T-72 vs Leopard 1A5: Trash vs Quality?

In 1990 the Bundeswehr made an investigation if the T-72 could replace the Leopard 1 A5. In this video we look at the report from back then. Various parts of the report seem a bit off particularly about the T-72, as such I note why I think they are off and add additional information for context on other parts.

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 design: vonKickass.
Cover images: Leopard 1 at Tankfest 2019 by MHV.
T-72 of the Georgian Armed Forces, Public Domain, U.S. Army photo by 1st Lt. Ellen C. Brabo,

»» GET OUR BOOKS ««

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE ««

» SOURCES «

BArch, BH 1/19863: v. Wittenburg: Gegenüberstellung KPz Leopard 1 A5 – T-72 (ehem. NVA), Munster, 1990.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 1993.

Donnelly, Christopher N.: Red Banner. The Soviet Military System in Peace and War. Jane’s Information Group: 1988.

#t72 #leopard1 #tanks

00:00 Intro
00:35 A: Comparisons make no sense…
01:18 Context
01:47 What T-72 Variant?
02:46 Different Doctrines
03:00 Basics T-72
06:08 Basics Leopard 1A5
06:47 Command & Coordination
10:21 Mobility & Combat
11:48 Combat
14:26 Crew Coordination
15:04 Conclusion of the Report
15:25 Summary

[MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Want to see more videos with content from museums? Additionally, you get AD-FREE early Access?
Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible.

[greg.kasarik]

As an Australian Leopard 1 tank crewman in the 1980s, early 1990s, I'd point out that at this stage, we were still using the IR lamp and had no thermal imaging capacity for any crew members. Even without the lamp, the gunner could see remarkably well through the sight at night, but was functionally blind.

We did have a bunch of techies come through in an attempt to figure out a Thermal imaging gunnery solution, but none was implemented during my tank crew service, which ended in 1996, when I transfered to Psychology Corps. Given that the decision to go ahead with the Abrams was made during this period, I doubt any thermal gunnery sighting was ever installed in the Australian Leos.

Driving at night was done using the Mk1 eyeball, or if, like me, you were night blind, you'd use the BM8005 light intensification system, which was a huge periscope that replaced the centre driver's scope. As such, with little peripheral vision, the driver's ability to manoeuvre at night was incredibly limited, although interestingly, the IR Lamp was highly visible through the night scope, which I found a bit odd.

Basically, the Australian version of the Leopard 1 at the time was really suitable for daytime vision and combat only. At night, our main role was purely defensive.

Regarding crew, the Leopard 1 could both acquire and fire at targets from the crew commander's position, so if you were down a crewman, you weren't down an entire tank, as seems to be the case with the T-72.

In normal operations, the gunner would be scanning the forward arc (10-2 on the clock face), while the crew commander would be using his sight to also look for targets. If he identified a target, he could use his override to place the gun on target and hand the firing over to the gunner, or place a round downrange, if needs be. I don't recall there being any issues with the CC being unable to fire while on the move, but the German systems could have been different.

While the hatch on the loader's side did impede the crew commander's vision, it contained an unmagnified periscope that could be rotated, meaning that the loader could also be looking for targets to the left of the vehicle, but only be able to see those visible with normal eyesight.

The driver's sole job was to provide a stable gun platform, keeping to the low ground (it is amazing how many places a tank can hide hull down on normal "flat" terrain) while reporting anything that looked suspicious that might have otherwise been missed by other crew, who being in the turret, were better placed to observe potential threats, or targets.

I'm interested that the report didn't discuss overall manoeuvrability, as the Leopard 1's light armour arose specifically as a result of the emergence of HEAT ammunition in the 1950s, before APFSDS came along and forced everyone to redesign their tanks (again!). The Leopard 1 was incredibly agile and reversing was very quick, with IIRC there being 2 reverse gears (I'd have to dig out my old manuals to check). Going from one turret down position to another on the same slope could be achieved quickly and with a minimum of fuss. It had a steering wheel (or yoke, if you want to be technical) and really was a joy to drive and a really comfortable ride.

The main issue was the same with any tank and that is the problem of fixation on the forward arcs. On one occasion, when playing 1v1, I successfully manoeuvred around the tank playing enemy and literally parked right behind (as in my barrel was nearly over their engine deck). We then radioed to them to look behind and a great time was had by all. Funny as fuck! :-)

For those unfamiliar with the Leopard, they used a 36 litre V12 diesel engine, which meant that there was no real situational awareness, with respect to sounds. Our engine noise was overwhelmed by theirs, theirs and so they had no way of hearing our approach from the rear.

[ThisOldHelmet]

Strap-on spelled backwards is no-parts

[bartunthegreat]

5 km/h reverse speed. Of course. You're supossed to only go forward comrade. To victory!

[OneofInfinity.]

Great info, they took good things from the Leo 1 and improved on the Leo 2.
As a former Leopard 2 gunner I was in "heat" vision almost 80% of the time I was behind my EMES, very little escaped my attention in my sector.

