Thermal depth of field

[Maj.Hans]

About scrapping Leo1, I'm talking about this in a historical context.

 

Yes, now it makes sense to upgrade the modern ones, but in 1980-1990 maybe it made more sense to upgrade the Leo 1 a little bit.

 

As for M1A2 being an "upgrade", you say that almost like an "upgrade" is bad compared to a new tank?

 

There's nothing wrong with an upgrade, especially one that refurbishes the vehicle!  Yes, the M1A2, even a new built M1A2, is just an upgrade of the M1A1 design.  In a similar way the 2A5 is an upgrade of the 2A4.  It's still a newer and better model.

[Kev2go]

6 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

About scrapping Leo1, I'm talking about this in a historical context.

 

Yes, now it makes sense to upgrade the modern ones, but in 1980-1990 maybe it made more sense to upgrade the Leo 1 a little bit.

 

As for M1A2 being an "upgrade", you say that almost like an "upgrade" is bad compared to a new tank?

 

There's nothing wrong with an upgrade, especially one that refurbishes the vehicle!  Yes, the M1A2, even a new built M1A2, is just an upgrade of the M1A1 design.  In a similar way the 2A5 is an upgrade of the 2A4.  It's still a newer and better model.

 

yes it is, but i am not arguing anything wrong with upgrades, rather that, it came off like ssnake was using  thw wordupgrade kind of liberaly,

 

like oh its "just" an upgrade.

 

well yes, true i mean its not turned into  new tank design, but drastic upgrades like on the M1A2 sep make it vastly more capable over its predecessor(s), to the point where it does actually feel like a whole new tank.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[Maj.Hans]

1 minute ago, Kev2go said:

 

yes it is, but ssnake was using upgrade kind of liberaly, like oh its "just" an upgrade. well yes i mean its no new tank design, but drastic upgrades like on the M1A2 make vastly more capable, or just like comparing m60A1 - A3 or leo1a2-a5, its efficiney is considerably raised that it almost feels like a new tank, not a mere "upgrade"

 

I think he was trying to explain that it had the old thermal viewer because they had built the 2A6 using existing 2A5, which were in turn built from 2A4.  They didn't put a new thermal sight in because they already had one that was good enough in the vehicle they were using to make the new one.

 

Conversely, the M1A2 has new thermals for the gunner because the M1A1 thermal was sort of sadface...

[Kev2go]

27 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

I think he was trying to explain that it had the old thermal viewer because they had built the 2A6 using existing 2A5, which were in turn built from 2A4.  They didn't put a new thermal sight in because they already had one that was good enough in the vehicle they were using to make the new one.

 

ah yeas, i suppose so, but m1a1 has the same ( or at least very similar) sadface quality in game, as the 2a4. ( and subsequently 2a5/2a6) now im not sure if in real life the 2a4 had superior thermals to the A1, but im guessing most 1st gen thermal were comparable, save for the TTS that was on the m60A3 that exceeded design specifications.

 

So its a difference of opinion then? US official think it wasnt good? we need improvement in quality, whilst German's thought , "meh" good enough?

 

Quote

 

Conversely, the M1A2 has new thermals for the gunner because the M1A1 thermal was sort of sadface...

 

well not just the gunner, i mean the commander does also have the GP sight, and it replicated on the CITV panel, which appear to have the same quality as the gunner.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

as for leo1's id scrap them entirely, especially the ones prior the 1A5. I mean a leopards were never well armored, they were paper thin even in thier prime.  

 

Why the hate?

Leo 1 turrets are better armored than M60 turrets. Not by a wide margin, but not too shoddy either. Their mobility is much better than the M60's, stabilization and fire control even of older Leo 1s was at least on par or better. What's lacking is frontal hull armor in comparison to the M60. We can certainly debate the relative merits of these tradeoffs, but "paper thin" isn't exactly accurate unless you want to call the M60, T-55, and T-62 "cardboard at best" at the same time.

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

So its a difference of opinion then? US official think it wasnt good? we need improvement in quality, whilst German's thought , "meh" good enough?

 

(Defense) priorities, and budgets I'd say.

The US can reasonably expect to send their tanks around the globe at more or less any given time.

