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

[Solid_Snake01 974]

5 hours ago, Results45 said:

 

Well I've heard from people like Choogleblitz and Josh_Young that the MBT/Kpz-70 is roughly equivalent to the Obj. 219/T-80 in mobility & armor and at least the T-72A in firepower so Russia should at least get up to the T-72B at BR 9.3-10.0

 

There's also the Leo 1A6 and UK needs their Vickers Valiant Mk.4 

MBT-70/Kpz-70 has good mobility  and the firepower to take on T-64 and T-72 but the comparing the MBT-70 armor with T-64,T-72 armor the Russian tanks would have the upper hand with there Composite armor and the MBT-70 dose not have composite armor. When Gaijin adds composite armor and if they model the armor effects right yeah that would be the day, anyway composite armor would change Rank 5 (wish they would made a Rank 6 for this) gameplay by less uses of HEAT and more uses of Sabot.

[Nope 10,634]

3 hours ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

MBT-70/Kpz-70 has good mobility  and the firepower to take on T-64 and T-72 but the comparing the MBT-70 armor with T-64,T-72 armor the Russian tanks would have the upper hand with there Composite armor and the MBT-70 dose not have composite armor. When Gaijin adds composite armor and if they model the armor effects right yeah that would be the day, anyway composite armor would change Rank 5 (wish they would made a Rank 6 for this) gameplay by less uses of HEAT and more uses of Sabot.

 

What are you talking about? The MBT-70's armor can be defined as composite armor given that Pavlov states that there's fiberglass and aluminum inside the armor and Hunnicutt equally mentions aluminum, but also a very thick radiation shield, which might be the fiberglass Pavlov was talking about. And even then, the amount of steel inside the MBT-70's armor suggests very similar KE protection in comparison, plus the MBT-70's mobility is so far above the T-64. The T-64 has torsion bar suspension with 500mm ground clearance (the T-72 has 10mm less ground clearance) and takes around 15 seconds to get to 32 km/h. The MBT-70's acceleration on asphalt is probably similar to the early M1 Abrams, but it also uses hydropneumatic suspension with a ground clearance of 700mm. That's incredibly high mobility for a tank. A T-80U with possibly slightly better acceleration than an M1A1 will be completely outmaneuvered by an MBT-70. Let's not forget that the APFSDS is superior to M111 Hetz: a round that was well-known by Soviets as a T-72A killer that they manufactured HHS plates just because of that. There's good reasons for T-80 variants as counters to the MBT-70.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

@Nope I am having a strange feeling that any logical arguments against MBT-70 or {isnsert Leo2 prototype name} are not getting to anyones mind.

 

Peoplaes convinced themselves that T-64 is some kind of indestructible monster and they need even bigger monster to fight it.

It's been already discussed and established multiple times before : L7 105mm can reliably penetrate soviet early composite tanks, in-game avaliable ammo is not the only L7 ammo avaliable at the time in real life. Ther's whole line of american made APFSDS-T rounds M735, M774, M833, M900 each one of them could pen. T-64s at different ranges of course.

When T-54 and M47s were only top MBTs in game no one camplain about western tanks armour. They trade armour for speed, maneuverability, gun depression etc.

When we are probably about to get T-64 (not even confirmed yet!) just to get back to old situatation when soviets had good armour everybody looses it's mind.

Keilers, Leo 2s and all that crap is not a counter to T-64. Already avaliable tanks can do this just fine, equipped with propper ammo of course.

[Ta_Kanata18 1,109]

2 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

@Nope I am having a strange feeling that any logical arguments against MBT-70 or {isnsert Leo2 prototype name} are not getting to anyones mind.

 

Peoplaes convinced themselves that T-64 is some kind of indestructible monster and they need even bigger monster to fight it.

It's been already discussed and established multiple times before : L7 105mm can reliably penetrate soviet early composite tanks, in-game avaliable ammo is not the only L7 ammo avaliable at the time in real life. Ther's whole line of american made APFSDS-T rounds M735, M774, M833, M900 each one of them could pen. T-64s at different ranges of course.

