Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Can T-72 outgun Leopard 1 Tank?" video.

  1. History also shows Iraqis lost 60 M1A1 tanks to ISIS pickups. Clearly Abrams sucks.
    3
  2. LOL!
    3
  3. Not true. T-72 original has 780hp engine. Then various upgrades have various engines. It is now far more likely for random T-72 engine to be more than 780 than actual 780.
    2
  4.  @ConductorDon  Actually T-62M has better fire control than Leopard 1 A5 - T-62M has just slightly worse system than M1 A2.
    2
  5. Not even point blank can penetrate, i.e. unless you hit weak zone T-72BM3 cannot be penetrated from even 50m. Germans did tests on older T-72s in early 90s and withdrawn remaining Leo 1 from service.... b/c L7 could not do the job.
    1
  6. LOL!
    1
  7.  @BFOP15  Just to be fair, T-62 is also all steel. And T-64A is the worlds first composite armor tank. You looking at Arab losses from Egypt side - where they out run their anti air umbrella (and later stopped). Syria took massive losses from actual tank combat due to simple stupidity / luck of training. Yes, T-62 was a good tank, could match or surpass anything Israel had. Also one has to highlight apparent luck of Arab coordination of the war effort.
    1
  8. T-72Bm3 mentioned here is vastly superior to Leo 1. Its not even remotely close. The smooth bore gun on T-72BM3 is light years ahead of the rifled L7 on Leo 1. T-72 with her better sensors should detect Leopard 1 first and can engage even from extreme ranges - even with missiles at 5km and main gun over 3km - this is not exactly possible in Europe - but demonstrates range difference. Leo 1 can only try from the sides or rear. Front shot would need to be very luck - like drivers hatch.
    1
  9.  @mwtrolle  I disagree with almost everything you said. It is simply not true. One has to point out that T-72BM3 is much, much, much newer tank design that Leopard 1 A5. Since it is a much newer upgrade it has much newer design choices - some of these are just few years old. Even late WWII era tanks are able to punch through sides of modern MBT or rear. This is non issue. Stabilization and sensors are way better on T-72 BM3 than Leo 1 A5 - come on, they are decades newer ;) Most of the crews are alive and well - where do you have BS info that most T-72 crews area dead? from what? Covid? Ukraine lost far more crews procentage wise than Russia. Leo 1 A5 was made obsolete by T-72 by Germany. So not that great tool anymore. Why do you think T-72s that fight for a year are in bad maintenance state???? WHY? Do you think no one touched a tank in a year of fighting? LOL! 1A5 is going to shoot at targets and is at disadvantage here vs. any more modern MBT due to its smaller main gun. Please let me know in which way Leopard 1 A5 is better than Leopard 2 A4 - the only thing I can think of is lighter weight and thus ability to not get stuck with ease. 1A5 numbers are low. They do not have more than 200 available. Its a joke. If you said they can deliver 2000 quickly that would be impressive. Yes, that would be a problem for Russia. But 200 old tanks is a non issue. I am not sure why you are such a fan of Leo 1 A5 - the tank design was of a glass canon that was though of as a good idea at the time of construction. It was a bad idea. Others did not repeat the mistake of Germany and their older tanks were relevant longer. Leo 1 was a mistake.
    1
  10.  @mwtrolle  Umm, you got your tanks mixed up - Leo 2 was made to fight T-72 ;) Leo 1 was made obsolete by T-72. Please note the difference between number 1 and number 2.
    1
  11.  @mwtrolle  In short there is not enough tanks to make a dent. There are only 1200 Leo 1 A5 and most cannot be taken as they would need to be replaced. Just under 200 Leo 1 A5 have been promised. Maybe next year - if Ukraine wants to fight more - another 100 can be scavenged and maybe another 100 modern tanks. For a grand total of only 200 per year - what a joke. There are no more than about 120 modern tanks promised. And they are only called "modern" as they are not ancient. Most "modern" western tanks promised are weaker than T-72BM3.
    1
  12.  @mwtrolle  Once again, Leopard 1 is Germany first post WWII tank. Its design started in 1956. The tank idea - of a glass cannon made sense in 1950 - 1960 time frame but was a road to nowhere. I.e. tank quickly became obsolete. Any T-72B and above is light years ahead of Leo 1 A5. Upgraded T-72As are also much better tanks than Leo 1 A5. I.e. we are talking about real tanks vs. glass canons. You do not understand that the design principle of Leo 1 was that at the time it was though that a lot of armor is useless given modern Heat ammo. So Leo 1 was instead build with speed and minimal armor. This proven to be a mistake. Also Leo 1 cannot pack a bigger gun. Its a nice old tank but no match for much more modern T-72. T-72 design started in 1967 - it is a whopping 11 years newer tank - when tanks tech was still moving relatively fast. The reason Leo 1 was not upgraded more is that it reached its max in 1990s or so - when it was seen as obsolete with arrival of newer versions of T-72. Germany did a test where L7 of Leo could not penetrate front of T-72. A round for T-72 on the other hand when through one Leo and through another one behind it. As for Russia and their tech - I wonder how these bastards got into space first - did they reverse engineer western tech? Or how did they build T-64A - worlds first tank with composite armor, smooth bore gun, laser range finder etc. I am sure these Soviets must have found some laser pointer somewhere ;)))) I wonder why it took these primitive British tankers a whole decade to find a laser pointer ;))) Soviet Union and now Russia is on the vanguard of technological development of tanks - i.e. they are best of the best.
    1
  13. Leopard 1 was made obsolete by T-72.... So why even compare? And this is basic T-72. Why compare to modernized T-72? This is like comparing Fiat to Ferrari.
    1
  14. LOL, yeah like wait, did Germany take Moscow or did Soviets take Berlin! Eastern tech for the win!
    1
  15. LOL! Buy German car then ;))))
    1
  16.  @Galomortalbr  You do know that T-90 is just heavily upgraded T-72, right? T-90M is a decent tank, but it is true that it is nothing special at all. It is a stop gap measure before T-14 can come online.... and given the price of T-14 we will see T-90M and upgrades for a while still.
    1
  17.  @Galomortalbr  Depends on version - T-90A has actually cast turret in many cases. Only later on they upgraded to wholly welded turret. T-90 cannot be much more armored than T-72 as weight is similar. Shape is similar etc. The turret concept is supposedly from T-80. Hull is identical to T-72.
    1
  18.  @Galomortalbr  T-90 is re-named T-72BM - only T-90A started to have a better turret. T-90 has some better sensors from T-80 than T-72BM but otherwise they are almost identical. Actual sub versions matter a LOT, for example, T-72BM3 is marginally better (when with stronger engine - even here we have differences in same general group) than T-90A in almost all situations. So when comparing T-90 and T-72, what do you mean exactly, original T-72 Ural vs. original T-90 - than definitely yes, Ural had all steel on the turret and T-90 has cavity & composites in addition to better engine, ERA, thermals etc. etc. etc. T-90 original is definitely not re-skinned T-72 original.
    1
  19.  @mwtrolle  LOL!
    1
  20. This was tested in early 1990s by Germany and it was found that Leopard 1 is no longer adequate thus it was removed from service.
    1
  21.  @mwtrolle  Still, performance wise there is no comparison, T-72BM3 gun is wastly more accurate than old L7 on Leopard 1 A5. Plus T-72BM3 is virtually invulnerable to fire from L7 from the frontal arc, while 125mm smoothbore will fly modern ammo through at least 2 Leopards front to back. Sensors same thing. This is like comparing T-55 to M1A1.
    1