tanks/vehicles Leopard 2AV Prototype (1976)

[pieve 3,578]

Leopard 2-AV

 

Prototype 1976

Leopard 2AV Prototype 20 with Turret number 21with 120mm cannon L / 44 Rheinmetall smoothbore

 

Leopard 2AV is undoubtedly the most important German tank in the Cold War.

 

 

December 11, 1974 a memorandum was signed between the US and Germany for a new MBT (after the Americans in 1973 acquired and investigated prototype hull №7). After analyzing fighting the Yom Kippur War, it was decided that the tank is necessary to further protect spaced armor. Design weight of the car was increased to 60 tons, in addition, changes have been experimental tower №14 - for its production using honeycomb steel armor with voids for the combined armor tabs. The new tower installed 120-mm smoothbore gun. After that the German manufacturers two new prototypes were ordered (№19 and №20), which were designated Leopard 2AV, as well as three towers to them.

In addition to the combined armor towers, experimental tanks were other differences. On the prototype №19 installed 105-mm rifled gun L-7, which can be easily replaced by a 120-mm gun, and MSA Hughes Tool Company American company. The tower prototype №20 JMA and 120-mm artillery system were German, another prototype (№21) supplied MSA EMES 13 (Hughes joint development and Krupp Atlas Elektronik), and all of the same 120 mm of Rh-120 gun.

In mid-1976 №19 prototype was sent to the United States together with the housing №20 (on him instead of the tower installed cylindrical weight dummy) and a special prototype, designed for firing. While Americans may not believe in the success of the 120-mm smoothbore tank gun and did not want to experience it. In August, the "cargo" was brought to the American ground, and 26 September to conduct comparative testing cycle began Leopard 2AV and XM1, which ended in December.

Tests have demonstrated once again the Germans inability of Americans. It all started with the fact that the German side were allowed to attend only an observer, and all tank crews and service personnel were local. Then the German representatives outraged that "Yankees" have refused to establish a system of adjustment (debugging) of the barrel, is responsible for increasing accuracy of weapons combat. The Germans knew that the L7 gun heat up quickly in the process of shooting, resulting in increased dispersion of projectiles, so Leopard 2AV entered minute shooting stop after every tenth shot, during which make the adjustment (optical sight gunner and a collimator mounted on the muzzle). At its tanks, the Americans used the exact same tools (which they also produced under license), but they were able to neutralize the problem, and minute break does not suit them. True, the Germans, too, should not be considered miserable simpletons. During the tests it was found out that the fake tower prototype №20 equal to the weight of this tower ... which is not found weapons. Thus, the purity of the experiment violated.

After the test the US military reported that Leopard 2AV XM1 and comparable in mobility, although the "Leopards" quickly dispersed, higher speeds and had a large reserve. Breaking they are also less likely to their American competitors (provoked criticism only support rollers, which were required to strengthen).

Shooting Prototype №19 expected were slightly worse than those of American tanks. German experts have declared that they were not warned that a foreign field tests will be carried out by someone else's rules, but listen to their arguments, no one wanted. However, the OMS tank (remember the US) has proved to be excellent. American tankers impressed the possibility of fire from the tank commander, increasing responsiveness crew suddenly emerging threats.

In addition, the Americans felt that Leopard 2AV booked worse than the XM1. When firing ammunition cumulative frontal armor of the German tank was estimated at 400 ~ 450 mm homogeneous armor, and the US - 450 ~ 470 mm. When firing armor-piercing projectiles, this gap is greatly increased.

 

 

Leopard 2AV Prototype 19 with Turret number 19 with 105mm cannon Royal Ordnance L7A3

 

Two hulls (number 19 and 20) and three turrets (number 19, 20 and 21) were built in 1976, all using mild steel instead of armored steel. The Leopard 2AV had two main new features compared to the earlier prototypes:

   

New hull armor
New turret, based on the lessons learned from the PT 14 mod turret variant

 

Both features considerably increased the protection level of the vehicle. The vehicle with turret and hull number 19 (furthermore referred to as Prototype 19) was equipped with an American fire control system by Hughes and a (originally British) Royal Ordnance L7A3 105mm cannon because the XM1 prototypes were armed with the same weapon.

