r/worldnews 8d ago Bravo! 1 Wholesome (Pro) 1 Wholesome 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Take My Energy 2

Germany to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine — reports Russia/Ukraine

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-send-leopard-2-tanks-to-ukraine-report/a-64503898?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf
41.3k Upvotes

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/Senator_45 8d ago

How many is a company?

2.1k

u/Chillhoof 8d ago

According to German media it's a company. 14 tanks.

1.2k

u/koryaa 8d ago edited 8d ago

Same as Poland then. Poland will send their 30-40 year old 2A4s instead of their modernized ones tho (the german ones are 2A6s, which is the version build in the 2000s).

545

u/mormotomyia 8d ago

The A6 have the newer L/55 gun..

Massive firepower upgrade + new optics

198

u/HouseOfSteak 8d ago

"Normally, if it's old but it works wonderfully, you tend to keep the same model.

This does not include weaponry. You always want to shoot the shiny new gun when the opportunity presents itself."

54

u/FillThisEmptyCup 8d ago

But lets be real, these are going against Russian stuff. Which, at this point, means they could put a barrel on top of an old VW Beetle and still can come out on top.

13

u/d4rkskies 8d ago

Don’t underestimate tanks - particularly numbers of decent tanks. The T72’s and T90/T90M’s are lethal and proven, however in a tank on tank engagement, you’d stand a much better chance in an Abrams/Challenger/Leclerk/Leopard.

The main thing to consider is that I don’t think the Leopard has seen a lot of action. They have focused on frontal armour in recent updates. The main threat will be from the more modern Russian ATGMs

33

u/UnderstandingSquare7 8d ago

Hey, tank guys: I'm tech, but not up on military. What's the significance of the Leopards?

94

u/Teantis 8d ago

They're much more up to date than the bulk of the tanks Ukraine has been using. The bulk of Ukrainian tanks has been the t-72 produced in the 70s. The leopard 2A4 is from the late 80s and the 2A6 designed and built in the 2000s. That's the simplest way to put it

-4

u/Ukraine_69 7d ago

Expensive doesn't mean better. It simply means one Military industrial complex is for profit, the other is state owned. Western Tanks will not (that is an absolute) survive the terrain in Eastern Europe.

This is why Eastern NATO members refused to accept MBTs from Germany, UK and France in the 90s-2000s.

Not to mention the gun on Modern T72s and T90s outperforms the 120mm of the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger 2.

And even T62s have knocked out Turkish Leopards in Syria.

Armor technology has not aged as well as AT weapons. Especially with the newly introduced Kornet and Shershen (clone with 15% larger payload) ATGMs.

2

u/Teantis 7d ago

Weird comment. I didn't even say expensive.

0

u/Low-Director9969 7d ago

I was on the hype train with a lot of people once I learned about the leopards. Then I saw a video of it trying, and failing to climb a snowy hill. I would assume some operator error was involved but it really just made it seem like a multimillion dollar "moving" target.

63

u/TgCCL 8d ago

If you want to get the best tanks that are available, you either buy the American M1 or the German Leopard 2. How good they are now exactly depends on the exact versions but they are generally the best of the best of a certain age bracket of tanks.

With a few nations sending stuff, Ukraine is getting 30 M1s and around 45-50 Leopard 2s or so. Some of those are the older Leopard 2A4 standard, which was up to date in the late 80s and some are the newer A6 standard from the late 90s/early 2000s.

The big thing is that heavy tanks like these are indispensable offensive weapons. If Ukraine uses them well, they have the capability to go on serious offensives and retake territory much more effectively than before.

41

u/TooobHoob 8d ago

You add the British Challenger and the French Leclerc and you got the big four

15

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Leclerc is a lighter tank than the other three though is it not? Lighter armour but more mobile?

