Russia’s state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec has reignited the debate over the combat performance of German-made Leopard-2 tanks in Ukraine, claiming that these NATO-standard main battle tanks (MBTs) are significantly inferior to their Russian counterparts. Rostec’s remarks follow the reported destruction and capture of multiple Leopard-2 tanks on the Ukrainian battlefield — tanks once hyped as potential game-changers.
The statements were made public via TASS News Agency on May 19, 2025, after Rostec analysts allegedly examined a captured Leopard-2A6 MBT seized during frontline combat operations. According to the report, Russian battle tanks — specifically the T-72B3M, T-80BVM, and T-90M — outperformed their German counterparts in combat survivability, armor protection, and suitability for modern warfare, especially against aerial threats such as drones and precision-guided missiles.
Rostec stated, “As of today, the Russian-made T-72B3M, T-80BVM, and T-90M vehicles are the serial-produced tanks best adapted to modern warfare. They feature improved all-around protection against drones and anti-tank missile systems: from counter-HEAT [high-explosive anti-tank] screens to reactive armor elements and other add-ons.”
The defense conglomerate emphasized that Russian tanks have sustained heavy attacks across multiple theaters and have still managed to maintain battlefield presence and operational capability. By contrast, it derided the Leopard-1s as “largely inefficient” and claimed that even the more advanced Leopard-2 variants had proven to be underwhelming in actual combat.
This isn’t the first time Moscow has flaunted captured Western military equipment. Russia previously displayed a Leopard-2A6 as a war trophy at a museum in St. Petersburg — a symbolic gesture aimed at undercutting NATO military support for Ukraine.
But how much of Rostec’s rhetoric is rooted in fact, and how much is propaganda? While some evidence supports criticism of the Leopard-2’s vulnerabilities, a closer analysis reveals a more nuanced picture.
The Leopard-2 tank, especially the A4 and A6 variants, was hailed by Western analysts as one of the most formidable main battle tanks in the world. It boasts thick composite armor, a powerful 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun, and advanced optics and fire control systems. Germany’s initial reluctance to provide the tanks gave way in early 2023, when Berlin approved their transfer to Ukraine amid growing calls to support Kyiv’s counteroffensive capabilities.
However, the battlefield debut of the Leopard-2 in Ukraine was far from glorious.
According to data from Oryx, a Dutch open-source intelligence platform that verifies visual documentation of military losses, Ukraine has lost a significant number of Leopard tanks: 18 Leopard-2A5s, 26 Leopard-2A4s, and 13 Leopard-2A6s. These numbers, while alarming, are based on photo and video evidence, suggesting actual losses may be higher.
In many instances, these tanks were destroyed not in tank-on-tank duels but through unconventional and asymmetric threats — drone strikes, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), loitering munitions, and artillery.
The Leopard-2, while heavily armored on the front, has known vulnerabilities on the sides and rear. The 2A6 variant has especially thinner side and top armor, making it susceptible to modern threats like the Russian Kornet missile and FPV (First-Person View) kamikaze drones. Multiple Leopard-2A6s were destroyed due to side hits or drone strikes aimed at their thinner armor surfaces.
Another key weakness is that the Leopard-2s provided to Ukraine initially lacked Active Protection Systems (APS) — defensive technology designed to detect and neutralize incoming projectiles before they hit the tank. While Ukraine has since begun fitting some units with the Israeli-made Trophy APS, the delay gave Russia time to capitalize on these vulnerabilities.
Ukrainian soldiers have responded by improvising cope cages — makeshift metal grids — to protect against top-down drone attacks. However, these adaptations often only provide limited defense and can compromise mobility and visibility.
Despite Rostec’s celebratory tone, Russian tanks have not emerged from the war unscathed. According to the same Oryx database, Russia has lost around 200-300 T-72B3Ms, 142 T-80BVMs, and 130 T-90Ms — all of which are the very tanks Rostec lauded as superior to the Leopard-2. These losses expose the challenges posed by the modern battlefield, where both sides grapple with the rise of drone warfare, saturation artillery strikes, and portable anti-tank weapons.
Much like their Western counterparts, Russian tanks are also vulnerable from the top and rear. Ukrainian FPV drones, kamikaze UAVs, and Western-supplied ATGMs such as the Javelin and NLAW have proven devastating against Russian armor.
Thus, while Rostec’s claims highlight legitimate concerns about Leopard-2 survivability, they omit the full picture: no tank is invulnerable in today’s battlefield.
While debate over the Leopard-2’s performance continues, Ukraine is poised to receive a fresh shipment of U.S.-made M1A1 Abrams tanks, this time from Australia. Defense Minister Pat Conroy confirmed in late 2024 that 49 decommissioned M1A1s would be sent to bolster Ukraine’s armored forces.
The delivery, which required clearance from Washington due to end-user agreements, faced several bureaucratic and logistical delays. Now, in May 2025, the first batch is reportedly being loaded for transport to Europe, though exact timing and routes are being kept confidential for security reasons.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly thanked Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for the contribution, calling the tanks “a welcome reinforcement.”
But some in Washington are skeptical. One U.S. official told ABC Australia, “Even before Donald Trump returned as president, we warned the Australians that sending these Abrams tanks would be complicated. Once they get to the battlefield, the Ukrainians will find them difficult to sustain.”
The M1A1 Abrams — while battle-tested in Iraq and the Gulf War — faces its own issues in Ukraine. Its 60-ton frame, gas turbine engine, and complex electronic systems make it challenging to maintain under combat conditions.
Reports from Ukrainian crews operating American-donated M1A1s last year indicate several logistical and technical concerns:
- Condensation issues impacted sensitive electronics and fire control systems.
- Fuel consumption of the Abrams’ turbine engine is extremely high, limiting operational range.
- Lack of drone protection made the tanks sitting ducks for Russia’s growing fleet of FPV drones.
Moreover, at least one Abrams tank was captured by Russian forces and displayed as a war trophy — echoing the same symbolic treatment given to the Leopard-2.
While the M1A1s headed to Ukraine from Australia may help offset losses, many are outdated and may require refurbishment. Some could even be stripped for spare parts.
For Russia, the capture or destruction of NATO-standard tanks like the Leopard-2 or Abrams holds immense symbolic and propaganda value. State-run media has broadcast multiple segments celebrating the defeat of Western equipment. Military analyst Vyacheslav Kondrashov told Russian media in 2024 that Russian troops had foreknowledge of the Leopard’s weak spots and adapted their tactics accordingly.
“There are heavy tanks at the exhibition of trophy equipment, including the German Leopard. They were hit by our soldiers. They knew where to shoot, how to shoot,” he claimed.
Whether true or not, such narratives help reinforce domestic support for the war and aim to discredit NATO’s influence in Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine has become a brutal proving ground for 21st-century armored warfare. The traditional dominance of MBTs is being challenged by cost-effective, agile systems — particularly drones, precision artillery, and electronic warfare.
Both sides have taken significant armor losses. Both have improvised and adapted. Neither has emerged unscathed.
While Russian tanks may boast superior battlefield adaptations in some contexts — such as reactive armor or layered defenses — Western tanks like the Leopard-2 and Abrams offer advantages in crew survivability, optics, and firing accuracy.
The real difference may come down to training, logistics, and tactics — not just engineering.
Rostec’s claim that Leopard-2 tanks are “inferior” may resonate with domestic audiences and reflect real tactical lessons, but it fails to account for the complex, evolving nature of modern combat