[Adam-vbrt]

The part about the T-72's speed when going backwards (around 11:30) reminds me of the tank platoon in Kelly's Heroes. Oddball (the commander) made sure their tanks could back out of trouble faster than they got into it.

[Robertarea]

You have to also take in account their chief design.

Leo1 was designed around the idea that modern armor would be useless, because of the design of sabot rounds. So they put everything into speed and fire power. Which isn't exactly flawed either. If you can seize the better position and as the moving elements it can keep up with mechanized forces. So no wouldn't call this trash.

T72 designed for open plains combat and mainly designed around at giving a main battle tank to warsaw nations that lack the industrial power of the soviet union. So designing a tank around the philosophy of export in mind and giving minor nations the ability to fight stronger nations. Wouldn't call it trash either.

Decent armor, good guns, and allows for less crew with an autoloader.

The only people that consider these tanks trash are comparing them to modern tanks, or tanks that were given to middle eastern conflicts and this should not be taken as proof as middle eastern troops have always been shown to be inferior in training, doctrines on how to use the equipment given to them, or are not given the best export models either.

[derhesligebonsaibaum]

Ok, adding Soviet Womble as "less accurate" @ 13:20 was hilarious

[stalkingtiger]

We were taught (not officially) to sometimes write reports to cause a desired reaction, not necessarily to report the event factually. Sometimes factual reports can do more damage when it goes up the chain. Wonder if this was the same thing.

[thewomble]

It's always worth remembering that neither East or West would say "your tank is clearly better than ours" as propaganda is the first weapon deployed in any conflict.
I do know that when the UK was developing Chieftain and the FGR Leo 1, a lot of German high command expressed concern about the ability of Leo to absorb heavy punishment on the battlefield compared to the British tank. The top brass wanted a tank that was more like a modern Panther able to give and take punishment. The Leo was, like all tanks, a compromise and although it had a powerful, reliable pack it had serious weaknesses in other areas.

[villesaarenketo]

The T-72M1's were sold to Finland. I myself have been crawling inside a few cleaning their autoloaders.

[ConsciousAtoms]

The "Limited familiarity with T-72" does not add up. Germany did not just acquire T-72 tanks, it also acquired their crews. Did the authors of the report not interview East-German tank crews? If so that is a major shortcoming of the report.

[matthiasbaumbach]

Some thoughts on the Leo 1A5.
During my time in Munster I had the lucky opportunity to work with the Gruppe Weiterentwicklung. I soaked all Information up like a sponge.
The EMES 18 of the Leo 1A5 is an even further developed version of the EMES 15 which was introduced to the Leo 2A4. The thermal sight was not only meant to be used by night but by day also, as it extended the range of recognition to about 3 km during daylight, mitigating the problems of a mere optical sight in rough terrain, where the enemy could be unnoticed due to optical camouflage.
The periscope of the commander, the Peri R12, was specifically designed to be used during movement, to give the Leo 1A5 the Hunter - Killer capability. Therefore the periscope is stabilized. By one press of the control overdrive button the tank commander is able to assign a target to the gunner with the gunners optics and the gun already on target.
Trained on the 2A4 on all positions and as a platoon leader and from my experience during training for foreign tank commanders from former WP countries I am convinced that the Leo 1A5 is superior to the T72 in the battle types mobile defense, delay and attrition, each with the respective counter offensive tactics.
The Leo 1A5 is absolutely superior to the T72 when it comes to tactical versatility, tactical adoption and foremost mobile fire fight.
You also might never forget that the Leo 1A5 is much more ergonomic than the T72, giving the crew a higher stamina in battle.
In the end it's always about tactics and as mentioned this is the strength of the whole Leo family.

[cannonfodder]

Honestly while useful information can be gleamed from such evaluations and comparisons, often its more revealing what such reports show about the user and their perspectives and biases than about the tech in question.

Another good video Bernhard.

[REOGURU]

I always enjoy your reports, in particular how you bring in other experts to round out your thoughts. As an illustrator, I really appreciate your unique and creative iconography!!

[bruetel]

Error at 6:16. It is spoken about a "4-man turret" when "4-man crew" is meant, as had been written.

[whitephosphorus]

I appreciate your two summary points. During the video I was wondering if the report writer was just dumb or intentionally making the T-72 look worse than it is. I think the lack of familiarity had something to do with it, but they were so unobjective that I think them not wanting the T-72 to be adopted had more to do with it.

[velikiradojica]

I'm pretty sure the reason for such discrepancies is that they had a foregone conclusion and needed a report to justify it.

[andrewcoley]

Excellent video as usual. Great meeting you at Bovingtom last week. I'm looking forward to seeing the video you were making there! Brilliant channel.

[gamecubekingdevon]

Something worth noting ks that one of the biggest weaknesses of T72, aka the poor optronics, can be fixed. The pôles did that on their PT91 and it s latter variants.

Considering the weight, protection, and surface to armor, T72 has also more room for upgrades that can give it a decent survivability against infantry held RPGs (as seen for exemple in the syrian civil war with the t72 mahmia )