training with different ammo properties and repair-work will take some time but I doubt it would be years, especially with experienced enough Ukrainian crews. It's not like modern tanks are so different that no knowledge carries over.
its not only slamming rounds into the breach. It is coordination with other units, covering their weaknesses, learning and internalising the capabilities and limits of the system etc. wich are sufficiently different on Leo2 to T-64 that major training is required.
If you're starting with experienced tankers, transitioning them to an entirely different design of tank is *much* quicker than training new crews. We are still talking about a few weeks to get the "switchology" (to use an actual US Navy term) and quirks of the vehicle well trained. Look, this is NOT rocket science, and the West *has* experience with how long it takes to retrain current tankers who are familiar with former Soviet equipment how to use modern Western systems. We take the knowledge that *does* carry over to the new system and use that as a foundation to concentrate on the stuff that is noticeably different. Let's look at the tank commander. Yes, it takes a couple of years to take a new tanker and train him to be a good TC... but the skills that take the longest to train are the ones that are pretty much *identical* no matter what kind of tank you are using. It's not that TCs have a lot more "switchology" to learn - it's that they need to learn *how to tactically employ a tank* , which is much less "model" dependent - even though things like "what is a good hull down position to use" is obviously going to change with different height tanks, the learning to do the automatic evaluation of the terrain to look for them is the same whether you are commanding a Leopard 2, a T-72, an M1 Abrams, or even a Word War II M4 Sherman (find a chunk of terrain as high as your hull that still allows free turret rotation that allows you to get into and out of position quickly, and that makes tactical sense positionally). So we take someone who already knows how to command a tank, and we teach him how the buttons, gadgets, and performance of *this* tank are different from the ones he knows. In other words, we have to teach him the *easiest* part of being a TC, bevause the hardest part is made.up of skills that aren't really different no matter what tank he is using. As a loose analogy, it takes about a year to make a good infantryman, 2 years minimum to make a decent fire tram leader, and a minimum of 3 years to make a good squad leader (and those last two are assuming you have really switched on guys who are fast tracking). About the same for other units within a rifle company. But, I can take a trained light infantry rifle company and completely switch them over to Russian equipment in no more than two weeks, because I don't have to teach them how to be *infantrymen* , I just have to teach them *how the new stuff* (rifles, commo, NBC gear, MGs, grenade launchers, RPGs, ATGMs, mortars, etc.) works and has to be maintained. At the end of two or three weeks at most, I'd have a rifle company that can do their job just as well as before (caveat - within the limits of the equipment). It would literally take longer to set up the supply chain to handle the Russian stuff seamlessly. Tanks just have more mechanical bits to learn, but again, we don't have to teach them how to be *tankers* , we only have to teach them *how this tank works and is different from their old ones* . A longer lead time is going to be training the *maintainers* (less the obvious stuff like the tracks and engine and more the "fiddly bits" like the sights, radios, stabilizers, etc.), translating the electronics into Ukrainian displays, and setting up the logistics infrastructure in the Ukrainian forces. But, with the exception of translating the electronics displays☆, these different integration requirements can all be done in parallel. . ☆Which, while it has to happen before training the crews, does *not* require access to the tanks, or at least more than one - develop your solution *once* and then you can rapidly apply thst fix to all the other vehicles that use the same electronics)
@@geodkyt I more or less agree with your conclusions. Skills are transferrable enough, particularly on Western equipment, so maintenance presents the more difficult hurtle. Particularly given that these have been sitting in storage for a decade. I mean, the Ukrainian crews aren't being gifted SIMNET systems or full maintenance depot setups. That said, the Leopard is categorically better than most of what has been seen in the Ukraine. Given that Russia seems to be pulling T-62's out of storage and sending them into reserves for their occupation, it's kind of amusing to hear such criticism of the Spanish transfer. I don't know why people imagine there's large volumes of ex-Warsaw Pact stockpiles in NATO hands.
Here in Finland we use Leo2A4 and 2A6 with conscripts. Maintainers are conscripts too. Of course there are professional officers. But the point is that they don't get years of training, it's 6 months for "other tasks" and 9 months for "special tasks" which I assume means actually crewing tanks. That is total soldier training period, including all of the infantry stuff, physical training etc. If 6-9 months trained 18-19 year old kids can maintain and crew Leopard 2 to a highly professional level on par with NATO and do extremely well in exercises with NATO, then I'm sure that experienced Ukrainian tank crews who have many hours operating T-tanks (Some of them in combat...) will be able to learn them very quickly, in a matter of weeks to acceptable operational capability I bet, maybe a month. Not perfect but it will be 85% there. We should have started training them on Leopard 2 half a decade ago, not now, it's not too late but they should be training them yesterday.
stop being delusional. Ukraine has lost this war before it started. Without intervention of 3d major country like usa, ukraine defeat is inevitable no matter of what and how much you gonna send there.
@@BoleDaPole For someone like you living in a safe country where you have everything you need, it's very easy to judge. Sadly the risk is real and countries like Finland, that already had problems with Russia in the past cannot stay disarmed. Also Finland is not part of Scandinavia, and Scandinavia is not a nation...
@@BoleDaPole It's very progressive. Everyone should have the right to roll up to the barracks and receive equipment to kill genocidal orcs with the training you already have.
I think the issue is that many people are going to already be experienced tankers and some of that, at least, will translate well to another completely different type of tank. But war is war and people have had to adapt quickly to tank driving before with no previous experience.
An experiences Tank crew might even come up with some interesting idea's for doctrine. But frankly...how many experienced Tankers does Ukraine even have? Especially some that can be send away for some time.
You do not understand it. You can drive a tank after one day of training. It is all the little things you need to know to operate it, not only how to drive it and how to load and pull the trigger. And you need to know what to do, when something does not work as it should. You need to know where all the nuts and bolts are when you want to fix a minor problem, and you need to know how to do maintenance. Tanks need a lot of maintenance. A lot more than a car or a truck, cleaning, greasing, replacement of worn down parts etc.
@@adamabele785 Yes, if Russians were competent. The Russian army is not competent. Also, NATO training of Ukrainians should ramp up across the board rapidly, on many more systems & in quantity - to help the Ukrainian mobilization efforts.
@@adamabele785 "And you need to know what to do, when something does not work as it should" This. There are videos of M1A1 missfire procedures and thats quite something to learn for just one error with a lot of possible causes. But missfire is just one of many errors that can occur during a battle.
Yes! The training period cannot be compared to the training of inexperienced soldiers. The training is significantly reduced when the soldiers are already experienced tankers!
People think Nato is sending supplies to ukraine out of their heart, but they are just using ukraine as guns and they are sending it ammo, why do the work when someone can do it for you, just pay a small price and weaken one of the biggest army in the world.
This is the game that is played all the time, in the Caucasus, in the Middle East. The weaker party in a conflict finds always sponsors that give them enough weapons to keep the conflict going.