The Prototype 20 Leopard 2 was armed with the more advanced German EMES 13 fire control system and the same 105mm gun, while turret number 21 (to be tested on hull number 20) was equipped with the EMES 13 fire control system and the 120mm L/44 Rheinmetall smoothbore gun.

 

Leopard 2AV Prototype 20 with Turret number 21with 120mm cannon L / 44 Rheinmetall smoothbore

 

 

Leopard 2AV 105mm cannon Royal Ordnance L7A3

Spoiler

 

 

Leopard 2AV 120mm cannon L / 44 Rheinmetall smoothbore

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

                                                   This is original video of the Bundeswehr army testing Leopard 2AV with 105mm and 120mm cannon

 

 

Specifications:

Spoiler

 

Ammunition for 105mm L7A3 Rifled Gun

 

Armor Piercing (Kinetic)

 

Name: M735A1

• Category: APFSDS (Stock)
• Penetration: 310
• Damage: 356
• Damage per Minute: 2696
• Velocity: 1200 m/s

Name: M774

• Category: APFSDS (Upgrade 1)
• Penetration: 334
• Damage: 391
• Damage per Minute: 2961
• Velocity: 1200 m/s

 

Shaped Charge (HEAT)

 

Name: M456A2

• Category: HEAT (Stock)
• Penetration: 273
• Damage: 444
• Damage per Minute: 3363
• Velocity: 750 m/s

Name: M456A3

• Category: HEAT (Upgrade 1)
• Penetration: 292
• Damage: 489
• Damage per Minute: 3704
• Velocity: 750 m/s

 

High Explosive

 

Name: M393A2

• Category: HEP (Stock, deals less damage but has a chance to wound crew and destroy internal modules at non-penetrating hits)
• Penetration: 23
• Damage (Penetrating): 288-352
• Damage (Non-Penetrating): 48-235
• Area of Effect: 0.6 meters
• Velocity: 500 m/s

Name: M393A3

• Category: HEP (Upgrade 1, deals less damage but has a chance to wound crew and destroy internal modules at non-penetrating hits)
• Penetration: 24
• Damage (Penetrating): 318-388
• Damage (Non-Penetrating): 53-259
• Area of Effect: 0.6 meters
• Velocity: 500 m/s

Mobility

 

Stock Engine: MB873 Ka-500 Diesel Engine

• Acceleration to 32 km/h: 7 seconds
• Maximum Speed: 68.4 km/h
• Hull Traverse: 24.6 deg/s

Upgraded Engine: AGT 1500 Engine

• Acceleration to 32 km/h: 6.7 seconds
• Maximum Speed: 68.4 km/h
• Hull Traverse: 27.4 deg/s

 

120mm cannon L/44 Rheinmetall smoothbore

Typical Ammo Load: APFSDS-T, HEAT-MP-T

http://www.smcars.net/attachments/munition-fur-120-mm-jpg.89637/

 

 

 

sources:

Spoiler

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/leopard2

http://warspot.ru/3226-leopard-ii-evropeyskoe-oruzhie-sderzhivaniya

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/site/pdf?_=1425600000000&url=vehicles&tUrl=leopard2

 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by pieve
Prefix

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Now you're just begging for the Russian composite horde . . .

 

Also add an "I voted no for the first two questions" to the last question on the poll.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[WulfPack 1,693]

By "as a response to the T-64", did you mean the T-64B, T-64B1, T-64BM or the T-64BV?

Did you get that ammunition information from Armored Warfare?

Edited February 13, 2017 by WulfPack

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

11 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

By "as a response to the T-64", did you mean the T-64B, T-64B1, T-64BM or the T-64BV?

