armor M1 / LeopardE

[dejawolf]

Hello

I am relativly new to the forums and the sim and i have been readint through the thread, and rather start my own thread thought i would ask my question which is directly related to this one. Since i got SBPro i have been hooked on the STRV122 and Leopard 2E, just love the detail and all the 3d interiors. However i have since decided to venture into the M1A1HA and get to grips with the different machine and gunnery procedure. I have now played "Instant Action" a few times and a few other missions i have found that the M1A1HA seems to get knocked out far easier than the Leopard variants. In the Leopard i could seemt to take shell after shell from the enemy and as long a they didnt get a side shot, get too close, or get a shot at my hull, i had no problems what so ever. Now though in the Abrams i have been taken out several times at 2600m+ from a single shot from a T72 or T80. Is this right?

When i then looked at the armour estimation images on the wiki page between the M1A1 and the Leopard 2E, this was reinforced by the fact the Leopard has a massive armour improvement on the turrent centre mass.

Also as a final quick question, how would the M1A2 SEP TUSK RHAe compare to the M1A1HA values? Obviously this is just estimation but i am curious never the less.

I thought i would also raise my interest at a M1 family pack with full 3D Interior for a addition in the future. I do appreciate cost constraints though however.

Hope i havent spammed an old thread, but thought it would be more sensible raising my question here rather than a new thread.

Regards

Whisky

yes, the strv 122 and leopardo 2E are both impenetrable in the front turret by anything in SB. and i think that the russian tanks in instant action are armed with the best russian rounds available

[CalAB]

yes, the strv 122 and leopardo 2e are both impenetrable in the front turret by anything in sb.

liar

[Ssnake]

I have now played "Instant Action" a few times and a few other missions i have found that the M1A1HA seems to get knocked out far easier than the Leopard variants.

The direct competitor/comparison to the M1A1(HA) would be the Leopard 2A4. I think you can read it up in the ArmorBasics.PDF; basically the line of argumentation is that the M1's turret is two tons heavier, but also the internal volume is significantly larger than the Leo 2A4's, so that even with better materials (like dU pellets in some armor inserts) the frontal protection level is slightly lower than in the 2A4. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the M1's turret side armor goes all the way to the bustle where in the Leo 2A4 it ends with the crew compartment (the Leo 2 concentrates protection even more to the front).

Of course, with the wedge add-on armor packages, narrower mantlet etc. the Leo 2A5 and later variants are even better protected - frontally.

You will notice in further scenarios that the M1 withstands side hits and frontal hull impacts better than the Leopards which have a big ammunition stowage room in the front hull. Ultimately it can be seen as a tradeoff (or a gamble, depending on your preferences) - higher protection in some places with higher vulnerability in certain other scenarios, or a less extreme choice at an overall slightly lower nominal armor thickness but with better post-penetration behavior.

One must say though that there are limits to the amount of hurt that a crew can take in case of a successful armor perforation. The band is pretty narrow from where there is a mere crack in the wall to the point where a fireball is filling the whole crew compartment, and behind armor debris is no longer contained by the spall liner. Of course eSim Games doesn't have access to secret information about where exactly these limits are, but we try to come up with, well, plausible results.

[Volcano]

In the Leopard i could seemt to take shell after shell from the enemy and as long a they didnt get a side shot, get too close, or get a shot at my hull, i had no problems what so ever. Now though in the Abrams i have been taken out several times at 2600m+ from a single shot from a T72 or T80. Is this right?

Yes, it is right. The M1 is certainly not invincible. But this is interesting...

In the TGIF game tonight, at least one person (from the Leo2A4 side) was convinced that the M1 is the "greater than" (armor wise) tank between the two, which is the direct opposite of what others believe. The truth is, these tanks are so closely armored that a debate about it would be pointless. It simply depends on what area is being considered since they are so closely comparable -- so much so that you cannot definitively say one is "better" overall than the other (there are too many attributes and armor locations to consider). Both tanks have their own pros and cons between them. For example, while the armor might be similar in almost every place one tank might have a little more in one place, but a little less than the other tank in another area. The same is true of their traits. The Leo2A4 has the explosive hull ammo vulnerability, but, the Leo2A4 has the easier fire control system with the non dynamic reticle and the gunner does not need to index the ammo type into the CCP. I guess it would be nice to have nothing but pros, and no cons, but they both have their own little characteristics, traits and quirks that make them lovable, and hated.

