LEOPARDS IN UKRAINE Another "game changer" or just a "game"

This article discusses the German-made Leopard 2 main battle tank, its technical abilities, some combat applications, and tactics with the latest combat in Southern Ukraine (Zaporozhe region).

Leopard 2, especially the latest widely deployed version Leopard 2A6, is a formidable fighting machine. By many parameters, it is considered the finest tank in the West even the US-made Abrams has more combat experience and killed the enemy armor in battle. Leopard 2 has the optimal balance between firepower, protection, and mobility. Firepower is presented with a formidable 120 mm cannon with a superior fire control system, mobility is based on a reliable diesel engine and suspension system that provides solid cross-country mobility, and protection is based on a strong basic and additional armor. The weaker side, if that can be considered as a week, is a combat weight of 62+ tons and height. There is also some issue with armor and that will be discussed in this article. Designers in Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann created a well-optimized combat platform that suits the NATO doctrine. However, there is no ideal combat machine and marketing materials and exercises often fell short in real combat situations. For example, Turkish Leopard 2A4 previously suffered combat casualties facing determined guerillas who took them with ATGMs. It is also evident that Ukraine is a proving ground for Western equipment in real combat situations, facing the well-organized and led army which is diametrically opposite to the opponents in numerous US & NATO aggressions worldwide where they faced qualitatively inferior forces and enjoyed complete air supremacy over the theater of operations.

As NATO allies scramble to collect enough combat-worthy tanks a "million dollar question" is what these steel beasts can do on the battlefield. Can they turn the tide in some well-announced spring or summer offensive and push the Russians back? The following is a short analysis of the pros and cons and the reader can draw its own conclusion.

With much pomp, Leopard 2, A4 and A6 versions were delivered to the Ukrainian army, and the Western partners provided and will continue to provide the necessary training. In Western media, especially among some “groups” this was celebrated as a game changer that will smash through the Russian lines and liberate “occupied territories”. After several months of training the first units arrived in Ukraine. It is not clear (for now) are all of those crews are Ukrainian or there are some other nationals there. The Maintenance troops are something that in the current circumstances can’t function with the supervision of the qualified staff. With this, Poland is the first on mind, then “volunteers” and contractors from other countries. It is reasonable that the countries that have Leopard 2 also provide (besides the pure training) some kind of advanced support.

Much spoken spring offensive (delayed for some time) as of the time of writing is ongoing and the Leopards were unleashed to get the first taste of blood but seems that after a few days, the situation wasn’t favorable and the fields in Zaporozhe are littered with the burning wrecks of this much prized Ukrainian asset. As military men often say “No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy” and in the Leopard 2 case that has both virtual and physical meaning.

As more and more Ukrainian brigades move in multiple directions, the story of Leopard 2 in the offensive is just the beginning.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, two versions, the A4 and the A6, are of particular interest. Let's see how Leopards 2 are composed. Leopard 2 has a well-balanced trinity of the main tank characteristics: protection, firepower, and mobility. The following photos present the layout and major components:

Technical information can be found in many places on the internet so those well-known specs will not be discussed in this article, rather presented as stated in the OEM documentation:

MLC (Military Load Class) 70 [1] Maximum acceptable weight 62.525 t Combat weight 62.525 t Combat weight without ammunition 61.5 t Specific contact pressure with combat weight 9.73 N/cm2 Empty weight with mine protection assembly 61.5 t Turret weight (combat weight) 21.4 t Turret weight (empty weight) 20.2 t Turret weight (empty weight without adaptive armor) 19.4 t [1] a system of standards used by NATO to classify the safe amount of load a surface can withstand

……. It is worth mentioning that when the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine with odd looking cope cages above the turrets (protection against NLAW and Javelin), Ukrainian and Western media mocked them up. But now, after the "introduction" on the battlefield and the first blood spilled these cope-cage designs seem that are more than needed simply because Leopards are easy prey for the top attacks.

The weight can increase by an additional 2-3 tons. That weight may create problems for the power pack and limit mobility. Everything depends on what this tank concept is with the Ukrainian army: for now, it looks like that emphasize is on the firepower and protection. For mobility, they can always use remaining Soviet-made tanks as well as some donated by NATO countries old but still good T-72 tanks of different versions.

