Leopard 2A3 is ahistorical

[Big Sister Lover]

The L2A3 is depicted with superior armor main gun accuracy, front armor, side armor and offroad speed than the M1A1 Abrams.

In reality the M1A1 would have the advantage in most of those areas. For instance the Honeywell engine has more torque so it has better offroad speed.

Then in terms of side armor the Leopard 2 has a Achilles heel from storing ammo in the hull so a side shot can blow up the whole tank instantly. Wheras on the Abrams all the ammo is stored behind blowout panels to direct the explosion of ammunition away from the inside of the tank.

I don't have the exact data but the M1A1 is a 1985 design with 1985 era fire control Where the Leopard 2A3 is using fire control from 1981 from the Leopard 2A1 which introduced thermal sights. I think the fact the US had thermal sights on the 1970s variants of the M60 while the Bundeswehr only started getting them in 1982 should indicate who had the more developed sights for their guns.

The front armor of the M1A1 is also from 1984 from the M1IP where the Leopard 2 remained unupgraded until the A4 variant. America had tested the Leopard 2 against the XM-1 when they were selecting their new tank between Chrysler, General Motors and Krauss Maffei and concluded its armor protection was inferior.

[Dr.Corpse]

Leopard 2 had a commanders independent viewer for faster target acquisition from get-go, M1a1 did not, so fire control is definitely going for Leo, not for Abrams. Leo is also good 10 tons lighter than m1a1, so with the same horsepower it is more agile in terrain.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

Leopard 2 had a commanders independent viewer for faster target acquisition from get-go, M1a1 did not, so fire control is definitely going for Leo, not for Abrams. Leo is also good 10 tons lighter than m1a1, so with the same horsepower it is more agile in terrain.

The Leopard 2A3 weighs 62 Tonnes, the M1A1 Abrams Weighs 63 Tonnes.

The M1A1 Abrams and the Leopard 2A3 both have sights for the commander, which is really just a periscope he is supposed to use when buttoned down since both tanks the Commander is intended to operate unbuttoned. The difference is that the M1A1 Abrams is referred to as the "Commander's weapon station" because the M1A1 Abrams has a .50 Caliber Commander's machine gun that he can aim with the sight, On the Leopard 2 the Commander doesn't have a weapon so his sight is just a simple periscope. This isn't new technology the M4 Medium tank had a commander periscope.

[Dr.Corpse]

your numbers are off. Leo 2a6 is barely past 60 tons empty weight, leo 2a3 is around 50t, m1a1 past 55. Further on you are mistaking commanders periscopes with actual commanders sight that is stabilized and can be used to slew the gun on target. M1a1 does not have that, the remote sight for .50 is just that, a remote sight for the .50.

Leo 2 had from the get go a PERI sight for the tank commander which can slew the turret and use the main gun. In an Abrams pre-m1a2 the TC can only fire the gun using the gunners primary sight esxtension- that is, peeking to the gunners view from his station optic. Leo allows TC to select between shooting through the gunners EMES sight (including thermal camera since leo 2a2) or through his own separately stabilized PERI sight with I think 8 times magnification and night vision channel.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

your numbers are off. Leo 2a6 is barely past 60 tons empty weight, leo 2a3 is around 50t, m1a1 past 55. Further on you are mistaking commanders periscopes with actual commanders sight that is stabilized and can be used to slew the gun on target. M1a1 does not have that, the remote sight for .50 is just that, a remote sight for the .50.

Leo 2 had from the get go a PERI sight for the tank commander which can slew the turret and use the main gun. In an Abrams pre-m1a2 the TC can only fire the gun using the gunners primary sight esxtension- that is, peeking to the gunners view from his station optic. Leo allows TC to select between shooting through the gunners EMES sight (including thermal camera since leo 2a2) or through his own separately stabilized PERI sight with I think 8 times magnification and night vision channel.

Your weight figures are wrong again.

First off you were claiming it was a 10 ton difference now you are claiming it is 5 tonnes. In reality the Leopard 2 is 55 tonnes and the M1 Abrams is 57 Tonnes. I had misread American short tons as metric tonnes. This weight difference would be negligible and the superior performance of the turbine engine would still put it out ahead.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

The Abrams commander can also control the main gun this isn't special or unique. The M1A2 added a independent thermal sight for the commander that he could use to automatically queue up targets for the gunner to engage.

The Leopard 2A2 is also not an upgraded variant that introduced anything new onto the vehicle, You don't know what you're talking about so you got confused but the Leopard 2A1 introduced thermal sights onto the Leopard 2 and the Leopard 2A2 was created by replacing the night sights on the original Leopard 2 tanks that didn't have thermals. They're functionally the same tank.

[Dr.Corpse]

yes, and the m1a2 is the first abrams variant with the TCs independent viewer, and not in game. this is my point why fire control wise, Leopard 2 (any model) > M1 (any model prior to a2 update) because hunter-killer functionality literally halves a multiple target engagement score times.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

yes, and the m1a2 is the first abrams variant with the TCs independent viewer, and not in game. this is my point why fire control wise, Leopard 2 (any model) > M1 (any model prior to a2 update) because hunter-killer functionality literally halves a multiple target engagement score times.

