ground vehicles Leopard 1 A3/A4, and sub variants

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Leopard 1 A3/A4, and sub-variants for the German tech tree

Leopard 1A4 on a troop exercise in Germany

 

Leopard 1A3:
In April of 1972 the Bundeswehr (=BW) handed in an assignment for the 5th batch of our beloved Leopard 1 - the A3 variant. There were 342 vehicles produced in that batch. This number consists of 232 vehicles that still received the cast turret, and were named Leopard 1 A2, the 110 remaining vehicles were designated Leopard 1 A3.

Upgrades for the Leopard 1A3 included:
 -A new welded turret design, which incorporated a spaced armor layout. The new turret design also increased the volume of the crew compartment by 1,5m³. This welded turret was also used on prototypes of the Leopard 2, the Leopard 2K, and the Experimentalentwicklung KPz Keiler. On the KPz Keiler and the Leopard 2K, there were two different guns installed: A 105mm smoothbore, and a prototype version of the RH 120. Both of these guns needed a different gun mantled to be mounted in the welded turret, therefore the values in the build plan of the Leopard 2K given for the mantlet are most probably not correct. The rest of the turret was left unchanged in most of the Leopard 2 prototypes (Exceptions being the installation of a 20mm turret roof mounted RH 202 on one of the KPz Keiler). The armor values for the rest of the turret are unchanged.

Spoiler

The RED MARKINGS ARE NOT the Leopard 1A3's mantlet. A different mantlet has been used on the A3. Values on the mantlet of the A3/A4 are not available to me at the moment.

The above information is outdated, I have since been provided the accurate turret armor values by user @Auto_tracking

 

Spoiler

 

Turret armor layout for the welded design, sourced by @Auto_tracking

-Improved exhaust filters
-Equipment for passive Target- and Recon sight (PZB 200)
-New tracks with mounts for snow grousers for improved traction on snow/ice
-ABC-Protection systems achieved with overpressuring crew compartment
-New periscope for loader position

 

Leopard 1A4:

In 1971, development of the Leopard 1 A4, with arrival of the A3 in the meantime already planned, began. Until the end of 1974, all of the vehicles from the 6^th production batch were shipped to the Bundeswehr. The Leopard 1A2s of the 5^th batch were upgraded to the A4 standard, and the 110 vehicles designated A3 were modified to order specifications and shipped off to Turkey, Denmark, and Greece in the years 1990, and 1991.

 

Upgrades for the A4 included:
-All upgrades implemented to the Leopard 1 up to the A3, plus all of the following
-An automatic, sequential gearbox
-20 additional mounts for snow grousers
-C-resistant external coating that is able to be decontaminated
-Analog computer FC system with: EMES 12 A1, PERI R12, FLER HG; which includes a more sophisticated weapons stabilization in comparison to the earlier WSA found on the Leopard 1A1A1
-The introduction of the newly developed, lincense built copy of the M111 Hetz APFSDS-T round by Israel, first issued in 1978 and designated DM23. The penetration of this round is still officially classified, however multiple sources have placed it to be somewhere in between 360-400mm of penetration at a range of 1km at a 90° angled RHA plate (It is quite safe to assume that standard NATO tests applied to this, since it was adopted in to the German armed forces).

 

Spoiler

  

 

I am aware that there are rumours about the Leopard 1 A4 turret having some sort of plastic filler in the spaced armor layout of the welded turret. I feel like I have to address this issue, since all I have been able to gather in my literature, documents and web sources is a few mentions of the armor protection increasing over the A3 on the A4, by 70mm of effective thickness (RHA/hh). It is unclear whether or not this is referring to a plastic filler, or merely a spall liner.

FCS/Radio upgrades:

To conclude my summary on the Leopard 1A3 and A4, I have to note that the sub variants, the A3 A1, A3 A2, A3 A3, and the A4 A1, bear largely similar equipment. Most of these were lifted up to these combat capability standards not at a set date, but over time due to budgetary reasons. I will include a table of context below.

Spoiler

 

These changes are all referencing the installation of different FCS systems, and radio equipments.

 

Conclusion:

In the end, I would like to talk a bit about how I would like to see these vehicles introduced into the German tech tree.
In my opinion, and after speaking to a few WT community members about this topic, I came across an almost universal agreement, that the German tech tree currently has a very big hole in the area between Tier V and VI in the Leopard line. Due to the recent elevation of BR for the Leopard A1 A1 we already have in game up to BR 8.3, it is currently incapable of effectively dealing with most of its opponents on the current maps, especially considering that the STB1 sits at 7.7, the T62 sitting at 8.0, etc. etc.
The Leopard series of MBTs are commonly known to be glass cannons-Extreme mobility, great fire power, and a lack of adequate armor. However, since the introduction of newer, more capable opponents into other tech trees, the Leopard 1 A1 A1 has severely suffered from the phenomenon called “power creep”, limiting its combat capabilities in most games to being on the defense, and with the initiative on the enemy’s side. Glass cannons need wide, open maps to be able to stretch their legs, which, in War Thunder, just aren’t provided in most RB and AB matches. SIM battles are a different story, since in SIM, the Leopard actually gets to operate utilizing its intended methods, i.e. wide flanking maneuvers and “Shoot-And-Scoot” tactics to make use of the vehicle’s excellent mobility.

