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

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Why do you think it is too much? When things like the Object 279, IS7 and later versions of the M60 are added. Not to mention the Super Conqueror and the mk5 Chieftain... I think it would be balanced. HEATFS in this game is already at 400mm of pen at ANY range, and ATGMs are already in the game, with way in excess of 500mm of penetration at all ranges.

 

The IS-7's armor is basically all it has. Again, it has a pretty bad gun because it uses long nose APHE with awful slope coefficients, and even then the armor will be less effective when ERA is implemented, as the IS-7 does not get ERA while the M60A1 and T-62 do. The Object 279's armor layout is also a bit on the iffy side, as the upper half is definitely vulnerable.

 

 

Also, it once again has a mediocre gun that has no history of firing subcaliber and only APCBC. Armor is the only thing going for it, and that's fine enough. It gets the armor but a pretty difficult gun to use, while the Chieftain mk 5 gets worse hull armor but has a much easier gun to use. The Object 279 can be a relatively ok opponent without resorting to the massive overkill of the 120mm smoothbore. You want a smoothbore? Bring in the T-80s.

 

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Did not think of that one, thx. I like it. Trades a bit of its mobility for armor. But would the APFSDS ammo on the Chieftains not be comparable to the RM120?

 

 

While L23 APFSDS has lower penetration on paper compared to DM13, it is a monobloc penetrator. Monobloc penetrators generally have a 1.7x multiplier when having to deal with an RHA plate at a 60 degree angle. It's too powerful, and sadly the only other ammo left there is L15 APDS.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, Nope said:

You want a smoothbore? Bring in the T-80s.

 

It's not that I want a smoothbore. I mean I'd gladly use one, but the thing is, I don't want any more copy and paste Leopard 1 variations...

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

It's not that I want a smoothbore. I mean I'd gladly use one, but the thing is, I don't want any more copy and paste Leopard 1 variations...

 

Well if the Germans just focused on making more tank designs there wouldn't be this issue now would there? That's the price to pay for usually being limited to prototypes at best, whether it's a complete or incomplete prototype.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

What a pity

 

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

While L23 APFSDS has lower penetration on paper compared to DM13, it is a monobloc penetrator. Monobloc penetrators generally have a 1.7x multiplier when having to deal with an RHA plate at a 60 degree angle. It's too powerful, and sadly the only other ammo left there is L15 APDS.

Where are you getting any info on the penetration of L23? It's still classified.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[Results45 2,200]

8 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Something British? Vickers MBT Mk IV Valiant with the RM 120mm smoothbore.

 

Thanks for mentioning the Valiant with the RM-120 

 

So now BR 8.7-10.0 lineup could look like this:

Germany:

• Leo 1A4/A5,
• Leo 1A6,
• Kpz-Keiler,
• Kpz-70,
• Leopard 2 prototype*

Britain:

• Chieftain Mk.5
• Valiant MBT w/ RM-120,
• Cheiftain Mk.9/10,
• Cheiftain 800-900*
• Challenger 1 prototype*

France:

• AMX-30B/B2
• 105mm AMX-32
• 120mm AMX-32
• AMX-40*

Italy & Japan:

• Type 74E/STB-2
• OF-40 Mk.2

US:

• T57/58/110
• M60A2/A3
• M60AX "Super Patton"
• MBT-70/XM803/XM805
• XM1 Abrams Prototype*

USSR:

• Objekt 277/278/279
• T62 mod. 1972
• T-64A/B
• T-72A/B
• T-64/72 with ERA or NERA
• Obj. 219*/T-80*

International:

• Panzer 68 mod.75/88
• Type 69/79
• Type 80/88
• Type 85-II
• Type 85-IIM/III/Type 96*
• Type 90/90-I*

 

*BR 10.0-12.0/Tier 6

Edited February 7, 2017 by Results45

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

24 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

Britain:

• Chieftain Mk.5
• Valiant MBT w/ RM-120,
• Cheiftain Mk.9/10,
• Cheiftain 800-900*
• Challenger 1 prototype*

Well I don't think the Mk 5 is enough of an upgrade to add 0.7 to its br over the normal Chieftain. The Chieftain 800/900 is in an odd spot, its armour would call for it to fight vehicles which its ammunition can't deal with effectively. It was built and discarded before the L11 got APFSDS. Which Challenger 1 prototype are you referring to? Any that I can think of would again come before the APFSDS it would need to engage the vehicles its armour would have it fight. Pretty much the only vehicles on this list with the L11 that had access to L23 APFSDS was the Mk 9 & 10 Chieftains.