I already explained how you're wrong about this in the 2nd comment. https://steamcommunity.com/app/1611600/discussions/0/3191369524229975562/#c3191369524230349727

It's clear you're not taking this discussion seriously since you're ignoring whenever I prove you wrong, such as ignoring the weight and torque of the tanks so I am going to ignore you.

[Dr.Corpse]

I mean if you do not understand the difference in scanning and engagement times between a commanders periscope, fully stabilized commanders viewer, or using the GPSE, and what that means as far as fire control goes, I cant help you aside from emphasizing once again that M1 did not receive a stabilized hunter-killer-sight for TC until the m1a2 upgrade which is not in-game. Second, if you think that the torque of a tank as a fixed number is the key point in proving something about agility rather than the controls and transmission, i am sorry, cant help you there either except noting that I have it on pretty good grounds that on an agility course the M1 fails to Leo 2.

fun fact: the transmission on Leo allows switching from forward to reverse without coming to a halt, which -if your driver is competent on their job- is absolutely amazing for fast BP work.

Literally the only contribution you have for any of your arguments that is not absolute potash is that Leo does, in fact, have a hull ammo storage that does not have a blast door.

[Dr.Corpse]

Oh, and also as far as accuracy goes, 120mm Rheinmetall L/44 firing dm23 is inhererently more accurate than 105 L7. I'm just putting this claim here without even bothering to cite sources, prove me wrong if you can.

[DasaKamov]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCW-2_qPlQw
Clearly the superior technology. ;)

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

I mean if you do not understand the difference in scanning and engagement times between a commanders periscope, fully stabilized commanders viewer, or using the GPSE, and what that means as far as fire control goes, I cant help you aside from emphasizing once again that M1 did not receive a stabilized hunter-killer-sight for TC until the m1a2 upgrade which is not in-game. Second, if you think that the torque of a tank as a fixed number is the key point in proving something about agility rather than the controls and transmission, i am sorry, cant help you there either except noting that I have it on pretty good grounds that on an agility course the M1 fails to Leo 2.

fun fact: the transmission on Leo allows switching from forward to reverse without coming to a halt, which -if your driver is competent on their job- is absolutely amazing for fast BP work.

Literally the only contribution you have for any of your arguments that is not absolute potash is that Leo does, in fact, have a hull ammo storage that does not have a blast door.

You're not able to provide any evidence or explain your claims because it's already been debunked. Instead you're going into ad hominem attacks.

The Abrams also has a reverse speed of 40kph vs 30kph for the Leopard 2. You can switch any transmission to reverse without stopping the vehicle but you would damage the automotive components so you're more likely to mobility kill the vehicle and you wouldn't save any time on it since you have to get the tank to stop before you can start moving in reverse anyways, you're better off setting it to neutral then going into reverse after you come to a stop.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

Oh, and also as far as accuracy goes, 120mm Rheinmetall L/44 firing dm23 is inhererently more accurate than 105 L7. I'm just putting this claim here without even bothering to cite sources, prove me wrong if you can.

That isn't relevant to the discussion about the M1A1 Abrams which is using the M256 120mm cannon with M829 ammunition.

Also the burden of proof is on you as you are the one making the claim. The fact you can't prove what you're claiming probably means it's not true and you're just attempting to distract from the real issue, because you are a troll.

[Dr.Corpse]

Originally posted by Big Sister Lover:

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

I mean if you do not understand the difference in scanning and engagement times between a commanders periscope, fully stabilized commanders viewer, or using the GPSE, and what that means as far as fire control goes, I cant help you aside from emphasizing once again that M1 did not receive a stabilized hunter-killer-sight for TC until the m1a2 upgrade which is not in-game. Second, if you think that the torque of a tank as a fixed number is the key point in proving something about agility rather than the controls and transmission, i am sorry, cant help you there either except noting that I have it on pretty good grounds that on an agility course the M1 fails to Leo 2.

fun fact: the transmission on Leo allows switching from forward to reverse without coming to a halt, which -if your driver is competent on their job- is absolutely amazing for fast BP work.

Literally the only contribution you have for any of your arguments that is not absolute potash is that Leo does, in fact, have a hull ammo storage that does not have a blast door.

You're not able to provide any evidence or explain your claims because it's already been debunked. Instead you're going into ad hominem attacks.

The Abrams also has a reverse speed of 40kph vs 30kph for the Leopard 2. You can switch any transmission to reverse without stopping the vehicle but you would damage the automotive components so you're more likely to mobility kill the vehicle and you wouldn't save any time on it since you have to get the tank to stop before you can start moving in reverse anyways, you're better off setting it to neutral then going into reverse after you come to a stop.

Untrue times three, literally technical manual sets the speed range where you can flip transmission to reverse on Leo 2, and its not "0kph" Second again, theoretical maximum reverse speed has nothing to do with anything since you will never use it, and third (again) the mass plus difference in transmission means that Leo switches and picks up speed faster than Abrams does. Also I notice that you couldnt find sources to call that the L/44 is not inherently more accurate either.

