armor M1 / LeopardE

[-Sperber-]

@ Ssnake:

Hello,

I made a test with 30 Abrams (newest americanKE round) fighting against 30 LeopardE (DM53/L55).

conditions:

- flat terrain

- red and blue fcing each other at about 3 km

I repeatetd the battle three times. This was a fight KI vs KI.

Th result was that the Abrams had far lower casualities than the leopard 2E.

Therefor my question:

Is the abrams better armored over the frontal arc than the leopard 2E?

Greetings Sperber

[GH_Lieste]

Put them hull down and repeat - the Leopard has a very vulnerable lower hull ammunition storage, and the M1 has a somewhat vulnerable lower mantlet area. The Leopard is a lot more vulnerable over a slightly larger area, but this is hidden more easily. The M1 has a (small) weak spot but one that has to be presented in order to engage.

Apart from that - it depends on range - at longer ranges the frontal armour can actually keep out hits most of the time, closer in it reduces them to marginal perforations with lower than ideal lethality. The same round striking above or below the protected areas, or on vehicle flanks will be much more dangerous.

M1 can also reload their ammunition while facing the target, the Leopard must rotate the turret, exposing either the turret or hull flank to the threat direction.

I suspect that this is responsible for some of the observed difference if the vehicles are far enough apart that accuracy and lethality allow extended engagements.

[Volcano]

To add to this, you can put a Leo 2E in a position where its hull is kept exposed and only the turret front is presented, and no KE maingun round yet exists that will kill the vehicle (unless you get a shot on the mantlet area *under the gun tube* with DM53L55 ammo if I am not mistaken). This is contrary to the M1 which can be killed through the turret front face with the best rounds available, and killed in the front with lesser rounds if hit in the mantlet and turret ring (the probability depending on penetration power).

So, the short answer to the question is no, the M1 is not better armored than the Leo 2E, but the Leo 2E is no better than any other tank from the side. However, if you are presenting the hull front of the Leo 2E to the enemy then you can certainly expect to lose a vehicle. With dispersion at 3km, the results can be deceiving depending on whether or not X number of shots impacted the turret front vs. Y number of shots that impacted the hull front due to "chance". If you put both vehicles in a hull down position in a BP and conduct your "test" then I predict you will have a one sided result in favor of the Leo 2E.

[-Sperber-]

@GH Liste

I would expect that the Leopard 2E has a far better frontal turret armor than the abrams.

The frontal hull armor of the Leo 2E is weaker than the frontal hull armor of the abrams, i know.

I'll retry the test sce with setting the ammo to unlimited to avoid that the "stupid" Ki of the Leos turn the turret backward to during the battle.

A human comander would surely decide to drive his leo out of the firing zone and than reload the ammo.

Th facts that the Leo's hull armor is weaker and that the ammo is stored in the hull, which can only be reloaded when the turret is turned backwards make me believe, that the Leo is "optimized" for fighting in defensive hull down positions, where a tank comander can back up to reload. Is that right?

Greetings Sperber

[GH_Lieste]

All tanks are... the Leopard is slightly more noticeable than some, but CR1 and CR2, T72/T80 and as far as I know almost all other tanks have weaker toe armour in their non-urban-warfare guises.

The M1 has a thick 'toe' but sacrifices protection on the Glacis and turret ring areas to get it..

Any one fighting position is only supposed to be used for a very few shots before displacing to alternative positions - staying still isn't only a recipe for trouble as your ready ammunition is depleted, but will also invite enemy air &/or artillery. Once you have decided to shoot and scoot, then reloading while covered is not unreasonable - besides being much quicker than messing around with hand-cranked blast doors.

[Volcano]

I would expect that the Leopard 2E has a far better frontal turret armor than the abrams...

Well, yes, of course the turret front armor of the Leo 2E is "better" than the M1A1's, by some 300-400 RHA in some places... and the wedge angle only further helps. As mentioned, the way you can see this is by putting two tanks in BPs opposite each other and do your test again.

Keep in mind that the Leo 2E is of course based on the Leo 2, which was designed to fight in the BP where its hull would never be "presented". In that regard, the hull ammo storage vulnerability is completely avoided and plays no factor in the vehicle's survivability. So yes, I guess you can say (in very general terms) that it was originally designed as a "defensive tank". You only have to look at the West German doctrine of the 1980s to understand some of the design decisions.

