tanks/vehicles Experimentaleintwicklung Kampfpanzer Keiler (leo 2 EARLY, EARLY prototype)

[Results45 2,200]

6 hours ago, arczer25 said:

T-72B mod 1989 use bulging modules with is type of NERA armor (Non explosive reactive armor).

Configuration 6 (1989): 60mm RHA + 35 Bulging Module (5mm Rubber + 3mm RHA + 19mm Air Space + 3mm RHA + 5mm Rubber) + 60mm RHA + 10mm Anti-Radiation Layer + 50mm RHA (215mm Total)

 

older T-72B mod 1983/1985 used thin spaced armor module inside glaces:

Configuration 4 (1983): 60mm RHA + 15mm Air Space + 15mm HHS + 15mm Air Space + 15mm HHS + 15mm Air Space + 15mm HHS + 15mm Air Space + 50mm RHA (215mm Total)
Configuration 5 (1985): 60mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 10mm HHS + 10mm Air Space + 10mm HHS + 10mm Air Space + 20mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 20mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 50mm RHA (220mm Total)

 

mod 1985

 

More charts & illustrations:

 

.

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, arczer25 said:

Pavlov says its steel/fiberglass/steel+aluminum in turret/turret basket.

this picture that everyone uses is from his book (as in post above)

 

I don't know, Hunnicutt is also no slouch when it comes to plundering American archives. What he said about the MBT-70 still has some value, though if he's totally right Pavlov's armor layout should be discarded.

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

I don't know, Hunnicutt is also no slouch when it comes to plundering American archives. What he said about the MBT-70 still has some value, though if he's totally right Pavlov's armor layout should be discarded.

 

To be fair, Pavlov and his team are no slouches when it comes to using primary documents for their books and magazines. He's got correct armour schemes for all domestic and foreign vehicles, albeit some are simplistic (Conqueror).

[Nope 10,634]

1 minute ago, Choogleblitz said:

To be fair, Pavlov and his team are no slouches when it comes to using primary documents for their books and magazines. He's got correct armour schemes for all domestic and foreign vehicles, albeit some are simplistic (Conqueror).

 

So who is right in the end? Pavlov or Hunnicutt? Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z

[Results45 2,200]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

So who is right in the end? Pavlov or Hunnicutt? Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z

 

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

So who is right in the end? Pavlov or Hunnicutt? Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z

 

Probably both. Pretty sure Pavlov calls bull **** on that thick of fibreglass being just a radiation lining. Hunnicutt maybe forgot to mention the armour benefit of it? Who knows. Either way, Pavlov also has ammunition (with weights - no pen), and rate of fire for both manual and automatic loading for the MBT-70.

 

I have a picture of it, I'll be damned it I can find it on my imgur account though...

 

Edit: Turns out I was a potatohead and uploaded it to imgur without signing in. I'll have to dig through my personal mini-archives and get a picture of it some time. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Choogleblitz

[arczer25 5,202]

6 hours ago, Nope said:

 

So who is right in the end? Pavlov or Hunnicutt? Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z

I tell you something about Hunnicutt:

"Vehicle data sheets"

MBT-70

Turret: Cast homogeneous armor steel inner shelll overlaid with spaced high hardness homogeneous rolled armor.

Welded assembly hull: Welded assembly of rolled homogeneous armor steel plates with some steel castings and aluminium armor

 

152mm Gun-Launcher tank XM803 (later US project based on MBT-70)

Turret: Cast homogeneous armor steel inner shell overlaid with spaced high hardness homogeneous rolled armor.

Welded assembly hull: Welded assembly of rolled homogeneous armor steel plates with some steel castings and aluminium armor

 

both are the same, difference is in the vehicle description:

MBT-70: the frontal area of both the hull and turret was protected by spaced armor and provision was made for the installation of radiation shielding to archive an attenuation ratio of 20:1.