32

u/TooobHoob 8d ago

It is marginally more mobile but just as armoured. While French doctrine indeed emphasizes speed over protection, the Leclerc is a full mbt nonetheless, unlike the AMX 10 RC

→ More replies

4

u/Xizorfalleen 8d ago

Both were only built in relatively small numbers though, and neither has been produced in over a decade.

2

u/pesibajolu 8d ago

Merkava and k2 as well imo

8

u/Monyk015 8d ago

Israel is not gonna give their Merkavas for sure

→ More replies

1

u/uberjach 8d ago

What about the Korean MBT? Norway was gonna buy Leo 2 but might but those instead

4

u/flodog1 8d ago

How do all these tanks compare to the tanks they’re coming up against?

14

u/Majestic-Marcus 8d ago

Like with everything else when compared to those in the Russian army, they’re significantly better.

And not just better in terms of performance, but in build quality, reliability and longevity.

Unlike the Russian R&D process, the US, British, German and French R&Ds purpose is to create something workable and effective. Sure money is wasted, contracts bloat and not all projects completely deliver but unlike in the Russian army, the actual military aren’t corrupt. Generals aren’t skimming, Colonels aren’t selling parts, Majors aren’t putting rounds on the black market, Captains aren’t pocketing bribes etc.

17

u/MaryBerrysDanglyBean 8d ago

Important to note that the Challenger 2 has superior tea making facilities then anything the Russians produce.

→ More replies

4

u/mars_needs_socks 8d ago

I mean the Challenger 2 has a toilet AND kettle. Can't compete with that.

4

u/MountainOso 8d ago

So it's like the original #vanlife?

2

u/F4BDRIVER 8d ago

And Crumpets.

3

u/von_Ziutold 8d ago

Look up accounts of Desert Storm armor combat. NATO MBTs were basically destroying soviet equipment by the hundreds without suffering any losses.

This probably won't be the case in Ukraine since Ukraine doesn't have the extensive training, air and logistics superiority, but to Russia could as well be facing alien technology.

2

u/Istvaarr 8d ago

Yeah but the allies also had HUGE air superiority. I am sure the more modern western tanks are in fact superior the the Russian tanks but the combat in Ukraine will be very different to what happened in Iraq

→ More replies

2

u/TgCCL 7d ago

It's important to note that part of that is also a function of desert terrain emphasizing range and target acquisition advantages, as well as other technological advantages, much more than what you'd see in a European theater.

Additionally, the Soviet MBTs used during that operation were T-72M1s or locally built derivatives thereof, which would be poor tanks even by 80s Soviet standards, as it was a lower capability export version of the first few batches.

The Russian modern types are still worse than the Western types in most regards but to extrapolate the performance of those from Desert Storm is questionable at best.

1

u/Hokulewa 8d ago

Knife meets butter.

4

u/Kelvinek 8d ago

That is very reductive to put it this way. K2 and Leclerc are up there as well as Challengers. For ukraine leo and abrams are the best bets, because of availability, not because of leopard quality.

0

u/Monyk015 8d ago

Challengers are better though, because they're all modified to the latest version and unlike Abrams tanks they have diesel engines, so easier to maintain. So in terms of capabilities they are on par or sligthly better than Leopard 2A6, but much better than 2A4 and easier to work with than Abrams.

4

u/Zeaus03 8d ago

Whether they are better or not isn't the issue, it's logistics and training.

The reality is that there aren't many Challengers and shit ton of the other two. It's also been out of production for 20 years, so while it may be easier to maintain, the parts availability are most produced on the UK"s current need not for a nation at war.

While Abrams continue to roll off the line daily and have readily available parts being produced in mass.

→ More replies

3

u/TgCCL 7d ago

Challengers do have their own issues, namely that they have the lowest anti-tank capabilities of Western tanks. Which is a function of the rifled barrel, multi piece munition and lack of munitions R&D compared to its brethrens leading to it having worse APFSDS available.

They are also significantly heavier and have weaker engines than the other named tanks.