 

The 2A5 and 2A6 upgrades for the Leo 2 were approved right after the German reunification as pure inertia from Cold War programs. It was decided at a time when the Bundeswehr still had 2100 Leo 2s in both active and reserve battalions, plus a few thousand armored vehicles of originally East German NVA stock, and an active personnel headcount of around 700,000 soldiers.

The reunification was a MASSIVE undertaking for the entire nation (which seems to be constantly underestimated by anyone who wasn't involved - I'm not accusing anyone of ignorance here, mind you); shrinking the Bundeswehr down to under 200,000 headcount (and about 400 Leo 2s) within about one decade was no small task either ... while shifting the focus from (exclusively) national defense to (exclusively) expeditionary warfare was also a major shift both in mission, mentality, and required capabilities.

The 2A6 essentially represents the last shadow image of the Cold War period. The 2A7 will reflect current doctrine and requirements in the not too distant future. But the thermal imager was very low in priority if seen in this context. Desirable, maybe, but hardly mission critical at the time.

[Maj.Hans]

I guess, in a cold war mind set, if your thermal is good enough to tell you "There be Russians!" then it's doing it's job.

[Ssnake]

It's more the question, with rather elaborate and extensive rules of engagement (some would call them stifling, choking, or tying ones hands to your back) and a general reluctance to send tanks abroad in the first place, do you NEED to positively identify targets at 3km range, or wouldn't you open fire only if you could reasonably expect not to cause substantial collateral damage, which suggests much shorter engagement ranges in the first place.

[Grenny]

the Leo1 front armour was OK after the improvements to the gun mantle.

 

But the turret side where paperthin until the 1A5...and even then barely 30mm BMP-2 ammo proof...

[12Alfa]

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Ultimately why Canada decided to scrap thier Leo1s, and ASAP upgrade to the newer platform ( ended up being the 2a4 and some 2a6s) Thier leo1 deployment to Afghanistan on 06 was a wakeup call,

 

 

Just a clarification here.

Canada was never scrapping our Leo1A5's, we were getting out of the tank business altogether . We were trialling the MGS, were rigging war gaming simulations at the war collages to make the MGS look like a super weapon for our armoured corps ..

We entered Afghanistan with our C2's (leo1A5) with MEXAS ( Modular Expandable Armor System) and found it worked as advertised for the threat there .

We purchased the LeoA4/5/6M's due to spare parts issues , not due to the threat.

We just retired this summer the last C2's, my Regt now has one on a concrete pad in our city for all to ponder .

Edited September 3, 2016 by 12Alfa

[Maj.Hans]

My understanding of the C2 was always that it performed perfectly well in combat in Afghanistan...

 

As for the Leo2 upgrade, I have to say that the Leo2A4M/CAN looks like quite a competant upgrade package, and I would love to see it, some day, in Pro PE.

[oscar]

I love what ESIM has done with the thermals. perticuliarly the fact that you can now fiddle around with you image focus just gives it that extra in depth fidelity that makes a good simulator a good simulator basicly..

[Kev2go]

On 9/3/2016 at 7:36 PM, 12Alfa said:

Just a clarification here.

Canada was never scrapping our Leo1A5's, we were getting out of the tank business altogether . We were trialling the MGS, were rigging war gaming simulations at the war collages to make the MGS look like a super weapon for our armoured corps ..

We entered Afghanistan with our C2's (leo1A5) with MEXAS ( Modular Expandable Armor System) and found it worked as advertised for the threat there .

We purchased the LeoA4/5/6M's due to spare parts issues , not due to the threat.

We just retired this summer the last C2's, my Regt now has one on a concrete pad in our city for all to ponder .

 

well I take it as that being the pretext, or at least not nessarily the only reason. I mean the leoa1a5  (c2) is obsolete in any modern confrontation,. not really so much due to FCS which is basically leo2a4 level , but because of the platform lacking armor ( even with the armor addons) and  its lacking survavability post penetration. 3 of them were entirely destroyed in Afghanistan.

 

defense analysis of the acquisition takes it into consideration

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/

 

proclaiming that a old tank can still prove in combat its worth isnt saying much as even a base T55 or T62, would still find some use against such a foe without thier own armored vehicles of any sort, or without shoulder fired AGTMs. ( latter of which are in use by by the Afghan national army) The A10 warthog is still a very lethal bird for mud moving and CAS in uncontested airspace, but would sustain massive casualties against a foe with a air force and a intricate ( & modern) air defense network.