When T-54 and M47s were only top MBTs in game no one camplain about western tanks armour. They trade armour for speed, maneuverability, gun depression etc.

When we are probably about to get T-64 (not even confirmed yet!) just to get back to old situatation when soviets had good armour everybody looses it's mind.

Keilers, Leo 2s and all that crap is not a counter to T-64. Already avaliable tanks can do this just fine, equipped with propper ammo of course.

 

Q. A lot of players are asking the same question - Will we see the T-64?

 

A. We do not plan to add the T-64 separately and independently from the other nations. If we decide to add the T-64, it will be added along with other tanks similar to its performance for the other nations, which is pretty hard to do without going into tanks of the late 70 early 80's. We will however experiment with the additional armour protection kits.

 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

@Ta_Kanata18What do you consider as late 70' early 80' tanks ?

To me Leopard 1A3 (1978) M60A1 AOS/RISE/PASSIVE (1972,1975,1977) equipped with 80' ammo it seems to quite nice fit into late 70 early 80's category.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Wilhuff_Tarkin_

[Hannibal_Barcia 105]

why not add the first M1 abrams , challenger 1 ,t-72 , t-80 and other tank designs of that time aswell you German bias maker  not happy you displease me away with you away 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Hannibal_Barcia

[Hannibal_Barcia 105]

dont you mean L7A3 105mm because thats the gun the first leopard and of the 2nd used before the rheinmetall 120mm and also the patton series has used the gun. The m64 is a L7A3 105mm American built gun under license do you want to know why they want it because its British 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Hannibal_Barcia

[Results45 2,200]

Well back on topic, does anybody here think having Germamy having with RM-120 gun firing 500-650mm APFSDS and the mobility/maneuverability between the Leo 1 and Kpz-70 (but relatively thin armor) will be good balance against things like T-64/64A/64B, M60AX, Chief. Mk.10, and Type 85-II?

Edited February 27, 2017 by Results45

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

@Results45 Apparently yes. Excluding me of course. Any Chieftain is no match for Leopard even with 105mm not to mention 120mm gun.

[Results45 2,200]

3 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

@Results45 Apparently yes. Excluding me of course. Any Chieftain is no match for Leopard even with 105mm not to mention 120mm gun.

 

Mk. 10 with Stillbrew and 500-600mm pen shells should do the job.

 

And now we have the best of two worlds in game: mobility of Leo 1 and protection of M60A1 -- the Type 74.  

Edited February 27, 2017 by Results45

[Nope 10,634]

45 minutes ago, Results45 said:

Well back on topic, does anybody here think having Germamy having with RM-120 gun firing 500-650mm APFSDS and the mobility/maneuverability between the Leo 1 and Kpz-70 (but relatively thin armor) will be good balance against things like T-64/64A/64B, M60AX, Chief. Mk.10, and Type 85-II?

 

To reach even 600mm point-blank would require DM43, and low 500mms requires 120mm DM23.

[Solid_Snake01 974]

7 hours ago, Nope said:

 

What are you talking about? The MBT-70's armor can be defined as composite armor given that Pavlov states that there's fiberglass and aluminum inside the armor and Hunnicutt equally mentions aluminum, but also a very thick radiation shield, which might be the fiberglass Pavlov was talking about. And even then, the amount of steel inside the MBT-70's armor suggests very similar KE protection in comparison, plus the MBT-70's mobility is so far above the T-64. The T-64 has torsion bar suspension with 500mm ground clearance (the T-72 has 10mm less ground clearance) and takes around 15 seconds to get to 32 km/h. The MBT-70's acceleration on asphalt is probably similar to the early M1 Abrams, but it also uses hydropneumatic suspension with a ground clearance of 700mm. That's incredibly high mobility for a tank. A T-80U with possibly slightly better acceleration than an M1A1 will be completely outmaneuvered by an MBT-70. Let's not forget that the APFSDS is superior to M111 Hetz: a round that was well-known by Soviets as a T-72A killer that they manufactured HHS plates just because of that. There's good reasons for T-80 variants as counters to the MBT-70.