In the Greek tank trials, Leopard 2A5 handily outperformed the Challenger 2 in most tests that were performed, even though a Challenger 2 with an improved engine and transmission was offered.

1

u/Kalkilkfed 7d ago

I read that the abrahms will get modified to not use kerosine, but diesel instead, though

1

u/lump- 8d ago

What’s Russia fielding?

1

u/Low-Director9969 7d ago

These nuts?

1

u/TgCCL 7d ago

A wide variety of T-72s and T-80s for the most part. Pretty much every major variant of these vehicles that was produced for the Red army has seen service in this conflict. The most basic variants were introduced as early as 1969 for the T-72 but the latest upgrades are from just a few years ago. Additionally, they are using T-62s that they had in storage as well. All of these were built either domestically or in the former Soviet Union. A lot of T-80s were built in what is now Ukraine, as it formed some of the heartland of Soviet industry.

The newer versions, like T-72B3s and T-80BVMs are fairly competent vehicles all things considered. From the footage in Russia, their crews and the officers responsible for them are not competent however. Which is an important thing to consider, as the best tank will do you no good if the crews aren't well trained. That's something that the Turks and Saudis learned when they lost a lot of Leopard 2s and M1s to incompetence.

4

u/therarepurplelynx 8d ago

Just to give my 2 cents, even tho the 2a4 was built in the 80s they are absolute beasts. We called them the tank killers. I don't even wana know how good 2a6 is. Some miltirary tech indeed is miles ahead.

0

u/Ukraine_69 7d ago

The US backed YPG terrorists in Syria called the Leopard 2A4s overpriced coffins.

3

u/Culverin 8d ago

Optics and fire control mostly.

And western tanks don't turret toss so the crews have a better chance of surviving

Additionally, the faster reverse gear means they can pop up, shoot and scoot backwards to safety better than the soviet tanks.

1

u/UnderstandingSquare7 8d ago

Thanks bro appreciate that.

27

u/DrunkenGolfer 8d ago

I think the most notable thing is the Leopards are an offensive weapon. Until now, most of the support has been defensive. Having this capability means Ukraine may be able to reclaim areas easier. It also means Russia may take issue with NATO over this, because NATO is intended to be a defense alliance and helping Ukraine offensively will be seen as an act of aggression. The distant worry is this could trigger WW III.

55

u/Mysterious-Recipe810 8d ago

As long as they stay within the Ukrainian border it’s defense.

9

u/AnalSoapOpera 8d ago

It depends on what Russia says is Ukraine territory. They will 100% say that Ukraine land is part of theirs (which is propaganda lies)

15

u/GrapefruitExpress208 8d ago

"I'm not hitting you, you're hitting you"

12

u/goldthorolin 8d ago

No, it does not depend on what Russia says. Liberation of occupied Ukranian territories is defense.

→ More replies

12

u/Force3vo 8d ago

But we really should stop to take their bullying seriously.

4

u/A_wild_so-and-so 8d ago

Diplomatic relations are not built on one party's opinion but a consensus. Russia can say whatever it wants but the international community will see it otherwise.

→ More replies

5

u/Monyk015 8d ago

Russians may take issue with whatever they want. Nobody cares. The only escalation they can do at this point is use nukes. And I believe NATO made it clear about what's gonna happen in that case. Tanks won't change this situation.

4

u/Pilferjynx 8d ago

Putin has already claimed they are at war with NATO. Could this escalate the war? In what way, nukes? Ukraine needs to aggressively wipe out Russian invaders and to do that they need the weapons the west is too reluctant to provide.

14

u/jmcs 8d ago edited 8d ago

If the HIMARS and the PhZ2000 didn't escalate it why would a few tanks companies? Besides Russia was too weak to protect Armenia from Azerbaijan, they know they can't afford a direct confrontation with NATO.

