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]

Big Sister Lover の投稿を引用：

Dr.Corpse の投稿を引用：

6 feet 4 is basically verboten for tanking without a waiver in any military no matter their equipment. Russians used to have the hardest height restrictions because the t-series is immensely cramped.

https://youtu.be/aladW_D4nKU If you go to 9:30 you can hear The Chieftain explain how he fits into the M1A1 Abrams despite being 6'5" tall.

oh, and if you were to actually listen to your OWN VIDEO, the exact words on 11:31: "and, yes, the army does have a height limit ofr tankers and yes I do exceed it"

and "fitting" and "being optimally built for a task" are not the same thing. Trust me, a 6'4 person on the gunners seat needing to start setting up MOPP 4 is going to have a bad time, and a 6'4 tank driver is gonna hate his life in, well, almost every tank in existence.

the reason you assume Abrams is somehow more spacious than Leo from the inside runs on two items that you do not yourself seem to understand. One is that the turret does not have the (removable) divider screen between the loaders side and the gunner/tc side that Leo has, instead having guards that get pulled up when its go-time. Second is that the Leos loader side has a cradle at the end of the breech for spent cartridge stubs. on a video, or a wide-angle shot these two items frame a picture, effectively cutting the "space" in half and "removing" a chunk of space that the viewer think the loader has in his space (spoiler alert, he does not. that space belongs to the gun, not to the loader, and the stabilizer will remind you once, and breech will not bother reminding, it just declares it if you forget it when the gotime comes.)

In fact, there are multiple design choices on the Leo 2 loader space that ease his job tremendously compared to the loaders tasks in the M1. let me just example this with one: Coax placement. M1 has coax on the gunners side of the gun, above the gun. Leo leaves the coax on the left side of the gun, literally wide open into the loaders space. Guess which one is easier to clear from a jam, load, unload, mount, dismount, align, and service? granted, this means that in a jam gunner cannot rack the weapon, loader has to do it, but in reality every single jam that isnt rack-and-go on m1 is usually something to do with the belt feed from loaders side so now you have loader needed to solve it anyway.

when someone calls you out because you think tanks reverse miles in their theoretical max speed across open plains willy-nilly as part of delaying action, just.. just stop.

[Big Sister Lover]

Dr.Corpse の投稿を引用：

Big Sister Lover の投稿を引用：

https://youtu.be/aladW_D4nKU If you go to 9:30 you can hear The Chieftain explain how he fits into the M1A1 Abrams despite being 6'5" tall.

oh, and if you were to actually listen to your OWN VIDEO, the exact words on 11:31: "and, yes, the army does have a height limit ofr tankers and yes I do exceed it"

and "fitting" and "being optimally built for a task" are not the same thing. Trust me, a 6'4 person on the gunners seat needing to start setting up MOPP 4 is going to have a bad time, and a 6'4 tank driver is gonna hate his life in, well, almost every tank in existence.

the reason you assume Abrams is somehow more spacious than Leo from the inside runs on two items that you do not yourself seem to understand. One is that the turret does not have the (removable) divider screen between the loaders side and the gunner/tc side that Leo has, instead having guards that get pulled up when its go-time. Second is that the Leos loader side has a cradle at the end of the breech for spent cartridge stubs. on a video, or a wide-angle shot these two items frame a picture, effectively cutting the "space" in half and "removing" a chunk of space that the viewer think the loader has in his space (spoiler alert, he does not. that space belongs to the gun, not to the loader, and the stabilizer will remind you once, and breech will not bother reminding, it just declares it if you forget it when the gotime comes.)