No the MBT-70 has no Composite armor and the purpose of the radiation shield was to protect the crew from radiation exposure from outside the tank. Remember this tank was made to fight in a all out nuclear war MBT-70 armor is a steel-layered tungsten alloy armor and inner protective shell comprised of spaced layers of extra hard uniform rolled steel armor and a softer inner steel layer which served as spall liner.

 

Composite armor is a type of vehicle armor consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics , ceramics or air. Most composite armors are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armor stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armor, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank(HEAT) rounds.

When the British introduced Chobham armor in 1965 a a significant step was taken in armor technology. Chobham armor is basically a laminate armor, with ceramic, steel and titanium sandwiched together between ballistic nylon.

 

Now this is interesting the earliest known composite armor for armored vehicles was developed as part of the US Army's T95 experimental series from the mid-1950s. The T95 featured "siliceous-cored armor" which contained a plate of fused silica glass between rolled steel plates. The stopping power of glass exceeds that of steel armor on a thickness basis and in many cases glass is more than twice as effective as steel on a thickness basis. Although the T95 never entered production, a number of its concepts were used on the M60Patton, and during the development stage (as the XM60) the siliceous-cored armour was at least considered for use, although it was not a feature of the production vehicles.

By T95 they mean the T95 medium tank which is already pass to development.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Solid_Snake01

[Results45 2,200]

2 hours ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

No the MBT-70 has no Composite armor and the purpose of the radiation shield was to protect the crew from radiation exposure from outside the tank. Remember this tank was made to fight in a all out nuclear war MBT-70 armor is a steel-layered tungsten alloy armor and inner protective shell comprised of spaced layers of extra hard uniform rolled steel armor and a softer inner steel layer which served as spall liner.

 

Composite armor is a type of vehicle armor consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics , ceramics or air. Most composite armors are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armor stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armor, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank(HEAT) rounds.

When the British introduced Chobham armor in 1965 a a significant step was taken in armor technology. Chobham armor is basically a laminate armor, with ceramic, steel and titanium sandwiched together between ballistic nylon.

 

Now this is interesting the earliest known composite armor for armored vehicles was developed as part of the US Army's T95 experimental series from the mid-1950s. The T95 featured "siliceous-cored armor" which contained a plate of fused silica glass between rolled steel plates. The stopping power of glass exceeds that of steel armor on a thickness basis and in many cases glass is more than twice as effective as steel on a thickness basis. Although the T95 never entered production, a number of its concepts were used on the M60Patton, and during the development stage (as the XM60) the siliceous-cored armour was at least considered for use, although it was not a feature of the production vehicles.

By T95 they mean the T95 medium tank which is already pass to development.

 

 

 

Our resident tank expert Choogle here says it's composite:

 

On 11/27/2016 at 4:06 AM, Choogleblitz said:

 

You should actually look into things far more in depth if you honestly think the IS-7 matches any where a level of "equal" to these vehicles. Ignorance is what ruins suggestions. 

 

 

So does the KPz-70, MBT-70, and the Chieftain's applique. 

 

 

Really makes you activate your almonds...

 

Also, Paul Werner Krapke (project head for the Keiler and Leopard 2 development), states in his book the first vehicle to use the RM-120 was the KPz-70 Keiler. An entirely different vehicle to the MBT/KPz-70 vehicles. 

 

 

Chieftain with Stillbrew? Steel -> Rubber -> Steel. Huh, imagine that. Composite.

 

MBT-70/KPz-70? Steel -> Fibreglass -> Steel (add for turret: -> Aluminum) Huh, imagine that. A composite array as well.

 

T-64? Steel -> Fibreglass -> Steel (for turret: Steel -> Aluminum with Corundum balls -> Steel) Huh, imagine that. Another composite array.

 

 

Because you're clearly the expert on how vehicles would perform with one another... /s

 

 

Guess what? By 1965 (the date the original Leopard 1 went into service), the T-62 had the 3BM6 as standard APFSDS. We don't get that in-game either. Just because "X" was a thing, doesn't mean you get it. No double standards now, because by the time you have APFSDS, the T-64, T-64A, T-64B, and T-72 was a full service thing.