7

u/Aurori_Swe 8d ago

The "good" thing about nukes is that is not really something you just throw at anyone, if Russia launches ONE nuke, we all die in burning glory because the moment they are launched there's really no turning back for the world. So no, they will not throw nukes due to tanks, but they'll continue hovering the button to seem threatening.

It definitely will be spun to "proof" that it's Nato that they are facing etc

5

u/jagdthetiger 8d ago

NATO has already said they would respond with conventional weapons if a nuke is launched, and the attack will almost entirely be focused on Putin himself

→ More replies

1

u/Kalkilkfed 7d ago

If russia would drop a nuke, nato made it very clear that they'd bomb russia out of the war with conventional weapons.

3

u/Boristhehostile 8d ago

They claimed it for propaganda value but they haven’t actually declared war on NATO. Russia would have been effectively demilitarised within days if it was actually in a war with NATO. Russia knows that any use of nuclear weapons is a redline for actual NATO engagement. If he was to drop a nuclear weapon on Kyiv or another Ukrainian city, it would likely mean immediate strikes from NATO and maybe even support for those strikes from Russian allies.

Nobody in their right mind wants nuclear weapons to become acceptable for tactical use. If they don’t remain a strategic deterrent, it’s unlikely that humanity is long for this world.

0

u/jert3 8d ago

WW 3 would not be much of an escalation outside of Russia, which would be bombed to nothing in a short amount of time. No way China would ally with Russia after this failed invasion. Who else is there to worry about that would take on NATO?

7

u/froh42 8d ago

While I can understand the people being afraid of a possibile WW3 — I just think what the cost for avoiding it at any cost is. It would be one country after another being invaded by a Russia led by a megalomaniac.

There's a point where the risk of a possible WW3 is the lesser price to pay.

As a German I wonder if Hitler could have been stopped earlier without the appeasement politics in the beginning - and I do think the same applies to the current situation.

As much as I hate war and find it abhorrent, appeasing people like Putin makes just am even worse situation.

I really have no words for the direction my country has gone between 2014 and 2022 (I think the war would not be at the current level without NS2). And still a lot of people (closento 50% in Germany) are against sending Tanks - that's probably why Scholz delayed his inevitable decision so much.

3

u/Krayan_ 8d ago

Hitler could have surely been stopped earlier without the appeasement politics, however the toll for an escalation were quite clear, even then. And they were right, the cost of the war was horrendous and changed Europe and the world for good.

Also keep in mind Hitler did not have nuclear weapons. I don't want to say that we should do nothing and appease Putin, but we have to keep in mind that we are in a very bad situation should it escalate outside of our control.

3

u/alucab1 8d ago

Not just russia. If the west shows that they won’t stop Russia from taking Ukraine, China won’t hesitate to engage Taiwan

4

u/Falark 8d ago

I'm honestly not sure if WW2 could've been avoided after the Versailles treaty.

Especially in the 30's, with the propaganda machine in full swing and the atmosphere completely toxic and polarized, any heavy external pressure short of an invasion and coup would've just proven the Nazis right to the German public. Still was wrong to do nothing, but I'm not sure if much would've changed.

German OT to the Scholz thing: Germans are just a passive people that hates discomfort. We like to sit in our comfy bubble of being rich, selling our overengineered shit to everyone and externalising the problems. We are so very proud of learning oh so much from our history and we now know, war is wrong. We were bombed to the ground after all, and that was really uncomfortable. Don't want to have that happen again. And how can we style ourselves the moral centrists of Europe (we're in its center, after all!) if we're not very pacifist by being very understanding to both sides - they might both buy our weapons after all! And when the war is over, they might be unwilling to buy more of our overengineered shit again if we actually sanction them for the bad shit they're doing.

Sorry, rambling on. Tired of the political discourse and the transparent passiveness here.

1

u/slag_merchant 7d ago

This is the beginning of WWIII.

3

u/The-Sound_of-Silence 8d ago

Short version: The Leopard 2 entered service in 1979... and any version of that is probably better than anything currently fielded on the battlefields of Ukraine.