Oh, and last tidbit, cross-country Leo 2 has better loading speed because of automatic loading cant that the loader can select VS Abramses stabilized gun breech going all over the place on rough terrain. Little Crew UX benefits that germans actually gave a fudge about.

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

Originally posted by Big Sister Lover:

You're not able to provide any evidence or explain your claims because it's already been debunked. Instead you're going into ad hominem attacks.

The Abrams also has a reverse speed of 40kph vs 30kph for the Leopard 2. You can switch any transmission to reverse without stopping the vehicle but you would damage the automotive components so you're more likely to mobility kill the vehicle and you wouldn't save any time on it since you have to get the tank to stop before you can start moving in reverse anyways, you're better off setting it to neutral then going into reverse after you come to a stop.

Untrue times three, literally technical manual sets the speed range where you can flip transmission to reverse on Leo 2, and its not "0kph" Second again, theoretical maximum reverse speed has nothing to do with anything since you will never use it, and third (again) the mass plus difference in transmission means that Leo switches and picks up speed faster than Abrams does. Also I notice that you couldnt find sources to call that the L/44 is not inherently more accurate either.

Oh, and last tidbit, cross-country Leo 2 has better loading speed because of automatic loading cant that the loader can select VS Abramses stabilized gun breech going all over the place on rough terrain. Little Crew UX benefits that germans actually gave a fudge about.

If you had any proof for what you are claiming you could provide it. Also good job trying to argue that you can begin reversing a vehicle that is still traveling forward. You can't be moving in two opposite directions at the same time, this is very basic stuff.

https://youtu.be/Ltqh-DYIx4o Looks like the Abrams doesn't have a problem switching to reverse. It takes less than 2 seconds and less than 8 meters to come to a stop.

Max reverse speed is incredibly important, when you're facing off against a horde of Russian armor you don't want to give them the opportunity to get within range to shoot you so you just keep on reversing as you fire on them to extend the sweet spot where you are knocking out their tanks and they're not able to return fire. If you have a Abrams at max reverse speed you can use up your entire ammunition reserve before the T-72 horde closes the gap to get into shooting range, you don't have the same luxury in the Leopard 2.

I didn't even read your last tidbit but you really need to stop, the Leopard 2 doesn't have an autoloader it is manually loaded.

The reason that the gun breech moves when the tank is moving is because the vertical stabilizer is keeping the gun leveled as the vehicle is moving. For the breech of the gun to sit still you will have to disable the vertical stabilizer so the gun is locked into position in the turret which is bouncing around shifting the point of aim.

You should just admit you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to tanks instead of getting so invested in a topic you have no place in. It's insulting to people like me who actually research this stuff.

[Dr.Corpse]

Originally posted by Big Sister Lover:

Originally posted by Dr.Corpse:

Untrue times three, literally technical manual sets the speed range where you can flip transmission to reverse on Leo 2, and its not "0kph" Second again, theoretical maximum reverse speed has nothing to do with anything since you will never use it, and third (again) the mass plus difference in transmission means that Leo switches and picks up speed faster than Abrams does. Also I notice that you couldnt find sources to call that the L/44 is not inherently more accurate either.

Oh, and last tidbit, cross-country Leo 2 has better loading speed because of automatic loading cant that the loader can select VS Abramses stabilized gun breech going all over the place on rough terrain. Little Crew UX benefits that germans actually gave a fudge about.

If you had any proof for what you are claiming you could provide it. Also good job trying to argue that you can begin reversing a vehicle that is still traveling forward. You can't be moving in two opposite directions at the same time, this is very basic stuff.

https://youtu.be/Ltqh-DYIx4o Looks like the Abrams doesn't have a problem switching to reverse. It takes less than 2 seconds and less than 8 meters to come to a stop.

Max reverse speed is incredibly important, when you're facing off against a horde of Russian armor you don't want to give them the opportunity to get within range to shoot you so you just keep on reversing as you fire on them to extend the sweet spot where you are knocking out their tanks and they're not able to return fire.

I didn't even read your last tidbit but you really need to stop, the Leopard 2 doesn't have an autoloader it is manually loaded.

The reason that the gun breech moves when the tank is moving is because the vertical stabilizer is keeping the gun leveled as the vehicle is moving. For the breech of the gun to sit still you will have to disable the vertical stabilizer so the gun is locked into position in the turret which is bouncing around shifting the point of aim.

so what if i were to tell you, sit tight for this one, that for one of these tanks, the loading procedure *automatically* disengages the vertical stabilizer, and not only does that but also sets the breech exactly to the height the loader depending on their height, wants? which is kinda what I just said.

and no, max revers speed has nothing to do with anything. delaying action sint about max reverse speed, its about having enough reverse speed to get to the next BP. in reality a tank that has 30+kph reverse speed will not reach that reverse speed anyway, because all the time you are reversing TC is 75% focused on navigating for the driver.

[Dr.Corpse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJNM32_UDhY check second 32-35, when the gun fires. see that... suspicious barrel raise? guess what that is. then again at about 1:04.. and really, anytime the rheinmetall speaks.