 

so one could image how vulnerable these c2's would be would be against a foe with semi relevant- modern armor, if you loose 3 to 60s vintage RPG7's  So buying leo2a4 -2a6 is acknolweging ( even if not offiicialy) that newer platform is nessary to give better protection against insurgent as well as potential armor threats  in a  theoretical conventional war. additionally the l44 and l55 120mm are obviously superior gun platforms to the L7 105mm.

 

the vast majority of Leo2s that canada has are 2A4, designated with M because they have had thier bellies uparmored agaisnt mine threats, and have had the wedge turrets applied similar to  the 2a5,(80 the 100), while the  rest of  20  are 2a6's. on mere lease, and not officially owned. I am from Canada, so  i take it upon myself to be informed of our procurements, where our tax dollars go more than learning of other nations procurements, despite in general  history buff and interested in military tech.

 anywho the C2s were pretty much relegated to training / reserve duty not long after the leo2 acquisition, they wouldnt have been realistically seeing any over seas deployment past 08.

 

and whether Canada wants to admit or not, yes it would of been  a good decision to modernize our tank fleet  irregardless.  even  if we did actually have enough spare parts for our leo1 (c2s) for the foreseeable future.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Kev2go

[12Alfa]

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

well I take it as that being the pretext, or at least not nessarily the only reason. I mean the leoa1a5  (c2) is obsolete in any modern confrontation,. not really so much due to FCS which is basically leo2a4 level , but because of the platform lacking armor ( even with the armor addons) and  its lacking survavability post penetration. 3 of them were entirely destroyed in Afghanistan.

 

defense analysis of the acquisition takes it into consideration

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/

 

proclaiming that a old tank can still prove in combat its worth isnt saying much as even a base T55 or T62, would still find some use against such a foe without thier own armored vehicles of any sort, or without shoulder fired AGTMs. ( latter of which are in use by by the Afghan national army) The A10 warthog is still a very lethal bird for mud moving and CAS in uncontested airspace, but would sustain massive casualties against a foe with a air force and a intricate ( & modern) air defense network.

 

so one could image how vulnerable these c2's would be would be against a foe with semi relevant- modern armor, if you loose 3 to 60s vintage RPG7's  So buying leo2a4 -2a6 is acknolweging ( even if not offiicialy) that newer platform is nessary to give better protection against insurgent as well as potential armor threats  in a  theoretical conventional war. additionally the l44 and l55 120mm are obviously superior gun platforms to the L7 105mm.

 

the vast majority of Leo2s that canada has are 2A4, designated with M because they have had thier bellies uparmored agaisnt mine threats, and have had the wedge turrets applied similar to  the 2a5,(80 the 100), while the  rest of  20  are 2a6's. on mere lease, and not officially owned. I am from Canada, so  i take it upon myself to be informed of our procurements, where our tax dollars go more than learning of other nations procurements, despite in general  history buff and interested in military tech.

 anywho the C2s were pretty much relegated to training / reserve duty not long after the leo2 acquisition, they wouldnt have been realistically seeing any over seas deployment past 08.

 

and whether Canada wants to admit or not, yes it would of been  a good decision to modernize our tank fleet  irregardless.  even  if we did actually have enough spare parts for our leo1 (c2s) for the foreseeable future.

The link is old, a lot has happened to the Cops in the time span. Things are still changing as we speak.

 

a few points.

 

They weren't facing a modern army with semi-modern wpnds, thus they were deemed good-to-go for the deployment.

Destroyed, well no, worth to replace with Leo 2's coming down the pipe, again no.

 

We found though the 120mm is good, what was required is HESH of the 105mm type,  120 is overkill with no HESH. The range of the 105 is ok in that enviroment, the C2 is a light tank vs Leo2 on the infrastructure, that if we destroy we would pay for in the end, I know this personally :).

Remember this was a COIN operation ,not a conventional operation, we needed the population with us on this. Blasting 120 rounds, tearing up the poor road system does not help them, or us in the long run.

 

We entered the war without tanks, they came later. Like I stated, Canada was getting out of the tank game, the Leopards were up for sale, courses were disconnected at the school.

 

2nd, the vast majority of the Leo2's are not M's. Those would place additional wear on the tanks, thous more maintenance cost, and needed $$$ we don't have.

