tanks/vehicles GER Leopard 1A5 for 9.0/3 (with apfsds)

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

2 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

not to mention train schedules

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Anyways, to get back on topic... I think by adding the 1A3 after the A1A1, and putting the A4 in a folder with the A3, you could move the Leopard A1A1 out of Tier VI down to 8.0, which would only be justified, since the STB1 sits on 7.7, and the T62 sits on 8.0. That would not only get us some new and shiny toys to research, but would also mend the gaping hole that exists in the German TT in between Tier V and VI at the moment.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[FoxHusband 862]

Given the current status of the game and where the meta is going, I think the 1A5 should be revisited. 
With the Abrams, Challenger, T-64B and likely the Leo 2K aswell set to move to 9.7 likely, the German tech tree will become gapped again from 8.3-9.7. 
Even if the A1A1, now possessing DM23 (which it seems, has now been effectively annoying the hell out of players now) is competitive at 9.3 matches and more or less has it's way with 8.3 and under matches, it's bound to move to 8.7 with the T-55A. That, or the 8.7s move down. But that creates more BR gaps....
In this situation, Germany needs a 9.0/9.3 tank to help fill the gap and I think the 1A5 is the next worthy vehicle. Yes, we should absolutely have a 2A0 or 2A4 with the top tiers, but that's for later. 
In particular, the specifics of why the 1A5 would be different from the A1A1 is necessary. 
Survivability wise, Ammunition wise, and Gun handling wise. 

With that in mind, I'm hopeful someone with original sources can supply some details. I've heard some bits and pieces about changes to the tank that aren't mentioned much, so I hope someone can correct me accordingly. 
A specific survivability buff, however minor, is the sealing of the sight bulges on the turret. Those ingame, have a tendency to be penetrated by APHE and HESH, and redirect the blast into the turret, killing the crew. It's a very weird situation that happens, and it only really is noticed by dedicated Leopard drivers. Even so, it's mentionable. 

Secondly, that I've never gotten any sort of confirmation of, is wether the 1A5 has any type of spaced armor or composite armor in the hull or turret. Given the turret is cast and visually exact to the A1A1 bar the bulges, I'm inclined to believe the armor is the same. 
Third survivability mention: I've seen it mentioned that the ammunition storage was moved from the front of the hull and into the back of the turret. If true, this has severe survivability implications. Specifically, it'll hamper the hull-down survivability, but improve the chances of surviving a shot to the hull itself. 
 
Fourth, and important for the A1A1 and 1A5, regards the Blohm+Voss applique/add-on armor package. 
I've seen it referenced as Lexan panels multiple times(Especially with a 1A6); but I've also heard from some people and I have an accompanying picture that says differently, specifying it as high-hardness steel sandwiched between rubber and mounted on rubber shock mounts. 

The specific implication is this: In WT this is currently modeled as RHA on steel mounts, with as much importance given as a normal Schurzen. Only, I've never had this armor protect me from any kind of shaped charge or HE/HESH. Additionally, this armor is thick enough in some parts that it should be capable of prematurely fusing APHE rounds. With a proper report, it should be possible to have Gaijin specifically model it as spaced armor.  Alternatively, they can model it as a composite armor (like Abram's skirts) to reflect the rubber/steel/rubber composition and give it a specific value. I recall that the specific point was for the rubber to help absorb and redirect shaped charges while also fusing them early and making it have to cross a channel of open air before hitting the turret armor. Aswell, the rubber should have helped absorb impact from KE rounds; where it's mentioned that large caliber rounds/high energy would end up blowing through it anyway. 
The implementation of more detailed armor in this fashion should provide the A1A1 and 1A5 with increased resistance or even immunity to early or small-caliber HEATFS shells and some protection against weaker APHE along the turret areas that are protected. In high tier this would reduce the survivability against light tanks and older vehicles in a lineup, but leave it just as vulnerable still to APFSDS and ATGMs. 

Ammunition wise, a 1A5 at 9.0+ can wield DM23 stock, with DM502, DM12, and DM33 for upgrades. DM33 does not exceed the performance of M774 drastically. IIRC, it should be near it or slightly weaker. M774 is DU, whereas Germany was unable to use ammunition or armor with uranium in it.  DM33 should be a monobloc APFSDS with good slope modifiers and likely capable of punching through the T-64B armor at better range than DM23. 