For example, ERA and slat armor can be mounted on both A4 and A6 model frontal armor with modification of the brackets and frame and using the wedge-shaped additional protection similar to one shown in Figure 12 and 15.

As previously mentioned, Leopard 2 has impressive armor protection, the question is how this much-prized combination of basic armor, OEM additions, and in-the-theatre additions can protect it against the mighty Russian anti-armor capabilities. The bottom line is - no tank is absolutely protected!

The first real combat experience and the first blood occurred during the US/NATO occupation and war in Afghanistan. During the fighting against the Taliban, three Canadian Leopard 1 were irretrievably lost, with another 15 Canadian Leopards 1 and six Danish Leopard 2 disabled but repaired.

The first taste of the ATGM happened in December 2016 in Syria, Aleppo. Near the city of Al-Bab Turkish Leopards 2A4 were targeted with the Fagot AT systems, stolen by ISIS militants from the Syrian army depots. ISIS published photographs and videos showing the hits in the side of the hull, followed by a large flash, which could indicate the fire of the ammunition rack, followed by the ammo cook-off……

Turkey lost ten Leopard 2A4 tanks: half from the anti-tank missile systems; another one was damaged by a rocket or mortar; two were blown up by an IED and another one received damage from the AT mine. Likely, the terrorists captured one.

During the next operation against the Kurds in Syria, on 3 February 2018, the anti-tank missile destroyed the tank near the city of Afrin. The missile hit the hull's front left side (the tank's main ammo rack with 27 shells), which caused the ammo detonation.

Since 2016, the Turks lost more than a dozen Leopard-2A4 vehicles in Syria. As a product of German engineering, the Leopard 2 is considered one of the most powerful and protected tanks in the world. However, the real war dispelled the popular media myth about the invincibility of German armor. This was particularly painful because both ISIS and Kurds used old Soviet-made ATGM systems and mines.

After these debacles, analysis followed and the blame was put on the wrong tactics and lack of skilled crews meaning the lack of experience and training in handling sophisticated combat platforms. There are some merit in this but the reader shall remember that tank is not designed to “work” only in ideal field conditions. It is a workhorse to be used and abused in many different modes of operations.

Some experts commented that the tank is vulnerable and does not reflect the advertising materials and typical Western propaganda: the Achilles hill is the ammunition rack. According to them, Leopard 2 tanks have a fatal structural defect in the placement of the main part of the ammunition in the front left part of the hull, with weak protection from the sides.

In the public and media, it was pushed under the carpet. As the war in the Ukraine intensified, the need for the German panzers rolling to the east arose again. NATO accepted the Ukrainian plea and the Leopards started to role east again.

Anti-tank mine is the cheapest way to immobilize and damage the tank. Ukraine is not the first place where Leopards met mines. Previously, in Afghanistan, two Leopard 2A6 tanks were blown up by mines. The crew of one of them was able to leave the tank and the second tank after the explosion was able to drive about 200 m and only then stopped. Three tankers were wounded but were able to leave the tank while the driver was unable to get out.

When the AT mine damages the tracks, the crew can try to replace it (it is a standard exercise for any tanker) but on the battlefield that can be a big issue. Damaged tanks often need to be towed with a special armor recovery vehicle - ARVs (which are never in enough number) and those ARVs are often even bigger prizes to hunt than the tank itself.

Anti-Tank Guided Missiles are one of the most serious threats to any tank. This time it is not about the old Fagot or Concurs missiles but the modern, long-range and much more deadlier missiles in the Russian inventory.

9K121 Vikhr (Whirlwind) system with 9M127 missile is the most important anti-tank system for the airborne platform in the Russian inventory. The missile can be launched from Mi-28NM and Ka-52 helicopters as well as Su-25T/TM aircraft.…..

