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

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

@Nope By how much ?

They show too much armour or too low ?

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

Its has better stabilizer and composite armor or what?

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, TheJoker1432 said:

Its has better stabilizer and composite armor or what?

It has a modern FCS and a more roomy turret, and plastic Fuller between the turret and the bolted on Armor. Some sight repositionings were done as well.

[Koty1996 457]

4 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

@Nope By how much ?

They show too much armour or too low ?

They show LOS thickness as well 

 

That should be around 350 for first T-72's vs. KE, 450ish against HEAT.

Yes, we already got TD's capable of destroying these, but hey, that would mean cooperation amongst players, you can't ask for that ^^;

2 hours ago, TheJoker1432 said:

Its has better stabilizer and composite armor or what?

Better sighting complex - thermal imaging, powerful light-intensifiers, better IR, ... zoom should also be better. Not sure if it has laser rangefinder, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Last two can already be usefull ingame. Armour profile should be identical to A1A1.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

9 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

but hey, that would mean cooperation amongst players, you can't ask for that ^^;

I don't quite understand what do you mean by that.

 

One Raketenjpzr 2 HOT operator can single handed destroy one hypothetical T-64/72 with regular "stock" missile.

What cooperation you're talking about ?

[Kocyra 5,742]

Leo 1A5 in the current game state would be identical in performance to Leopard 1A1A1, aside from looking different there wouldn't be much else.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

3 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

I don't quite understand what do you mean by that.

 

One Raketenjpzr 2 HOT operator can single handed destroy one hypothetical T-64/72 with regular "stock" missile.

What cooperation you're talking about ?

If a T-64 or T-72 appears on the battlefield can you guarantee that a Raketenjagdpanzer 2 HOT will be there to fight it? If one is not there what will stop the German team from getting face-rolled?

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

3 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

If a T-64 or T-72 appears on the battlefield can you guarantee that a Raketenjagdpanzer 2 HOT will be there to fight it? If one is not there what will stop the German team from getting face-rolled?

We were taliking about T-64/72 addition in context of a 105mm APFSDS-T ammo for L7.

 

"can you guarantee that a Raketenjagdpanzer 2 HOT will be there to fight it? "

It's a deeper question than you thought.

Firstly no T-64 or T-72 should ever go below 9.0 BR, they only make sense as Tech Tree extension not tanks for current meta.

 

Secondly all top MBTs at the same Battle Rating, hypothetically 9.0 or higher for that matter should be able to frontaly penetrate each other and at the same time have notable advantages over lower BR MBTs, notable enough to provide you certain victory in 1 vs 1 engagement.

 

Thirdly Rkjpz 2 HOT is not the only german vehicle that will be able to destroy T-64/72 and actually Germans are the last one that should worry about that. They seem quite safe with

4 ATGMs carriers, and 4-5 possible Leopards that can be fitted with APFSDS-T.

 

So I can guarantee you that even if we ever see soviet composites they will appear at BR where German TT is going to have multiple tanks to fight them not only ATGMs.

Currently soviet armour is useless and eventual composite T-64 or T-72 will only have just enough protection to withstand lower BR tank fire.

But I can't guarantee that players will know how to use them effectively.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

13 minutes ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

We were taliking about T-64/72 addition in context of a 105mm APFSDS-T ammo for L7.

Did you not understand the statement you were responding to?

10 hours ago, Koty1996 said:

Yes, we already got TD's capable of destroying these, but hey, that would mean cooperation amongst players, you can't ask for that ^^;

Koty is very clearly talking about how we have vehicles right now that can technically fight a T-64 or T-72, but as it is only certain vehicles and would require teams to coordinate to get the right vehicles fighting specific threats it would not be a tenable situation due to the current lack of any major kind of teamwork in the average match.

 

In the case of a match up with more modern vehicles with more modern ammunition in a new br bracket that that is entirely fine.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

14 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

In the case of a match up with more modern vehicles with more modern ammunition in a new br bracket that that is entirely fine.

I case you didn't notice that's exactly what I'm saying. This whole thread is about vehicle to be put on currently non existing BR.

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

1 minute ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

I case you didn't notice that's exactly what I'm saying. This whole thread is about vehicle to be put on currently non existing BR.

That was me showing agreement towards what you were saying.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

Ok than

[RefrigerRaider 563]

the recent april fools event proved vehicles like these have a chance. Full speed ahead, i want to see them in game!