 

Last I was told they are a Sqn(-)  of M versions, being just for deployments, this is fluid.

 

We do have a upgraded A4 with additional amour, but then again the weight and additional cost for a system not being used.

 

The bulk of the force is used for training,  keeping them in the A4 standard to keep costs down till needed for deployment. Crews are trained on both systems here at the school. Gunnery is just about the same, maintenance also., most crews trained on the C2's.

If you were to go to a Regt, one would see a mixture of all  (A4/5/6). C2's are retired.

 

The lease tanks were refitted here in country as they were spent after deployment, we sent Germany from the original bulk buy A4's to bring back to the state of the tanks they leased to us with Canada accepting the cost to do so. It was cost effective for us to do so, the Germans had no issues with that (they are a friendly bunch)

 

I too am a amour buff, and a ex tanker with a bit of knowledge on the subject, and was deployed with said tanks, although not serving in that role at the time. 

One might say I've bashed a few tracks, and maintain my armoured connections.

 

Contact me by PM if you have any question.

Hope this clears the subject.

[MikeKiloPapa]

On 3/9/2016 at 11:25 PM, Grenny said:

 

 

But the turret side where paperthin until the 1A5...and even then barely 30mm BMP-2 ammo proof...

Yes ...on the cast turret Leo's.....the spaced armor welded turret of the A3/A4 had somewhat better protection , at least as good as the M60s side armor (~3" /76mm cast iron IIRC ) 

[Kev2go]

4 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

The link is old, a lot has happened to the Cops in the time span. Things are still changing as we speak.

 

a few points.

 

They weren't facing a modern army with semi-modern wpnds, thus they were deemed good-to-go for the deployment.

Destroyed, well no, worth to replace with Leo 2's coming down the pipe, again no.

 

Remember this was a COIN operation ,not a conventional operation, we needed the population with us on this. Blasting 120 rounds, tearing up the poor road system does not help them, or us in the long run.

 

 

exactly many things have changed,  but everyone knows the old adage of "in peace prepare for war". just because COin against Afghan insurgents at the time, doesnt mean newer tanks wont suit Canada better in the uncertain future., indeed many things have changed since 2006, and therefore that tank procurement today looks like a even better investment.

 

 Just as the last administration also tried to procure what was going to be the highest tech jet available for Nato  the F35, until the recent administration cancelled it for political reasons, despite there being a a signed contract,  and Canada having invested money into its development.

 

 

Quote

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

On Saturday, September 03, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Ssnake said:

 

Why the hate?

Leo 1 turrets are better armored than M60 turrets. Not by a wide margin, but not too shoddy either. Their mobility is much better than the M60's, stabilization and fire control even of older Leo 1s was at least on par or better. What's lacking is frontal hull armor in comparison to the M60. We can certainly debate the relative merits of these tradeoffs, but "paper thin" isn't exactly accurate unless you want to call the M60, T-55, and T-62 "cardboard at best" at the same time.

 

Not really hating. Just that to me the m60 seemed the most well rounded of the naxos cold war tanks before the next gen tanks came in the 80s.

 

To me I think leo1s 1 hull too thinly armored, and it tends to cook-off very easily in sb or have the turret blown clean off thanks to the ammo storage in the hull.

 

M60 series better hull armor but good enough mobility, turret armor slightly less effective but still well enough armored for its day.  M60 would have been immune to b412d and ingame seems to be also fairly esilient beyond 1.5 km to bm8 of the t55 and the bm4 of the t62. 

 

Cheiftan not mobile enough only well armored hull down, and good gun. Exposed lfp, and very weak. So not good carrying out any mobile moves.

 

But all in all I considered all of these tanks reaching obsolescence by the early 90s, not strictly being discriminate to the Leo.  USA did already retire m60a3 from active duty service before gulf war 1 and usmc  were in the process of acquiring m1a1s during the conflict and phased Thier m60a1s out soon after.

 

Well in any case sorry for going for off topic. thanks for explaining  the thermal thing. Also again that's just my personal opinion on those old tanks. I'm sure there are those who have preference of Leo or cheiftan instead of the m60

[MikeKiloPapa]

14 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

To me I think leo1s 1 hull too thinly armored, and it tends to cook-off very easily in sb or have the turret blown clean off thanks to the ammo storage in the hull.

