Leopard 1s for Ukraine: Still useful?

There is a discussion in Germany about sending Leopard 1s to Ukraine. The question is how good these tanks are and how the Ukrainian forces could deploy them. In this video we look at the capabilities of the Leopard 1 in regards to the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.

The chairman of Rheinmetall stated that in a few months 50 could be shipped. There are an additional 100 in storage with the company FFG. Meanwhile the German chancellor is reluctant. The general public opinion is in favor of sending heavy weapons to Ukraine.

DISCLAIMER D: I was invited by the Deutsche Panzermuseum in 2018, 2019 & 2020.
DISCLAIMER A: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington in 2017, 2018 & 2019.

Cover from Stahl auf der Heide 2017, permission granted courtesy of the Panzermuseum Munster.
Modified by vonKickass and MHV.

»» GET OUR BOOKS ««

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE ««

» SOURCES «

Hilmes, Rolf: Kampfpanzer Leopard 1: Entwicklung, Serie, Komponenten. 1. Auflage, Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2019.

Lobitz, Frank: Kampfpanzer LEOPARD 1 in der Bundeswehr - Frühe Jahre. Tankograd Publishing: Erlangen, Germany, 2006.

Lobitz, Frank: Kampfpanzer LEOPARD 1 in der Bundeswehr - Späte Jahre. Tankograd Publishing: Erlangen, Germany, 2006.

Hilmes, Rolf: Meilensteine der Panzerentwicklung Panzerkonzepte und Baugruppentechnologie. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2020.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-72 main battle tank 1974-93. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2003.

Zaloga, Steve: T-64 Battle Tank: The Cold War’s most Secret Tank. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army’s Last Armored Champion. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-90 Standard Tank: The First Tank of the New Russia. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018.

Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.

00:00 Disclaimer
00:11 Introduction
00:45 News / Political Situation in Germany
01:41 German Public Opinion
03:00 Just old Scrap Metal?
04:33 Firepower
08:58 Armor Protection
9:39 Mobility
10:46 Ergonomics
12:07 Potential Employment of the Leopard 1 in Ukrainian Service
14:32 Concerns: Training & Logistics
16:10 Summary

#LeopardsForUkraine,#Leopard1,#Ukraine

[MaxwellAerialPhotography]

I think most people forget that tanks don’t actually spend a lot of time fighting other tanks, most of the time they are engaging buildings, Infantry anti tank weapons, and other vehicles. In these roles a Leopard 1 is still very effective, and the 105mm main gun will still shit mix all other non tank Russian armoured vehicles.

[weasel]

Ex- driver/gunner here; learning to "drive" is the easy part and takes little time, the actual time is learning how to appreciate the ground in front of you, how can you get from point A to point B using dead ground, low ground or covered; is the ground marshy (tall lush grass), rocky, are you going to be putting your tank "tracks up". These things take years to learn to become second nature and for the driver to just know what the commander wants. Just my two cents. With that said, I would not want to go up against a T72 in a Leo1...

[eivindhelgetun]

Ex-Leopard I ARV-driver here.
I would not sleep on the mobility of the Leopard. It might not look so hot anymore when you're purely looking at the HP/ton stats, but it's got a magnificent gearbox, terrific suspension, great flotation over the soft stuff and an engine that's got a lot of low-down grunt and torque for its weight.

We ended up surprising a lot of newer vehicles with better HP/ton ratios than us from a standing start, such as the CV90 IFVs. We'd just rocket off the line while their (relatively) low displacement engines were busy spooling up their turbos and getting into the torque band.
Over long distances on flat ground sure horsepower is king, but don't sleep on low-end maneuverability and pep. That's what actually matters outside of strategic movement.

With how well the UA have been handling themselves I have no doubt they'd be able to put them to good use. Maybe not in frontal duels against Russias latest and greatest, but there's plenty of squishies around that the L7 will handle just nicely.

[oditeomnes]

Leopard 1 former loader here, I am not sure if it is just me or if other NATO tankers feel the same when we see engagements in Ukraine: Who the hell did write the doctrine of fighting during the day in a tank that is equipped with superior IR/NV optics? It's like negating the only advantage you have. I remember during excersise we could see infantry from almost two kilometres away, it was like a shooting gallery and they could not engage back because helmet mounted IR/NV is just isn't good enough range wise.

