Stats from Ukraine suggest Leopard is a superior platform
Leopard 2 vs. Abrams in Ukraine - which tank has better survivability? TL
R: Leopard 2s suffered significantly fewer irrecoverable losses in Ukrainian combat. In fact, this is difficult to dispute, as the Abrams's well-documented irrecoverable losses account for 45% of the vehicles used, while Leopard 2s account for 31%. This difference isn't due to tactical use of the vehicles or battlefield control. Analysis: 1. Sources - because the Russian LostArmour website only provides precisely located wrecks, many vehicles are unfortunately not included in the list. However, Oryx contains numerous errors - destroyed vehicles are described as damaged, double counting of the same vehicles in different stages of destruction, etc. However, a fairly balanced source is this website:
https://defense.bergter.com. However, in the table below, I compare it with the Oryx and Lostarmur, and I also verify each vehicle individually. As a result, the lower data is based on my assessment because, in my opinion, this website underestimates some of the losses. It simply adopts stricter criteria for considering a vehicle irreversible loss. 2. Vehicle deliveries: According to most sources, Ukraine received 31 M1A1SA-UKR tanks, while the Americans report 33 vehicles.
I assume this figure (33) represents the number of M1A1SA-UKR vehicles delivered to Ukraine. In the case of the Leopard 2, we're talking about a conglomeration of very different vehicles – from the obsolete Leopard 2A4s to the best tanks fighting in the war, the former Swedish Strv.122. Delivered so far: 10 Strv.122s (from Sweden), 21 Leopard 2A6s (from Germany and Portugal), 59 Leopard 2A4s (from Poland, Canada, Norway, Spain, Germany) + the first 2A4s from the Netherlands and Denmark of the promised 14 vehicles. In total, we can therefore speak of deliveries of ~98 Leopard 2 family tanks .
I should emphasize that this is almost three times as many as the Abrams tanks delivered.
Irreversible losses. M1A2SA-UKR burned and/or captured by the Russians: 15. And these are minimal irreversible losses. 45% of the Abrams tanks used in combat. The list includes more affected vehicles. According to the author, the Ukrainians did not recover about 20 Abrams tanks, i.e. ~60% of irreversible losses. Leopard 2s burned and/or captured by the Russians: 31 vehicles – these are my estimates, which significantly overestimate the numbers on the aforementioned website.
I considered any massive turret recess fire to be an irreversible loss – as did turret burn marks. As a result, it can be considered that 31% of the Leopard 2s used in combat were lost in combat (as minimal irreversible losses) . Leopard 2 losses – including the obsolete 2A4s – are significantly lower than those of the Abrams M1A1SA-UKR. It's important to remember that Leopard 2s are fighting in Ukraine three times as often as Abrams tanks.
So what could be the reasons for the lower losses of Leopard 2s than Abrams tanks?It's certainly not the nature of the fighting – Leopard 2s spearheaded the attack on Robotyne in Zaporizhzhia, and never before or since have SZU tankers been put through such a meat grinder – i.e., a deeply deployed, multi-layered anti-tank defense – from mines to Lancets, Dornys, Kornets, Krasnopole 152mm cannons, Wihr and Ataka anti-tank guided missiles, to tanks and Kabas.
The Abrams were never once put into anything like this, because what remained of the 47BZ was too smart to repeat. It's also worth remembering that the fighting in Kupiański or Kursk was conducted for Leopard 2 crews in the same way as it was for the M1 crews after Avdivka. Indeed, west of Avdivka or Kursk, tanks of both families fought together using the same tactics and under the same conditions. The globally lower Leopard 2 losses are undoubtedly partly due to the fact that the Leopard 2s controlled the battlefield in Zaporizhzhia for over two months, which allowed for the evacuation of virtually every repairable Leopard 2. As a result, irrecoverable losses will be lower beyond Zaporizhzhia. However, they will not be lower for Kursk, Kupiansk, or Avdivka. There, tanks of both families fought equally, deployed in the same conditions. The ill-fated south after Kurakhovye was similar. However, there were more Leopard 2s in combat than Abrams tanks. And yet, irrecoverable losses for Leopard 2s are lower than for Abrams tanks. This belies the myth of the "Cats" being more susceptible to losses.
What could be the technical, rather than tactical, reasons for the lower irrecoverable losses of the German-made Cats? The main reason is probably the classic diesel engine, which is less flammable than the AGT1500 turbovalve. The second is the fact that the turret has less than half the ammunition carried by the Abrams.
Yes, the Leopard 2's turret sides are less protected, but from a vehicle survivability perspective, it doesn't matter much. However, the fact that there's a target almost 60% smaller in volume in the turret recess is a fact. The M1's turret recess is simply very exposed to anything approaching from above. The Leopard 2's is too, but the highly flammable area is less than half that of the Abrams. By the way, have you seen the photos from that conflict of the Leopard 2's hulls torn apart by that terrible, unshielded ammunition rack to the left of the driver? Me neither.
There's a known case of 1 in 31 Leopard 2A4s losing their turret due to a hull magazine fire. The conclusion is that, if we're not denying reality, Leopard 2s suffered significantly fewer irreversible losses in the fighting in Ukraine. Even excluding the issue of battlefield control in the Robotyne direction (and the evacuation of damaged aircraft), in the battles near Avdivka, in Kursk, in Kupiański or after Kurakhov we are dealing with analogous combat conditions for Abrams and Leopard 2s. And yet the losses of the latter are significantly lower.
In principle, irrecoverable losses for the Abrams tanks are hard to dispute, accounting for 45% of the vehicles used, while for the Leopard 2 tanks, it's 31%. I'd also like to mention that, to avoid accusations of bias, I calculated Leopard 2 losses more accurately than for the Abrams tanks. Regarding the latter, the author of the aforementioned page estimates irrecoverable losses at 60% (in my opinion, it's at least 45% after analyzing the material). Personally,
I believe the above statistics should be the subject of (in-house) analysis by the Polish Armed Forces. It may turn out that the survivability of, for example, the K2 tank will not differ at all from the Abrams. And the survivability of, for example, the Leopard 2PL tank may be higher than both. Nevertheless, this should be verified and modeled by WITU and WITPS, especially with regard to additional vehicle protection.
defence.bergter.com
www.defenceconnect.com.au
t.me