 

152mm Gun-Launcher tank XM803:

The turret on the XM803 was welded assembly combining homogeneous cast steel armor, rolled homogeneous armor, high hardness steel plate, and and alloy steel plate in a spaced armor configuration. It followed the same general arrangement as the prototype MBT-70 turrets with the tree man crew in the forward compartment separated from the automatic loader in the turret bustle by one inch bolt-in aluminum alloy bulkhead.

 

now it shows more differences:

1 MBT-70 is stated as just "spaced armor" without any info from with it was made.

2 MBT-70 got copy paste XM803 armor in "Vehicle data sheets"

3 its is only stated that XM803 followed crew arrangement and and aluminum alloy bulkhead.

Edited December 18, 2016 by arczer25

[Talks 452]

so what is the BR for this tank?

[Josh_Yong 328]

19 minutes ago, Talks said:

so what is the BR for this tank?

maybe 9.0 or 10.0 

[Talks 452]

1 hour ago, Josh_Yong said:

maybe 9.0 or 10.0 

 

 Don't even have to take part int he vote then. What is this going to do at 10.0, only used for custom battles?

[Results45 2,200]

2 hours ago, Talks said:

so what is the BR for this tank?

 

BR 9.3

 

As laid-out here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/276401-experimentaleintwicklung-kampfpanzer-keiler-leo-2-early-early-prototype/&do=findComment&comment=6585618

 

[Talks 452]

2 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

BR 9.3

 

As laid-out here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/276401-experimentaleintwicklung-kampfpanzer-keiler-leo-2-early-early-prototype/&do=findComment&comment=6585618

 

 

So 9.3 BR for this guy too?

 

[Results45 2,200]

On 12/18/2016 at 0:17 PM, Talks said:

 

So 9.3 BR for this guy too?

 

 

I'd say 8.7 for that guy (as per equivalence to the Leo 1A4, M60A3, and Type 74E/STB-2).

Edited December 26, 2016 by Results45

[Josh_Yong 328]

3 hours ago, Talks said:

 

 Don't even have to take part int he vote then. What is this going to do at 10.0, only used for custom battles?

Well if its at 10.0 That allows us to move our current T5 Coldwar BR  7.0+ vehicles up by 1 which in turn gives us room to decompress Tier 4-3 without any major system changes. Yes lower BR spread to 0.7 and adding 0.5 BR would be nice but it will take time to do, Just bumping T5 BRs up by 1 can be done quickly (A mini patch maybe?) and allow our current MBTs to match with the endgame aircraft. So that way If we get this at 10.0-10.3 (hopefully) we can get some aircraft like the F-86H or MiG 17F at 10.0 to match the super MBTs

Edited December 18, 2016 by Josh_Yong

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

well its an upgunned leopard 1, has no composite so why not. alternative you could suggest a leopard 1a6 with the 120mm rheinmetall

[Results45 2,200]

On 12/18/2016 at 0:47 PM, Josh_Yong said:

Well if its at 10.0 That allows us to move our current T5 Coldwar BR  7.0+ vehicles up by 1 which in turn gives us room to decompress Tier 4-3 without any major system changes. Yes lower BR spread to 0.7 and adding 0.5 BR would be nice but it will take time to do, Just bumping T5 BRs up by 1 can be done quickly (A mini patch maybe?) and allow our current MBTs to match with the endgame aircraft.

 

So that way If we get this at 10.0-10.3 (hopefully) we can get some aircraft like the F-86H or MiG 17F at 10.0 to match the super MBTs

 

More like MiG-17F vs. F4D Skyray vs. Scimitar vs. CL-13 Mk. 6 vs. J32 Lansen vs. Mystere IVB/Entendard IVB 

 

IMO we could also have air-to-air/air-to-surface missiles and OPish ground-attack aircraft like the A-7 Corsair II and IL-102.

