Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

Leo Is have very thin armor. Pretty much anything with 23mm and up firing modern APDS can kill it frontally. And its easy meat for RPGs, ATGM, and AT cluster munitions. Its basically a light tank at best, and really just a light infantry support gun mostly, something that infantry can deal with their own heavy weapons. Then there is the retraining, maintenance, and logistical headaches listed from above. And it will take months to years to get them actually in Ukraine.
160
Not really. These were crude rockets compared to today. Not any more complex or expensive to make than say, a fixed case artillery round.
31
@admontblanc None of your post is accurate.
15
Cool video. You kind of show how this kind of analysis could be broken up into to parts. Barbarosa and post-Barbarosa. Or maybe "peak German advance" vs. its recession. Many of the early losses were from entire Soviet divisions worth of armor being cut off and abandoned/surrendered. Likewise German losses accelerated as they were pushed back after '42. Also, and i did not bother to go look it up, but the total losses I believe included vehicles that were combat losses, that were later put back into service either by recovery and repair by own side, or captured and put back into service against them. So this kind of inflates the total, especially when you consider this opens the possibility that the same tank could be "destroyed" more than once.
13
Less than you would think. The captured vehicles were usually well known by the local units because of their novelty. And of course they put big stars or crosses on each. I can't recall a single case of fratricide because of the use of captured equipment. Not even the 83rd Div's "Rag-Tag Circus" where they commandeered anything that would move. Far more cases of deception operations using them not going so well...
12
Tracked vehicles are very poor at providing route security and recon. High fuel consumption and per km maintenance requirements. The Ukrainians don't just have RPGs, they have standoff ATGMs and drones dropping AT grenades that make short work of AFVs parked in static overwatch positions.
9
@davidk6269 Germany generally put the driver on the left, which meant the hull MG had to go on the right. On this mod, its high up on the superstructure. I guess because the right side was stacked with ammo. The Panzer IV/70 was supposed to have two hull MGs one on each side, but the one on the left was deleted on production. That's the only one I can think of.
7
@norbertscheibner8334 Leo IIs and M-1s are actually no better. Which is why they are currently obsolete in their current configurations against the proliferation of top attack ATGMs. They would be being destroyed as equally as T-xx tanks in the current Ukrainian environment. The Israelis learned this in '08, which is why the latest marks of Merkava and Magach carry very thick top armor.
7
@ClassicCase Its too bad they aren't using stock T72s or T-34s. Leo Is are as bad a choice as M-60s or anyone else's hand-me-downs. At this point, even Leo IIs or M-1s would be more of a liability than an asset. They won't be ready in time for this war and they won't be useful in the next one.
6
@WAJK2030 Leo 1A5 mantle is 200mm, the rest of it is less than 100. There are autocannon rounds that exceed that. But believe whatever you want.
5
@Laura-S196 M-1s are vastly more capable than Leo 1s. The problem remains, and is even worse, by the fact that those tanks are mostly in the US or prepositioned on the other side of the planet, and so once again, it would take months if not years to get them fielded where they will do any good.
5
@Kuschel_K What do you think shaped charges were first developed for?
4
@maquettemusic1623 Nothing in your post is accurate. The Leo i was designed to be a generic MBT, but in an era when the proliferation of HEAT shells and ATGMs had made armor ineffective. It was designed to be fast to be able to maneuver, not be a long range sniper. Otherwise they would have given it a 120mm gun. No, different models much less entirely different nations is not a "tank just a tank". Operating an AFV is not like driving a car. This war will be over before the paperwork for the transfer is finished, much less any training, or pushing of every. single. nut. and bolt. of supply and support for them. Stick to music.
4
This is reflected in the chart @7:50 comparing the total inventory vs what was the strength of frontline units. However, this reflect the "flux" of vehicles forward, just like a tide isn't just the water that is at the shore at the moment, but the huge mass behind it as well. It didn't matter that the average Soviet tank was only good for 1 battle, there were 10 more to replace it.