….. As the first Leopards 2 rolled into the battle formation and advanced toward the Russian lines, the vulnerability of the tank started to show up immediately. As the first one, tanks and accompanying IFV (predominantly US-made Bradly) were caught in the minefields and covered with artillery fire. This showed that no tank is invincible against the antitank mines. Worst for the Ukrainian side, specialized mine clearing equipment (based on the Leopard 2 chassis) was badly mauled and stuck into the minefields. Leopard 2 tanks were also hit by the Russian ATGMs launched either from the helicopters or by the Russian anti-tank groups (the Leopard hunters). In addition, Russian drones pinpointed locations of the advancing armor and relay coordinates to the artillery which covered them with fire that includes both ordinary shells and guided Krasnopol projectiles. Attacks with the loitering munition followed. According to the provided video material, several Ukrainian units and many dozens of vehicles were hit. These hits were particularly effective if the hit was on the turret top where the armor is thinnest or the side where the munition compartment is located. In one spectacular video, the turret was blown away 100 m into the air. This shows that the Leopard 2 if hit at the right spot, is destructible as any Soviet/Russian-made tank.

Ukrainians made tactical mistakes and the most obvious is that attack without air superiority against the modern army is suicidal. Also, Russians laid dense minefields at any probable direction of attack, and the size and sophistication stopped almost all Ukrainian mine-clearing vehicles. Worst for the attackers, Russians use remote minelaying launchers Zemledeliye (Земледелец - Agriculture), which can lay fast minefields in front or the rear of the attacking troops effectively blocking retreat or reinforcement.

What recently surfaced is quite unusual damage on the Leopard turret top. The optic is destroyed and the top steel plate is cracked and bent. The thickness of the armor on that particular spot is 40 mm. That is high-strength ballistic steel which is very hard to break. It appears that the crack is right by the support rib. This shows that the kinetic impact was extremely strong. Highly likely the 152 mm artillery shell hit the turret at 80-85 deg. The kinetic energy of that shell is something about 6375 KJ and the impulse is 25500 kg m/s. This is just the kinetics without the effect of the high explosive. As the turret is welded structure, welding joints can be stronger than the basic material (which is proven during the ballistic testing) but the problem can be if the reinforcement ribs are spaced at a greater distance which will definitely be…..

For many Western analysts or so-called military experts, one of the most significant aspects of the accumulating Western equipment in Ukraine is the psychological aspect (as they like to say “the world stands with Ukraine”). They also believe “the superior capabilities of the Western tanks in comparison with most Russian tanks that have been deployed in Ukraine, and the more effective Ukrainian tactics, will make a difference and bring them victory. According to them, Ukrainians already have experience, and they are arriving for a military that has been well-trained in maneuver warfare at a time when it is “clear” that the Russians are incapable of anything but frontal attacks. In particular, the ability of Leopards to stand off and fire at greater range, and superior armor in comparison with many Russian tanks may give them an edge. They also believe that the Western tanks have a better ability to operate cross-country in comparison with the lower-clearance Russian tanks and fight effectively at night. The idea embedded in the Ukrainian (or better say Western planning) is to break the Russian lines with the Western tanks and create a breach with the rest of the Ukrainian armor following the first wave. What feels most logical in this offensive is something more limited, like breaking the connection between Russian parts of the Donbas and the south”.

Western analysts already see dislocating the Russians by driving a couple of hundred kilometers through Zaporozhe and getting to the Azov Sea.

Everything looks feasible on paper and when presented on TV but many Western analysts forget that it is not the Iraqi desert, El Alamein or even tank battles on the Eastern front in WWII. This time the Western equipment are facing a modern army that knows how to fight with armor and against the armor and which also has complete air superiority.

Ukrainian tankers were trained based on Soviet doctrine. Switching to the new equipment and tactics based on the NATO doctrine will definitely leave a mark. As previously mentioned, many months and years are necessary to train the crews, both in combat duties and in maintenance duties. Ukrainian tankers are experienced T- series operators but the new equipment no matter how luxurious look like compared with the previous Soviet-made needs time that Ukraine doesn’t have.

Ukraine grouped Western tanks in small groups as the striking core of attacking units. From the first combat applications, it is evident that the Western methods were applied but there is one fatal flaw in that - western equipment is tuned to operate under air superiority which Ukraine doesn’t have and will highly likely never achieve it. This changes the equation fundamentally. Modern tanks and IFVs are blown before even engaging the enemy because Russians have air superiority and constant reconnaissance performed by drones.

