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

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

6 hours ago, *swanseasean96 said:

Soviets and Germans ahead of competition?...

I admit i went a liitle too far with that statement. I accounted to the "competition" german prototypes from 70s which is not fair. You're right good old Chief was in 60' most powerful NATO tank and has one major adventage: 120mm gun. With Leo 2, A6, Kailer it looses it as those tanks will got even better one. And to represent that adventage in game german MBT should be keep with their 70' technology level as well as other nations. I think it's a good moment in time to stop and borrow later technology such as ammo only if necessary for balance reasons.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

3 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

I admit i went a liitle too far with that statement. I accounted to the "competition" german prototypes from 70s which is not fair. You're right good old Chief was in 60' most powerful NATO tank and has one major adventage: 120mm gun. With Leo 2, A6, Kailer it looses it as those tanks will got even better one. And to represent that adventage in game german MBT should be keep with their 70' technology level as well as other nations. I think it's a good moment in time to stop and borrow later technology such as ammo only if necessary for balance reasons.

 

Agreed

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

8 hours ago, fwD13 said:

The only reason I said T-80A was because on some post I reed someones said the T-80A maybe could be added(I think someones was talking about adding the Leo 2 and the T-80A came up) but it can't be added if the T-72 isn't so if someone wants the T-80A the T-72 needs to be added first. I was only use the T-80A as an example. 

 

But you said the T-80A is appropriate and the M1 and Chally 1 are not my point is that the T80 and Leo 2 are of the same bread as Chally 1 and Abrams.

 

If i was to post a comment tat the Challenger 1 could be added will you use my as a source to say its okay aswell? At the end of the day at the moment composite armour is a no go, if that changes it opens the door for primitive composites such as T- 64 and T-72 and more advance composites such as M1/Leo 2/Chally1/T80 etc

 

At the end of they day once we hit 1970s+ we need to start talking in terms of MBT Generations as there is such a jump in technology from Chieftain to Chally 1, Leo 1 to Leo 2, M60 to M1. You catch my drift. And the Leo 1A5 uses the technology from the Leopard 2, thats one of the problems i have with the suggestions its effectively third generation technology on a 2nd generation design. However if we set the cut off as 3rd generation we also open doors to other problems as some tanks are both 2nd and third generation vehicles depending on your definition and how important you rank composite armour vs automated FCS.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

8 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

But you said the T-80A is app [...] utomated FCS.

Exactly.

On one of Q&A devs said that they want to keep things analog, without automatic FCSs, computers etc. as they belive it creates skill-based gameplay. Not automatic point and click.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

1 hour ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

Exactly.

On one of Q&A devs said that they want to keep things analog, without automatic FCSs, computers etc. as they belive it creates skill-based gameplay. Not automatic point and click.

 

IIRC the T-80A was the variant of t-80 where a digital FCS was added? i know the T-80B did not have one but that came 4 years prior.

 

That said if that is the case i agree with it however i personally think if we take out IFCSs we should also not include composite armour as both were huge advances in tank technology which came hand in hand with the west wheras in Russia composite came before digital FCSs.

Edited February 22, 2017 by *swanseasean96

[Nope 10,634]

28 minutes ago, *swanseasean96 said:

IIRC the T-80A was the variant of t-80 where a digital FCS was added?

 

No Soviet tank had digital FCS.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

5 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

No Soviet tank had digital FCS.

 

The T-80A got the 1A46 Fire Control System with Ballistic Computer...

 

the same FCS used on the T-80U as you know the T-80A came just before it.

Quote

The T-80U's 1A46 fire control system includes a laser range finder, a ballistics computer, and a more advanced 1G46 gunner's main sights, as well as thermal imaging sights, which greatly increases the T-80Us firepower over previous models. These new systems, together with the 125mm D-81TM "Rapira-3" smooth bore gun, ensures that the T-80U can accurately hit and destroy targets at a range of up to 5 kilometers (ATGMs and HV/APFSDS).

 

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, *swanseasean96 said:

 

The T-80A got the 1A46 Fire Control System with Ballistic Computer...

 

the same FCS used on the T-80U as you know the T-80A came just before it.

 

 

However, it's not exactly fully automated. How the FCS works is by lazing a target and it gets the horizontal mils for you and adjusts the sights for the calculated distance. Maybe not being digital is the wrong term for this compared to full automation.

[swanseasean96@psn 382]

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

However, it's not exactly fully automated. How the FCS works is by lazing a target and it gets the horizontal mils for you and adjusts the sights for the calculated distance. Maybe not being digital is the wrong term for this compared to full automation.

 

 

They said no digital, a ballistic computer is digital.

[Koty1996 457]

On 21. 2. 2017 at 0:43 AM, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

There you go. Finely something more appropriate ! Can give this a thumb up. Although isn't A3 better for game purpose ? New welded turret etc. A3 is in fact last production variant and A5 is last modification variant where they mostly focused on changing fire control systems, modified NBC protection, firepower, speed, armour is almost the same.