 

Just to get some perspective......the original M60 "only" had 93mm thick hull armor vs the Leos 70mm....so not that big a difference. And while the greater sloping (65 vs 60 degrees) gave the M60 a better LOS protection of ~220mm vs the Leo1s 140mm,.. the M60s hull is made of cast iron which isn't nearly as strong as the LEOs welded high hardness steel hull, which offers greater protection relative to its thickness. So the difference in protection is not as great as the LOS figures suggests. 

 

The M60A1-A3 did receive a minor improvement in hull armor (~250mm LOS) but it didn't make much difference. In the relevant time period of the late 60's and 70's most soviet and WARPAC tanks could easily penetrate the hull armor of both the M60A1 and Leopard 1

at relevant combat ranges. 

 

As for ammo cook-off and popping turrets, i thinks its more a case of  disparity in SBs modeling.....i believe the SB Leo 1 development is originally costumer funded ( by DK most likely) and so probably has a fairly detailed and realistic damage model, whereas the M60 was added for the PE user crowd  and could therefore have a simpler less elaborate ditto.  

 

Anyhow , after a bit of testing and going by the numbers in SB wiki, the M60A3 TTS  does seem to be more resilient than could be expected. Despite the exposed ammo in the bustle and on the turret floor its basically impossible to get it to burn let alone pop its turret?....its side armor also seem to offer.....optimistic......levels of protection , shrugging off direct hits from 40mm   Slpprj 95LK/05 @ 500m and even BR-412D and L36A1 tank rounds (from 1000 m)

...pretty impressive for <4 inches of cast armor 

[GSprocket]

Not cast iron, Cast steel of good armour quality, if a little soft.
Soviet cast steel was typically a little harder.

Typically cast armour steel is assumed to be between 85 and 100% of the equivalent thickness of nominal RHA (BNH 270) of similar composition, depending on relative hardness/shape/homogenity. Softer, more ductile armour does tend to spall/fragment slightly less when perforated - a lesson the US designers carried on from WW2 experience, and the survivability improvement when perforated was probably more important than the marginal loss of thickness in an era of HEAT and other 'unstoppable' threats of small diameter.

[MikeKiloPapa]

16 minutes ago, GSprocket said:

Not cast iron, Cast steel of good armour quality, if a little soft.
 

DOH!! Yes of course.....i meant cast steel  ....my bad.

 

Quote

Typically cast armour steel is assumed to be between 85 and 100% of the equivalent thickness of nominal RHA (BNH 270) of similar composition

Most cast steels are probably closer to .8 TE rather than 1 though. 

 

Cant remember the exact composition of the Leopard 1 armor but IIRC it uses several grades of high hardness steel , all of them harder than nominal RHA...from ~350-600 Brinell. 

Strong armor, but as a result both Leo 1 and 2 is prone to (minor) cracking in thinner parts of their hull structure. 

 

 

Quote

era of HEAT and other 'unstoppable' threats of small diameter.

Those being the very reasoning behind the Leo 1s modest armor layout. 

[Kev2go]

8 hours ago, MikeKiloPapa said:

Just to get some perspective......the original M60 "only" had 93mm thick hull armor vs the Leos 70mm....so not that big a difference. And while the greater sloping (65 vs 60 degrees) gave the M60 a better LOS protection of ~220mm vs the Leo1s 140mm,.. the M60s hull is made of cast iron which isn't nearly as strong as the LEOs welded high hardness steel hull, which offers greater protection relative to its thickness. So the difference in protection is not as great as the LOS figures suggests. 

 

The M60A1-A3 did receive a minor improvement in hull armor (~250mm LOS) but it didn't make much difference. In the relevant time period of the late 60's and 70's most soviet and WARPAC tanks could easily penetrate the hull armor of both the M60A1 and Leopard 1

at relevant combat ranges. 

 

As for ammo cook-off and popping turrets, i thinks its more a case of  disparity in SBs modeling.....i believe the SB Leo 1 development is originally costumer funded ( by DK most likely) and so probably has a fairly detailed and realistic damage model, whereas the M60 was added for the PE user crowd  and could therefore have a simpler less elaborate ditto.  