To elaborate a little further: while it is true that in most places the armor differences might be < 50-100mm RHAe or be less, one tank might have less armor in one place but more in another area, or might present a smaller target, or might have a certain vulnerability / survivability trait. In our game we were aiming for the hull on the Leo2A4, not the turret (knowing that it would be futile with M829 unless it was through the mantlet), it just so happen that we got most of our kills or heavy damage as the enemy presented the hull or flank, with an occasional one through the mantlet (or from a TOW missile). Another influencing factor of course is how many people still insist to bring a platoon forward, then break off one tank at a time to confront the enemy. Thankfully, a platoon will always win out over a single vehicle now, which does some great credit to the realm of "plausibility" as opposed to the way SB played before (pool of lone sniper tanks), but some habits die hard I guess.

Anyway, to make a long story short, my point is that it really only depends on:

1) shot placement on target

2) what part (and how much) of YOUR tank you present to the enemy at any given time

3) massed / coordinated platoon fires

(maybe a little bit o' luck too)

Edited October 10, 2009 by Volcano
typos

[Tacbat]

I did a little test today with Leo 2A4's vs the M1A1's head on using DM33 and M829. Both types of ammo have the same rating (600). Engagement ranges were from 1500-2000ish, and both sides had 30 tanks. Sce att.

I ran the test 10 times and every time the M1's won. Blue got all 300 kills while red got 170.

I then ran M1's vs M1's and the results were closer - 245 to 240.

So, to balance a scenario, I think the Leo2A4's will need slightly better ammo to even things out if they go up against M1's.

An interesting project would be to develop a table where tank/ammo combinations could be compared to give scenario designers a reference when building a mission. For example, M1's with ammo X are equal to SRTV-122's with ammo Y. Any takers?

Test.rar

[Volcano]

I ran the test 10 times and every time the M1's won. Blue got all 300 kills while red got 170.

I then ran M1's vs M1's and the results were closer - 245 to 240.

So, to balance a scenario, I think the Leo2A4's will need slightly better ammo to even things out if they go up against M1's.

Well, no. It is an interesting test, but as stated earlier in the thread when someone did a similar test, you have to run the test of two tanks in BPs, engaging frontally on turrets, not a test with two tanks fully frontal on. Even with a Leo 2E's full frontal, the hull will be its vulnerability and I imagine that the majority of your kills were coming from impacts on the hull front, not the turret. Try the same exact test with two tanks in BPs, hull down, and see what the result it.

If you raise the ammo on the Leo 2A4, then, when you are in a situation where they present only *what they are supposed to* (the turret front), which should be at least 2/3 of the time in a battle, then the Leo2A4 will be at a clear advantage. First of all, the Leo2A4 has a smaller turret front, and the mantlet is heavier armored. So, if you increase the Leo2A4 ammo selection, the M1's mantlet is already weaker and will be even easier to penetrate over the Leo2A4s and thus, at a disadvantage in situations where they should be equal. This is the difference. This is like I said, you can't just take 1:1 kills literally as a definative form of balancing.

[dejawolf]

I ran the test 10 times and every time the M1's won. Blue got all 300 kills while red got 170.

I then ran M1's vs M1's and the results were closer - 245 to 240.

So, to balance a scenario, I think the Leo2A4's will need slightly better ammo to even things out if they go up against M1's.

Well, no. It is an interesting test, but as stated earlier in the thread when someone did a similar test, you have to run the test of two tanks in BPs, engaging frontally on turrets, not a test with two tanks fully frontal on. Even with a Leo 2E's full frontal, the hull will be its vulnerability and I imagine that the majority of your kills were coming from impacts on the hull front, not the turret. Try the same exact test with two tanks in BPs, hull down, and see what the result it.