[jimwest]

Leopard 1s could be used as direct fire support weapons much like the US Stryker based 105mm MGS. The British derived HESh round is outstandingly accurate and effective against infantry and emplacements. Most battlefield targets are not tanks but IFV, APCs etc..against those it would be devastating and be cheaper and faster than using Javelins etc on them.

[Phapchamp]

A tank has far more tasks than competing with enemy armor (in fact i would argue competing with opposing armor is not a priority for them). Supporting infantry with firepower destroying bunkers and buildings providing fire support providing mobility and more. That is what most "tank experts totally not a wot player" fails to understand. Tank on tank engagements rarely ever happen in modern chaotic warfare like this.

[rogerpennel]

The Leopard I always had poor armor, good mobility, good optics, and a good gun. The problem is it's not something that Ukraine already has in service so they won't have a parts supply, training, ammunition, and its communications gear may not be compatible with what they are already using. I would rather see the former Warsaw Pact countries clear out their armories and supply Ukraine with gear they are already using.

[DiasBenes]

I think lessons can be learned by what the Canadians did in Afghanistan with tanks. In 2006 Canada deployed Leopard 1's to support their campaign. Before this in Iraq, the American and British experiences with tanks showed that tanks could be vulnerable to an insurgent style warfare scenario. Tanks were being knocked out and suffered damage to IED's and RPG/ATGM weapons. So the Americans and British didn't deploy any tanks into Afghanistan fearing the hostile terrain made them operationally useless.

Canada chose to look at it from a different angle. They were fighting an insurgent war where they had to go into hostile mud walled villages and dig the Taliban out. IED's and RPG's were a threat to the soft armor that Canada had. Canada is a NATO nation and unlike the Russians who follow a top down command structure which is proving in Ukraine how unfeasible it is when your dealing with a conscript army who lacks the professional training that NATO countries go through. NATO countries on the other hand rely on the NCO's to have a lot of say on how tactical operations work at the company level. Because of this, Canada quickly found out that at the company level, commanders wanted the use of tanks in these environments to provide protection as well as fire power at the company level. In response Canada deployed their Leopard 1's into Afghanistan.

Canada found that their Leopards were so effective that they wanted to upgrade the Leopards that they were using to Leopard 2's which they proceeded to do from Germany and the Netherlands in 2009. They ordered the first 20 from Germany which were the Leopard 2A6M CAN variant. It had an armored belly to protect it from IED's, a new modular armor package which became standard for the new A7+ variant. Cage/bar armor to protect it from RPG/ATGM missiles and Infra-red 360 site for the commander. Canada then ordered 80 more from Netherlands and upgraded them to the A4M variant and bought a further more from Switzerland for spare parts.

Canada's combat doctrine was to use the tanks to support the infantry. Tanks did not go solo, they were always protected by a mechanized platoon when they were deployed on the field. The combined arms approach was really evident when they assaulted the mud brick walled villages that the Taliban would turn into fortresses. Canada deployed their forces into 2 columns with 3 tanks in each column. One at the head, middle and rear of the column. In the middle sat the infantry with engineers in support. Canada prefers to have their tanks equipped with implements like minerollers to set off IED's and plows to create breaches. In this case they would have plows to break open the mud wall and then push in. The tank commander would command the breach and then the infantry commander would command the operation. The 2 columns would then clear the middle and then clear the sides. If the infantry came under fire, they would retreat behind the tanks and have the tanks with their infra red scopes locate the Taliban and fire HEAT shells into buildings which would punch right through killing the Taliban.

The Taliban after many encounters with the Leopards ended up giving them a healthy amount of respect, if a Taliban saw a Leopard they would quickly avoid the fight giving the Canadians a strategic advantage.

When Canada ended their mission in 2011, Denmark replaced Canada in Afghanistan and from learning from Canada brought their own Leopards into the theater and the US Marines who for years were asking for tanks were finally given Abrams and had them deployed when Canada ceased operations.

Even though Afghanistan and Ukraine are very different, the Taliban still had access to RPG/ATGM's and Canada found a way to protect their tanks by using combined arms doctrine. Having the tanks support the infantry and not having tanks exposed to ambushes. Canada always fought on the ground they chose and in the case with Ukraine, they haven't been deployed their tanks on mass like the Russians. They have been husbanding their tanks for counter attacks. This is how you use the tanks in Ukraine and properly supported by Infantry, Tanks are not obsolete no matter how hard the Russians are trying to make them obsolete with bad handling of their tank forces.