 

To make the long story short, I think that the Leopard 1 A3, and A4, in any of its variations definitely have a place in the game, especially considering that a Leopard with APFSDS-T ammunition would provide an easier step into Tier VI compared to the rather rough move from the Leopard 1 A1 A1 on to the KPz70.

Let me know what you think, I am eager to hear all opinions on this topic, hope you enjoyed,

 

I really recommend taking a look at these two links here. They are an extremely interesting read for anyone interested in tanks:

http://amicale.3emedragons.free.fr/Docs materiels WW2/Waffen Arsenal 069 - Kampfpanzer Leopard 2+.pdf
http://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/biblio2/05/The Leopard I MBT in German Army service - Early Years.pdf

 

Special thanks go to @pieve, seeing as he has provided me with a good chunk of reliable sources, documents, and video material.

 

Best regards,

 

Rohrkrepierer o7

 

Spoiler

 this is Steel Beast's estimated armor values for the Leopard 1 A3

  This is a cross section of the turret armor of a Leopard 1A3

 

 

 

Spoiler

Literature used in this suggestion: „KPz Leopard 1: 1956-2003 (Typenkompass)“ by Rolf Hilmes ISBN:9783613033603
                                                     „Kampfpanzer Leopard 1 Mit neuen Dimensionen im Panzerbau“ - Waffen-Arsenal Band 84 by Michael Scheibert

                                                        

                                                        FM 3-90.12: Combined Arms Gap-Crossing Operations, July 2008

                                                        GTA 17-2-8: Armored Vehicle Recognition, February 1977

                                                        In0535: Vehicle Recognition (Friendly Armor), Edition C

                                                        OPFOR Worldwide Equipment Guide, 2001

                                                       Canadian Army website

                                                       Italian Army website

                                                    U.S. DoD Defenselink website

 

Web sources used in this suggestion: http://www.kotsch88.de/f_leopard1a4.htm
                                                            http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Leopard/Leopard_home.html

                                                            http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/West_Germany/Leopard-I.php

                                                            http://amicale.3emedragons.free.fr/Docs materiels WW2/Waffen Arsenal 069 - Kampfpanzer Leopard 2+.pdf
                                                            http://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/biblio2/05/The Leopard I MBT in German Army service - Early Years.pdf

                                                         

 

Documents and official reports used in this suggestion:

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Rohrkrepiererer
Spelling, Corrected Statcard, Added correct turret armor layout

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

Open for Discussion.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Thank you, Senpai 

[SAUBER_KH7 3,326]

2 minutes ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Thank you, Senpai 

lol Your welcome.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1 gib more BW-Stuff

Edited December 22, 2017 by dotEXCEL

[Mo_guy96 245]

I said no to the 1A3 because it won't be to much of an improvement over the 1a1a1 that we have in game, the new turret would be nice, but apds is just not enough if it fights against top tier vehicles, I voted yes to the 1a4 because it has access to M111 hetz which is known to be able to defeat T-64A and T-72 armor standard. 

[pieve 3,578]

leopard 1A3 can be premium and Leopard 1A4 will be line

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

i'm in favor of the Leopard 1A3 in its 1A3A3 version. the A3A3 model had ALL of the bells and whistles seen only in pieces on the earlier 1A2 and A3 models.

 

i voted no on the 1A4 simply because having the 1A5 (and why wouldn't we?) makes it redundant (gaijin's trigger word).

 

that said i have no real gameplay issues with the 1A4.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

8 hours ago, Mo_guy1996 said:

I said no to the 1A3 because it won't be to much of an improvement over the 1a1a1

 

All sub variants of thr A3, the A3 A1, A3 A2, and A3 A3 were issued APFSDS-T of some sorts. Since there are no clear dates for these though, we can't really tell if it's just DM23 or even DM33, etc.

 

If you guys would like me to, I could add poll options that include the sub variants of the two vehicles.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

35 minutes ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

i voted no on the 1A4 simply because having the 1A5 (and why wouldn't we?) makes it redundant (gaijin's trigger word).

understandable

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

Update: I have reworked the poll, and added a new set of choices.

[KontaKT 1,824]

Let's talk about the BRs.
Yes if they replace the current awful Leopards.

No if they have a higher BR wich would make them pointless.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

3 minutes ago, PanzerCell said:

Let's talk about the BRs.

not up to us, tbch. thats gaijins decision to make where to place them.

Edited December 23, 2017 by dotEXCEL

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

46 minutes ago, PanzerCell said:

Let's talk about the BRs.
Yes if they replace the current awful Leopards.

No if they have a higher BR wich would make them pointless

 

8.7, like the Type74 for any of the Leos with APFSD-T. 
No, Gaijin has never removed a vehicle before.
A higher BR is very much justified, if they get new systems introduced, like a new turret, or a new type of ammunition.