Ukraine doesn't have a sufficient number of medium-range air defense systems (which are in the Soviet concept of warfare covered with the Army Air Defense) and reflected through the tracked platforms with their own fire control radars. One of that is a Buk-M1 system. Ukraine inherited a significant number of these launchers but the war attrition and losses took a toll and they are not sufficient. Western-delivered systems such as IRIS-T and NASAMS are different concepts and lack mobility meaning they are prone to Russian air attacks. SHORADS and MANPADS are still available but can't do much against combined artillery, helicopter, tactical aviation, and loitering munitions attacks. Ukrainian air force presence is sporadic and so far Russian Air Force was able to shootdown almost all airplanes and helicopters that Ukraine sent as support for the attacks on the southern front.

Russia formed mobile defense units and developed tactics which include combining air-land battles hitting Ukrainian forces behind their lines, cutting communications, and destroying ammo and fuel depots.

The idea of mobile defense in nothing new. It is well known concept and exercised on both NATO and Russian side. Russia mastered it and trained troops to do that in anticipation of the Ukrainian offensive. Conceptually, in a mobile defense a fixing force denies the adversary his freedom of action while a striking force maneuvers in order to defeat him. Commanders conducting a mobile defense use terrain, obstacles, depth and deception, together with fire and maneuver, to encourage an adversary to focus on the wrong objective. This renders the enemy vulnerable to attack. Therefore, depth, time and the ability to maneuver are particularly important factors in the conduct of mobile defence. Successful mobile defence requires rapidly switching between activities, and a readiness to concede ground where appropriate.

Mobile defense focuses on the destruction of the attacking force by permitting it to advance to a position that exposes it to counterattack and envelopment. The emphasis is on defeating the defeating rather than retaining or retaking ground. Mobile defences employ a combination of offensive, defensive and delaying action necessitating the forward deployment of relatively small forces, and the use of maneuver supported by fire and obstacles, to wrest the initiative from the attacker after he has entered the defended area. Consequently, the defending force must have mobility equal to or greater than the enemy's and the ability to form a large reserve that will conduct the decisive counterattack.

Heavily mined areas effectively rendered Ukrainian attacks useless. Mine clearing equipment is destroyed, and previously cleared paths are mined again with the use of remote mining trapping the retreat and preventing reserves to come. Russia is defending, retreating then attacking again in the first week Ukraine lost almost 30% of all Western-supplied equipment. The offensive is ongoing and time will tell where and how it will end but for now, Ukraine doesn’t have a chance to get to the first Russian defense lines, not even thinking of taking some territories…..

….. The recent Ukrainian casualties and utter humiliation of the Western equipment will serve as a rude awakening to many. How these initial attacks may affect the next one? It will be a very thorough analysis of this fiasco. The new attacks will likely be postponed until a solution is found. Ukrainian officials already stated that the offensive never started and that these attacks are just local probing of the Russian lines. It will be wrong to continue with similar tactics. For example, much prized Challenger tanks will most likely be held far from the front (which may expose them to aerial or missile attacks). Western "advisers" will create new plans and try to implement them into the combat tactics.

Regarding the armor and tank technology, German design bureaus in charge of the tank developments will try to improve the armor protection while the similar British, French, and US competitors will (after the initial "satisfaction" that the competitor equipment shows weaknesses and potential inferiority to their equipment) will do the same. The market and opportunities are there, tenders will come, and even though the market is "a small pond with a lot of crocodiles " the time for them to try to grab a portion of the market where German technology is present more than its competitors will come. Even if they are all members of the NATO club they will never miss the opportunity to take down the competition. There is one quote saying "If we are brothers, our wallets are not sisters".

Ukraine will get a new batch of tanks, older Leopard 1 (available in large numbers that will be refurbished) but also some replacement for lost Leopard 2 will come as well. The numbers are just speculation but the equipment will continue to arrive.