Kind of disagree with the idea that tankers who have trained to work with Soviet tanks could not be retrained fairly quickly to work with NATO ones. Finland did something similar a few decades ago and the people who described that process say that it was really not that difficult to adapt to the new equipment on the tankers side. One tanker who went through this process, Finnish retired tank general and ex head of the School of Armored Warfare (Panssarikoulu) Pekka Toveri, has been a staunch advocate of supplying NATO tanks to Ukraine. As most of the training that one does with tanks is based on tactics, the main principles of armored warfare that apply for the T-64 also apply to Leopard 2. Getting used to handling the new equipment will not take that much time in comparison. What is true is that the logistics guys need to be well trained and have a deep understanding of the tank in order to be able to quickly and efficiently repair any breakdowns. Also, these tanks need to have their own specialized logistics companies to support them. Creating the logistics network to support these tanks with non-standard parts and ammunition will be much more difficult and time consuming than training the tankers. In any case, Ukraine does not have the luxury of having spare tank crews that have trained for 3+ years with pretty much any equipment. Those guys have been fighting full time for months now and there will be plenty of ex-Soviet tanks to replace the existing ones. No matter the equipment, they will have to send guys who have, at most, a few months of experience handling it to combat. A lot of these kind of issues will have to be figured out on the fly no matter what.
Finnland had no War while this where is a real risk of loosing a Vehicle forever. You wouldn't want also send a complete M1 Abrams Crew with 6 Weeks of experience into Iraq. I have seen Problems with Leopard like a non starting Engine where you had to "play" around with the cold start and the gas to start it again. Small things. A non starting engine could be fatal in the donbas.
Yeah, I have to agree with you. Conclusions coming from Polish experience with re-training their crews from using T-72s to Leopards 2A4/A5 were similar. Crews and servicemen were able to quickly adapt to new equipment. I think the problem is that this German soldier in the video speaks about training completely new crews which is something completely different than adopting an experienced crew to new equipment.
@@tank_insight2011 Same things apply to the T-64. You wouldn't want to send a T-64 crew with a few weeks of training to the front either, but beggars can't be choosers. The minimum amount of time it generally takes to train an infantry conscript to be ready for frontline combat has been determined to be 3 weeks. This is also the minimum amount of training that one has to be given under Finnish law before being sent to active combat. This is, of course, way too little to tech anything but the basics but, when in war, you can't always spare the time to give anything more. The ones who survive their first trial by fire will learn the necessary skills over time from both practical engagements and from the veterans they serve with. I imagine the same applies to armored warfare.
@@karhu96 with the difference that the loss of a Leopard 2 because of a small mistake or because of not knowing a small thing or because of the lack of experience is a bit more costly to a country then to loose a soldier who was drafted 3 weeks ago. You can run into problems where there is no danger at all in peacetime cause you csn drive happily back into the barracks and just read about it or in extreme case call KMW or Rheinmetall. But in a Combat Situation when Russians are approaching its horrible to loose a Leopard because the Engine dosent start. Or the first Gear dosent want to go in.
I've been quite concerned about all the different weapon systems being sent to Ukraine. Diversity is a logistical and training nightmare. An army only works well when all the parts are in the right place. For that reason, most modern armies rely on only a few different systems and build up the support to keep these systems functioning in the field. I fear this problem will cost lives. On the other hand, I suppose it is better to have a weapon system with problems than no weapon system at all.
12:40 A few years ago when Poland was interested in expanding its Leopard fleet a Polish commission inspected the Spanish Leopards 2A4 and deemed them unsuitable for purchase due to their horrible technical condition. So no, Poland will not send PT-91s in exchange for the Spanish scrap metal pretending to be a tank. Also, Poland plans to withdraw Leopards from active service in the near future in favor of K2 tanks. So there is no reason to get more of them.
@@kibicz That same conclusion is well known in the Spanish army and politicians, a few tanks were transformed back in the day to bridge layers and other support/engineering/recovery vehicles. The rest were mothballed in a warehouse. However Ukranian politicians are pushing hard for anything that shoots, I guess having anything is better than nothing
Nie był bym tego taki pewien, nie przesadzaj z tą "najbliższą przyszłością", chciałbym żeby było tak jak mówisz, ale na tą chwilę wygląda że kupujemy od Abramsy, K2(zwykłe koreańskie K2, a nie budujemy standardu K2PL, jako że K2PL jest bardzo kosztowny i ciężki dla naszego przemysłu do wdrożenia do produkcji, tak przynajmniej słyszałem) więc obawiam się ze te PT-91 i Leopardy 2 jeszcze dość długo będą nam głowę zawracać
Any Leopard even old 2A4s would obliterate t55s and t64s. They can fire superior rounds have a lot more armor and way better optics and accuracy. A 2A4 could take on t72s and t80s favourably and a A5 is about equal to t90. The A6 is superior to most modern t90s and A7V should be able to fight t14s (if any would be combat ready xD). Upcoming A7A1 will be one of the best existing tanks. Of course the best tank is useless if not operate by a experienced crew or with appropriate tactics
Czech Republic will get 15 Leopard 2 A4 tanks from Germany for free as a replacement for the T-72s sent to Ukraine. Of course as generous as it is this is also a business move to ensure that Czech Army will order 50 new Leopard 2 A7+ tanks. (one article claims that those 15 donated Leopard 2s are actually Swiss Panzer 87s sold to Rheinmetall)
Swiss Panzer 87 is basically a modified version of the Leo2A4. The Swiss did some interesting modification to it which suiting their terrain.. which is somewhat similar to what you have in Czech. So this deal sounds perfect to me. Some of the changes are: Prominent exhaust mufflers, making the vehicle quieter, based on the demands of the villages affected by military trainings Somewhat different turret rear (slightly different shape, added camouflage net stowage box) Different machineguns (Swiss 7.5mm MG 87 by Bern, effectively an improved German MG42 from the Second World War) American radios Grousers attached to the front of the turret Extra position lights on the sides Improved fire suppression system called Deugra
@@jansix4287 Everybody talks about the Russian hardware popping up everywhere forever, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Leopard 2A36 is a thing in a couple decades.
Spain is the first country to send western Tanks to Ukraine, also we have more than 100 Leopard 2E or 2A6. I don't know if the Spanish government wants to buy more Leopards. maybe they are interested in the new Leopard 2A7v but in reality they want to buy about 19 F-35s.
If German government and industry were more clever it would be trying to give away as many of it's weapon systems to Eastern Europe to establish both goodwill and make it more likely that German arms would be the choice of such nations going forward.
I was a gunner on the leopard 1.... In about 6 to 8 months, I was BORED because I had learned everything and it was rutine... We had NO breakdowns or malfunctions... After the FIRST monthly maintenance routine, I knew all the components, and how to take them out, clean them, and put them back in.... Considering we spent time also learning first aid, pistol shooting, water combat, etc, I would say a crash course of mere WEEKS could make a crew LETHAL.... In a few months, it becomes SECOND NATURE.... It's NOT THAT HARD.... Literally like a video game.
Tanker here. I might sound like a RU-vid comment but hear me out. I've been trained on West and Soviet tanks, and it's not difficult. If you can operate one, you can operate the other. Why? It's like an Xbox playing a PS5. Or a PC gamer getting on console. The principal is the same, all you're doing is learning new controls, new limitations, and new capabilities. And let me tell you from my experience- the hardest part to relearn is the capability and limitation. Because you're so used to the one tank, if you're not used to serving across many different armored vehicles, it's easy for muscle memory or impulse reflexes to screw crews up here. It got me at first too. I do think the Leopard is good for Ukraine too. Since they can't and very likely will not be getting the Abrams- unless Poland gets involved- so the Leopard is third best. Third place behind the Chally, which might be a better tank the Abrams. But the Leopard is still the perfect tank for the job, because it's a tank gun. And it's a very mobile, very accurate, very lethal gun too.
challenger 2 is the worst of the 3. Worst gun, optronics, mobility and armor of all the 3 and highest weight overall (75t vs 66t) The US has also non proliferation clauses for their weapon deliveries, so Poland wont be able to deliver M1 anywhere.