In fact, there are multiple design choices on the Leo 2 loader space that ease his job tremendously compared to the loaders tasks in the M1. let me just example this with one: Coax placement. M1 has coax on the gunners side of the gun, above the gun. Leo leaves the coax on the left side of the gun, literally wide open into the loaders space. Guess which one is easier to clear from a jam, load, unload, mount, dismount, align, and service? granted, this means that in a jam gunner cannot rack the weapon, loader has to do it, but in reality every single jam that isnt rack-and-go on m1 is usually something to do with the belt feed from loaders side so now you have loader needed to solve it anyway.

when someone calls you out because you think tanks reverse miles in their theoretical max speed across open plains willy-nilly as part of delaying action, just.. just stop.

If he was too tall he wouldn't have been a tanker in the US Army.

Also I have firsthand experience with the FN MAG vs the MG3 and the MG3 jams significantly more than the FN MAG.

You're also incredibly stupid if you think that the loader is going to be servicing or mounting and dismounting the gun in combat. That just leaves loading the gun or clearing a malfunction, which you already said the gunner can do, they are also using 2,000 round belts of ammunition and correct deployment of a tank means that the loader is never going to be in a rush to replenish the machine gun and he will actually load it from his position by simply linking up more belts of ammunition to the belt feeding into the gun already since that's how machine gun links work.

So you're just making up fake problems again. using ad hominems again, because you're a bad troll.

What's even more emberassing is that you're so obsessed with trying to prove you have the best tank here instead of just admitting that the Leopard 2 is inferior and using the design cues from the Abrams to improve the Leopard 3.

[Dr.Corpse]

Big Sister Lover の投稿を引用：

If he was too tall he wouldn't have been a tanker in the US Army.

this is literally what waivers are for. age, size, MOS pre-requisite, civil or medical background- many things can be waived in the military. And hey, i didnt say it- *he did* watch your own damn video.

Gun clearing a malfunction does not always mean its re-rack and go. in fact, for m1 coax when the rack-attack wont work the #1 culprit *is* the ammo belt going all the way from the box at the loaders side to the coax, over the gun. so yes, that happens, its barrel up, check the belt, fix the issue. I never said you dismount the coax *during combat* (although i can give you multiple reasons why a crew would would without a second thought if you really need to) I said dismounting it sucks where it is. And yes, after firing 500-600 rounds, the moment there is a lull in action, the machineguns are gonna get looked at and cleaned and oiled for this exact reason depending on your TC. Again, something that is much, much easier done when you can actually reach the weapon from the loaders seat rather than awkwardly climbing half-over the breech.

your takes are hilarious how they show you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Big Sister Lover]

Dr.Corpse の投稿を引用：

Big Sister Lover の投稿を引用：

If he was too tall he wouldn't have been a tanker in the US Army.

this is literally what waivers are for. age, size, MOS pre-requisite, civil or medical background- many things can be waived in the military. And hey, i didnt say it- *he did* watch your own damn video.

Gun clearing a malfunction does not always mean its re-rack and go. in fact, for m1 coax when the rack-attack wont work the #1 culprit *is* the ammo belt going all the way from the box at the loaders side to the coax, over the gun. so yes, that happens, its barrel up, check the belt, fix the issue. I never said you dismount the coax *during combat* (although i can give you multiple reasons why a crew would would without a second thought if you really need to) I said dismounting it sucks where it is. And yes, after firing 500-600 rounds, the moment there is a lull in action, the machineguns are gonna get looked at and cleaned and oiled for this exact reason depending on your TC. Again, something that is much, much easier done when you can actually reach the weapon from the loaders seat rather than awkwardly climbing half-over the breech.

your takes are hilarious how they show you have no idea what you are talking about.

You've never been in an abrams have you?

They don't dismount the M240 Coax if they abandon or scuttle the tank because they have the Loader's M240 which is in an easier position to remove and is typically already configured as an infantry weapon.

There's also no reason to oil or clean a machine gun after a mere 600 rounds. especially one with an adjustable gas system like the FN MAG.

You keep on just making up stuff and getting debunked on it. Do you actually claim you're a veteran?

[Dr.Corpse]

Youve never seen what an U.S army stock 240 coax looks like after 20 years of service, have you?

