The observer notes that the Ukrainian army in Denmark received training with Leopard 1A5 tanks that had previously been preserved as museum pieces. This account comes from Forbes contributor David Ex.
According to the observer, six tanks were borrowed by the Danish army from three different museums. A significant share of the Leopard 1A5 units originated with the German company Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft. These machines had spent nearly twenty years out of service and were stored away for refurbishment before any potential use. The situation raises questions about whether repurposing surplus vehicles as ready assets for training and redeployment is logistically sound or strategically wise. The observer suggests that bringing these aging platforms back to life would involve more than a simple engine start; it would require a careful program to inspect, repair, and rehabilitate components that have stagnated for almost two decades.
Another consideration highlighted is the idea of using surplus tanks as collateral in support of Ukraine. The observer points out that such a move would not only provide a symbolic gesture of support but also help accelerate the process of getting old battle machines back into usable condition. That said, the practical challenge remains: can tanks that have sat idle for 19 years be conditioned for reliable operation in a high-pressure training and combat environment? The emphasis is on the feasibility of training crews to operate these platforms effectively, ensuring that the transition from storage to live use does not compromise safety or combat readiness.
Earlier statements from aviation leadership added another layer to the discussion. Major General of Aviation and Hero of Russia Sergey Lipovoy remarked that the British Challenger tanks and the German Leopards faced vulnerabilities when confronted with Soviet anti-tank weapons such as Kornet, RPG-7, and the Bassoon launcher. Those remarks underscore a broader debate about how older generation armor stacks up against modern anti-tank systems and the implications for any plan to field legacy platforms in contemporary operations. The assessment, coming from a high-ranking official, invites scrutiny of whether continued modernization or complete replacement is the wiser path for allied forces seeking to sustain capability parity on today’s battlefield.
On the Czech front, a retired General of the Czech Army offered his own critique of Ukraine’s counteroffensive strategy. The financier of the critique centers on the operational decisions and tactical execution rather than the hardware alone. The general’s analysis emphasizes that effective combat outcomes rest as much on doctrine, logistics, and unit cohesion as on the particular mix of tanks involved. Taken together, the various assessments paint a nuanced picture: while hardware — including Leopard 1A5s and Challenger models — plays a visible role, the broader question remains how best to integrate aging equipment into a coherent, modernized military effort without overreliance on platforms whose performance is uncertain after long storage. In this context, the conversation turns toward how training programs and maintenance pipelines can bridge the gap between historical asset inventories and current battlefield demands. The overarching theme is clear enough: readiness depends not only on hardware but also on the care invested in training, upkeep, and strategic planning. These are the elements that ultimately determine whether older tanks can contribute meaningfully to a broader defense posture or whether resources should be redirected toward newer systems and established supply chains. The discussion continues to evolve as experts weigh the costs, risks, and potential benefits of reactivating stored equipment for present-day needs and future contingencies.