Ya I call bs, someone that compares operating a 70 ton machine to a video game console is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Go back to the basement and play fortnight kid
@@bleakfeather7004 well even in terms of protection vs A5 the Challenger 2 is pretty thinly armored. There have been comparative testings and Challenger 2 consistently scored worst of all tested (even vs t-84´s etc) in all categories
One small things, from the last news Spain will send 14 tanks. Second, the reverse speed of the Leopard2 is the same as the forward. It s just slower at reverse speed because engeniers found that is more sure for the crew so they a add a blocker. Third, Poland and Czech Republic wanted to buy some Spanish leopard2 A4 but they saw that they re in very bad condition. So they didn't buy them And I really liked the video.
Czechs have also been promised some Leo 2A4s for free as a replacement for the T-72Ms that were sent to Ukraine (to be used for training as there is some deal brewing for Leo 2A7s). Gods know which Leos are the 2A4s meant to be.
Well if the numbers are so small then it's actually better to not send those as the numbers would be too low to actually make effort for integration and logistics
From the last news the batch is around 40 from 108 even more if we find enough batteries and some other parts. The only problem is permission from germany, Probably not before july when they will send pzh2000.
I'm pretty sure Ukrainians could start training on Leos available in European countries before they could get those tanks in their country, so as soon as there is a decision to send Leos to Ukraine, they can start training.
So your saying that the German soldiers are slow and maybe a bit retarded? 😉 Its not as easy as just driving around a tank training course without getting stuck. On what do you base your information?
TLDR; initiate the Leo spam. Finnish Leo 2a4, 2a6 tankists serve 347 days which also includes the normal tropes of becoming a soldier, basics and whatnot. A T-72 tanker would already be ahead on the training and in this case has a good learning motivator. Maintenance folks serve 255 days and you could get some remote support also. Small number of tanks would initially be a logistics issue but Leo can be issued in large numbers by collective west and these could start the training early.
Excellent presentation @RedEffect. Served in the Armoured Corps. Always liked the Leopard 2. Critical points you make about crews "understanding" their vehicles. This takes time!
We saw how quickly T72s from Poland were equipped with ERA. why shouldn't she do the same with a leopard? I think Russian ERA also protects German tanks. And I think the Ukrainians wouldn't be afraid to be creative either and would just weld holders to the side. it is also not the case that Leo2A4 has no power reserves. 5 tons can still run before it affects mobility
@@MUSIC7052 You mean videos like this one, with Turkey testing ERA and slat armor, before they got the Roketsan Armor Pack upgrade for their 2A4 tanks ? : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4HdYv2yq_BM.html Edit : the Roketsan Armor Pack : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-q84A9sM4TE8.html They are from a different movie.
@@scratchy996 no. I mean Soviet ERA. Any good mechanic can retrofit an RPG cage. It is easy to research how the cages must be shaped and constructed to detonate HEAT warheads. Also retrofit 2 cm steel plates on the sides with a little distance to the chassis and mount the existing contact 5 on them. The package you sent is also effective against APFSDS. This is hardly necessary in Ukraine because the overwhelming number of tanks are destroyed by HEAT shells and rockets.
You forgot that besides the higher mobility, the Leopard 2 is also way easier to actually drive than any of the Russian tanks, featuring a responsive automatic transmission an actual steering wheel. In short, a leopard 2 can be steered with one finger, whilst a T-72/80 or 90 is quite physical to drive.
Yeah, you need a crow bar and a hammer to drive the T-72/80. You can talk to tank crews in Bovington where they have T-72 and Leopard 1. All of them say, the leopard can be driven like a car.
Surely the point of this isn't to just throw them right into the conflict? The arguments against seems to be 'it will take a long time to train them' which of course it will, but let's say that '2 year for commander training' is reduced to 6 months (war does seem to have a habit of speeding things up after all) and the training is done in a neutral country (say Poland). Best case in 6-9 months Ukraine has some relatively well trained tankers, in fresh relatively modern tanks, going up against likely less capable Russian tanks from their reserves. Worst case the war is over prior to that and they aren't needed? The whole 'it takes a long time to train' argument just seems to ridiculous, as long as the people going through a long training programme don't result in you not being able to man your current systems it's practically an irrelevant argument. If Ukraine had to send all of their tankers away for 2 years to train on new tanks leaving them with no armour it would be a different matter...but it doesn't.
On top of that, these Leopards can be given to the tank battalion in Kiev that are not currently seeing action and probably won’t for awhile. Meanwhile you can send the T80s for Kiev towards the front where they can be used instead of sitting idle.
You severely underestimate the importance of a well trained crew. Either way if they send these we will be seing scorched and blown up leopards on the internet soon
@@alphanomad511 how? I've literally said it's not a case of just throwing them in to the conflict, that training still needs to happen and that 'it will take time' isn't an argument to not do it?
Yeah obviously. Imagine one of Natos most advanced tanks being captured and studied or even reverse engineered by the russians. everything nato sends to Ukraine could potentially fall into russias hands and be used against us. It's better to send 60 years old cold war equipment that the UA is well trained on, is adequate against RU and doesn't pose much of a threat to modern nato equipment if captured.
@@SuperUltimateLP it wouldn't be the model with the latest upgrades but it's still a leopard 2 chassis all the newer models are based on. For example they could cut it open and get the exact armour composition or check which chemical weapons can penetrate the air filtration system if they got their hands on a captured tank
I think the "years" of training **only** applies to a peacetime nation, where it's too expensive to drive your tanks around for more than one hour a day (if not less). That's _far_ different when you're at war, and people are driving around these tanks for 12 hours a day...
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 It really depends. If you get a radio issue that you'd either need maintenance or the most experienced tanker for, you'd probably _still_ be screwed if it happened _while_ you're in combat. On the other hand, for Ukraine right now, it doesn't _really_ matter that _everything_ is in *top* condition. So, if you know what part is likely to break first, and replace that before going into combat that day, the extra wear and tear might even actually be 'good' (since a peacetime army would _never_ let you discard an 'expensive' bolt or whatever that hasn't broken yet - but that changes once lives depend on it) Overall, it's simply really gonna depend on what exactly breaks, and when. If it's an important bit, and it happens during an engagement, then yeah, you're pretty much fucked. But if it's like... one single tooth on the sprocket, and it happens while you're redeploying at night or miles behind the lines, then it's 'only' annoying.
@@MrNicoJac those problems would quickly mount. and Leo2 is a tad bit more expensive than a T-72M1 from Poland. so the expected combat loss of one Leo2 is significantly more impactful than loosing a cheap T-72
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 A lot of the cost is due to wages, and indirectly from R&D costs and intellectual property rights. So comparing the costs is not as straightforward as it might seem. Also, for Ukraine (and any country at war), losing the tank crew is MUCH worse than losing the tank itself. You're right that maintenance problems quickly mount, but that's true for every tank, from a T-72 to the latest version of the Abrams. So I don't really see how that's a useful argument? Whether losses are from logistics or combat is _always_ **highly** context-dependent anyways - and the situation is _never_ textbook-perfect for the defender...