Ok, since you asked. reasons to dismount the coax?
-TC cleared weapons, forgot to close the feed tray proper, gunner brings gun back level, crushes feed tray cover. boom, you need a new weapon, and you wont take that feed tray out without removing it from the mount.
-you get a jam that cannot be fixed either by belt or rackattack. easiest way, swap loaders and gunners 240s around, since the loaders is less essential.
-you need to adjust that same damn gas system you just talked about. good louck trying to do that whilst its mounted.
-barrel swap.

Thats four. and no, the loaders 240 in an M1 is not "usually configured as an infantry weapon" because the standard loadout it has a butterfy trigger that works with the spade grips on the skate mount. the fact that you insist it is an FN MAG talks volumes how out of touch you are with your subject- you are more likely to find MAG in a Leopard than in an Abrams (number of European countries second-hand-operating Leo 2s opted to set MAGs on the place of the mg3 for belt compatibility reasons, for example the Leo 2 a6s that FDF brought off the netherlandsin 2016 had this conversion). MAG versions and 240 versions differ only slightly, but just like different 240 versions differ from each other there are things that mean they are distinct and should not be mixed- for example this is one of the reasons some 240 models cannot be given a pistol grip because the sear will not function- I cant remember the variants that are incompatible from the top of my head, but the TM will tell you if you consult it.

OK, at this point if you havent already guessed it, I have operated Leo 2a4s in the FDF as a conscript, so I likely have more time inside Leo 2 than you have in all wargame series games combined. I also happened to immigrate to the US, and spent a nice chunk of time operating an M1A2Sepv2. so yea, do ask me if ive seen the inside of an Abrams.

have you by chance ever transferred rounds from semi-ready to ready rack? yea, no, thought as much.

[Big Sister Lover]

Dr.Corpse の投稿を引用：

Youve never seen what an U.S army stock 240 coax looks like after 20 years of service, have you?

Ok, since you asked. reasons to dismount the coax?
-TC cleared weapons, forgot to close the feed tray proper, gunner brings gun back level, crushes feed tray cover. boom, you need a new weapon, and you wont take that feed tray out without removing it from the mount.
-you get a jam that cannot be fixed either by belt or rackattack. easiest way, swap loaders and gunners 240s around, since the loaders is less essential.
-you need to adjust that same damn gas system you just talked about. good louck trying to do that whilst its mounted.
-barrel swap.

Thats four. and no, the loaders 240 in an M1 is not "usually configured as an infantry weapon" because the standard loadout it has a butterfy trigger that works with the spade grips on the skate mount. the fact that you insist it is an FN MAG talks volumes how out of touch you are with your subject- you are more likely to find MAG in a Leopard than in an Abrams (number of European countries second-hand-operating Leo 2s opted to set MAGs on the place of the mg3 for belt compatibility reasons, for example the Leo 2 a6s that FDF brought off the netherlandsin 2016 had this conversion).

OK, at this point if you havent already guessed it, I have operated Leo 2a4s in the FDF as a conscript, so I likely have more time inside Leo 2 than you have in all wargame series games combined. I also happened to immigrate to the US, and spent a nice chunk of time operating an M1A2Sepv2. so yea, do ask me if ive seen the inside of an Abrams.

have you by chance ever transferred rounds from semi-ready to ready rack? yea, no, thought as much.

So from those 4 reasons you listed, they were basically all just failures of yours to maintain equipment properly.

You also just admitted to not seeing combat so you don't have any practical experience and none of these complaints you have are actual issues revealed in combat,

Also you claimed that the Leopard 2A4 has commander thermals which it doesn't.

You also claim that you served in a M1A2 SEPv2 but that your FN MAG machine guns were 20 years old, except the SEPv2 entered service in 2012 so even if you were still an Abrams tanker your guns would have been 10 years old at most.

You also wouldn't need to change the gas system if you were going to take the FN MAG out. This is probably your maintenance problems in action since you weren't cleaning the gun during downtime and instead half assing it and just changing the gas setting after putting in all the work to remove the MG in the first place.