Yes, I would also feel like A3 would be better pick, as 9.3. Being also a composite, it would stop certain part of community from crying about - oh, weee, they got composite and we not.

 

As a round, DM23 is enough for 9.0, even 9.3.

 

On 21. 2. 2017 at 10:56 AM, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Because I don't want another Leopard that looks exactly like the first ones.

Also, A5 does not look like A1A1.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

26 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

Also, A5 does not look like A1A1.

 

Apart from the rangefinder being a laser rangefinder, and the two "knobs" on the side of the turret removed, it does.

[Dark_Lord__94@psn 1,900]

Still going to have to say no. Don't you think you're jumping ahead guys?

[Koty1996 457]

44 minutes ago, *Lightening_Drake said:

Still going to have to say no. Don't you think you're jumping ahead guys?

this may be a bit of a surprise, but...

isn't that the bloody purpose, to get moving into the next era?

Then agian, yes, A5, even if not gamechanging, is a bit too much. Something in between would fit the 9.0/3 better. A5 with DM23/33 would be a fit for T-72A and T-80

On 22. 2. 2017 at 7:34 PM, *swanseasean96 said:

They said no digital, a ballistic computer is digital.

 

Balistic computer on T-80 is analogue.

Because you see - a computer does not need to be digital xD

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Apart from the rangefinder being a laser rangefinder, and the two "knobs" on the side of the turret removed, it does.

nah mate, also the sighting unit looks different, the 3D would need some work  And when you say "apart" - well - even you see the difference))

Edited February 25, 2017 by Koty1996

[Dark_Lord__94@psn 1,900]

18 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

this may be a bit of a surprise, but...

isn't that the bloody purpose, to get moving into the next era?

Then agian, yes, A5, even if not gamechanging, is a bit too much. Something in between would fit the 9.0/3 better. A5 with DM23/33 would be a fit for T-72A and T-80

 

Balistic computer on T-80 is analogue.

Because you see - a computer does not need to be digital xD

nah mate, also the sighting unit looks different, the 3D would need some work  And when you say "apart" - well - even you see the difference))

Yeah you see the point I'm getting at is you're skipping a few tanks between along with the fact you want gajin to model these new composites and fancy toys but yet we can't even get the basic steels right and now you want to add more to that? Before you go jumping ahead let's fix what we have before going to the next problem rather than solution. 

 

Let's fix everything now rather than add to the problem. And most of these things you're asking for are classified so most it'll be estimations guess work and trial and error. It takes them 3 months at least to fix things that are game breaking it 1 having the wrong sights being able to shoot the missile heck even with the bug that if you critically injured a jagdtiger you're game crashed. 

Edited February 26, 2017 by *Lightening_Drake

[Koty1996 457]

On 26. 2. 2017 at 9:26 AM, *Lightening_Drake said:

Yeah you see the point I'm getting at is you're skipping a few tanks between along with the fact you want gajin to model these new composites and fancy toys but yet we can't even get the basic steels right and now you want to add more to that? Before you go jumping ahead let's fix what we have before going to the next problem rather than solution. 

 

Let's fix everything now rather than add to the problem. And most of these things you're asking for are classified so most it'll be estimations guess work and trial and error. It takes them 3 months at least to fix things that are game breaking it 1 having the wrong sights being able to shoot the missile heck even with the bug that if you critically injured a jagdtiger you're game crashed. 

 

Well, as I see it, it might not be that big of a problem at first and it could be made to work. The problem is community however. Someone would start whinning that his tank does not perform as it should. Then Gaijin, instead of fixing the problem systematically will just do something that solves it for that specific vehicle/type of vehicles/branch of vehicles, possibly affecting the gameplay of other vehicles.

 

I am not saying it will happen - but it is a possibility.

 

But hey, they sometime recently said that they are going to revork transmissions etc., maybe this will move somewhere. And then Gaijin will have a bunch of requests with somewhat proper feedback (I hope they read the feedback...) to go with.

 

EDIT: Problem is then with people who's thought process goes along these lines:

 - T-64 has composite.
 - oh noes! it has composite = invincible by peasant RHA tonk!

 - fast search the the most quoted composite tank

 - find Keiler/MBT-70/ even Abrams

 - ON NOES, WE NEED ABRAMS TO BEAT THAT TANK, GIB NAO

 ^ for example disregarding that the Abrams is indeed immune to 115mm gun, no ammo will ever fix that.

 

I do not think it is healthy to use such whines as valid feedback for balancing things....

Edited February 27, 2017 by Koty1996

[RefrigerRaider 563]

leopard lack armor, despite this, it makes up for mobility (over 20 hp/ton) and great firepower (high pen and great reload rate). The cold war tanks of other nations lack the mobility of the leopard, but makes up for it for armor (m60a1 and chieftain has over 250mm effective thickness) and firepower.

 

The problem is, the strongpoints of the cold war tanks in game that focus on armor at expense of mobility is that the obscenely high penetration values of current cold war vehicles (400-500mm average) cancels that strongpoint for those tanks.