@@MrNicoJac Yes, but the russians seem to know where to aim for repair / preparation centers. In the open field, near the fighting they cannot maintain them as they will get quickly destroyed. They also cannot transport them via train or road as it will be also destroyed quickly. Not looking good.
Poland didn't send all T-72's to Ukraine - what was sent was 200-250 tanks. There's around 150-200 remaining, although condition of these vechicles could be questionable. for PT 91 there's like 230 of various versions, with ERA (slightly superior to kontakt-1, and with very good coverage, since individual tiles are small) and relatively modern fire control system. So technically in Polish armed forces there's still around 400 tanks "on way out", but there is no way to replace them quickly, so they were not sent. M1A2 sep v3 will only come in batches and slowly replace tanks that were already handed over. This creates crippling armor shortage for Polish army since they want to create new "heavy" division going forward. So it needs more tanks that what it had before donation to Ukraine. If we were to get rid of all T-72 based vechicles then army of 150k would be left with 250 tanks and flat ground perfect for armored warfare...
i work in the bush 40 years running buncher in very steep and rugged ground and every day was a learning day.. allways keep a open mind to things. and u be supprised what u can do with equipment im sure most bridges would handle the tank
According to a report on the Businessinsider website Spain won‘t send 40 Leopard 2A4 to Ukraine. They are thinking about sending a maximum of 10. The vehicles are in a lousy condition, thus it would most likely take months to refurbish them and it might not even be possible to refurbish all 10. The Spanish government so far hasn’t decided if they want to send them or not. As a result Spain also hasn’t requested an authorization from Germany so far. According to the report Spanish officials apologized to the German government for the trouble which those media reports caused. Poland most likely isn’t interested in old Leopard 2A4 from Spain, they demand Leopard 2A7 from Germany which are of course not available. Germany is offering older tank versions to Poland, but Poland doesn’t want them, thus no agreement between Germany and Poland was reached.
@@HedgehogZone It's not true. It was some "German press leak". Poland (most probably) asked for some 2A5/6 AND MAYBE A4, but after Germany financial participation in modifing it into higher standard (because you know 2A4 are 80s technology. Why anyone should be happy about getting junk - conditions of those LA4 tanks are... bad - while gifter of this junk would brag about "helping"?)
The idea of the German government was to give Poland older Leopard versions that will be upgraded over time to A7 afterwards. The German Army itself has not all A7 they ordered yet. Upgrade is in process. In my opinion the Polish knew that is the case but their government takes every chance to bitch against Germany. If you read what Kaczynski says all the time about Germany you know that man hates Germany.
Trust me, they won't need to go far. They will be used to garrison key positions and act as a sallying party. So a typical reserve unit. Would also make them easier to train on. And make better use of their mobility and gun characteristics
Bloody good tank. Then again the old Leopard 1 A5 would also be useful to Ukraine. Both these models could have ERA added. Frankly all tanks are vulnerable to modern ATGMs. These would be a good asset and is much needed. It's obvious that the crews need training and like the artillery crews, need to be trained outside of Ukraine first. This war is not going to be a short war after all, so training can take place concurrently whilst Soviet kit is sourced. For immediate use it is better to keep supplying old Soviet kit of course. The US, UK, and Ukraine itself is sourcing T72s and other kit from all over the world for use now. It's not a case of one approach or another, both need to be operating in tandem.
I'd rather be a Ukrainian issued with an "old" Leopard 2A4 than one of the poor Russian conscripts issued with a T-62. Both sides still have their frontline combat vehicles. The Leopards will be sent to lower risk areas so the heavy armour can be used more effectively at strong points. This is nothing new in war.
There are way too many ''military experts'' without knowing a damn thing about those tanks or engagements!! For example 3:23 wasn't cook off or anything rather Turkish AIRFORCE bombed those damaged Leopard 2s which were captured by isis to prevent propaganda, in fact the destroyed ZPT in the middle is actually an Iranian ZPT which was captured and used by isis. While 3:47 was an IED attack, look at the size of explosion for God's sake but it could be still considered as an ''ATGM attack'' like Leopard 2 carries a ton of explosives, what a joke!! Total 22 Turkish Leopard 2A4s got damaged during 4 years long operations and NONE of them was cook off but still there were serious damage and crew casualties. Upgraded with composite spaced armor M60s aka Sabra tanks outperformed Leopard 2A4s againt ATGMs, this is a fact...
Had no idea the reverse speeds were so slow in the Russian tanks. We utilized enfilade and defilade tactics when I was a Bradley gunner and it made me think about how less effective that doctrine would have been if our reverse speed was 4mph.
@@einar8019 No. T-14 can go same speed forward, same reverse. Granted not accepted into service, but T-90M3 may have better reverse speed from its automatic gear box. There is conflicting info about it.
The thing is there is only limited supply of T-72s in former eastern bloc and this suply can dry up if this war lasts which is looking to be the case. Sooner or later west will be "only" able to supply western tanks and sooner Ukrainians start with training on western designs the better. Finally in regards to bridges 55t shouldn't be a problem the thing is that 44t limit is not the actual structural limit but the so called safe limit and depending on safety factor those bridges can without much of a problem withstand from 60-66t.
Astoran, the West will be "only" able to supply western tanks. Is this as easily done as said? Who pays for all that stuff that has been sent there for the last seven years? if it is the western tax payer, for how long do you think will he be able and willing to bleed?
i honestly think that any tank sent is a boon for the Ukranians if used correctly. even if the crew is ill-trained these leopards could be used as mid to long range fire support and or more as tank destroyers rather than main line units. entrenching them on elevated positions would help survivability since we know that russia has horrid accuracy with rockets and artillery atm due to lack of GPS targeting. all in all, use them correctly and everything will be fine
They use GLONASS, but anyway the accuracy of Russian tanks have been reported to be excellent. (by creditable sources aka volunteers who have spoken up about their experience fighting with Ukrainian forces). Many accounts of Russian tanks taking out a group of infantry from several kilometer away with a direct hit. But it of course depends on which tanks you mean. Im talking about the upgraded fully modernized T80M with automatic targeting computer and self leveling barrel adjusting itself independent of terrain. Its perfectly expected given the open information that is available from numerous sources. I have seen plenty of footage which showcase extremely good accuracy by the Russian artillery, by using a drone for scouting and fire adjustment information. Even knocking out tanks in a moving column. The GPS targeting systems are completely useless over areas where Russia have installed their electronic warfare systems, jamming and spoofing GPS signals. It seems to be very few Ukrainian tanks left on the eastern front at the moment and instead mostly a long range artillery battle where the Ukrainian army is being destroyed in huge quantities. 200 dead and 500 injured/disabled each day according to Zelensky, in reality much higher because no side is reporting accurate losses as long as the fighting is still going on. But Zelensky has been notoriously bad at reporting creditable data in the early stages of the military op, instead posting fantasy numbers that anyone with a working brain could understand were logically impossible.
I agree with your points, but not with your verdict or conclusion. First of all, the weight issue. Yes it cannot easily cross bridges, but Ukraine doesn't only need tanks in the East. If you put them in the Kyiv region (or maybe other vulnerable regions such as Bessarabia) this may be less of an issue. The problem is that Ukraine cannot send its best equipment in large quantities to the East, as a new Kyiv invasion can happen any time. And Kyiv is way more important than a Severodonetsk or even Mariupol. 40 Leopards means you can free up 40 Soviet tanks or other equipment to the Donbas or Kherson. Also, I think they have better shells while Ukraine really lacks shells for Soviet tanks that can penetrante Russia's best tanks. Also they free up some shells as Leopards so not use 125mm Soviet shells that are in short supply.