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Where are you getting any info on the penetration of L23? It's still classified.

 

The magic of the Lanz-Odermatt equation

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

12 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The magic of the Lanz-Odermatt equation

And what sort of penetration figures are you getting from that?

[Solid_Snake01 974]

Yeah Gaijin is not in a hurry to add modern tanks it would be nice if they fix what we have now.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Solid_Snake01

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, Mercedes4321 said:

And what sort of penetration figures are you getting from that?

 

Something close to 400-420mm against 230 BHN steel.

[Results45 2,200]

4 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Something close to 400-420mm against 230 BHN steel.

 

Or these numbers (wouldn't be surprised if these are off by up to 100mm):

 

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 RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-13/23 APFSDS-T (penetration: 380mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-33 APFSDS-T (penetration: 550mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-43/43A1 APFSDS-T (penetration: 560mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/120ammo.htm

Edited February 8, 2017 by Results45

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

3 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

Or these numbers (wouldn't be surprised if these are off by up to 100mm):

 

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 RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-13/23 APFSDS-T (penetration: 380mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-33 APFSDS-T (penetration: 550mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• DM-43/43A1 APFSDS-T (penetration: 560mm RHA @ 90^o to the horizontal @ 2000m)
• Approx. ammo values: http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/120ammo.htm

That page you listed gives that penetration as 450mm at 2000m by the way.

[Results45 2,200]

3 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

That page you listed gives that penetration as 450mm at 2000m by the way.

 

Whatever.......as I said, I such values could vary by up to 100mm so yeah  

[Kocyra 5,742]

14 hours ago, Nope said:

 

The IS-7's armor is basically all it has. Again, it has a pretty bad gun because it uses long nose APHE with awful slope coefficients, and even then the armor will be less effective when ERA is implemented, as the IS-7 does not get ERA while the M60A1 and T-62 do. The Object 279's armor layout is also a bit on the iffy side, as the upper half is definitely vulnerable.

 

 

Also, it once again has a mediocre gun that has no history of firing subcaliber and only APCBC. Armor is the only thing going for it, and that's fine enough. It gets the armor but a pretty difficult gun to use, while the Chieftain mk 5 gets worse hull armor but has a much easier gun to use. The Object 279 can be a relatively ok opponent without resorting to the massive overkill of the 120mm smoothbore. You want a smoothbore? Bring in the T-80s.

 

 

While L23 APFSDS has lower penetration on paper compared to DM13, it is a monobloc penetrator. Monobloc penetrators generally have a 1.7x multiplier when having to deal with an RHA plate at a 60 degree angle. It's too powerful, and sadly the only other ammo left there is L15 APDS.

>Object 279

>Medicore gun

u wot m8 

 

М-65 130mm

Weight: 33.4 kg

Velocity: 1030 m/s

Penetration:

 

280mm at 1000ⅿ (0°)

245mm at 2000ⅿ (0°)

 

240mm at 1000ⅿ (30°) 

206mm at 2000m (30°)

 

114mm at 1000m (60°)

97mm at 2000m (60°) 

 

It has the T-10M's point blank performance at 1000 metres, and I'm pretty sure it'd have ALOT more HE filler than the T-10M. It'd have penetration performance akin to the M60A1 and Type 74s APDS rounds, while having extremely high post penetration damage. Though Object 279 would be balanced in a new hypothetical 9.0 BR with super tanks running around and I'd like to see it, but to claim the gun would be "mediocre" is really understating the guns power.

Edited February 8, 2017 by F7UCutlass

[WulfPack 1,693]

17 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

 and I'm pretty sure it'd have ALOT more HE filler than the T-10M. 

It actually has slightly less, if I'm reading these correctly.

M-62's BR-472 has 0.12Kg of A-1X-2

Spoiler

M-65's BR-482 has 0.115Kg of A-1X-2

Spoiler

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by WulfPack

[Kocyra 5,742]

4 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

It actually has slightly less, if I'm reading these correctly.

M-62's BR-472 has 0.12Kg of A-1X-2

  Hide contents

 

M-65's BR-482 has 0.115Kg of A-1X-2

  Hide contents

 

 

I would believe it I suppose, Considering the higher velocity and penetration. Still, that's well within 1-shot territory, considering that is 195.5g of TNT equivalent

Edited February 8, 2017 by F7UCutlass

[Nope 10,634]

8 hours ago, F7UCutlass said:

>Object 279

>Medicore gun

u wot m8 

 

М-65 130mm

Weight: 33.4 kg

Velocity: 1030 m/s

Penetration:

 

280mm at 1000ⅿ (0°)

245mm at 2000ⅿ (0°)

 

240mm at 1000ⅿ (30°) 

206mm at 2000m (30°)

 

114mm at 1000m (60°)

97mm at 2000m (60°) 

 

It has the T-10M's point blank performance at 1000 metres, and I'm pretty sure it'd have ALOT more HE filler than the T-10M. It'd have penetration performance akin to the M60A1 and Type 74s APDS rounds, while having extremely high post penetration damage. Though Object 279 would be balanced in a new hypothetical 9.0 BR with super tanks running around and I'd like to see it, but to claim the gun would be "mediocre" is really understating the guns power.