I know, from my time in the 90s spent shooting gunnery with our German partner unit, that the Germans trained to engage from a BP, then reverse and shoot in the reverse while moving to the next fall back BP to repeat. Again, with a tank designed around these tactics, its hull ammo played a very little part in the vehicle's survivability if it is employed in such a manner as to avoid this weakness. Of course that was just from a casual observation from someone "on the outside looking in".

Oh well, just trying to help you out...

Edited September 13, 2009 by Volcano
typos

[Sean]

So, the simple answer is that when both tanks are fully exposed, the Leo has a bigger exposed weak area (hull ammo storage) than the m1 does. Throw the dispersion into the mix and some of those "center mass" aimed shots will hit it - causing heavy damage.

Lieste and Volcano did a good job explaining it, but I thought I would summarize for people with a 10 second attention span :-)

[Skybird03]

Lieste and Volcano did a good job explaining it, but I thought I would summarize for people with a 10 second attention span :-)

You have a job in the TV news business, eh? :lol:

[-Sperber-]

@Sean

I'll go with you....

That's what i've meant about the defensive layout of the Leo.

(using hull down positions, that counterbalances the "weak" hull armor ; ammo in hull, which can be reloaded quite quickly when the tank is in secure position, where the turret can be turned bachwards )

Greetings Sperber

Edited September 13, 2009 by -Sperber-

[Damian90]

Hi!

We must also remember that in game we have M1A1HA from 1987, so overall even with less exposed weak zones it have still weaker armor.

I ask on TankNet Ssnake, if SB team consider to put in to SB pro PE, better armored variant like M1A1HA+ and/or M1A1HC, this one got better protection, same as basic M1A2, but they are preatty much same inside and outside to M1A1HA, so making it should not be a big problem? Unfortunetly Ssnake doesen't reply to that question (maybe here? ). So US forces will be have comparabale tank to newer Leo2's.

And backing to Leo2. I wan't to ask, how thick is upper glacis? It have similiar thickness to M1's glacis? Something about 80mm at 80 deegres angle, what angle have Leo2 glacis, certainly angle is smaller. And in newer Leo2's how much protection is added by this addon armor plate over glacis, surely "toe" have better protection but glacis? Addon plate there is not very thick.

[Ssnake]

... so making it should not be a big problem?

It rarely is a question of desirability. But even small changed can sometimes eat considerably into the limited development time budget. I don't think that the difference in armor protection between M1A1HA and HC are terribly dramatic. The M1 already is a pretty survivable tank, making it "even more survivable" wouldn't change the picture much. Adding these variants seems to make sense to me only as a part of an "M1 family" package.

[Damian90]

Well I have different view on that.

Paul Lakowsky makes some good estimations in his armor basics (Collins site depends on them I think) and M1A1HC is better protected than M1A1HA.

880-900mm RHAe vs. KE and 1310-1620mm RHAe vs. CE at turret front for M1A1HC, 660-680mm RHAe vs. KE and 1080-1320mm RHAe vs. CE for M1A1HA.

There is big difference in estimation as you see. Sure your estimations can be different.

Well and making M1A1HC is easier than making M1A1SA i.e. because inside and outside it is practical same as M1A1HA.

Adding these variants seems to make sense to me only as a part of an "M1 family" package.

Well I wouldn't mind if You guys make such pakcadge.

Well, it is a bit unfair that Leo2 family have also the best armored ones and M1 series is represented only by one model, and old model. Yeah I know that we M1 fans probably can't expect to see XXI variants like M1A2SEP or M1A1SA, but 90's variants like M1A1HA+ or M1A1HC can be a good upgrade.

But this are only my thoughts and proposition.

[Volcano]

Yeah I know that we M1 fans probably can't expect to see XXI variants like M1A2SEP or M1A1SA, but 90's variants like M1A1HA+ or M1A1HC can be a good upgrade.

Actually, no, the M1A1(HA) *is* from the 1990s. The M1IP was used until the mid 1980s, and the M1A1 was used in the late 1980s, early 90s. When I was in the US Army in Germany in the mid to late 90s (96-99) all we had were M1A1(HA)s. I am just saying this because the M1A1(HA) is certainly not "old" in the sense that it is from the 1980s but not used throughout the 1990s. To make a long story short, many active units were still fielding the M1A1(HA)s when Force XXI was being put into effect. Only a select few units in III Corps in CONUS like 4th Infantry Division and 1st Cavalry Division actually fielded the M1A2s during the late 1990s.