@@amogus1981 I edited but my whole edit is gone. I also added that I think RedEffect underestimates the Ukrainians ingenuity. They are used to using a hodgepodge of Western leftovers and often use creative solutions to keep them working. Also often they do not work fundamentally different from Soviet arms. Also they can call the Polish if they have questions. I appreciate that he asked a Leopard operator, but many things he mentioned are not necessarily different than a T-72: I guess the things a driver has to take into account aren't fundamentally different. I think a lot of the experience with Soviet tanks can be used with Leopards.
@@van0tot100 You make good points. I thought the same thing about Kyiv - keep those tanks near the capital (or Kharkiv) and send the T-series tanks out to the Donbas. I also find myself questioning the weight given to a single German tanker with 3 years of experience in Leopards. That's not a lot of time. How can we take him to be authoritative? The other point which RedEffect misses is the propaganda value of having the Leopards in Kyiv or a less active battlespace. They would be a good showcase to the public that Europe is still supporting them, boosting morale and support for the war. This, in turn, would give the crews MORE time to familiarize themselves with the vehicles' idiosyncrasies. If I were in Ukraine's position, any decent tank given to me is better than no tanks at all. Ukraine has defied expectations many times already - why keep saying they can't do X?
@@FieryCheeze Exactly. I do not doubt the experience of the German tanker so much, but I don't think he knows what an experienced Ukrainian tanker knows less than him. It is not as if you can carelessly drive a T-72 while a Leopard requires skill. I am by no means saying operating a Leopard is easy, but I think there is a lot Ukrainians can overcome. And also the Russians are poorly trained and probably have no idea how to deal with a Leopard as they have never encountered them. Of course they have weakpoints like any other tank, but it is unlikely most Russian soldiers already know these. I think the fact that it is something the Russians are completely unfamiliar with is also an advantage, even if a Leopard is not much better than a T-72. We should stop thinking about what we think Ukrainians can handle but just give them everything on their list. They will figure it out one way or another.
To be honest, I am sickened by the lack luster effort from Germany, Spain and US on this war effort. If they sent sufficient weaponry months ago this war would already be over...
One thing you are getting wrong, you are assuming that they will train fresh crew for this tank and you are looking at time needed to do that which is wrong. Ukrainians will most certainly choose best of available tank crews for these vehicles and guys that already have plenty of experience with tanks, even good combat experience, for such guys it does not need months or years to simply adapt to new vehicle. You are not taking car driver to be a tank driver but an experienced tank driver that are probably more experienced than German crews themselves, those guys I am sure could use leo2 efficiently in matter of few months if not weeks.
Trading the Leopard 2 for Polish T91 is a good idea. However, most of your criticism of Ukraine getting the Leopards makes the underlying assumption that they will be integrated into front line maneuver units. It does not take nearly the time to adequately train a crew to operate a tank from a series of prepared defensive firing positions as it does to train a crew to effectively operate the tank in aggressive maneuver operations. In a situation of "shoot and scoot" from one prepared defensive position to the next (sort of like a modern day tank destroyer) they'd be a useful addition to the missile teams and old towed AT guns.
I disagree with almost all points but I want to skip that and get to the bottom line: The Leos can stay further behind and replace soviet tanks that can be then freed up for front use. the Leo crews could train meanwhile. You almost sound like our chancellor mate, stop it :D
I have to take exception with the logic that it would take years to get up to speed with a new western asset, like the Leopard 2. No.1, Ukraine has already told western countries, like the US, to let THEM worry about the training hurdles. They need the weapon systems NOW, and the longer countries like Germany, delay and excuses persist, the longer it would take to get them on the battlefield, after being trained on them. No.2, many things the Leopard tank operator talked about, are things Ukrainian tankers already have experience with...such as techniques on avoiding a lost track, by a driver. This would not be new to Ukrainian tank drivers. Yes, they would need training on a new system, but much of the training German tankers receive over the course of 2-3yrs is overall field tactics and SOP's (standard operating procedures), not specific equipment training. Ukrainians are willing to LOTJ, because it is better to have a superior weapon to the Russians (but with little experience with) than no weapons at all.
That's ignoring the entire operational and logistical issues. Leo's don't fit on the ex-ussr railroad system, meaning the struggle to transport them begins in poland. The leo isn't designed for the bridges and the soft terrain of ukraine, it's also to heavy for the service and support vehicles they operate. It's a wet dream of superior western firepower, but in reality modern western tanks are to big and heavy to play a role in ukraine.
The primary question on which the whole matter is based is not "are the leopards good" but on "do the Ukrainians need them in order to repel the invader", thus the decision is simple as the Ukrainians do need them. That's all that matters.
Yea, they apparently stood around in a logistic warehouse from what I heard. Still the symbolic and political impact behind this delievery is more important imo. As its the first western designed tank that would be delivered and also uses NATO ammunitions.
I disagree. Of course it's not a perfect tank, and not a perfect war for them. But, the ammunition storage problem is an issue if they get hit in that area, which is not very likely. Also, Ukraine could simply not store ammo there, just in the turret. Second, the training problem is real, but nobody has trained on these tanks in such an emergency, everybody took their time, as you should in peace time. In the current situation, Ukrainian tankers could learn much faster. Even if it takes 2 months, that's better than not having them ever. Put simply, the advantage of having them as an option on the battlefield is greater than the disadvantages. More T-72's would be nice, but Ukraine should have both that and all the Leopards they can get. After all, they would be employed doing what they were designed to do: deplete the Russian armored arsenal.
Not very likely? That storage is higher than T-72s hull and half as wide. Yes, it is possible to go into battle without that ammo rack, but that would leave leo2 with only 15 rounds which is, well... Far less than enough
"Ukraine could simply not store ammo there" this isn't War Thunder, tanks in actual war carry as much ammo as possible to ensure they don't run out in the middle of an engagement
@@ahmedalsadik there's a difference between expending most of your ammo and only bringing a small amount to begin with. And also, yeah, when possible armor will withdraw before expending all of their ammo as being in an active warzone with no weapons is a very bad idea
That's right it was built for fight the iwan. I was in the army when the first ones were delivered. And it was a challenge to the repair division. We would have lost everything back then if we had let the "Böcke" into the battlefield. even today only 200 of a total of 400 LEOII are running. If you were to deliver the tanks, you would have to run a freight train with spare parts and send several repair teams along with them.
The thing is: in the long run Ukraine will have to and will want to switch to western tech completely, for multiple reasons. We can already see that with howitzers, there aren't enough companies making 152 mm ammo in the EU to sustain their needs anyway (there are like three, and frankly, there aren't probably enough in Russia to sustain Russian needs either, as we saw them running out of 122 mm ammo, a fact that has been slightly overlooked by many), so they are slowly getting western systems, some more for testing, some to bolster their forces (there is difference between buying 8 Zuzanas and 60 or 80 or however many Krabs). So getting a battalion of Leopards as a testing bed might be really important in a long run. As the Spanish Leopards are concerned, like 10 years ago the Czech millitary was negotiating aquisition of the same tanks, they didn't want them because you would have to extensively repair them, the cost has been calculated around a mil. euros per tank. So if they really are the same mothballed Leos they won't be there quickly anyway. But apart from maybe the Greek offer (which will get probably sunk by Germany, Germans are really losing a lot of good will right now) there isn't actually that much Soviet tech left that isn't a part of actively used equipment for next 2-5 years at least. You can't just gut your army units and tell them that the replacement comes in 2025. You would lose those people. And part of the reason the wait is so long is that the production volumes in Europe are just not enough for times like these (they suffice barely in less dangerous times, just look how long is Hungary waiting for their own Leopards, or Czechia for their Caesars for that matter). The reasons are of course economic but still. In many countries the political representation would gut their own armies to help Ukraine but their millitary leadership explained to them why that is not a good idea. Even though the effect on the current crisis would be considerable.