 

But it uses APCBC, which has significantly worse slope coefficients.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Doesn't matter, this thread is about the Kpz Keiler. There is a seperate thread about the Object 279 here: 

 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

18 hours ago, Results45 said:

So now BR 8.7-10.0 lineup could look like this:

Germany:

• Leo 1A4/A5,
• Leo 1A6,
• Kpz-Keiler,
• Kpz-70,
• Leopard 2 prototype*

Britain:

• Chieftain Mk.5
• Valiant MBT w/ RM-120,
• Cheiftain Mk.9/10,
• Cheiftain 800-900*
• Challenger 1 prototype*

France:

• AMX-30B/B2
• 105mm AMX-32
• 120mm AMX-32
• AMX-40*

Italy & Japan:

• Type 74E/STB-2
• OF-40 Mk.2

US:

• T57/58/110
• M60A2/A3
• M60AX "Super Patton"
• MBT-70/XM803/XM805
• XM1 Abrams Prototype*

USSR:

• Objekt 277/278/279
• T62 mod. 1972
• T-64A/B
• T-72A/B
• T-64/72 with ERA or NERA
• Obj. 219*/T-80*

International:

• Panzer 68 mod.75/88
• Type 69/79
• Type 80/88
• Type 85-II
• Type 85-IIM/III/Type 96*
• Type 90/90-I*

 

*BR 10.0-12.0/Tier 6

Galactic Empire:

         - AT-AT

         - AT-ST

         - AT-DP

         - HAVw A6

*BR 12.0 - 14.0

 

Stop this nonsense. Composite aromur, ERA, NERA, SLERA do you even realize how bloody complicated calculating armour values it makes !? Not to mention some of those datas are still clasified. If this game really needs more takns i would expect  T-64/M60A3 RISE/Chief mk10/ Leo A3 and APFSDS for everybody. Thers no point in pushing this any further, not in current state of game with 1945 tanks at 7.0 and 60/70' tanks just at 8.0.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

32 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Stop this nonsense. Composite aromur, ERA, NERA, SLERA do you even realize how bloody complicated calculating armour values it makes !? Not to mention some of those datas are still

 

Complicated?

 

It wouldn't be any more complicated than what we already have right now, Composite armour just uses a different modifier against HEAT projectiles, much like structural steel (already in-game) uses a 0.45x modifier, other than that, ERA basically reduces HEAT effectiveness based on a certain percentage, Kontakt-1 ERA was estimated to degrade HEAT penetration by about 55%, I doubt that's too complicated for people to understand, especially since there are already far more complicated statistics in-game.

 

 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

But can we not turn Rank V into prototype warfare ? Its just unnecessary powercreep all those vehicles makes already existing in game vehicles obsolete. Also you can't just add 90' tanks an leave everything else in mid 50'. Tank development is followed by Planes, ships, Infantry weapons developmnent. Its close ecosystem you cant just add modern tanks and leave ww2 piston fighters in the skies.

51 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

• Cheiftain 800-900*
• Challenger 1 prototype*

 

51 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Type 90/90-I*

 

51 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Obj. 219*/T-80*

 

52 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

• 120mm AMX-32
• AMX-40*

 

52 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Leopard 2 prototype*

 

52 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

XM1 Abrams Prototype*

Those are all modern tanks still in service today ! The problem is not only armour and cannon penetration, we are talking about tanks with gun stabilizers, ballistic computers, laser rangefinders, fire control systems, NBC protection. You're saying: lets make ww2 First person shooter and put there M16A4 rifle because its just slightly better than pepesha . Peoples are already complaining about BR compresion and 400mm HEAT-FS and you're just saying: lets Hypercharge it.