Gun handling wise, it would have the same optics as a Leopard 2, and also received better stabilization with the new GFCS, so it would have much better snapshot capability and be able to fire on the move decently. 

I'm not aware of other potentially worthy mentionable changes at the moment. I may come back later to adjust my comment to add on new questions. 
Remember, I am not claiming any of the above. it is only my limited knowledge or inference from alternative sources. I do hope someone has legit sources to answer/correct me on various sections.
 

[swpixy 1,220]

12 hours ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

-snip-

The 1A5 is just the A1A1 with better FCS.There is no extended turret (someone probably mistook the addon armor on the rear for a turret bustle,but just like on the A1A1,its a empty armor cage).Nothing else has changed-ammorack is still where it used to be.Which is why i don´t really see the point of adding it as a completely new vehicle,unless its this one:

Because the normal 1A5 doesnt really add anything new aslong as we don´t having working FCS.And adding a completely new tank for what is essentially 1 new round that it might get,doesnt really make sense either.Would make more sense to add it as a BMP-1P style upgrade to the A1A1 (after all the majority of 1A5s are converted from A1A1´s anyway)

Edited March 23, 2018 by swpixy

[XDrake991 278]

6 hours ago, swpixy said:

The 1A5 is just the A1A1 with better FCS.There is no extended turret (someone probably mistook the addon armor on the rear for a turret bustle,but just like on the A1A1,its a empty armor cage).Nothing else has changed-ammorack is still where it used to be.Which is why i don´t really see the point of adding it as a completely new vehicle,unless its this one:

Because the normal 1A5 doesnt really add anything new aslong as we don´t having working FCS.And adding a completely new tank for what is essentially 1 new round that it might get,doesnt really make sense either.Would make more sense to add it as a BMP-1P style upgrade to the A1A1 (after all the majority of 1A5s are converted from A1A1´s anyway)

Isnt that a Leopard 1A6 in your picture?

[swpixy 1,220]

27 minutes ago, XDrake991 said:

Isnt that a Leopard 1A6 in your picture?

Nope,its a 1A5 (prototype) with the Rh120.

This is the 1A6:

Which i wouldn´t say no to either,because that is probably the most interresting Leopard 1 variant there is.

Edited March 23, 2018 by swpixy

[FoxHusband 862]

37 minutes ago, XDrake991 said:

Isnt that a Leopard 1A6 in your picture?

Yes, that is a 1A6. 
As he said "I don't see the point of adding it (1A5) as a completely new vehicle, unless it's this one(1A6)"
But there's zero goddamn point for the 1A6 because we have a Leopard 2K which fills the exact same role, but with better HP and armor actually. 

Which means an intermediary Leopard 1 is more necessary that is armed with the 105mm gun. Though the 2A6 would be a nice premium.

 

As I said, by War Thunder's ways, the 1A5 represents enough in potential upgrades to be a new vehicle that is intermediary and simply builds on the A1A1. 
The 1A5 does bring new things in the form of combat efficiency, because Gaijin does model FCS to a degree. It's ingame in the form of how effective our stabilization is. The Abrams is rock solid, as is the Challenger, and the 2K and the T-64s, even the Centurions have better stabilization than the A1A1 at low speed. It's not specifically reflective obviously, but it's a soft stat Gaijin uses that wasn't as liberal with on the A1A1.
DM23 is already a capable round in high tier, and DM33 would give the Leopard a firepower equivalency to the top tanks. The Rangefinder as well is bound to be equal or even faster, meaning you can save time and shots by simply using the rangefinder for sniping shots instead of adjusting for lead. My own snap shot capability is up to 1200m currently, and building to 1600m, but past 1.2km I typically use the rangefinder on the A1A1 because it's so fast. 

10 minutes ago, swpixy said:

Nope,its a 1A5 (prototype) with the Rh120.

This is the 1A6:

Which i wouldn´t say no to either,because that is probably the most interresting Leopard 1 variant there is.