@@Mortablunt I think he meant they can’t replace the ammunition fast enough since Russia is using so much every day, and since most countries allied with the wast don’t have a large stockpile of soviet ammunition it only makes sense for Ukraine to start using 155 ammunition.
Not to mention that whole internal factional conflict between the FSB/GRU where their operatives are burning each other's military industrial areas (shit they're guarding/running protection for) and taking out a major gunpowder factory for Russian Artillery ammunition. It's like open gang warfare in Russia right now, with Arson as a weapon. If Ukraine holds for long enough, Russia could wind up shit's creek without a paddle since there could be a shell shortage even for Russian systems with current import sanctions. Ukraine needs to tap into existing, functional industrial supply chains from NATO. Whether it be these Leopards or something else, that switch has to start happening soon or else it's game over in the long run. If I were a Ukrainian general, I'd take a flawed system that can at least be resupplied rather than a better one running on logistical fumes.
The Guest is absolutely right! It's not only that the equipment needs training, German Quality is a known fact, but the serviceability too, and it needs a lot of service and parts! The weight is the second issue and it's a very big one! What is the question here? "Would Ukraine be able to win a the current conflict against Russia?" The answer is NO, the US Pentagon know that as well as London and Brussels, Obama said it after they staged the Color Revolution followed by a Coup in 2014, he said "Russia has the escalatory dominance in this region", meaning "Russia can bring a lot to the table, supply everything and push the issue further to the west if needed"! What have we seen over the last month's? (besides the weapons being resold to other crisis areas) We have seen a trickle of weapons and equipment with the announcement of "The New Wonder Weapon is coming", only to see the next one being supplied later on! Now it's a last gambit after numerous European countries made it clear that the end of the summer is the end of the support! The Leopard or any other piece of equipment is not going to change anything in any major way, and the reason is that the Russians have the Air superiority, surveillance and artillery (incl the heavy artillery)!
The other thing is the condition of those vechicles. Poland was interested in buying them but they didn’t because of their bad condition, they would need to go throgh a complete overhaul to have any combat value.
You know I have a hard time believing that the Ukes would do HALF as much for Poland or its other neighbors . At this point the Ukes should be happy with what they get and stop demanding more and more. The world is about it be driven into a deep financial depression and countries need to start looking out for thier own.
@@BoleDaPole War started by putin is a major reason of upcoming crisis, especialy in a food & energy sector. And only way to make things better in a long run is military defeat of putin in Ukraine. No one in Europe wants to live with such a mad neighbor as putin`s russia. So NOT DELIVERING arms to Ukraine now is equal of investing in a bigger war & even bigger crisis in future. In current situation putin`s politics can & will say anything to restrain west from suppling Ukraine with weapons so the war froze and he could give it another try later. And you`rs words are on putin`s side with this question. Putin`s regime should die, and it could only die in frontline
Even with these older tanks, they can out range, out run, out maneuver and out spot the t-72's. Still the fire control modules in the tanks might not be programed for some of the newer ammo for the 120mm gun. The other issue with AVLB's is the m48 and m 60 hulls have interchangeable parts. The plus is the US has a stock pile of the AVLB's and bridges due to up grading to the M1 bridge layer. You can transport the bridges on flat beds and operate a few bridges from one AVLB. You can stagger one stream, pull the bridges back behind another stream where you have another set of bridges. The issue is the size of the stream and after 57 ft you start to get issues with placement or over enough traffic moving fast hitting the bridge movement. Getting the Leopard II's and AVLB's would help, but the training for the another tank crew of 3 would need an additional man to join them, training for maintenance is the hard part. Me for AVLB's I taught the mechanics, but I had years on the things after the early 90's at unit overhauls for the AVLB fleet. They almost need someone to be attached to each unit to provide knowledge about the tanks for maintenance and gunnery. Maybe a master gunner would be good. One way to look at it, how much did the US have to do training when a unit went from M60's to M1's. Even the M1A1 to M1A2.
All correct but this isn’t a tank on tank war it a drone spots a tank and artillery kills tank war, the Russians don’t even need advanced tanks they are only used like short ranged artillery. The Ukrainians are out ranged by the longer ranged Russ artillery and out numbered by the artillery as well plus they have lost most of there air power and have less air missile systems to to cover troops and tanks, these what are left of them being dragged back to protect major cities from the cruise missile and older dumb monster air launched missiles which is using up the Ukrainians S300 missiles. It’s an attrition game at the moment and the Russians are going to win that war they have thousands of stored old tanks and missiles and the west will run out of these sort of weapons to gift.
Glad to have found someone who has experience with the Leopard tank. But. Recently heard the opinion of the tank commander who trained and used the T-72, then the PT-91, that is the Polish modification of the T-72. Then he rode Leopard 2a4 and 2a5. Recently he has ridden 2PL leopards and is training Abrams m1a2. For me, this is a man who has a real comparison between the various types of machines. He knows the tactics for each type. He knows which type is better and what is better. You should talk to such a man, because he will tell you what it means for the Ukrainians to obtain Leopard tanks. Of course, donating 40 tanks means little. All the more so as they will have to undergo a general renovation at least.
@@jansix4287 What does 40 tanks mean when thousands are fighting? The Leopard 2A4 is some wonder weapon? Did you know that this tank's armor is weaker than, for example, the T-72B3? When will they enter service? After war?
@@Robert-ze1vw Leopard 2 is designed for one job - to kill a lot of Russian tanks quickly, while moving and in the dark. Paired with PzH 2000, yes. They could kill thousands of Russian tanks. Problem is the Ukrainians won’t become experienced tank crews in just a few weeks. They won’t attack with enough mechanized infantry support to master combined arms warfare. They will miss the Puma IFVs deadly autocannon. Soldiers on both sides still act like careful survivalists instead of fierce close combat fighters. I see no tank commanders the likes of Rommel and Guderian. Zelensky still tries to kill Putin with a tweet. 🐣
@@jansix4287 I think you overestimate the German technique. And you underestimate the Ukrainians. So far, human-linked weapons are good for them. The last example? Severodonetsk. I did not want to believe that the Ukrainians did what they did. Because they should defend the fortified city. But the effect is that the Russians lost 60-80% of their state in attacking units. This is a massacre. I don't know what you expected but. The Ukrainians are weaker and sometimes they fight as the opponent allows. And the Russians are not idiots, whatever the press writes. And finally. Is the Leopard 2A4 better than, for example, the T-72B3? Answer it - it depends. And don't forget there is a difference of 20 years between these versions.