[Josh_Yong 328]

^This guy knows.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

In my honest opinion, I don't think that the Kpz Keiler is NEEDED at all. The Leopard is very well capable of penetrating 99% of its enemies head on with its APDS ammunition. It does lack in post penetration damaging effects though. As we all know, calibre of munition matters along with v_0 above everything else. Spalling, fragmentation, module penetration. All those are things the Leopard 1 and A1A1 are lacking quite severely.

It is for these reasons, I do very much support the implementation of the Keiler.

Sporting a deadly 120mm RM smoothbore cannon, it solves many of those issues, bringing it up to par with the T62 we already have in-game, the T62 trading some of its stopping power and mobility for very good hull down protection.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Rohrkrepiererer
Spelling

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

120mm RM smoothbore cannon, 

The gun would be as balanced as the 125-MM.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

19 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

The gun would be as balanced as the 125-MM.

Remind me pls, what 125 do you mean?

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

Just now, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Remind me pls, what 125 do you mean?

 

The 125 found on these:

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

20 minutes ago, Choogleblitz said:

 

The 125 found on these:

Ahh, yes. See, the problem, if you can even call it a problem is this: NOTHING WOULD BE SAFE. 

However, we are already in a state, where pure armor thickness is irelevant if faced at flat angles.

Bouncing shots mostly relies on angles and auto-ricochets. Thats why you sometimes bounce off of Leopards or even ZSU 57s.

Also, balancing guns is easy. Reload rates are rarely ever set in stone.

I, for example served on the Leopard 2A4 in Austria, as we have mandatory service here. And the loading times can go from 2,5s all the way up to 10-12,5s, depending on from where you pull the shell, or if you unexpectedly need to switch to MZ.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Rohrkrepiererer
Spelling

[Results45 2,200]

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

In my honest opinion, I don't think that the Kpz Keiler is NEEDED at all. The Leopard is very well capable of penetrating 99% of its enemies head on with its APDS ammunition. It does lack in post penetration damaging effects though. As we all know, calibre of munition matters along with v_0 above everything else. Spalling, fragmentation, module penetration. All those are things the Leopard 1 and A1A1 are lacking quite severely.

 

It is for these reasons, I do very much support the implementation of the Keiler.

 

 

Sporting a deadly 120mm RM smoothbore cannon, it solves many of those issues, bringing it up to par with the T62 we already have in-game, the T62 trading some of its stopping power and mobility for very good hull down protection.

 

If you're making a direct comparison between the RM-120 of the Kpz-Keiler and the T-62's 115mm 2A20, here are some values:

 

T-62/T-62 mod.1975/T-64

• Gun: 2A20/2A21 115mm smoothbore
• RoF: 10rpm (6 sec. reload)
• 115mm 3BM13 APFSDS (penetraion: 436mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 115mm 3BK4/125mm 3BK7M HEAT-FS (penetraion: 440mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• 115mm AT-12/9M117 "Bastion" ATGMs (penetraion: 600-700mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)

 

T-64A/T-64B

• 2A46 125mm smoothbore (T-64A & T-64B)
• RoF: 10rpm (6 sec. reload)
• 125mm 3BK14 HEAT-FS (penetraion: ???mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• 125mm 3BM17 APFSDS (penetraion: 500mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 125mm 3BM19/BM20 APFSDS (penetraion: 650mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 125mm AT-8/9K112M "Kobra" ATGMs(penetration: 720mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)

 

M60A3/M60AX/Leo 1A4/AMX-30B/Type 74E

• Gun: L7 105mm rifled
• M456A2 HEAT-T (penetration: 432mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• M735/M774 APFSDS-T (penetration: 340-385mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m))
• OCC 105F1 HEAT-T (penetration 360mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• U-I APFSDS (penetration: 460mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-23/23A1 APFSDS-T (370-425mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• H6/62 APFSDS (penetration: ???mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L35 HESH  (penetration: ???mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm

 

Chieftain Mk. 5/Chieftain Mk.10/Leopard 1A6/Kpz-Keiler

• Gun: L11A5 120mm rifled
• RM-120 120mm smoothbore
• L15 APDS (penetration: 379mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L23 APFSDS (penetration: 355mm+ RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L26 APFSDS (penetration: 450mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L27 APFSDS (penetration: 700mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L37 APFSDS (penetration: 150mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• DM-12 HEAT-T (penetration: 583mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-13/23 APFSDS-T (penetration: 380mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-33 APFSDS-T (penetration: 550mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-43/43A1 APFSDS-T (penetration: 560mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/120ammo.htm

 

Kpz-70

• Speed: 72km/h
• Frontal-turret (RHAe): ???
• Frontal-upper glacis: ???
• Frontal-lower glacis: ???
• Gun: XM150E5 152mm smoothbore
• RoF: 10rpm (6 sec. reload)
• XM578E1: too OP
• M409A1/M625A1 HEAT-T (penetraion: 754mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 152mm MGM-51 ATGMs (penetraion: 431mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)

 

As shown in both caliber and penetration, the Rheinmetall 120mm gun is better compared against the 125mm 2A46 of the T-64/72.

 

Hope this helps! 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Results45

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

2 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

If you're making a direct comparison between the RM-120 of the Kpz-Keiler and the T-62's 115mm 2A20, here are some values:

 

T-62/T-62 mod.1975/T-64

• Gun: 2A20/2A21 115mm smoothbore
• RoF: 10rpm (6 sec. reload)
• 115mm 3BM13 APFSDS (penetraion: 436mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 115mm 3BK4/125mm 3BK7M HEAT-FS (penetraion: 440mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• 115mm AT-12/9M117 "Bastion" ATGMs (penetraion: 600-700mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)

 

T-64A/T-64B

• 2A46 125mm smoothbore (T-64A & T-64B)
• RoF: 10rpm (6 sec. reload)
• 125mm 3BK14 HEAT-FS (penetraion: ???mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• 125mm 3BM17 APFSDS (penetraion: 500mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 125mm 3BM19/BM20 APFSDS (penetraion: 650mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 125mm AT-8/9K112M "Kobra" ATGMs(penetration: 720mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)

 

M60A3/M60AX/Leo 1A4/AMX-30B/Type 74E

• Gun: L7 105mm rifled
• M456A2 HEAT-T (penetration: 432mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• M735/M774 APFSDS-T (penetration: 340-385mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m))
• OCC 105F1 HEAT-T (penetration 360mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• U-I APFSDS (penetration: 460mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-23/23A1 APFSDS-T (370-425mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• H6/62 APFSDS (penetration: ???mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L35 HESH  (penetration: ???mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm

 

Chieftain Mk. 5/Chieftain Mk.10/Leopard 1A6/Kpz-Keiler

• Gun: L11A5 120mm rifled
• RM-120 120mm rifled
• L15 APDS (penetration: 379mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L23 APFSDS (penetration: 355mm+ RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L26 APFSDS (penetration: 450mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• L27 APFSDS (penetration: 700mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-12 HEAT-T (penetration: 583mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-13/23 APFSDS-T (penetration: 380mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-33 APFSDS-T (penetration: 550mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-43/43A1 APFSDS-T (penetration: 560mm @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/120ammo.htm

 

Kpz-70

• Speed: 72km/h
• Frontal-turret (RHAe): ???
• Frontal-upper glacis: ???
• Frontal-lower glacis: ???
• Gun: XM150E5 152mm smoothbore
• RoF: 10rpm (6 sec. reload)
• XM578E1: too OP
• M409A1/M625A1 HEAT-T (penetraion: 754mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• 152mm MGM-51 ATGMs (penetraion: 431mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ all ranges)

Hope this helps! 

Neat little chart you have there

[Results45 2,200]

1 hour ago, Choogleblitz said:

 

The 125 found on these:

 

Do you happen to have any info on the upper/lower frontal glacis, top, side, rear, and turret RHAe protection of the T-64/64A/64B, T-72/72A/72B, and Kpz-70?

Edited December 27, 2016 by Results45