I can't help but feel that several things have been lost in translation in this suggestion, that and the specification section mentioning "damage" leads me to believe that at least the ammo section was ripped straight from something meant for an entirely different game.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[Kocyra 5,742]

Leopard 2AV with 105 and appropriate ammo to deal with T-64/T-72 Ural, then MBT-70 for US, FV-4030/2 for UK, and give japan a later model Type 74 with better ammo and a stabilizer (I think some Type 74s had these)

3 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I can't help but feel that several things have been lost in translation in this suggestion, that and the specification section mentioning "damage" leads me to believe that at least the ammo section was ripped straight from something meant for an entirely different game.

That is nowhere NEAR accurate, and that is from armored warfare. 

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

3 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Leopard 2AV with 105 and appropriate ammo to deal with T-64/T-72 Ural, then MBT-70 for US, FV-4030/2 for UK, and give japan a later model Type 74 with better ammo and a stabilizer (I think some Type 74s had these)

That is nowhere NEAR accurate, and that is from armored warfare. 

I figured as much, it had a very AW vibe to it.

 

Also what sort of ammunition would the FV4030/2 have to make it anywhere near competitive to some of these options? You're still looking at the pretty much the same ammo as the current Chieftain, you can maybe give it a later model L15 APDS round but that is about it.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[Kocyra 5,742]

1 minute ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I figured as much, it had a very AW vibe to it.

 

Also what sort of ammunition would the FV4030/2 have to make it anywhere near competitive to some of these options? You're still looking at the pretty much the same ammo as the current Chieftain, you can maybe give it a later model L15 APDS round but that is about it.

It's also a Chieftain with 22 hp/t mind you, and I believe the current APDS is enough to kill the steel leopard 2 and T-72/64 and definetly the MBT-70, No?

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

2 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

It's also a Chieftain with 22 hp/t mind you, and I believe the current APDS is enough to kill the steel leopard 2 and T-72/64 and definetly the MBT-70, No?

The current APDS can only start to have a chance at killing stuff like the T-64 at 500m, and the T-64 can definitely kill a Chieftain well outside that range.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[Kocyra 5,742]

6 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

The current APDS can only start to have a chance at killing stuff like the T-64 at 500m, and the T-64 can definitely kill a Chieftain well outside that range.

Well, knowing gaijin, they will not convert penetration standards. So if we get 115mm T-64, It'll have the same T-62 ammo, and the Chieftain is resilient to those rounds by quite a bit. If we get 125mm T-64/T-72 Ural, We would most likely see 3BM9 with 245mm at 2000 metres, 3BM12 as upgraded sabot with 280mm at 2000 metres, and then the 3BK12 with 420mm penetration, but chances are we'd get a 115mm armed T-64 if anything, besides, engagements do not happen very often outside of 800 metres in-game. Though APFSDS would be needed to completely balance it out

Edited February 13, 2017 by F7UCutlass

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

2 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Well, knowing gaijin, they will not convert penetration standards. So if we get 115mm T-64, It'll have the same T-62 ammo, and the Chieftain is resilient to those rounds by quite a bit. If we get 125mm T-64/T-72 Ural, We would most likely see 3BM9 with 245mm at 2000 metres, 3BM12 as upgraded sabot with 280mm at 2000 metres, and then the 3BK12 with 420mm penetration, but chances are we'd get a 115mm armed T-64 if anything, besides, engagements do not happen very often outside of 800 metres in-game. Though APFSDS would be needed to completely balance it out

Then you need a Chieftain Mk 5/4 at least for balance, and place the FV4030/2 at a lower level.

[Kocyra 5,742]

1 minute ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Then you need a Chieftain Mk 5/4 at least for balance, and place the FV4030/2 at a lower level.

FV4030/2 could fire the exact same ammo. 

 

It's a Chieftain with a 1200hp engine and upgraded FCS, it was used in Iran and Jordan as the Shir 1 and Khalid. FV4030/2 would have the APFSDS, but also the better mobility. 

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

2 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

FV4030/2 could fire the exact same ammo. 

 

It's a Chieftain with a 1200hp engine and upgraded FCS, it was used in Iran and Jordan as the Shir 1 and Khalid. FV4030/2 would have the APFSDS, but also the better mobility. 