War Thunder was meant to be a game set in Spanish civil war to Korean war time frame to keep all vehicles relatively simple and analog. It was german fanboyism that couldn't understand germany lost warld war 2 and did not participate in Korean war. Rank V was for Soviet union vs USA&UK scenarios. Game was expanded so german fanboys stop crying and get their Leopards. Now German 8.0 BR is the best in game, best top MBT in game Leopard A1A1 you can destroy any tank in game frontaly and its still not enough ?! What do you need that 120mm gun for ?! Its the same situation as with CL-13 fixing balance problem with powercreep and overkill, you don't want to be competetive you simply want to have better vehicles than everybody.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Its just unnecessary powercreep all those vehicles makes already existing in game vehicles obsolete.

 

That's why the people here suggested a far greater BR spread.

 

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Also you can't just add 90' tanks an leave everything else in mid 50'.

 

Firstly, those aren't 90's tanks.

 

Secondly, we're already FAR beyond the mid-50's.

 

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Those are all modern tanks still in service today !

 

No they're not, the vehicles listed are either prototypes or long since out-dated variants.

 

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

we are talking about tanks with gun stabilizers

 

Which we already have.

 

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

NBC protection.

 

Yes, because that is totally relevant in War Thunder.

 

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

ou're saying: lets make ww2 First person shooter

 

War Thunder has never been a WW2 only game.

 

28 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

you don't want to be competetive you simply want to have better vehicles than everybody

 

That's why they're suggesting vehicles for every nation, a MBT-70 (United States) vs Kpz-70 (Germany) vs T-72 Ural (Sovjet Union) vs Chieftain Mk. 10 (United Kingdom) line-up would be pretty decently balanced, they could be implemented just fine at a BR of 9.3.

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Necrons31467

[Josh_Yong 328]

@Results45 You forgot the EE-T1 Osorio and the MB-3 Tamoyo III (?) for the ITT, their prototype MBTs that were designed by Brazil both aren't in use by the Brazilian armed forces. The 2 prototypes of the EE-T1 were put in storage. Maybe it would be possible to contact the museum they are stored in for some data. As for the MB-3, they possibly could be stored somewhere near the EE-T1 (I honestly don't know), maybe who ever decides to contact them can ask about the MB-3.

 

 

EE-T1 105MM 9.0/10.0

EE-T1 120mm 10.0/11.0

MB-3 III 9.0/10.0

[Nope 10,634]

3 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Complicated?

 

It wouldn't be any more complicated than what we already have right now, Composite armour just uses a different modifier against HEAT projectiles, much like structural steel (already in-game) uses a 0.45x modifier, other than that, ERA basically reduces HEAT effectiveness based on a certain percentage, Kontakt-1 ERA was estimated to degrade HEAT penetration by about 55%, I doubt that's too complicated for people to understand, especially since there are already far more complicated statistics in-game.

 

Actually it would definitely be more complicated than that. You'd have to account for all the different types of APFSDS, the way angling works with composite varies greatly depending on the composite armor, there's the issue with no concrete armor protection values thus not giving the community power to place Gaijin under severe scrutiny for realism, and the same can be said for ERA. This would just open a can of worms that would be totally impossible to balance.

2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

That's why they're suggesting vehicles for every nation, a MBT-70 (United States) vs Kpz-70 (Germany) vs T-72 Ural (Sovjet Union) vs Chieftain Mk. 10 (United Kingdom) line-up would be pretty decently balanced, they could be implemented just fine at a BR of 9.3.

 

That lineup would be biased towards the Germans and Americans honestly, as the MBT-70 far surpasses the T-72 Ural. We're looking at the T-80 and Chieftain 800 at this point, or the Vickers mk 7 or something. Against the T-72 Ural all that is needed is the M60A3 and Leopard 1A4 or Leopard 1A5 for the Germans. The advantage should be the FCS, as the M60A3's FCS is so much better than even the T-80U's FCS and the same goes for the 1A5. Both should have access to M735, maybe with the TTS and 1A5 having M111 Hetz and fighting the T-72A.

 

1 hour ago, Josh_Yong said:

@Results45 You forgot the EE-T1 Osorio and the MB-3 Tamoyo III (?) for the ITT, their prototype MBTs that were designed by Brazil both aren't in use by the Brazilian armed forces. The 2 prototypes of the EE-T1 were put in storage. Maybe it would be possible to contact the museum they are stored in for some data. As for the MB-3, they possibly could be stored somewhere near the EE-T1 (I honestly don't know), maybe who ever decides to contact them can ask about the MB-3.

 

EE-T1 105MM 9.0/10.0

EE-T1 120mm 10.0/11.0

MB-3 III 9.0/10.0

 

Whoa there, did you know that the EE-T1 with the 120mm was chosen over the M1A2 by the Saudis at one point only for Brazil to back off all of a sudden? You're underestimating that tank I believe.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Nope