 

And to put the penetration stats of the DM23 into perspective a bit, I have found something here. This is a page from a training manual for the Leopard crews that were transitioned from the Leopard 1 to the Leopard 2 in the 70's.
 

Spoiler

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer

[Laviduce 1,779]

2 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

8.7, like the Type74 for any of the Leos with APFSD-T. 
No, Gaijin has never removed a vehicle before.
A higher BR is very much justified, if they get new systems introduced, like a new turret, or a new type of ammunition.

 

And to put the penetration stats of the DM23 into perspective a bit, I have found something here. This is a page from a training manual for the Leopard crews that were transitioned from the Leopard 1 to the Leopard 2 in the 70's.
 

  Hide contents

 

Interesting, this was also in the Krapke book, which i am using on my Leopard 2A0 armor model.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

7 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

Interesting, this was also in the Krapke book, which i am using on my Leopard 2A0 armor model.

iirc Paul-Werner Krapke listed that in his book as a source at the end as well.

Edited December 23, 2017 by dotEXCEL

[kev2go 5,112]

YEs

 

In particular because Germany Could really use a 8.7 b.r  L7 armed leo  that actually has APFSDS like the DM23.

Edited December 23, 2017 by kev2go

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

17 minutes ago, kev2go said:

In particular because Germany Could really use a 8.7 b.r  L7 armed leo  that actually has APFSDS like the DM23.

 

The only Variant of these that were not issued DM23 from their introduction is the base Leopard 1 A3. All the other sub variants of the A3, and the A4 and its sub variants were introduced when DM23 was issued.

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

9 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

Update: I have reworked the poll, and added a new set of choices.

 

really wish gaijin would add an option to recast a vote in the event of a poll being revised so i could pencil in the 1A3A3.

 

9 hours ago, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

8.7, like the Type74 for any of the Leos with APFSD-T. 
No, Gaijin has never removed a vehicle before.
A higher BR is very much justified, if they get new systems introduced, like a new turret, or a new type of ammunition.

 

And to put the penetration stats of the DM23 into perspective a bit, I have found something here. This is a page from a training manual for the Leopard crews that were transitioned from the Leopard 1 to the Leopard 2 in the 70's.
 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

wow. so the switch from the DM13 APDS to the DM23 APFSDS resulted in an 1100m greater effective firing range? god dayyum.

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

18 minutes ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

wow. so the switch from the DM13 APDS to the DM23 APFSDS resulted in an 1100m greater effective firing range? god dayyum.

 

Not too surprising, because APDS-T is not very accurate. There are tons and tons of reports of Leopard, Centurion, and Chieftain crews complaining about the lack of accuracy of the APDS-T shells. 

That complain was mostly subsided, once the first APFSDS-T shells were issued.

[Admiral_Aruon 2,264]

Just now, Rohrkrepiererer said:

 

Not too surprising, because APDS-T is not very accurate. There are tons and tons of reports of Leopard, Centurion, and Chieftain crews complaining about the lack of accuracy of the APDS-T shells. 

That complain was mostly subsided, once the first APFSDS-T shells were issued.

 

yeah i think i saw something about that somewhere else on the forum some time ago. what was it, uneven separation of the sabot that caused the shot to go wide after 500-600 meters?

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

 

yeah i think i saw something about that somewhere else on the forum some time ago. what was it, uneven separation of the sabot that caused the shot to go wide after 500-600 meters?

 

That, combined with the fact, that APDS-T have to be spin-stabilized in flight. Now most APDS shells are not very long in comparison to APFSDS shells, which makes their flight characteristics not very good. It's like throwing a pencil straight, and comparing that to throwing an athletic javelin.

[swpixy 1,220]

+1

[FORMATOSE 901]

The data regarding the respective weight of both variants are incorrect : the 1A3 weighs 42,4 t while the 1A4 is 100 kg heavier due to its new panoramic sight and the adding of a FCS.

 

Adding the Leopard 1A4 will bring nothing new to the game since Gaijin is not interested to put real sights and working fire control systems into the game

 

Regarding the spaced armor of the Leopard 1A3 and A4 turrets, it's the same layout/technology as on the KPz-70, the Keiler and early Leopard 2 prototypes.

 

 

[Rohrkrepiererer 1,393]

1 hour ago, Auto_tracking said:

Adding the Leopard 1A4 will bring nothing new to the game since Gaijin is not interested to put real sights and working fire control systems into the game

 

Gaijin has already confirmed internal testing on FC systems, including thermal and night imaging devices, as well as targeting computers. It is however unclear as to if or when results of testing are announced.

 

1 hour ago, Auto_tracking said:

Regarding the spaced armor of the Leopard 1A3 and A4 turrets, it's the same layout/technology as on the KPz-70, the Keiler and early Leopard 2 prototypes

 

I talked about this in the suggestion, also I need you to give me a source on the combat weight for the two vehicles, otherwise I can't correct the alleged mistake.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Rohrkrepiererer