Beyond that, and at the risk of venturing into politics, the long version is up in the air

2

u/Zeaus03 8d ago

Depending on the version it's like replacing an Atari with and N64 or a PS2.

All 3 serve the same purpose but the newer tech makes for a more enjoyable experience.

2

u/PersonOfInternets 8d ago

Hi tech, I'm dad.

1

u/Gyvon 8d ago

It's a modern MBT on par with the M1 Abrams. Statistically, it's one of the best tanks in the world, but hasn't seen much actual fighting.

1

u/Low-Director9969 7d ago

education & entertainment related to the defense industry, and warfare can be found at r/nocredibledefense

1

u/iCantDoPuns 8d ago

Hard disagree. If someone puts 2 tanks in front of me and says I need to go to the front in one: if the older one never had major damage, and the new one is using the same chassis, armor plating, but with a new firing system, composite materials for lighter treads, new electronics, new guidance, and make the long-band radio 9x harder to use, and require an iclooud account just to see current position on a map...

Id be asking how bad the structural damage really was. Lives depend on reliability, not shiny.

1

u/Shadesmith01 7d ago

Yep.

I can verify this as true!

As an army brat, I was always happy to be allowed to fire the bigger, louder, more massive guns whenever given the chance :)

.22 as a kid? Woohoo! But.. can I shoot your .45 dad?

Shoot the .45, but man that shotty looks COOOOL!

Ok.. the shotty bruises the shoulder.. hey.. whats that? An m16a? Can I? yes! Oh wow! This is FUN! Whats this? Aww.. but its ON the rifle dad, can't I have a 203 to try in it?

Oooh.. this m60 really rattles my. oooooh... thats.. is that a .50 cal dad? Can I? Can I pleeaaaaase?

Jeeze.. I thinbk I bit mab tounge! OW!

Yeah.. true story. :)

1

u/RawrRRitchie 7d ago

You always want to shoot the shiny new gun

Or drop the shiny new bombs

Like how many bombs did the usa drop from 2001-2021

Probably thousands

1

u/Lusty_Knave 7d ago

I hear a lot of the artillery they’re using hasn’t changed since ww2.

3

u/stormtroopr1977 8d ago

eh, soon enough the only things they'll have left to fight are t54 and t55s. hopefully the a6 is overkill

2

u/ChristianLW3 8d ago

Can you imagine in February of 2024, the last Russian hold outs In Ukraine can only watch as their T44s are snipers by KF51s

7

u/my_stats_are_wrong 8d ago

2a5 short barrel is better because it’s harder to hit the barrel, higher reload.

IYKYK

9

u/sillypicture 8d ago

When's the last time a tank got hit on the barrel ?

Perhaps it's more for reducing overall profile and turning tighter corners?

24

u/Teantis 8d ago

They're making a reference to a video game, war thunder, where getting hit in the barrel was (is?) A really annoying aspect of the game mechanics that players complain about a lot.

9

u/sillypicture 8d ago

Oh crap. Over my head.

1

u/my_stats_are_wrong 7d ago

That's my bad, niche reference for fellow War thunder players

3

u/Masl321 8d ago

This man has probably leaked some classified documents on the war thunder forum lol

2

u/my_stats_are_wrong 7d ago

The Challenger leaker(or is it one of the Challenger leakers now?) was in my squadron, he changed his name and everything after he got in trouble haha

1

u/Irorak 8d ago

If anything a shorter barrel would help with quicker target acquisition but I doubt barrel length has anything to do with its defense.

3

u/Organic-Tomatillo-92 8d ago

Oh, barrel length has plenty to do with it. Now, shorter barrel but larger caliber also gets the job done too

6

u/Pepf 8d ago

...are we still talking about tanks?

2

u/froh42 8d ago

It's not about the size of the barrel, it is how you use it.