I am starting to feel old now, but not as old as if I was on an M60A3. :shocked:

[Damian90]

Whoa wait.

From what I learn, first M1A1HA's production started in 1987. First M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC's were fielded in 1991 from what I remember.

So...?

M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC have armor same as M1A2 because maybe not M1A1HA+ (these were probably older M1A1HA's with upgraded inserts), but M1A1HC was base for M1A2, this one I'm certain.

Besides this, time when certain tank was developed and time when it was fielded are two different things.

So yeah, in my eyes M1A1HA is tank from late 80's.

Ok mabe it is a bit lobbing from my side. But you agree that it a bit unfair that we have not only Leo2A4 but also modern variants with greater protection, and US "side" is represented only by model from late 80's. I don't except to see XXI variants, but M1A1HC can be nice addition.

But as I said, these are only my thoughts and proposition.

Still, keep the great work.

[Volcano]

Whoa wait.

From what I learn, first M1A1HA's production started in 1987. First M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC's were fielded in 1991 from what I remember.

So...?

M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC have armor same as M1A2 because maybe not M1A1HA+ (these were probably older M1A1HA's with upgraded inserts), but M1A1HC was base for M1A2, this one I'm certain.

Well, I think you are reading to much into this. From what I was always told, the "HA" and the "HC" are essentially the same (semi unofficial, hence the parenthesis) designation for the same tank, but different names. "HA", or Heavy Armor, was the somewhat unofficial designation used when they first started adding the addition dU armor to the vehicle, and once it became common with other superficial changes then it was then called the HC, or Heavy Common. Either way, both the "HA" and the "HC" are unofficial designations of sorts to mean the same thing, that it has the additional dU armor over the stock M1A1. If you look at official references, such as the US DoD, some list the "HA" but not the existence of the "HC" and others are vice versa.

So yeah, in my eyes M1A1HA is tank from late 80's.

But that is what I am saying, although the M1A1(HA) or (HC) or whatever you want to call it was first developed in the 1988 or 1989, there were very few actually fielded until the early 1990s. The same is true for the M1A2. Although it was developed in the mid 1990s, it too was in very small numbers until 2000+. As a matter of fact, from my time spent in the Army from 1996-2006 I *never* saw an M1A2, or M1A2 (SEP) simply because I was not in the "right unit". So the point is, the M1A1(HA) / (HC) was used throughout the 1990s and still to this day AFAIK.

But you agree that it a bit unfair that we have not only Leo2A4 but also modern variants with greater protection, and US "side" is represented only by model from late 80's.

Not really, no, I would continue to use my M1A1(HA) as I have no problem killing and surviving a fight against any tank in SB as long as the ammo selections are "balanced". But yes, I do agree that additional M1 variants (including the M1A0 and M1IP) would be nice to have. I know a certain someone who would love to have an M1IP. M1A0 and M113 vs. T-62 and BMP-1 battles would be awesome...

[Tacbat]

...M1A1HA+ and/or M1A1HC, this one got better protection, same as basic M1A2, but they are preatty much same inside and outside to M1A1HA, so making it should not be a big problem?

Making an "uparmoured" M1 is as easy as giving the other side weaker ammo. Ta-da!

Easier then you thought, huh? :sonic:

[Damian90]

Well, I think you are reading to much into this. From what I was always told, the "HA" and the "HC" are essentially the same (semi unofficial, hence the parenthesis) designation for the same tank, but different names. "HA", or Heavy Armor, was the somewhat unofficial designation used when they first started adding the addition dU armor to the vehicle, and once it became common with other superficial changes then it was then called the HC, or Heavy Common. Either way, both the "HA" and the "HC" are unofficial designations of sorts to mean the same thing, that it has the additional dU armor over the stock M1A1. If you look at official references, such as the US DoD, some list the "HA" but not the existence of the "HC" and others are vice versa.

Ok, but how you then explain info's about different armor types.

Ok, maybe I read to much ( ), but M1A1HA was essentialy M1A1 with Burlington + added DU layers. M1A1HA+ and M1A1HC were tanks with 2nd. generation "special armor", I don't know if it was Burlington with new gen. DU layers or just a completely new armor with DU, but I assumpt it was new construction. So If this is true, M1A1HC is different, more modern version than M1A1HA. Sure I can be wrong, but this is that problem with US tank designation.