 

Anyhow , after a bit of testing and going by the numbers in SB wiki, the M60A3 TTS  does seem to be more resilient than could be expected. Despite the exposed ammo in the bustle and on the turret floor its basically impossible to get it to burn let alone pop its turret?....its side armor also seem to offer.....optimistic......levels of protection , shrugging off direct hits from 40mm   Slpprj 95LK/05 @ 500m and even BR-412D and L36A1 tank rounds (from 1000 m)

...pretty impressive for <4 inches of cast armor 

 

I am perfectly informed on the m60 have in fact read hunnicuts history of the Patton met. . the m60 was basically just a new chassis with the m48 turret ( but new 105mm gun) m60a1 came into its own ( even if intended as a interim solution for a mbt70 project that waz later scrapped) and still in s3rvice 3 years earlier than the initial Leo 1. Exactly because of thicker ammo and greater sloping it's indeed  more effective hull and lfp area than the Leo 1. As pointed out softer steel isn't nessarily bad as it is less prone to Spall.

 

It's steel armor would have been relevant at the time because up until 1967/68 the primary ap round of the t54/55 series was the b412d. I'll it was designed and capable of being nearly invulnerable to those rounds, and was still a tough sob against the  1st apds of the t54/55 of the late 60s at mid to long ranges. This waz the most common pact tank series of the time after all The first steel penetrator of the 115mm on the t62 would also be somewhat lacking against the m60a1 to m60a3, at longer distances. To be fair same vice versa the isrealis complained that the initial m392 apds hadsome issues agianstsloped armor, hence the follow up m392a1/a2.

 

Yes heat of the time period can negate armor of both sides but heat is only really at its best at 1500m and no more than 2000m Imho. Heat are much more likely to be affected by winds and don't travel as fast as ke shells, dye to considerably lower velocity. So hitting targets at long distances ,especially moving ones wouldn't be so easy with old pretty digital  fcs on Nato tanks or mere sighting systems like on older Soviet tanks like on the t54/55 and t62.

 

You correct the m60a3 is more resilient than it should be howsoever the ammo racks are separated into smaller bits beside the driver whilst in the leopard 1 the main storage takes up most of the hull space on the front of the tank, just as the t55/t62 so it's not surprising it burns out really easy let alone has the turret pop right off.

 

So if you penetrate the hull dead center, you kill the driver but miss those two ammo racks on the sides.

 

Though I recall reading the the t55s and t62  fire preventionsystem were pretty good.that it worked in its favour that most of the ammo was in 1 place, partially blocked by 1 of the fuel tank. This  prevented the main rack from cooking entirely off, just long enough for the crew to escape in some cases. 

 

I have burned the m60a3. By hitting the ready rack. From the front with a t72 and from the side right side rear turret with t55/t62 ke penetrators.

 

 

Of course by the 70s it's a another story in the 70s. By this point newer ammo for the 100mm and 115mm guns can negate m60s armor, and to a greater extent the 2a46 125mm of the t64/t72 series. Of course by this point these tanks have cardboard to paper levels pf protection relative to these newer threats, but at the beginning of Thier service Thier steel armor was worth something. M60a1s armor was said to offer  greater protection than the t95 composite armored prototypes and at a much lesser cost. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Kev2go

[MikeKiloPapa]

On 7/9/2016 at 6:23 PM, Kev2go said:

 

Yes heat of the time period can negate armor of both sides but heat is only really at its best at 1500m and no more than 2000m Imho. 

 

Which incidentally is also within the average combat range (ie 800-2000m) found on the central European battlefield for which the Leopard 1 was designed.

With limited gun stabilization systems and fighting in a (presumably) defensive posture from prepared BPs , NATO tanks would have presented a relatively static target to the WARPAC forces.

 

And at those ranges the t-55 (and T-62)firing HEAT rounds,  had a high enough hit probability to constitute a considerable threat.  The Leopard 1s much superior mobility was a way to minimize that threat by being able to dash quickly from BP to BP thus exposing itself for as short a time as possible .  Now , you may well argue that the M60s emphasis on (somewhat) heavier armor made it an overall better tank .....thats a valid supposition and i dont entirely disagree. 