Also the FN MAG variants of the Leopard 2 are purpose built vehicles rather than being interchangeable. If you were a veteran Leopard 2 user you would know this.

Also the M240 is an American designation for the FN MAG. This isn't even a debatable case like the M240B/L series where they modified the FN MAG to suit American requirements for a M60 replacement, it's the exact same gun.

The MG3 and FN MAG also use the same M13 belt. You're confusing it with the MG42 which fires 7.92x57mm.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-77802efe5070141ea476608b0097f776-lq

[Dr.Corpse]

You do realize majority of U.S m1a2 Sepv2s are (were, some area already getting converted further) not new-made, right? most of the original m1 hulls are still in this day in circulation, an not as baseline m1s either. Also, tank coax is not part of a tank, its unit inventory as far as small arms goes.

m240C and m240L have been in U.S inventory since lord knows when, so yes, getting your hands on less-than-a-decade old 240 would make you more of a a unicorn than i am.

Show me where I said Leo 2 a4 has commanders thermals. On the contrary, I specifically noted that Leo 2 had hunter-killer from get-go, even though the PERI only has night vision channel, no thermals. M1a2 first got hunter-killer functinality at a2 model, which isnt in game, but *that is a thermal sight*. for Leo 2 the only thermal sight accessible to the TC is to use the EMES sight of the gunner, Same mechanism (periscope-to-peek-into-the-main-sight) americans call GPSE.

So yes, m1a1 fire control is slower and worse than Leo 2 a3, since it still lacks that commanders viewer. As for exactly "how important it is for TC to be able to search and accurately designate new targets to the gunner on the fly whilst he focuses on killing the previous one as part of the fire control system" goes, obviously you have no.whatsoever.clue as anyone who has operated tanks can contend to.

But I digress, guess americans saw it as imporant since it was one of the major points on the m1a2 upgrade, and the actual turret location for the CITV (commanders independent thermal viewer) had already been in the tank at least since the a1 model (look for a flat circular frame in front of the loader), just waiting for the final product to be installed into the hole.

[Big Sister Lover]

Dr.Corpse の投稿を引用：

You do realize majority of U.S m1a2 Sepv2s are (were, some area already getting converted further) not new-made, right? most of the original m1 hulls are still in this day in circulation, an not as baseline m1s either. Also, tank coax is not part of a tank, its unit inventory m240C and m240L have been in U.S inventory since lord knows when, so yes, getting your hands on less-than-a-decade old 240 would make you more of a a unicorn than i am. Show me where I said Leo 2 a4 has commanders thermals. On the contrary, I specifically noted that Leo 2 had hunter-killer from get-go, even though the PERI only has night vision channel, no thermals. M1a2 first got hunter-killer functinality at a2 model, which isnt in game, but *that is a thermal sight*. for Leo 2 the only thermal sight accessible to the TC is to use the EMES sight of the gunner, same technique americans call GPSE.

So yes, m1a1 fire control is slower and worse than Leo 2 a3, since it still lacks that commanders viewer. As for exactly "how important it is for TC to be able to search and accurately designate new targets to the gunner on the fly whilst he focuses on killing the previous one as part of the fire control system" goes, obviously you have no.whatsoever.clue as anyone who has operated tanks can contend to.

Later M60 variants and all variants of the M1 Abrams have thermal sights, you're out of your mind bro.

Also you are giving two self contradicting excuses for your machine gun problem, claiming that your tank was actually refurbished and that the machine guns are held separately from the vehicle. Do you really think they set the tanks out of the factory without their machine guns? Unless there is an epidemic of new machine guns being stripped out and replaced with old machine guns for seemingly no reason the only explanation is that you aren't maintaining your equipment properly.

Oh and the M240L isn't mounted on the M1 Abrams. The M240L is a M240B derrivative lightened for infantry use. You would know this if you were a veteran like you claim.