I did the Australian Army's RAAC Driver Signaller course about 20 years ago, it was 3 weeks indoctrination (history, AFV and aircraft recognition, machine guns peculiar to the RAAC e.g. M1919, MG3, M2HB to the RAAC), 3 weeks signaller training, 6 weeks driver and servicing. 12 weeks total. It's true I did not have tactical sense when I fnished my course, but I was fairly competant in operating the vehicle. If you took people that had already had experience in tanks and armoured warfare, then I think 3 months training would be totally sufficient, especially if you could get civillian contractors to do base level repairs and I think with crews experienced in other tanks you can probably cut it down. Only about 1 week of my signaler training is devoted to equipment set up, servicingn antennaes etc. The bulk of the signaller course is learning Radio Telephone Procedure, codes etc. Obviously the current Ukraine tank crews already know Ukraine RaTel, how to use their codes etc, they'd really only need to learn how to assemble and maintain the new radios,a ssuming they didn't just fit Ukraine's current radios. About 2-3 weeks of the driver trainign was servicing, i.e. learning the vehcile - the rest was drviing techniques and practice. If you have people already know how to drive a tracked vehilce then you could probably cut the 6 weeks down to 4 weeks, just the servicing and any driving technique peculiar to the Leo 2. I was in the light AFV stream, but the tank stream training was the same duration with a 3 or 6 week (can't remeber which) gunnery module for gunners. I would assume the gunnery would be the most different, with manual loaded guns and different fire control systems, but if you could teach that whole course in 6 weeks. So I reckon if you took a T-72 crew with 2 years T-72 experience you should be able to trainthem to operate and service the Leo 2 in about 4-6 weeks, depending on how much if any German/Spanish kit is replaced with Ukraine kit.
@@TRPilot06YT have you seen the recent pics of it being used in Kherson region? Tho not currently in combat zone but it's already fitted cage armour at the top of the turret
@@redzeitgeist854 Ive seen some non combat pics and vids of those. By the side of the road, on trains and on trucks I havent seen any actual pew pew combat footage yet
@@redzeitgeist854 Yeah, i know. I agree that they are deployed to Ukraine I just tought there was an actual combat footage of those antiqur things that i missed:/
I don't really see most of the mentioned issues being actual issues. For one, it doesn't take three years to train a tanker. The Finnish army does it in about 10 months with good results. The Ukrainians also have plenty of experience in tactical maneuvering with T-series vehicles, including actual combat experience. Provided the crews assigned to these vehicles are not completely green, as I assume, that further reduces the subjects of training. It takes time to learn the vehicle's systems, but three months should be plenty of time for that. Maintenance is probably the greatest issue.
The Sherwood Foresters received their shipment of Sherman tanks 5 days prior to going into battle and first contact in them during the North Africa campaign. They had 5 days to be prepared in their vehicles. From living, fighting to maintaining them. If they can do it in 5 days, there is zero reason the Ukrainians cannot be reasonably up to speed within a few weeks of training, especially with trained crew men sent to foreign military training establishments. There is a pervasive myth that the Ukrainians are incapable of adapting to western technology when they have proven time and time again they can and will (Artillery, NLAW, Jav etc).
This is the Western/EU excuse fallacy. Oh we need to train for years to use this vehicle otherwise its useless. Everybody in Europe became completely lethargic and obsessed with being prepared for every eventuality that might not even occur. This extends to not only military but also other branches like government. The vehicles are relatively intuitive these days and everybody with half a brain can use them like in the example you gave. Yes the training will be rough but you'll be able to grasp most of it and if the vehicle is good and tactics sound then it'll perform well. Europe should get their heads out of their asses stop focusing on eco nonsense that's ruining us and strengthen our armies, industry and self reliance ASAP.
Modern tanks are touch more complex then WWII tanks. Just tiny little bit more ;) It takes years to get a brigade size unit trained up. But hey, just to drive around, few days. Also if 5 days was "little" for you, remember North Koreans had to learn T-34 in class room, over few days, and actually NEVER driven one or fired one (!)
Where are you getting this notion a brigade would take years to train, and why? seriously, where has this myth pervaded from? They are already trained in tactics and such. Equipment is not the priority in any sized unit, tactical training (SOPs, advance to contact drills, etc) is, which they already have. And regarding modernity, the only large difference internally is the FCS, optics and nav comp from a WWII vehicle. And considering the Ukrainians aren't coming from WWII vehicles, they will already be familiar with similar systems. Actually a modern tank is easier to handle, drive and generally operate than a lot of WWII ones if the operator is already trained in a similar vehicle.
Not sure if I'm entirely sold on the whole training part, the crews would already be tankers and they would have a good grasp and foundation to start from. A leopard 1 tanker said the basic training for a role took some 3-6 weeks. They wouldn't be "perfect" but surely have good enough grasp of the situation and use of the tanks after a month or two. Besides, if this training never starts "because it takes too long" they'll never be able to utilize the tanks. The war will soon have lasted 4 months. If the training had started immediately they would have already pretty decent leopard crews ready. How many months or years is it going to take until the training starts? Who knows how long this war will last.
It's a tankers perspective, but foremost a german tankers perspective. I trained on the swedish version for 10 months and getting to know the tank went quite fast. Then being a good effective crew i believe is transferable between different tanks. Tank warfare is about speed, but mostly about manouver and positioning. This is the same across any tank. I believe the Ukrainans being able to reverse quickly is a game changer- taking a shot and then reversing in full speed into cover and repositioning was basic strategy. Like a sniper a tank want to change position. I was actually unaware of russian tanks low reverse speed. Sounds very dangerous.
Sooner or later Ukraine will have to learn to use western vehicles since the supply of soviet era equipment owned by the west is limited. Also training them now would over time kill the "Ukraine isn't used to our systems"-arguement
Precisely. With 10 tanks, Ukraine could in principle train 40 crews at a time, 4 hours per day per crew (+4-8 hours of theory, away from the tank) and 8 hours of maintaince per day, including training of mechanics. 2 months later, some Nato country could send 40 more tanks, perhaps even a more modern version, and the crews would be ready for them.
i would disagree with a point that you need a long time to ready a ukrainian leopard crew. if you take recruits and teach them tanker speciality from zero level - then yes, of course it takes a ton of time. If you take ready made ukr tank crews with combat experience - drivers, commanders, etc, then they already know all the principles of tank warfare and it is just the matter of learning new equipment. At least that's how it seems to me (zero military experience never seen a tank irl).
But it is an excellent opportunity for Spain to get rid of their old, antiquated hardware in order to have an excuse to invest in a new modern arsenal.
Bottom line they are a major upgrade over T-72's and if I am a Ukrainian tanker I want a Leopard any day over T-72, Ukrainian tankers are not idiots, they can learn the Leopard, your not asking a WW1 pilot to fly a space shuttle.
@@slavicemperor8279 But the failure of the turkish commanders to employ them with the Support of infantry and IFV‘s probably also played a crucial role
I would like to add that Czech MoD considered purchase of these Leopards from Spain a couple of years back but decided against it and one of the reasons cited was that those pieces were not in the greatest shape.
There are way too many ''military experts'' without knowing a damn thing about those tanks or engagements!! For example 3:23 wasn't cook off or anything rather Turkish AIRFORCE bombed those damaged Leopard 2s which were captured by isis to prevent propaganda, in fact the destroyed ZPT in the middle is actually an Iranian ZPT which was captured and used by isis. While 3:47 was an IED attack, look at the size of explosion for God's sake but it could be still considered as an ''ATGM attack'' like Leopard 2 carries a ton of explosives, what a joke!! Total 22 Turkish Leopard 2A4s got damaged during 4 years long operations and NONE of them was cook off but still there were serious damage and crew casualties. Upgraded with composite spaced armor M60s aka Sabra tanks outperformed Leopard 2A4s againt ATGMs, this is a fact...