If you raise the ammo on the Leo 2A4, then, when you are in a situation where they present only *what they are supposed to* (the turret front), which should be at least 2/3 of the time in a battle, then the Leo2A4 will be at a clear advantage. First of all, the Leo2A4 has a smaller turret front, and the mantlet is heavier armored. So, if you increase the Leo2A4 ammo selection, the M1's mantlet is already weaker and will be even easier to penetrate over the Leo2A4s and thus, at a disadvantage in situations where they should be equal. This is the difference. This is like I said, you can't just take 1:1 kills literally as a definative form of balancing.

the chance of the leopard hitting the abrams mantlet will decrease over distance, as dispersion increases, until at a certain distance, the leopard will only be hitting the left and right turret faces of the abrams. the leopard mantlet area is slightly thicker than the abrams, but its also twice as large, and still not thick enough to protect against M829A1, even at a distance. out of the russian rounds both the abrams and leopard 2A4 mantlets are immune to everything but the 3BM42m from the russians.

[Skybird03]

Expected type of combat and enemy certainly is a factor to define which tanks suits a given task better than another.

I wonder if one could say something like that the Leopards, due to the increased focus on strengthening frontal armour (whereas the Abrams seem to be described here as being more "universally" armoured), are the "better" tank to fight conventional tank engagements with other tanks, preferrably from a defensive position (since it seems to be indicated here that their hull also is more vulnerabel than that of the abrams), while the Abrams with its different focus of how to protect what aspects of the vehicle is the better tank for fights inside urban environments, where short range attacks by infantry from all directions must be expected?

I also tend to think of the Leopard being the more "defensive" tank in general, also for reasons of logistics (it can hold out better in supply conditions were the fuel flow is limited, the Abrams consumes much more), and the circumstance that the Abrams has sloightly more weapons mounted (HMG for TC).

On the other hand a longer time ago I saw a docu video from the Canadians in Afghanistan, praising the leased German Leo2A6ers as being better than anything.

However things may be, it seems to be a close call to differ between the major modern MBTs of Western nations.

[Tacbat]

Try the same exact test with two tanks in BPs, hull down, and see what the result it.

Sce att. 10 vs 10 tanks at about 1km in single tier dug-ins using DM33 and M829 ammo. The M1's pwned the Leo 2A4 getting 91 kills vs 35 over ten test runs of the scenaio.

M1 vs Leo.rar

[Ssnake]

I wonder if one could say something like that the Leopards, due to the increased focus on strengthening frontal armour (whereas the Abrams seem to be described here as being more "universally" armoured), are the "better" tank to fight conventional tank engagements with other tanks, preferrably from a defensive position (since it seems to be indicated here that their hull also is more vulnerabel than that of the abrams), while the Abrams with its different focus of how to protect what aspects of the vehicle is the better tank for fights inside urban environments, where short range attacks by infantry from all directions must be expected?

I think you're going in the right direction, but a bit too far. Both tanks are vulnerable in urban environments and require dismounted infantry to screen the immediate vicinity of each tank - neither can afford to ignore RPG threats from above, the rear, or deep flanks. And consequently we see new projects like the TUSK or the PSO to adapt each tank to the different tactical requirements of urban battle zones (and thereby taking each another step further towards the characteristics of the Merkava).

The Canadian elation to the introduction of the Leo 2A6M into the Afghan theater must be seen in contrast to two Canadian trends...