[Dr.Corpse]

I never said m1 did not have thermal sights. I said until m1a2 the only sight in the abrams accessible to the TC was the gunners extension. The GPS has been day-and-thermal all along. you really, really need to read what people tell you. The key difference is taht when comparing m1a2 and leo 2 a 3, abrams finally goes ahead by giving the TC a independent sight, and then upping that into thermals.

Simpleton explanation:
M1-m1a1: gunners sight (thermal incl), aux sight, *no TC sight*
Leo 2-leo 2a4: gunners sight (thermal incl) aux sight, *TC SIGHT, (nonthermal)*
m1a2: gunners sight (thermal incl.) aux sight, TC SIGHT, (thermal incl).

every one of these also has the ability for TC to look through the gunners sight. BUT IT IS LOCKED TO GUN. SO WHILST GUNNER DOES HIS JOB TC CANT LOOK AROUND USING IT.

this is why hunter-killer is important.

And no, general dynamics does not take tanks to Lima plant with machineguns attached. a tank will get machineguns, and those machineguns do not come from General Dynamics, and those machineguns are not earmarked to a specific tank in any sort of permanent way- because they get refitted and sent for fixing soooooo much. a 240 is a 240 is a 240.

[Big Sister Lover]

Dr.Corpse の投稿を引用：

I never said m1 did not have thermal sights. I said until m1a2 the only sight in the abrams accessible to the TC was the gunners extension. The GPS has been day-and-thermal all along. you really, really need to read what people tell you. The key difference is taht when comparing m1a2 and leo 2 a 3, abrams finally goes ahead by giving the TC a independent sight, and then upping that into thermals.

Simpleton explanation:
M1-m1a1: gunners sight (thermal incl), aux sight, *no TC sight*
Leo 2-leo 2a4: gunners sight (thermal incl) aux sight, *TC SIGHT, (nonthermal)*
m1a2: gunners sight (thermal incl.) aux sight, TC SIGHT, (thermal incl).

every one of these also has the ability for TC to look through the gunners sight. BUT IT IS LOCKED TO GUN. SO WHILST GUNNER DOES HIS JOB TC CANT LOOK AROUND USING IT.

this is why hunter-killer is important.

And no, general dynamics does not take tanks to Lima plant with machineguns attached. a tank will get machineguns, and those machineguns do not come from General Dynamics, and those machineguns are not earmarked to a specific tank in any sort of permanent way- because they get refitted and sent for fixing soooooo much. a 240 is a 240 is a 240.

We have already been over this. The TC sight on the M1 Abrams pre M1A2 is also used to aim the .50 caliber so it's called a machine gun optic. All of these tanks have a non-thermal sight for the commander on them except for the M1A2.

Hunter Killer is just a buzzword that was made up as a form of Russian cope.

You're also trying to claim like I am out of touch for calling the M240C the FN MAG but then don't even know what variant of the M240 is used on the M1 Abrams.

Maybe they do use the M240L on the Loader's position which would contradict your claim it uses spade grips so that you can swap out the guns because the crew has discipline problems and is too lazy to maintain their equipment.

[Track Charlie]

Big Sister lover, the poster you are arguing with is known in plenty of online communities as a dual hatted tanker.

In addition to that, you confuse the FN Mag and M240 repeatedly, you spout things like "Loader's M240 which is in an easier position to remove and is typically already configured as an infantry weapon." which clearly show you do not actually know what you are talking about because it has a solenoid butterfly trigger and it is nigh unuseable as infantry weapon in most cases.

The Abrams tanks the the Army use do not have weapons that have the same date of manufacture as with the tank. You don't have a good idea how military inventories work. You state you were rejected from the panzerwaffe and now all you have are the youtube videos of another dude posting about tanks.