.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Results45

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, Solid_Snake01 said:

No the MBT-70 has no Composite armor and the purpose of the radiation shield was to protect the crew from radiation exposure from outside the tank. Remember this tank was made to fight in a all out nuclear war MBT-70 armor is a steel-layered tungsten alloy armor and inner protective shell comprised of spaced layers of extra hard uniform rolled steel armor and a softer inner steel layer which served as spall liner.

 

Composite armor is a type of vehicle armor consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics , ceramics or air. Most composite armors are lighter than their all-metal equivalent, but instead occupy a larger volume for the same resistance to penetration. It is possible to design composite armor stronger, lighter and less voluminous than traditional armor, but the cost is often prohibitively high, restricting its use to especially vulnerable parts of a vehicle. Its primary purpose is to help defeat high explosive anti-tank(HEAT) rounds.

When the British introduced Chobham armor in 1965 a a significant step was taken in armor technology. Chobham armor is basically a laminate armor, with ceramic, steel and titanium sandwiched together between ballistic nylon.

 

Now this is interesting the earliest known composite armor for armored vehicles was developed as part of the US Army's T95 experimental series from the mid-1950s. The T95 featured "siliceous-cored armor" which contained a plate of fused silica glass between rolled steel plates. The stopping power of glass exceeds that of steel armor on a thickness basis and in many cases glass is more than twice as effective as steel on a thickness basis. Although the T95 never entered production, a number of its concepts were used on the M60Patton, and during the development stage (as the XM60) the siliceous-cored armour was at least considered for use, although it was not a feature of the production vehicles.

By T95 they mean the T95 medium tank which is already pass to development.

 

Thank you for proving my point here. Pavlov (source found by Choogle) states fiberglass and aluminum and Hunnicutt's book on the Abrams talks about a radiation shield (might be the fiberglass) and aluminum. This is enough to define it as composite armor. I have two sources by respected authors about this. What are your sources?

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

On 27.2.2017 at 9:11 PM, Nope said:

Composite armor is a type of vehicle armor consisting of layers of different material such as metals, plastics , ceramics or air.

 

That perfectly describes the MBT/Kpz 70's armor...

[Results45 2,200]

23 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

That perfectly describes the MBT/Kpz 70's armor...

 

Me and Nope were referring to this (5 posts above):

Spoiler

On 2/27/2017 at 9:58 AM, Solid_Snake01 said:

No the MBT-70 has no Composite armor and the purpose of the radiation shield was to protect the crew from radiation exposure from outside the tank. Remember this tank was made to fight in a all out nuclear war MBT-70 armor is a steel-layered tungsten alloy armor and inner protective shell comprised of spaced layers of extra hard uniform rolled steel armor and a softer inner steel layer which served as spall liner.

 

.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

On 2.3.2017 at 2:20 AM, Results45 said:

 

Me and Nope were referring to this (5 posts above):

  Hide contents

 

.

What's your point?

[Results45 2,200]

3 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

What's your point?

 

Cuz Snake was saying it wasn't composite.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Dies anyone know if the Kpz Keiler had a stabilizer? If yes, What Kind and What is it called?

[Results45 2,200]

1 minute ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Dies anyone know if the Kpz Keiler had a stabilizer? If yes, What Kind and What is it called?

 

PM Choogleblitz. He probably knows. 

[Nope 10,634]

12 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Dies anyone know if the Kpz Keiler had a stabilizer? If yes, What Kind and What is it called?

 

It most likely does.

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

Composite armor = will not be ingame

 

Accept it

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

26 minutes ago, TheJoker1432 said:

Composite armor = will not be ingame

 

Accept it

Lol, you amuse me

[Kocyra 5,742]

 

Here's a model of it just to show what it looks like

 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

@F7UCutlass, Beautiful <3

 

Is that a 20mm autocannon on top?

Edited March 18, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer