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

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours 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 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! 

 

All of these APFSDS values are completely false. The Russian ones may be under a different criteria (a rather shady one at that), but none of the other APFSDS values follow any known standard other than coming from a tabletop game. And the M409 certainly does not penetrate that much.

[Results45 2,200]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

All of these APFSDS values are completely false. The Russian ones may be under a different criteria (a rather shady one at that), but none of the other APFSDS values follow any known standard other than coming from a tabletop game. And the M409 certainly does not penetrate that much.

 

Given the lack of credible sources on 105 & 120mm ammo (save for ingame values, US FM 100-65, and Choogle's info on the MBT-70), I wouldn't be surprised if all the values I listed are off give or take 50mm.  

 

The numbers given on that echo501.tripod site were the only ones concrete enough to rely on with a grain of salt and will remain so until penetration values from better sources are found.

 

You got any such sources?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Results45

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

Given the lack of credible sources on 105 & 120mm ammo (save for ingame values, US FM 100-65, and Choogle's info on the MBT-70), I wouldn't be surprised if all the values I listed are off give or take 50mm.  

 

The numbers given on that echo501.tripod site were the only ones concrete enough to rely on with a grain of salt and will remain so until penetration values from better sources are found.

 

You got any such sources?

 

I tend to use the Lanz-Odermatt equation as I constantly have stated:

 

http://longrods.ch/

 

If you do use the calculator, remember that penetration values for a specific angle need to be multiplied by the cosine of said angle. Yes it doesn't follow LoS, but it makes more sense. For penetrator lengths I tend to measure these myself through scale measurement or rely on Kotsch's website. Don't take his M829A3 penetrator length though. That there is completely false ever since someone found Alliant Techsystems' M829A3 patent.

 

 

However, this only works on monobloc penetrators. For M735 or something, Willi Odermatt has this download link with pdfs detailing his work and he has a chart for that kind of APFSDS. For 3BM-15 to before 3BM-32 (3BM-32 is the first 125mm monobloc penetrator in active service made by the USSR), you're on your own as these don't follow any known penetration formula as they are essentially a hybrid between steel APFSDS and APCR as the Russians couldn't manufacture such long tungsten penetrators (ask Choogle about this idk). 115mm BM-21 is not monobloc either last I checked.

 

Oh, and once you use the Lanz-Odermatt equation, discard any other armor values you may find for non-RHA as they come from Lakowski's long outdated book Armor Basics. Penetration against composites is a super difficult thing to calculate, as not only is the interaction between penetrator and armor already difficult to estimate, but even if you find a value you could have differences between jacketed and unjacketed penetrators, as one type could penetrate one specific type of composite better than the other. And then angles don't work normally.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Nope

[kev2go 5,112]

no. german top tier is  more than competitive enough with 2 Leo1's,  and  with thier Agtm vehicles.many here say a leo played right is the best tank overall i nthe game in tier 5 meta, due to its speed and great reload speed. SO i dont see why any Leo2 protypes ( or any additional production leo 1 tanks) are nessasry considering what other nations have in current top tier.

[WulfPack 1,693]

18 hours ago, Nope said:

 

All of these APFSDS values are completely false. The Russian ones may be under a different criteria (a rather shady one at that), but none of the other APFSDS values follow any known standard other than coming from a tabletop game. And the M409 certainly does not penetrate that much.

IIRC, you multiply the Russian penetration by 1.2 and you'll get a penetration you can compare to western numbers.

[Nope 10,634]

Just now, WulfPack said:

IIRC, you multiply the Russian penetration by 1.2 and you'll get a penetration you can compare to western numbers.

 

No, you multiply by a number inferior to 1 should you want Lanz-Odermatt standard. Or if calculating 3BM-32 and above, you might as well use the Lanz-Odermatt equation anyway. If calculating steel APFSDS penetration, use the Lanz-Odermatt equation.

[WulfPack 1,693]

3 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

No, you multiply by a number inferior to 1 should you want Lanz-Odermatt standard. Or if calculating 3BM-32 and above, you might as well use the Lanz-Odermatt equation anyway. If calculating steel APFSDS penetration, use the Lanz-Odermatt equation.

I was unaware of that.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Now let's not get bogged down, with oooo's got the better gun.

Fact is, that the implementation of this vehicle, wouldn't break anything, and it opens up gates to newer, better, more exciting vehicles to command in War Thunder. Besides, it is a very interesting vehicle and a very well fitting stepping stone for future "things"...

[WulfPack 1,693]

6 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Now let's not get bogged down, with oooo's got the better gun.

Fact is, that the implementation of this vehicle, wouldn't break anything, and it opens up gates to newer, better, more exciting vehicles to command in War Thunder. Besides, it is a very interesting vehicle and a very well fitting stepping stone for future "things"...

It would "just" give Germany an even stronger MBT.

[Nope 10,634]

5 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Now let's not get bogged down, with oooo's got the better gun.

Fact is, that the implementation of this vehicle, wouldn't break anything, and it opens up gates to newer, better, more exciting vehicles to command in War Thunder. Besides, it is a very interesting vehicle and a very well fitting stepping stone for future "things"...

 

If it's a stepping stone, then it is a horrible one. Aside from being so much more mobile than even a light tank and thus breaking the meta even more by giving no chance for said meta to recover, we'd have to go well into the T-80 for the tank to be even remotely balanced. Against a T-64 it is pure overkill. Even against a T-72A it is overkill.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

28 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

If it's a stepping stone, then it is a horrible one. Aside from being so much more mobile than even a light tank and thus breaking the meta even more by giving no chance for said meta to recover, we'd have to go well into the T-80 for the tank to be even remotely balanced. Against a T-64 it is pure overkill. Even against a T-72A it is overkill.