The question for the planners is are they going to realize that the war is not fought on the drawing boards, computer simulations, and beliefs of a certain superiority. In any case, the point of no return is crossed a while ago, and more and more Western supplies will pour into Ukraine but the outcome will be a prolonged war of attrition and it can bring a victory to one side.

Packed with NATO ( and Russian) TM’s, facts, figures, etc for the tank enthusiasts. The research is extensive, commentary impeccable.

That said, word about is the US is now reneging on the M1 “ deal”, instead deciding to send older M60’s…plausible, as the US cut many 155mm artillery systems to Ukraine, instead sending older, outclassed 105mm artillery ( confirmed by Pentagon’s aid package’s)…I do expect to see senile Joe to pull an “Afghanistan “ on his pet Ukie Nazis, sooner than later.

M1’s stacked like cordwood ( think Bradley Square) would definitely change some of the misinformed war cheerleader’s mind.

I do expect to see senile Joe to pull an “Afghanistan “ on his pet Ukie Nazis, sooner than later.

It will just be a strategic withdrawal to the Tibetan plateau, where our Great DickTater can spin some more tales of his good times with Xi Jinping.

We have seen from the Leopards and the Bradleys that current NATO vehicles have no special qualities.

And if the Challenger and Abrams are used, the result will be the same.

Same goes for NATO training and tactics.

After losing over 2000 main battle tanks over the last 16 months, tanks tactics is something I would expect the Russians to have learned at least a little about.

According to:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18WfJv1_DOlFOzvjh6iT1N8ltDvaCeWu1cPK_eaHKCR4/edit#gid=0

177,118 Soldiers/Officers lost

27,841 total armored vehicles lost

21,725 total artillery lost

This appears to be both sides.

Nice job NATO. One helluva victory you got going on there.

The Leopards (not the Tigers) are Burning.
———
Anticipated, but the world is seeing our Bradley’s, Strykers, MRAPS, Humvees, etc. burning in large quantities.

Nice job NATO. One helluva victory you got going on there.
——-
Just wait for the F-16 destruction videos, should the West decide to escalate….and yes they will, and I won’t shed any tears….the cornered animal ( West) syndrome, double down in the face of defeat, for all the world to see.

Biden’s corrupted leadership just about insures defeat. When does America wake up?

This is the first war in history where there are no embedded press on the front lines. No live reports, ever, not even independent media.

So I don’t really believe anything else being reported.

I haven’t been following the reports closely because there are so many lies from both sides that figuring out what’s going on is nearly impossible. However, the Ukes attacked without air cover? In this day and age? WTF?

Tanks have many capabilities. But it still takes only one shaped charge to give it a very bad day. Milley and the other NATO generals should be driving those tanks. And Putin’s generals need to be in the Russian ones. I’d pay to see that.

Just wait for the F-16 destruction videos, should the West decide to escalate

NATO will hastily train some pilots and throw them into a platform that is a dinosaur.

Reminds me of the Buffaloes the pilots of Midway had when facing Japanese Zeros.

NATO will eventually go all-in

Lightly-trained pilots will be more disaster.

According to that doc, Russia has destroyed 30 of the 16 HIMARs Ukraine has. It just takes from Russian MOD numbers about Ukrainian losses which are completely made up.

As far as the article, it covers the story about the Ukrainian column that got wrecked, again. That column was destroyed once. Neither it nor more more Ukrainian equipment is destroyed each time it is repeated.The Russian claims that Ukraine as lost 30% of Western equipment is problematic when Ukraine has not employed the bulk of its forces yet. Ukraine can not lose what they have not employed or Russia has not destroyed.

Ukraine has not employed the bulk of its forces yet.

Perhaps. Although a report from along the front made a comment that one of the brigades was made up of those with only 3 months of service as in they are pushing reserves into the line.

Have also heard Ukraine has ammassed 20,000 into one segment of the line.

I can't image what that kind of attack would look like over mostly open ground and mine fields into an entrenched enemy without air support.

But, that may be why we're hearing that NATO will stick troops into Ukraine after the next NATO meeting and have them serve under the Ukrainian flag.

The escalation is getting crazy.

Send in Jeremy Clarkson and his Range Rover for training support.

https://youtu.be/-wKfpPrRVIo

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.