No it could not. The APFSDS came in 1984, the prototype was made long before that and it would thus be incapable of even stowing it. The ammo racks had to be modified first before they stow it.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mercedes4321

[これを読んだ人はゲイです 31]

up ! i hope see these beasts soon 

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

Going to just say 'no'.  There's already been SIGNIFICANT power creep with ground forces and we don't need to make it any worse by adding Gen 3 MBTs to the game.

[pieve 3,578]

2 hours ago, WulfPack said:

By "as a response to the T-64", did you mean the T-64B, T-64B1, T-64BM or the T-64BV?

 

If T-64 is confirmed what will be your best vehicle against it?

 

Did you get that ammunition information from Armored Warfare?

 

Yes, this statistic Armored Warfare, was the best I found, but I have a German documents of the 105mm and 120mm ammunition

 

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

4 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I can't help but feel that several things have been lost in translation in this suggestion, that and the specification section mentioning "damage" leads me to believe that at least the ammo section was ripped straight from something meant for an entirely different game.

 

Read suggestion, came to the same conclusion. Have an upvote. 

 

--

 

Can't say I like the suggestion currently; I feel there is some degree of imbalance already, and adding more and more (and later and later) tanks only compounds the problem further. I'd like to see what the developers can do with what we have before going on to later things.

 

4 hours ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Also add an "I voted no for the first two questions" to the last question on the poll.

 

Fixed.

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

big +1

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

pieve you're not even trying.... Some peoples try to sneak in Leo2 in form of Kpz Keiler or something and you're just : Bring in Leopard 2 ! Who cares. Thats a big NO from me -1.

Leopard 1A3 with APFSDS is the best what i can imagine German TT may have. Leo 2 is no longer powercreep its Overkill.

[Nope 10,634]

What's with dumb composite tank suggestions nowadays? In fact, this particular suggestion is so badly constructed it uses values from Armored Warfare: a game that takes modern tank combat and takes an enormous dump on the entire concept. Hell, the sources are all websites, with Prado's website being full of outdated values, kampfpanzer.de not listing any proper sources, that Russian website throwing all ounce of credibility away by again not citing sources and perpetrating the KPz-70 120mm smoothbore myth and even the diesel KPz-70 myth and Wikipedia never being considered as a valid source. In the end we end up with yet another garbage suggestion with little regard for what ridiculous complications would come out of the implementation of such a tank.

[Necrons31467 14,236]

I'm not entirely sure why this suggestion thread exists though, Gaijin has stated that the current selection of top-end tanks are as far as they'd like it to go, unless a certain vehicle is absolutely necessary for balancing purposes, which this Leopard 2 AV most certainly is not, other than that, I'm pretty sure atleast the hull already used composites, making it break the tech barrier set by Gaijin.

 

9.0 is also not enough, this thing basically warrants T-72A's and T-64A's, among the MBT-70 most likely, all of which the current top-ends will have little to no chance against.

 

I'd have to give it a clear NO, this is powercreep taken to a laughable extent, and made even worse since you didn't even address the issue of there not being any contemporaries in-game.

[Der_Kompressor 9,185]

Gaijin will definitely introduce this and the T-64 along with the early Abrams.

Reason:

It makes them a ton of money.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

Just now, The_Foreigner said:

Gaijin will definitely introduce this and the T-64 along with the early Abrams.

Reason:

It makes them a ton of money.

It makes them a lot of money as long as peoples play the game, if you ruin the game no one is going to play it and make money.

[Der_Kompressor 9,185]

4 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

It makes them a lot of money as long as peoples play the game, if you ruin the game no one is going to play it and make money.

We're talking about a company that thought Last Man Standing was a good idea, despite the entire community saying otherwise.

If Gaijin was going to kill their game with bad design decisions, they would have done so already.

 

The sad reality is that it's the only game on the market right now that does what it does.

[Talks 452]

Even if people want these tanks in game they won't work or people won't have fun with these because of WT Gf maps, more maps like old El Alamein needs to be added where it's big and has cover not flat open fields and cqc map that it starts to feel like playing CS and R6S