[Mr_Hunter_99 781]

I would want it but it's kinda same as A1A1 :/

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

On 4/5/2017 at 8:48 AM, Scharfschutze_99 said:

I would want it but it's kinda same as A1A1 :/

 

there's a ton of vehicles ingame that are bare upgrades over older models

 

 

hey @RefrigerRaider someone else made a (closed) suggestion on the leo 1A5 that has MUCH more info. can you add all that to your OP.

 

[tavo89 381]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

there's a ton of vehicles ingame that are bare upgrades over older models

 

 

hey @RefrigerRaider someone else made a (closed) suggestion on the leo 1A5 that has MUCH more info. can you add all that to your OP.

 

Use the content of my suggestion. Thank you

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

the 1A5 could mount the Rh120/L44..... that mod never went into production.... but we actually mounted it once

 

T4 modification

 

@tavo89 Just post it here then

 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

I would like to see the Leopard 1A3 and A4 before the A5 though. Seems like less of a dramatic jump in performance to me.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

51 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

I would like to see the Leopard 1A3 and A4 before the A5 though. Seems like less of a dramatic jump in performance to me.

indeed

 

[tavo89 381]

*We have the KT 10.5, panther2 88mm (disney tanks), in the near future we could have the Leo1a5 105mm APFSDS-T ammo - 120mm RM L44 canon

 

*Variants A3 and A4 did not use apfsds-t ammunition, in variant A5 this ammunition was introduced

Edited June 17, 2017 by tavo89

[tavo89 381]

3 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

dramatic jump in performance to me.

dramatic jump in performance?:

 

Tier V : tanks

• KT 10,5, MAUS, Leopard 1, leopard1 A1A1 4 VS 8  T-10M, T-54 1947, T-54 1949, T-54 1951, T-62, T-55A, IS-3, IS-4M, dramatic jump in BIAS 
• KT 10,5, MAUS, Leopard 1, leopard1 A1A1 4 VS 7 M-47, M48A1, M60, M60A1 (AOS), T32, M103, T95E1
• KT 10,5, MAUS, Leopard 1, leopard1 A1A1 4 VS 5 Centurion MK 10, Chieftain MK 3, Chieftain MK 5, Vickers MBT, Conqueror

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

1 hour ago, tavo89 said:

dramatic jump in performance?:

 

Tier V : tanks

• KT 10,5, MAUS, Leopard 1, leopard1 A1A1 4 VS 8  T-10M, T-54 1947, T-54 1949, T-54 1951, T-62, T-55A, IS-3, IS-4M, dramatic jump in BIAS 
• KT 10,5, MAUS, Leopard 1, leopard1 A1A1 4 VS 7 M-47, M48A1, M60, M60A1 (AOS), T32, M103, T95E1
• KT 10,5, MAUS, Leopard 1, leopard1 A1A1 4 VS 5 Centurion MK 10, Chieftain MK 3, Chieftain MK 5, Vickers MBT, Conqueror

have you ever looked at the apfsds of the 1a5? no? you should do it then

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

3 hours ago, tavo89 said:

*Variants A3 and A4 did not use apfsds-t ammunition, in variant A5 this ammunition was introduced

äh no?!

As Ex-BW tanker is say that you are wrong my friend

the DM23 which is the M111 was introduced in 1978

the Leo 1A4 was introduced in 1976
the Leo 1A5 was introduced in 1986

that means that the 1A4 was equipped with the DM23 as well as remaining 1A3's

[tavo89 381]

28 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

have you ever looked at the apfsds of the 1a5? no? you should do it then

 

21 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

äh no?!

As Ex-BW tanker is say that you are wrong my friend

the DM23 which is the M111 was introduced in 1978

the Leo 1A4 was introduced in 1976 (1974)
the Leo 1A5 was introduced in 1986 (1987)

that means that the 1A4 was equipped with the DM23 as well as remaining 1A3's

According to sources ... leopard1a5 introduced apfsds

-----------------------------

DM23: 360mm

3BM3: 350mm (T-62)

3BM25: 335mm (T-55)

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by tavo89

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

33 minutes ago, tavo89 said:

 

 

those are all 120mm shells.

34 minutes ago, tavo89 said:

DM23: 360mm

3BM3: 350mm (T-62)

3BM25: 335mm (T-55)

but way better pen against angled armout than these russian shells.

DM23 has 385mm pen at 10m