1. The pre-2005 era
   where all Leopard C1 and C2 tanks were slated for the smelter. Canada relied exclusively on a number of LAV/Piranha platforms and found them of limited adequacy in the Afghan theater - partly due to mobility limitations, partly due to inadequate firepower, partly due to unexpectedly high wear and tear that threatened to erode the whole vehicle fleet faster than new vehicles could be built.
2. The 2006-2007 transition period
   where the need to have heavy direct fire support in theater was acknowledged and the Leopard 1s were reactivated and sent to theater to provide relatively high protection (in comparison to LAVs), high firepower, and good mobility, but were found to be inadequate for lack of air conditioning.
3. The current phase
   where the Leo 2A6M provides the best protection that the Canadians ever had, although I'm not sure if they enjoy the same degree of firepower than 105mm HESH rounds offer against dismounted infantry; probably good enough though, maybe even "excellent" if they also have DM22 in their inventory now.

[Volcano]

Sce att. 10 vs 10 tanks at about 1km in single tier dug-ins using DM33 and M829 ammo. The M1's pwned the Leo 2A4 getting 91 kills vs 35 over ten test runs of the scenaio.

Good test! OK, I will eat my CVC then. I think that giving them to +50 ammo over the M1's isn't a bad idea then for the lesser DM33/M829 selection (ie. M829 vs. KE-W scenario would be better). Once you get up to M829A1+ it probably does not matter after that since the ammo is above the threshold to do some higher % kill through the mantlets.

[Volcano]

Whoa... wait a minute. I take that back.

Change those BPs to two tier types. With the one tier they are firing at the oblique, not the front (because of the big sand berm), which results in some tanks engaging the side turret, or the rearward tapering angle of the Leo2A4's turret front armor not playing a factor at all (since many turrets are hit at the 10 or 2 o'clock aspect). If you change them to two tier, like I was intending for the full frontal turret test, the results are totally different. With two tier BPs, it becomes a one sided affair in favor of the Leo2A4s. In a test I just ran (twice), the total kill to loss ratio for the Leo2A4 was 5:1 (Leo2A4 lost 4 tanks to the M1's 20 losses).

It seems that DM33 vs. M829 on the turret front is more equal than it seems. Actually in several more tests of M829 vs. DM33 in two tier battle positions, the Leo2A4 dominated with at least one result being 0 Leo2A4 lost, to 10 M1A1s, with other tests being a similar 4 or 5:1 ratio to my first two tests. Using ammo better than the DM33 would certainly skew it more in favor of the Leo2A4. Try the attached scenario. If anything, this shows the the M1 is better off when engaging in an open duel, but the Leo2A4 is far better when both sides are in the hull down, which balances the equation out.

So, like I have been saying, if people use the Leo2A4 in the way in which it was designed, it will be the king. But then again, that is what its all about -- playing to your advantages and against your disadvantages. Honestly, I think both tanks are about as equal as you can get without having an identical tank. Its probably the best match up that highlight tactics as the winning element of success, rather than ammo types or fancy gadgets. At some point we start compensating for tactics...

Edited October 12, 2009 by Volcano
clarification

[Tacbat]

Glad you didn't have to eat your CVC. That would have been a perfect waste of good kit.

As per your reccomendation, I slightly modified the test scenario (again), and set up a 2 vs 2 setting using the 2-tier BP. Ran it ten times, but this time the Leo's came out ahead with 63 kills vice 48 losses.

So I would say that supports your initial comments about both tanks and ammo.

Good discussion, and I certainly took something away from it.

M1 vs Leo 2on2.rar

[Volcano]

Yes, definitely a good discussion. I think it does make it apparent that Leo2A4 and M1A1 crews should be playing to their particular strengths and trying to avoid their respective weaknesses. For the Leo2 (all) on the offense this means, a little more bounding while a platoon provides cover from a hull down position while the bounding platoon seeks another hull down position, and a little less traveling overwatch.

Maybe there should be a pro and con section for each vehicle in the SBwiki. Well, at the very least, those who know their vehicle's limitations will definitely achieve greater success if they make a conscious decision to minimize those weaknesses.

[Ssnake]

For the Leo2 (all) on the offense this means, a little more bounding while a platoon provides cover from a hull down position while the bounding platoon seeks another hull down position, and a little less traveling overwatch.

Funny ... that's a good summary of what I was taught at the Panzertruppenschule on the commander's course.