I don't think so. Armor is irrelevant, so the gun only provides more one-round stopping power over the 105mm L7A3. Mobility is upgraded, yes. But saying, that it would completely break the game, is just not true.

[Nope 10,634]

5 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

I don't think so. Armor is irrelevant, so the gun only provides more one-round stopping power over the 105mm L7A3. Mobility is upgraded, yes. But saying, that it would completely break the game, is just not true.

 

what is >30 hp/ton

 

Also, the gun is so powerful that in order to achieve relative parity with the Keiler one would really need the T-80.

[Results45 2,200]

4 hours ago, Nope said:

 

what is >30 hp/ton

 

Also, the gun is so powerful that in order to achieve relative parity with the Keiler one would really need the T-80.

 

Pretty sure the T-80 uses the same 125mm gun as the T-72B and thus the same ammo as well:

 

T-62A/62B/72/72A/72B/80:

• 125mm 3BK14 HEAT-FS (penetraion: ???mm RHA @ 90o 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)

 

Kpz-Keiler:

• DM-12 HEAT-T (penetration: 583mm @ 90o 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)

 

T-72B has armor, missiles and better penning ammo while the nimbler Keiler has better acceleration, speed, and sufficiently penning ammo.

 

IMHO it all balances out  

 

Introducing the T-80 would mean a Russian tank with the speed and armor protection of the Kpz-70, firepower of the Leo 1A6/Kpz-Keiler, and missiles on par with the RkjPz. 2 HOT.

 

Top tier in War Thunder should not mean pushing into the modern era where MBTs have the optimal balance/quantity of ammo, protection, and firepower, but maintaining that every nation and their tanks have their own distinct strengths and weeknesses.

 

Instead, we should be discussing about the addition of vehicles of future nations and further diversification of vehicle types, technology, roles, function, and gameplay.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Results45

[Nope 10,634]

8 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

Pretty sure the T-80 uses the same 125mm gun as the T-72B and thus the same ammo as well:

 

T-62A/62B/72/72A/72B/80:

• 125mm 3BK14 HEAT-FS (penetraion: ???mm RHA @ 90o 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)

 

Kpz-Keiler:

• DM-12 HEAT-T (penetration: 583mm @ 90o 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)

 

T-72B has armor, missiles and better penning ammo while the nimbler Keiler has better acceleration, speed, and sufficiently penning ammo.

 

IMHO it all balances out  

 

Introducing the T-80 would mean a Russian tank with the speed and armor protection of the Kpz-70, firepower of the Leo 1A6/Kpz-Keiler, and missiles on par with the RkjPz. 2 HOT.

 

Top tier in War Thunder should not mean pushing into the modern era where MBTs have the optimal balance/quantity of ammo, protection, and firepower, but maintaining that every nation and their tanks have their own distinct strengths and weeknesses.

 

Instead, we should be discussing about the addition of vehicles of future nations and further diversification of vehicle types, technology, roles, function, and gameplay.

 

The T-72B actually has enough armor to make a Keiler second guess, which is a good thing given that it has mediocre mobility, worse turret traverse, worse FCS and possibly less effective gun stabilization as well. Though I usually equate the T-72B with the M1 Abrams.

[WulfPack 1,693]

10 hours ago, Results45 said:

and missiles on par with the RkjPz. 2 HOT.

If we went with the T-80B, yes.

[Talks 452]

-wrong thread-

Edited January 4, 2017 by Talks

[Results45 2,200]

1 hour ago, Talks said:

-wrong thread-

 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Alright, so now that the IS7 is confirmed to be in the game, I am even more of a supporter for this vehicle.

[Nope 10,634]

57 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Alright, so now that the IS7 is confirmed to be in the game, I am even more of a supporter for this vehicle.

 

The IS-7 would be easily countered by the current endgame MBTs you know. That's what HEAT is for.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, Nope said:

 

The IS-7 would be easily countered by the current endgame MBTs you know. That's what HEAT is for.

Spamming HEATFS is neither fun, nor skillful...

Also HEAT has a higher chance to ricochet than APDS or APFSDS rounds.

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Spamming HEATFS is neither fun, nor skillful...

Also HEAT has a higher chance to ricochet than APDS or APFSDS rounds.

 

It's also worth noting that the IS-7's gun has no chance of penetrating the UFP of nearly all MBTs in tier 5. Only long nose APHE was available for its gun, thus in terms of frontal engagements it can only hold the line, not break through it nor repel the enemy. Also, there's ERA in the game files apparently, thus indicating that Gaijin has been working on these. That means the IS-7 is resistant to KE but weak against HEAT while the opposite is true for endgame MBTs. Well, except the Leopard 1 because ERA wasn't really a thing with it.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Nope

[WulfPack 1,693]

3 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Alright, so now that the IS7 is confirmed to be in the game, I am even more of a supporter for this vehicle.

Object 219 is the equal to this.

[Results45 2,200]

3 hours ago, WulfPack said:

Object 219 is the equal to this.

 

More like Obj. 279 with APFSDS on steroids IMO 

[Results45 2,200]

 

7 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Alright, so now that the IS7 is confirmed to be in the game, I am even more of a supporter for this vehicle.

 

Being the guy who suggested the IS-7 in the first place, no, it hasn't been confirmed.

 

The only progress made so far is it's status for being considered by the devs and a user mission featured by Baron (likely using the T-10M's performance-damage model):

.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Results45

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 minutes ago, Results45 said:

Hnnn

 

Being the guy who suggested the IS-7 in the first place, no, it hasn't been confirmed.

 

The only progress made so far is it's status for being considered by the devs and a user mission featured by Baron (likely using the T-10M's performance-damage model):

.

All they said is that they don't know where to put it.