Ok, so we go further, M1A2 was based on M1A1HC so conclusion is, same armor, and I think it is true, time period when tanks were produced, or maybe more correctly, when new type of armor inserts were produced, suggests it can be true.

And in 2000 and beyond we have XXI variants, M1A1SA and M1A2SEP. We know that M1A2SEP have new armor but, in any official info's I saw about M1A1SA there are saying that tanks are equiped with new armor. And that also have some logic. Why to produce so many types of inserts, that don't make sense, so produce only newest type and put in to tanks that went to modernisation.

So in my logic we can make such comparision.

M1, M1IP and M1A1 are variants up to 1985 and are equiped with Burlington armor, M1A1HA produced from 1987 to 1990-1991 (?) with Burlington armor with added DU layers, M1A1HA+ (older tanks only upgraded with newer armor) and M1A1HC with many upgrades and mainly new type of armor inserts + M1A2 as further development based on M1A1HC with same type of armor, these tanks were produced up to 1993 when production stops.

And from 2000 and beyond we have XXI generation represented with M1A1SA and M1A2SEP we newer type of armor inserts and full digital packadge, this tanks are older ones after upgrade'ing.

And between 1993 and 2000 we have something that I will name, interim upgrades like M1A1D or M1A1AIM, oh wait, M1A1AIM appered in 2000 or something, then it was replaced by M1A1AIM v.2 aka M1A1SA.

But ok I hope You know what about I'm talking about.

Well maybe in nearest future SB will be updated to packadge with more M1 variants, not only M1 and M1IP but also more modern ones.

[Damian90]

Making an "uparmoured" M1 is as easy as giving the other side weaker ammo. Ta-da!

Easier then you thought, huh?

Well, I would preffer more fair play.

[Tacbat]

I'd welcome an updated version of the M1 too. :wink:

[MAJ_Fubar]

From my experience HA and HC M1s have the same armor package, the only real differences are the addition of the Marine Corps removable 28 round ammo racks, DECU (Digital Electronic Control Unit) for the engine, new plumbing for the EPLARS and EAPU, provisions for the deep water fording kit, and the push button style ammo selector. Most HAs were converted to HC standards as a field modification by 2000. BTW the moniker "Heavy Common" refers to the commonality of the model between the Army and Marine Corps.

[Volcano]

...BTW the moniker "Heavy Common" refers to the commonality of the model between the Army and Marine Corps.

Ahh yes, that makes sense.

[Ssnake]

Well, it is a bit unfair that Leo2 family have also the best armored ones and M1 series is represented only by one model

It's just reflecting the demand by our army users. Adding vehicles costs a lot of time and money, so we are presented with the choice of adding a vehicle of our choosing on our own and not earn any money during these months, or charging an army for it so we add a new vehicle if their choosing AND get paid at the same time.

Now and then we will work on unpaid vehicles, but don't be surprised to see that as a rare event. There's quite substantial investments ahead for eSim, probably requiring the profits of the last two years if not more, so adding an M1 variant really is the least of our priorities at this point.

[Ssnake]

Paul Lakowsky makes some good estimations in his armor basics (Collins site depends on them I think) and M1A1HC is better protected than M1A1HA.

That's not in the papers that he gave to me that supposedly contain his latest estimates. But if you can give me a direct reference, I'll ask Paul about it.

[Damian90]

Ssnake, I'm not saying that You guys must add it, I'm only asked, if no, that ok.

And this is that document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6032093/Armor-Basics

Maybe this is old one?

Well I don't know, I never seen new one.

MAJ_Fubar, Volcano, so know I have a problem, in any sources we have M1A1HC is reffered as better armored with newer type of armor inserts, same armor inserts are in M1A2... Maybe this is reffered to later production M1A1HC's?

This is problem with US designation, it is full desinformation! ;P

[MAJ_Fubar]

Well, disinformation is the name of the game, don't want the "enemy" to know what your toys can really do. From what I understand, A1 hulls that have been back to Lima for overhaul do receive a new frontal armor package but it seems to be with the insert only, since the weight only changes marginally. Additionally, "new" production turrets (ie M1A2 and A2SEP) carry heavier armor, but I don't know if this applies to the "upgraded" A1SA and A1D turrets coming out of the plant; the obvious assumption among those in the armor community is that they too are up-armored. I doubt this is the case due to slight structural differences between the A2 and A1 turrets...but my observations are somewhat dated. Regardless, the vast majority of M1A1HCs still in the field carry the same armor they did back in the late Nineties.