 

But this labeling of the Leopard 1 as a "mediocre tin foil tank" simply isn't fair. It not correct either....critics always point to its one weakness while conveniently forgetting or downplaying the advantages it had.  I have had the opportunity to speak with some old tankers  trained on M48, M41 and Centurion  and who later transitioned to the Leopard 1A3.  Their conclusion was that the Leo was so much better that it really wasn't comparable.....In all the areas that SB cant accurately simulate but which are just as important as protection , such as : ease of maintenance, reliability, user friendliness , ease of operation , tactical mobility, ergonomics and "fightability" the Leopard 1 is simply light years ahead ,....... even  compared to the M60 in some areas . 

 

And even though its front hull armor was a weak point , it is perhaps telling that not a single Leopard 1 operator ever bothered to up-armor that part of the tank during the cold war. (save for Canada in the late 80's)

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, MikeKiloPapa said:

Which incidentally is also within the average combat range (ie 800-2000m) found on the central European battlefield for which the Leopard 1 was designed.

With limited gun stabilization systems and fighting in a (presumably) defensive posture from prepared BPs , NATO tanks would have presented a relatively static target to the WARPAC forces.

 

And at those ranges the t-55 (and T-62)firing HEAT rounds,  had a high enough hit probability to constitute a considerable threat.  The Leopard 1s much superior mobility was a way to minimize that threat by being able to dash quickly from BP to BP thus exposing itself for as short a time as possible .  Now , you may well argue that the M60s emphasis on (somewhat) heavier armor made it an overall better tank .....thats a valid supposition and i dont entirely disagree. 

 

But this labeling of the Leopard 1 as a "mediocre tin foil tank" simply isn't fair. It not correct either....critics always point to its one weakness while conveniently forgetting or downplaying the advantages it had.  I have had the opportunity to speak with some old tankers  trained on M48, M41 and Centurion  and who later transitioned to the Leopard 1A3.  Their conclusion was that the Leo was so much better that it really wasn't comparable.....In all the areas that SB cant accurately simulate but which are just as important as protection , such as : ease of maintenance, reliability, user friendliness , ease of operation , tactical mobility, ergonomics and "fightability" the Leopard 1 is simply light years ahead ,....... even  compared to the M60 in some areas . 

 

And even though its front hull armor was a weak point , it is perhaps telling that not a single Leopard 1 operator ever bothered to up-armor that part of the tank during the cold war. (save for Canada in the late 80's)

 

 

Hmm fair enough but Nato tanks with Thier fcs and rangefinders would be able to start engaging tanks beyond such ranges. Start engaging 3000-3500m and you can basically knock out the first wave of t55/t62s before they get within effective range of you 2000m or less. with Thier simple sighting system.

 

Also to be fair m48 and cent aren't ideal comparison  as those are truly 1st Gen mbts, and at that older platforms  apart maybe from armo. the 1a3 would certainly  be superior in fcs, gun and some formof stabilizers vs none are all for the m48. So yeah it is going to be ahead when comparing to older generation tech

 Hence why comparing to tanks of its generation suxh the m60a1 (which did get stabilization with aos package in 72) or cheiftan. not to the m48, is more fair. 

 

Again I am not denying any advantages that the extra mobility would bring, nor it's fcs, but like I said I simply have a preference to the m60 series.  Of the 3 main Nato mbts. Pre 3rd Gen tech. 

[GSprocket]

You can't fire 3km when the covered approaches to your position are averaging significantly less than 2km - down to less than 500m in many cases. The relatively few locations with really good lines of sight are also obvious and likely to appear prominently in artillery fire templates, plus may be easily flanked. ATGM can have longer ranges than tank guns - up to 5km for land based systems of the cold war and up to 8km for helicopter systems which can be a threat to tanks occupying positions with long range lines of fire.

SB maps are simplified (and distant clutter is hidden) to that lines of fire are artificially longer than reality and covered approaches are scarcer, but in the real world it isn't a given that long range fires will be possible.

 

[12Alfa]

7 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

tart engaging 3000-3500m and you can basically knock out the first wave of t55/t62s before they get within effective range of you 2000m or less. with Thier simple sighting system

 

 

Engaging targets at ranges over 2000 is reckless, you can't ID the target, one could be engaging friendlies of civies.

 

Anyone who have ever looked through sights of that time frame, and pretty much up to the last 10 years can attest to this.

Its just not possible with the human eye at those ranges given that most if not all would be cammed or obstructed by dust.

 

I can see it on a range, but in real life targets over 1500m are getting really hard to positive ID. 

 

That said,if your SOP is to shoot anything that moves, well......