Actually both are 1A6s, the extra large turret on that picture is just bolt-on panel like the A1A1's, just thicker. 
Once you take it off, it's just the normal A1 turret. That blockier breech is also just a new panel.
I could argue for an A4 instead with the same welded turret as the 2K, and still using DM33 which would be par or superior to the 120mm DM13 that would use, if we're talking about a future 9.0/9.3 tank once the 2K moves up to 9.7 or so. 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Heinrike_Prinz

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

29 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

Actually both are 1A6s, the extra large turret on that picture is just bolt-on panel like the A1A1's, just thicker.

nope

Quote

Once you take it off, it's just the normal A1 turret. That blockier breech is also just a new panel.

A1 turret and A5 turret is the same.... only difference is the old rangefinger, which is still visible on pre 1A5 turrets

Quote

I could argue for an A4 instead with the same welded turret as the 2K, and still using DM33 which would be par or superior to the 120mm DM13 that would use, if we're talking about a future 9.0/9.3 tank once the 2K moves up to 9.7 or so. 

wut?
you know that that 1A5 with 120mm and 1A6 were made in ~1986 which means that these two tanks whould have better ammo than DM13

also notice that the Rh120 is not the same used on the Keiler (2K) its already the production version used on the 2A0+

Edited March 23, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[FoxHusband 862]

23 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

nope

A1 turret and A5 turret is the same.... only difference is the old rangefinger, which is still visible on pre 1A5 turrets

wut?
you know that that 1A5 with 120mm and 1A6 were made in ~1986 which means that these two tanks whould have better ammo than DM13

also notice that the Rh120 is not the same used on the Keiler (2K) its already the production version used on the 2A0+

The Abrams should have better ammo than M744 but it doesn't 

Yet, Gaijin only gave the 2K DM13, because reasons. I mention for balance reasons, because for a similar position/BR, it'd have the same ammunition type. 2K is a faster tank anyway. 
A1A1 has DM23 which it shouldn't have...but hey, that's logic. 
So tell me, in game logic terms, why on earth would the 1A6 have a better round than DM13? As compensation for lower agility than the Leopard 2K? Highly unlikely. 
Regardless of what model the rifle is, it's unlikey to have better ammunition.  

Edited March 23, 2018 by Heinrike_Prinz

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

3 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

The Abrams should have better ammo than M744 but it doesn't 

Yet, Gaijin only gave the 2K DM13, because reasons. I mention for balance reasons, because for a similar position/BR, it'd have the same ammunition type. 2K is a faster tank anyway. 
A1A1 has DM23 which it shouldn't have...but hey, that's logic. 
So tell me, in game logic terms, why on earth would the 1A6 have a better round than DM13? As compensation for lower agility than the Leopard 2K? Highly unlikely. 

because the 2K only had the DM13
2k is made in what? 1976/77....

1A1A1 had access to the DM23... i made that bugreport m8. spend ~80€ on source material....

Edited March 23, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

DM13 Protoype shell
DM13A1 Production Shell

go figure

when the 1A5 was tested with the Rh120 the DM13 didnt exist anymore

Edited March 23, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[swpixy 1,220]

47 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

Actually both are 1A6s, the extra large turret on that picture is just bolt-on panel like the A1A1's, just thicker. 

Once you take it off, it's just the normal A1 turret. That blockier breech is also just a new panel.

No its not.The panels are addons,but the turrets are not the same.

This is the turret without the additional roof protection (i.e.,the one turret that MIGHT have matched with the picture above in terms of roofline-the roof protection moves the hatches higher by quite abit)

Notice how the rangefinders are welded shut on this one.

 

[FoxHusband 862]

Just now, dotEXCEL said:

because the 2K only had the DM13
2k is made in what? 1976/77....

And the 1A6 was developed as a different option to the Leopard 2. 
But in game sense, the Leopard 2 production would certainly have better ammunition, but a 1A6 sharing the same cannon but A1A1 armor would result in a tank that has gun good enough to warrant the high BR and not enough agility or armor to fight effectively. 
In the current meta, do you honestly believe the 1A6 could feasibly work well in the tech tree when the Leopard 2K brings plenty of firepower, superior armor, and much better agility? 
The 1A6 even with DM23 results in a tank that, next to a 1A5 with DM33, presents very little actual advantage because of the armor/firepower threshold. 
Off the top of my head, the only specific difference in actual gameplay would be that a 1A6 could defeat the armor of the Abrams reliably. But it'd just get outflanked really. 
As it is, DM23 on the A1A1 deals with the current 9.3's by punching through the side armor at just about any angle. They need a perfect frontal aspect to defeat the round.