 

So heres a simple comparison with only armor,firepower, and mobility as factors:

Leopard 1A1A1

++ mobility (over 40mph, great forward, reverse speed, around 20hp/ton)

++ firepower (heatfs, 9.3s stock reload)

-armor (even Tier 2 tanks can pen it frontally without much difficulty)

total=3 pluses, above average

 

M60A1

+mobility (pretty decent)

+firepower (heatfs, good reload speed)

-armor (not reliable enough at tier V)

total=1 plus, slightly above average

 

Chieftain

--mobility (horrible top speed, mobility, traverse rates)

=firepower (balanced, no heatfs or aphe but really good apds)

+armor (some parts of the tank can bounce heatfs reliably)

total= 1 minus, below average

 

T-62

+mobility (pretty decent)

=firepower (heatfs, slow reloard)

-armor (unreliable at Tier V)

total=neutral, average

 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

1 hour ago, RefrigerRaider said:

Leopard 1A1A1

++ mobility (over 40mph, great forward, reverse speed, around 20hp/ton)

++ firepower (heatfs, 9.3s stock reload)

-armor (even Tier 2 tanks can pen it frontally without much difficulty)

total=3 pluses, above average

 

M60A1

+mobility (pretty decent)

+firepower (heatfs, good reload speed)

-armor (not reliable enough at tier V)

total=1 plus, slightly above average

 

Chieftain

--mobility (horrible top speed, mobility, traverse rates)

=firepower (balanced, no heatfs or aphe but really good apds)

+armor (some parts of the tank can bounce heatfs reliably)

total= 1 minus, below average

 

T-62

+mobility (pretty decent)

=firepower (heatfs, slow reloard)

-armor (unreliable at Tier V)

total=neutral, average

This great and simple comparison explains why we need T-64s to give soviets their armour and better chieftains for just a bit better mobility for btits.

[Koty1996 457]

*as the comparable 9.0

 

...just so people don't go ham calling you names

 

[Jan_Gustl_WT 1,746]

I like Leopards ,I support it +1

[RB_Hawkz 96]

If any other tanks get APFSDS then the Americans need their APFSDS

Edited March 17, 2017 by RB_Hawkz

[Koty1996 457]

APFSDS for L7 = T-64 and T-72, keep that in mind

I'd imagine T-64 at 9.0 and T-72 at 9.0/9.3

 

Then again, find reliable source on the performance of M735

What would be usable (sort of) would be Soviet tests from late 1970's, according to that, it is able to perforate 140mm @ 68° - "at close ranges", which is what has been leaked to the internet, haven't yet met any exact value, 500 m is just an estimate.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

British equivalent

105mm L7 L64A4 APFSDS-T                    1978 pen. 340mm RHA at 2000m 60 °

120mm L11 L23 APFSDS-T                                pen.460mm

US equivalent (and Japan propably)

105mm M68 M735 APFSDS-T                 1976   pen.410mm                      

105mm M68 M774 APFSDS-T                 1979   pen.360mm RHA at 2000m 60 °

French? (maby in future)

105 mm         OLF105F1 APFSDS-T       1981   pen.360mm RHA at 2000m 60 °

 

22 minutes ago, Koty1996 said:

APFSDS for L7 = T-64 and T-72, keep that in mind

If Wikipedia is correct we shouldn't have any problems with penetrating them both with APFSDS-T and top ATGMs.

Penetration values are shown for 2000m. We usualy fight at 100-500m.

 

 

[Koty1996 457]

Well, that is basically what I meant. The estimate is 140mm @ 68° @ 500m - more than enough to penetrate 130 mm @ 68°.

 

Also, values from wiki are not really accurate, the first T-72 should have 280~ mm CHA turret, unless they mean the later pre-A variant. (There is too many to remember.)

 

Meanwhile, hull-down T-64 would be hell, unless flanked - or unless you hit the roof of the tank with HESH/HEAT. APDS should also go through, but - bounces happen too often.

 

Also, those 60° seem to be from horizontal, not vertical.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

(There is too many to remember.)

Yeah soviets were crazy about number of different variants.

1 hour ago, Koty1996 said:

Meanwhile, hull-down T-64 would be hell

Well that's what TD are for. We already can pen. 800 mm with pin point accuracy

[Nope 10,634]

4 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

British equivalent

105mm L7 L64A4 APFSDS-T                    1978 pen. 340mm RHA at 2000m 60 °

120mm L11 L23 APFSDS-T                                pen.460mm

US equivalent (and Japan propably)

105mm M68 M735 APFSDS-T                 1976   pen.410mm                      

105mm M68 M774 APFSDS-T                 1979   pen.360mm RHA at 2000m 60 °

French? (maby in future)

105 mm         OLF105F1 APFSDS-T       1981   pen.360mm RHA at 2000m 60 °

 

If Wikipedia is correct we shouldn't have any problems with penetrating them both with APFSDS-T and top ATGMs.

Penetration values are shown for 2000m. We usualy fight at 100-500m.

 

 

 

Those armor values are actually outdated.