You see a lot of wunderwaffe cope around the internet, that this new weapon is going to turn this around but in reality whatever small number of weapons systems that are given over isn't going to matter that much in the sheer size of this war. The only thing that would really help Ukraine in this war is a massive amount of self-propelled artillery, 155mm and up the better. Tanks and anti-tank weapons really don't seem to matter as much in this specific conflict, the Russians aren't doing massive tank pushes through the Fulda gap here. It's all firepower and positional warfare and whoever has the most firepower is at the greatest advantage.
Still need tanks, that the days of Kursk are over doesnt change that. It won’t change the tide of the war single handedly, but no singular weapon system will do so, not even artillery. It’s giving the Ukrainians everything we can that will do that.
To say anti tanks weapons "don't seem to matter as much in this specific conflict" is just nonsense and dumb. Especially anti-tank missiles matter the most in this war together with artillery. It's the tanks only that don't matter so much in this conflict because they don't have much value, but the anti-tank missiles do matter because they are what makes tanks so vulnerable and useless in the first place!
"the Russians aren't doing massive tank pushes" but THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO and they were only countered by the "anti-tank weapons" which "really don't seem to matter as much in this specific conflict"
@@baumhauser exactly this! The Russian army used massive tank pushes during the intiail opening phase of the invasion, but they got quickly repelled by ukrianian soldiers ambushing with anti-tank missiles Javelin, NLAW, Stugna, Panzerfast 3 and drones !
Trouble is, Ukraine would need hundreds of SPGs and MLRS and tens of thousands of munitions just to replace what they've lost and then just as many to outgun the russians for it to matter, and that's not even taking into account no real counter for russian cruise and tactical balistic missiles. More than that, it's clear that the Eurpoeans don't have said numbers in their own inventory, let alone spares they can provide. When this war is over, European countries are going to have to start a massive program of rearming and rebuilding their neglected militaries and military warehouses, but that'd take money away from their beloved sociač programs, so its probably not going to happen.
I honestly think that Ukraine cannot make the most of these tanks now however, I think that it´s a good solution in the long term for them. What I mean is that they can start using these Leopard 2 A4 in order to start getting used to them as a part of a long term strategy on which they will no longer use material derived from the Soviet Union/Russia. In the meantime, I think that the best idea for this war is to continue using T72 and T64.
Spain got denied by Germany to transfer any Leopard tanks and the Spain Government already said it was a rumor. You video is right now discussing a non existing matter. Apart from that these tanks are unusable and largely rotten
Yesterday I came in an argument with one guy on Facebook about Russian VS Ukrainian tank. He explain that the only thing matter in tanks combat is ERA and he said that T72B3 Kontakt5 is not entirely covered the tank while T64BV has Kontakt1 all over the place so T64BV is better. He later said that all T64BV has thermal while only Russian T90 has it. at the end he justr stop the argument by telling me how T72 autoloader is sendding russian tank to the sky and said that T64bv is safer. I want to die talking to this guy.
They could be useful in the long term if an ERA package could be designed, built and installed. This would obviously take some time. Meanwhile crews could be trained on the vehicles. Of course it's quite possible the war will be over by the time it takes to upgrade the tanks, but in Ukraines case it would probably be a good idea to have something to fall back on.
@@calessel3139 oh yeah, era is pretty simple to install. Give a man a blow torch and a welder and he could probably slap Russian era on the leo from a captured tank in a few days
Ask the SPD, which is the leading political party of the current government coalition (and apparently still quite fond of Russia), and their leader Olaf Scholz. They are the ones blocking and delaying everything. Add to that a quota hire for the minister of defense, one which has no experience with military whatsoever, and you get a more complete picture. Now, quota hires might not be the worst thing, as a woman in the FDP, another party of the government coalition, is quite well versed in military matters, however, due to what I can only call idiocy, she was not selected for that position. Add to that a bit of bureaucracy and some laws that make it harder to export weapons, because of Germany's illustrious past with wars, and you got a recipe for foot dragging. I was actually (pleasantly) surprised when the Greens called for weapons deliveries almost immediately, as they were, in the past, quite the pacifists (and some still are). Currently, the majority of the German people would like to have these systems delivered faster, but other than nag and complain we can't do much here.
Spain isn’t shipping any Leopard 2 anytime soon. The report in Businessinsider says Spain is only thinking about sending a maximum of 10 vehicles and those are in such a lousy condition that it would take months to refurbish them. It’s even questionable if all 10 can be refurbished. The Spanish government is still internally discussing if they want to send those tanks or not. Spain of course so far also hasn’t requested the German authorization. Realistically we‘re thus probably talking about 5-10 tanks to be delivered next year. P.S. Germany is for example donating 14 Leopard 2A4 and one recovery vehicle to the Czech Republic, which in return delivered 20 T-72 to Ukraine.
Leopard 2s should be send to Poland, so Poland can send Ukraine more T-72s without compromising their own defense. The decision to send Leo 2A4 to Ukraine is ridiculous. Ukraine has literally no logistics for Leopards. Poland built the logistics for Leopards for like 4 years. This doesn't help, it actually hampers UA war effort.
But Poland doesn't want old Equipment, they want to have the newest Equipment possible for sending their old T-72s to the Ukraine. So in general, they want to get rid of their old Soviet T-72s and want to have Leopard 2A7Vs for it -.-
Poland still has plenty of PT-91 (an upgraded T-72) and most likely still quite a lot of T-72s. Leopards are better than T-72 and have more potential to be upgraded, I'm fairly sure trading T-72 for Leo is a good deal, even for old Leopards.
Where are the German Leopards then? Seem Germany and France are trying to play both sides at once with their "conversation" with Putin and Macron's insistence that Russia " mustn't be humiliated". War criminals should be treated as such, most of the other European countries understand this ( especially the UK ).
The Russians would destroy them easily. Tank-to-tank battles are rare and the Russians have an advantage in artillery and aviation. They would be very easy to find because there would be no confusion as to whose side it was.
That will depend heavily on what is shooting those tanks. For the both the Ukrainians and the Russians the most common tank killer in the war currently is Artillery. Which Russia has way more off. But Ukraine is better at hitting targets with. They've actually gotten better than even NATO at this point.
Czech army wanted to buy surplus spain tanks,but refused due to poor technical state They will still be usefull, if nothing else, as improvised aletilery support
Maybe on paper there are plenty of concerns, but Id argue that there are many good reasons to send this tank. If you can park it in a village hidden, i am sure it could be used as an effective cannon even if the crew isn't fully trained, where they would usually have none otherwise. Remember ukraine is the defending force here. But also these could be used for training purposes only, so that new crews can start practicing tactics for in the future when better modern tanks can be acquired.
They are going to be better than nothing. I suggest that they could be crewed by a "Dad's Army" of home guard type units that practice and train on the weekend and are used as defensive tanks that greatly complicate any Russian Federation advance. If there is an attempted Russian Federation breakthrough the Leopard 2A4 can be quickly moved to ambush potions thereby hindering and complicating any Russian advance.