Tanks need to be supported in Modern warfare, its been like this for decades, but they have a clear role to fill, their accurate firepower isn't matched by anything else. You can't use a soft armor vehicle to replace what a tank can do. Those Leopard 1's can still be very useful for Ukraine, its really up to the German government if they want to send them to Ukraine.

Lastly, here is an article that is interesting on how the Americans view the tanks after Canada left Afghanistan and their changing opinion.

[ZWIPPMANN]

The leopard is old, but it's not something like a ww2 era tank. It's an MBT. Even the worst AP round of the leopard 1 can destroy modern MBT's from the side and all armored fighting vehicles the russians have. And it can shoot at infantry. I bet an infantryman being fired at by a tank from the 60's is just as dead or suppressed as if he was fired at by a modern tank.
I think the ukranians can use them well.

[joek]

I started out in the National Guard as an enlisted tanker. With no training of any kind went to a two week summer camp with the unit and learned to be a loader, driver and gunner on an M48 Tank in two weeks. My crew maxed out on the gunnery ranges. Later went on to be an Armour Officer. Any tanker can learn to operate an other tank in days, most military training is 5 minutes of info crammed into an hour.

[snagletoothscott]

German armor in Ukraine fighting Russians.
History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme.

[SpeedsterDEN]

I spend 5 years in the Danish army from 76- 81 as crew on the Leopard :) 3 years as gunner and 2 years as driver.

[PhonciblePBonehimself]

How times are changing - the majority staunch right wing AFD is against weapon deliveries and the supporters of green party, which has been founded out of the peace and enviroment movements of the seventies is for it. ... so sometimes recycling beats pacifism ;) PS.: thx MHV for the interesting take on that topic !

[discerningscoundrel]

Tanks like these would be of use even though they are no ideal for frontline service; they could potentially be deployed to Odesa and the northern border with Belarus to free up Ukraine's own tanks to move east against the Russians. Especially in Odesa, they would be there to deter an amphibious assault which is at this point quite unlikely anyway, but if it did happen, the Leopards would more than outmatch the amphibious IFVs the Russians would be deploying there if they did attack.

[Triforcefff]

I think one important topic that hasn’t been addressed in the video is: What would introduction of a patchwork of sophisticated non-Soviet / Ukrainian equipment do to Ukrainian logistics? Managing that the right type and quantity of fuel, ammunition, spare parts etc. Is at the right place at the right time I assume gets exponentially more difficult the more different your equipment is

[Snagabott]

People tend to forget that equipment _does_ make an impact immediately: With the knowledge that more stuff is on the way, they can use what they have much more aggressively with less thought to it having to last the duration of the war.

[gartje]

I was commander on this beauty in the mid 80-ties. When I heard this news, I was surpised but also proud this old beast would join the Ukranian Forces. It feels a bit like "back to the future", but in a good way! The tank itself is quite easy to operate, especially to drive and to load. The gunner and commander would need some extra time to learn all the features and drills, but all together I think an Ukrainian tank crew should be able to operate it within weeks. Good luck guys, SLAVA UKRAINI 🦾

[evtinker]

Former M60 and M1 tanker here, so yes, I am biased. Yes, any tank beats no tank. If you were defending a position or trying to retake a village with just infantry, a couple of Leopard 1s showing up in support would be most welcome. Yes, they would have at least some difficulties knocking out current Russian tanks but every other armored vehicle in Russian service would be no problem. I would also suspect the Leopards would be easier to operate and more reliable than their Russian counterparts. I also must wonder how well the Russian thermal sights are working. They seem to have issues with complex systems, and a thermal sight is a complex system in an awful environment. Would a bunch of T72s be a better fit? Yes. Would the Ukrainians turn down the Leopards 1s? I am sure they would not.

[iberiksoderblom]

The Leopard 1 relies a lot on "fire and movement" that again relies on the crews ability to aquire the taget and hit it, and that it never works alone.
It all requires a trained and skilled crew.

[loosecannon]

The leopard has a exceedingly fast reverse speed of about 26 kph, most Russian tanks only have a reverse speed of 4 kph, meaning it can execl at hit and run tactics