"Also you are giving two self contradicting excuses for your machine gun problem, claiming that your tank was actually refurbished and that the machine guns are held separately from the vehicle. Do you really think they set the tanks out of the factory without their machine guns? Unless there is an epidemic of new machine guns being stripped out and replaced with old machine guns for seemingly no reason the only explanation is that you aren't maintaining your equipment properly.
"


This here is such a pants-on-head statement that can only be repeated by a person who has not been in an actual military organization for any amount of time. The US Army M1s are in such absolutely dire shape in terms of hodge-podge and maintenance nightmares.
I've seen probably every variant of the 240 on Abrams tanks, all within the same company. I've seen M249s on an Abrams!


It's similar to your statement about how "old" the M1A2 SEP is, because it shows you didn't actually know that in US Army inventory most "modern tanks" are refurbishment packages of old ones.


"There's also no reason to oil or clean a machine gun after a mere 600 rounds. especially one with an adjustable gas system like the FN MAG."

The M240 that I carried was semi-auto a lot of the time even right after the cleaning because it was a clapped out piece of crap. It was older than you, probably.

Might be a time to take the L.

[Dr.Corpse]

just out of curiosity. how many rounds do you think a single 240 can go through by the TM (technical manual) before needing depot work? also, how many rounds do you think an individual 240 goes through per training year in the U.S Army?

spoiler alert: usual gunnery table six has around 500-600 round allocation. a full-on company gunnery has tables 1-12. hotshot brigades do guneries twice a year, and with surprise rotations and need to have a new crew certified supplementary gunneries are a thing.

[Dr.Corpse]

Big Sister Lover の投稿を引用：

Hunter Killer is just a buzzword that was made up as a form of Russian cope.

LOL i will literally pass this on to my mike golf acquaintances. citation of the century.

[Big Sister Lover]

Vähäkylä の投稿を引用：

Big Sister lover, the poster you are arguing with is known in plenty of online communities as a dual hatted tanker.

In addition to that, you confuse the FN Mag and M240 repeatedly, you spout things like "Loader's M240 which is in an easier position to remove and is typically already configured as an infantry weapon." which clearly show you do not actually know what you are talking about because it has a solenoid butterfly trigger and it is nigh unuseable as infantry weapon in most cases.

The Abrams tanks the the Army use do not have weapons that have the same date of manufacture as with the tank. You don't have a good idea how military inventories work. You state you were rejected from the panzerwaffe and now all you have are the youtube videos of another dude posting about tanks.



"Also you are giving two self contradicting excuses for your machine gun problem, claiming that your tank was actually refurbished and that the machine guns are held separately from the vehicle. Do you really think they set the tanks out of the factory without their machine guns? Unless there is an epidemic of new machine guns being stripped out and replaced with old machine guns for seemingly no reason the only explanation is that you aren't maintaining your equipment properly.
"


This here is such a pants-on-head statement that can only be repeated by a person who has not been in an actual military organization for any amount of time. The US Army M1s are in such absolutely dire shape in terms of hodge-podge and maintenance nightmares.
I've seen probably every variant of the 240 on Abrams tanks, all within the same company.


It's similar to your statement about how "old" the M1A2 SEP is, because it shows you didn't actually know that in US Army inventory most "modern tanks" are refurbishment packages of old ones.

Might be a time to take the L.

Lol you are his knight in shining armor come to rescue him from strangers on the internet scrutinizing him?

Your dual hatted tanker doesn't know what variant of the FN MAG is mounted on the Abrams.

He's also claiming to be an expert on a variant of the Abrams he never even used and has already demonstrated that the crew on his vehicle wasn't qualified.

[Dr.Corpse]

the difference between the ye olde .50 tv sight and an actual CITV is one word: "designating". what this word means is "lol gunner, got your turret" and gunner has to just hopelessly watch as the TC presses a button, slewing the entire turret into whatever he wants dead next.

after that all that is needed is "identified, range 1500, -fire and adjust- -on the way"
thats 2-3 seconds minimum off from acquiring and killing another t-72. which in gameplay terms should be why "optics" are "excellent"