[FoxHusband 862]

1 minute ago, swpixy said:

No its not.The panels are addons,but the turrets are not the same.

This is the turret without the additional roof protection (i.e.,the one turret that MIGHT have matched with the picture above in terms of roofline-the roof protection moves the hatches higher by quite abit)

Notice how the rangefinders are welded shut on this one.

 

My bad, as it's actually the 1A5 turret. 
my original point however, stands. It's still the old turret design, not new like the A3/A4. 
Both being different vehicles however, you can simply take off that add-on armor and change to the production 120mm rifle and they're essentially the same vehicle. 
The differences after that? Minimal in terms of performance. 

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

5 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

And the 1A6 was developed as a different option to the Leopard 2.

uhm no? it was developed to extend the servicelife of the Leo 1
the first Leo 2's were delivered to the BW on the  24. October 1979
the 1A6 was tested in Febr. 1986 and stopped in 1987...

are you a time-traveller?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about...

The 1A6 is basically the same what the US did to the M60A3 with the SLEP program

Edited March 23, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

18 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

As it is, DM23 on the A1A1 deals with the current 9.3's by punching through the side armor at just about any angle. They need a perfect frontal aspect to defeat the round.

and its still underperforming against sloped armour. it uses the wrong slope mod...

18 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

The 1A6 even with DM23 results in a tank that, next to a 1A5 with DM33, presents very little actual advantage because of the armor/firepower threshold.

14 minutes ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

My bad, as it's actually the 1A5 turret.

good... then what is this:

correct Pre-1A5 turret

it doesnt need an IQ over 100 to see that these are different tanks

and no the gunmantlet are NOT the same. the pre-1A5 is using an upscaled version of the Leo 1 while the 1A6 is using that of a Leo 2 and modified it

Edited March 23, 2018 by dotEXCEL

[swpixy 1,220]

3 hours ago, Heinrike_Prinz said:

My bad, as it's actually the 1A5 turret. 
my original point however, stands. It's still the old turret design, not new like the A3/A4.

My point being:
-1A5 with the 120 is more interresting than regular 1A5 because there is a noticeable difference from the 1A1A1-a completely different gun.1A5 only gives a very slight visual change and slight performance improvement due to DM33,though one could argue that the 1A1A1 could use that too.

-1A6 is essentially Leopard 1.5 .Looks different than the other Leo´s,and 1-up´s them in anything other than mobility.Definitely more interresting than a tank that essentially looks the same as one we already have,and only gives slight performance increase.

 

Now,does that mean that we should not get a Leopard 1A5 at some point? No.But given how similar it is to the A1A1,i dont think it should be a standalone tank,but rather a upgrade to the A1A1-after all,it was essentially a KWS version of the A1A1 anyway.UNLESS you want to implement it and give it the option to mount the 120-the 1A5 upgrade included reinforcing the Trunnions to allow the installation of the Rh120 if needed.That would actually give it reason to be.Otherwise,just stick with a 1A4-same deal,but atleast its visually significantly different.

 

And as for "why do we need that when we have the Keiler"-well,same point could be made for the 1A5.

The 1A6 would actually give you something over the Keiler,however-more firepower (newer ammunition that the Keiler never had access to-DM23,maybe even DM33-though the later is unlikely as it came the same year as the 1A6´s cancellation-1987) and most likely far better protection,because given the size of the weight simulators used for trials on other Leopard 1´s (these were used to test wether the tank could take the weight of the addon armor)

Its not unlikely that the addon armor uses a similar system as the Leopard 2.Which would definitely make the turretfront and most of the turret side alot more resistant than the Keiler´s.

[CokeSpray 7,274]

Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.

[leroyonly 4,310]

As the Leopard 1A5 has been added as per update 2.1 New Power,

 

Moved  to Implemented Suggestions.