3
German industry didn't ramp up to a full war production until '43. By then the Pz IV was past its prime, and the decision to focus on Panther production and they made them as fast as possible. But they could not afford to end production of Pz. IVs and retool for something else. They had to keep modifying it to remain compeditive. It was that vital to make up losses. Pz. IV really was the vehicle Germany depended on in the late phase of the war. Had the war continued, yeah, it would have been dominated by Panthers and the other big cats. But it didn't. What your analysis shows is that German tank production and development planning was just bad compared to the US and USSR (Britain was worse).
3
@SaperPl1 It'd be a PTW premiu... oh wait. It already is.
3
@alanshackelford6450 That was from the rear where the armor is thin. Results would be much different if it from from the front and the crews weren't clueless.
3
@genericpersonx333 I don't have to argue that, they long ago decided to buy lots of wheeled AFVs for that reason. And no, the US did not roll tanks around Iraq except for on specific security missions. They bought thousands of MRAPs for that. Finances are a major concern for the politicians and generals who have to pay for them, not the soldiers. Lets see... what else is wrong about your post... Oh yeah. Do you know how hard it is for a tank to see a single person at 1km? Even in thermals? I bet you don't.
2
The HEAT was for penetrating concrete bunkers. It wasn't intended to fight tanks.
2
@davidk6269 IDK. Its possible the driver stood up and manned the MG or whomever happened to be handy. This was not the kind of vehicle that did "fire and manuver".
2
@_blitzterceptor_8648 I don't think a Leo can do 400 m/sec.
2
@1chish No be but Israelis might lend them some.
2
 @genericpersonx333 I understand your assertion just fine. You are wrong.
1
@noahway13 Tanks do more than just "blow up the enemy". Modern warfare takes combined arms to be effective, all those layers of military force, you mentioned. Otherwise you get a face plant like Russia's. The "Switchblade" is pretty much an anti-personnel drone. Likewise, humans are increasingly being taken out of the loop and all sorts of autonomous weapons are in the wings. The only reason why they haven't yet is because humans are cheap and generals are conservative.
1
@Ghostmaxi1337 The Sturmpanzer wasn't an anti-tank gun. The HEAT could attack tanks of course, but its purpose was to reduce enemy fortifications and troops. That is why it was paired with the Elefants. They provided the heavy AT fire, while the Sturms shelled the infantry.
1
@view1st They have already been trying to negotiate. Various world leaders have tried to mediate a ceasefire. However, the Russians have no interest in it as long as they think they can win and Ukraine isn't going to accept the absurd terms they demand. Imagine if you were in a gun fight in your own house with robbers and they will only leave if you agree to give them your kitchen. The Minsk agreements were appeasement and led directly to the full war that is happening today. Putin assumed the West would again do nothing in response. No, your opinion is wrong, providing arms is not an act of war.
1
@view1st You have condescending delusions. Or you are just a Russian shill.
1
@demonprinces17 Not if it has Trophy bolted on.
1
@paullakowski2509 Maybe you should have googled that before you showed how little you know?
1
@paullakowski2509 That is also wrong.
1
@TeurastajaNexus I did not write that. Try again.
1
@kurtislabelle8332 Which comment subject/sub thread are you referring to here?
1
@kurtislabelle8332 It still isn't. Ukraine doesn't need to add yet another supply and support line for a tank with limited capabilities. Not when it can get the Russians to "donate" hundreds that they already have the logistics to support.
1
@John Grigg At some point Ukraine is going to need to standardize on a type and not be a hodgepodge, live-action museum of cold war armor.
1
@HCforLife1 If you had ever been a soldier you would know that you don't have a choice, you do whatever you are told to do even if it doesn't make sense. The question here was should they expend the limited training and logistics resources of a small number of Leopard tanks vs. something else, T-XXs, Challengers, Leo2s, etc. more capable. Not Leos or nothing.
1
The Leo I is definitely an old tank.
1