Which is the most effective tank in SB Pro PE world (Take II)

[Hedgehog]

I like how the majority have voted for a tank that has been knocked out several times and yet there are only 2 for the only combat tested tank on the list that hasn't had any armour penetrations.

IED's? yes would knock any tank out. Tank on Tank battle, the SEP has never been knocked out

Ahem, one would answer that Killjoy is probably thinking along the same lines.

[Guest Killjoy]

Well... It was a Partial penetration, I'll give you that.

It was recovered though. I thought the driver only lost a toe?

[GSprocket]

Well... It was a Partial penetration, I'll give you that.

It was recovered though. I thought the driver only lost a toe?

No, that counts as a penetration.

Partial penetration has a specific meaning (cratering with no through perforation), which BAD and driver injury from a HEAT jet is not consistent with.

[dejawolf]

Well... It was a Partial penetration, I'll give you that.

It was recovered though. I thought the driver only lost a toe?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

driver lost a leg, and other crewmembers were injured by spall.

and it's pretty damning for the challenger that it was in the front armour it was penetrated.

[12Alfa]

Caliber: 105 mm barrel; 65/105mm warheads

Type: rocket booster

Overall length: 1850 mm ready to fire; 1000 mm disassembled for transportation

Weight: 12.1 kg unloaded, with optical sight; 18.8 kg loaded and ready to fire

Effective range: up to 500 m

Armour penetration: ERA plus more than 600 mm RHA

RPG-29 grenade launcher has been adopted by Soviet army in 1989, and it is intended to defeat most modern tanks, fitted with ERA protection.

the RPG-29 is a shoulder fired, single-shot, smooth-bored, recoilless launcher. Unlike previous RPG-series launchers, the RPG-29 is a breech-loading weapon, with large caliber barrel, made from two quick-detachable parts, front and rear. Rear part of the barrel is fitted with folding monopod support. Front part of the barrel has the fire control module with pistol grip, trigger and manual safety, the folding iron sights, and mount for 2.7X telescope sight. The trigger unit is of electronic type and is generally similar to the fire control unit of RPG-16. The PG-29 HEAT grenade has a tandem warhead and a rocket booster with eight folding stabiliztator fins at the rear. With this design, the smaller front warhead is intended to set off the ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) block from the safe range, and then second larger warhead strikes the hull of the tank. When used against buildings or entrenchments, the PG-29V can penetrate more than 1,5 meter(5ft) of concrete or brick wall and then cause significant damage to troops beyond the wall. Unlike previous designs, PG-29 grenade has no separate RCL-type launch charge. The rocket engine starts immediately as the trigger is pressed, and burns out completely before the grenade leaves the launcher. The rest of the flight is made under inertia. The warhead is similar in design to the PG-7VR warhead, developed for RPG-7V grenade launcher, but, thanks to the much more powerful rocket engine, the RPG-29/PG-29 combination has effective range about two times longer, than the RPG-7V/PG-7VR combination. The cost of this significant increase in combat performance is much bigger weight and bulk of both RPG-29 launcher and PG-29 grenade

[Panzer_Leader]

I've gone with M1A2 SEP. Pound for pound I never feel as comfortable as I do when I'm in any of the M1 variants. The M1A2 SEP with CITV, 2nd generation FLIR, 50x zoom and robust armour protection is just insane! :shock:

My second choice would be Leopard 2A5A2. When using DM53 and DM11 that thing is a T-tank killer!

[Tjay]

The AMX 13. With one of those I could sneak up between your legs without you noticing - and blow your balls off. And it's just soooo cute. :clin:

[Captain_Colossus]

With the M1A2, I thought immediately to try the old Demo Attack scenario, because this was always a difficult scenario, you have to cover a bit of distance and the time limit cuts off a more careful approach to the objectives. I always found that the timing of this scenario forces the player to jump from unit to unit, the player is often preoccupied with one unit while another is making contact just at that moment. Lots of clumsy moments.

Finally, even as I knew beforehand the location of every enemy unit and their triggers, it's still a difficult scenario, particularly the tanks defending the rightmost goal 'Obj;' the tanks positioned in the forests have every pathway in covered, shooting through the trees when I can never seem to surprise them, I tend to take more losses around that area.

So, going back and replacing the M1A1 with the M1A2 immediately gave the results I thought- I could detach a single tank, switch to 50x mag, and clear out all the units up the middle of the map.

The difficult goal called 'Obj'- still the same difficulty even with the M1A2, even when I knew where every T-80 was pre-positioned, the close range combat in the trees still led to heavy casualties- out of four M1A2 tanks attacking the objective, one M1A2 was completely disabled, two knocked out, that's about what I expected as if I tried the same thing with default M1A1 tanks.

In the end, those tank losses were the only losses, having them in the scenario definitely reduced the overall casualty rate, they outclassed everything else at long range, preventing enemy armor from hitting back or reducing the enemy's artillery calls.

I still didn't beat the scenario in time to register a score. I destroyed every enemy unit, but I didn't win based on the scenario conditions. That scenario is still not easy, and I believe that I would have lost more units if I didn't already know the enemy's plan, that's really what enabled me to use the standoff ability better than I should have. So even the M1A2 is not immortal, or else, they aren't a substitute for a bad plan.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Leopard 2E vs M1A2 SEP

Protection wise the wedge turreted Leopard2s are better protected than the M1A2 SEP. I was able to penetrate the front turret of an M1A2 SEP with aDM53 fired from the Leopard 2Es L55. I tried the same thing with a wedge turreted Leopard 2 and could not get through the armor. So,

1) Leopard 2a5 turret armor > M1A2 SEP turret armor

2) Firepower wise they seem to be more or less even.

3) Mobility wise they also seem to be equal for the most part.

4) The only real major advantage of the M1A2 SEP seem to be the optics. :heu:

Edited November 30, 2013 by lavictoireestlavie

[Tacbat]

4) The only real major advantage of the M1A2 SEP seem to be the optics. :heu:

I think the hull armour on the M1A2 is better, so in the offensive it would have the edge over the 2E.

[dejawolf]

Leopard 2E vs M1A2 SEP

Protection wise the wedge turreted Leopard2s are better protected than the M1A2 SEP. I was able to penetrate the front turret of an M1A2 SEP with aDM53 fired from the Leopard 2Es L55. I tried the same thing with a wedge turreted Leopard 2 and could not get through the armor. So,

1) Leopard 2a5 turret armor > M1A2 SEP turret armor

2) Firepower wedge they seem to be more or less even.

3) Mobility wise they also seem to be equal for the most part.

4) The only real major advantage of the M1A2 SEP seem to be the optics. :heu:

comparison is a bit different when it comes to the hull. leo2a5 and over have better turret protection than the M1A2, however, M1A2 has those massive fuel tanks on the left and right of the driver that will soak up pretty much every round in the game.

leopard 2A5 on the other hand has a large ammunition bunker in the front hull.

[lavictoireestlavie]

if it was just not for the rather large weakened zone between the turret and the hull....

[MikeKiloPapa]

comparison is a bit different when it comes to the hull. leo2a5 and over have better turret protection than the M1A2, however, M1A2 has those massive fuel tanks on the left and right of the driver that will soak up pretty much every round in the game.

leopard 2A5 on the other hand has a large ammunition bunker in the front hull.

True...Behind +40cm of special armor inclined at 45 degrees ( + another 20-30 cm of composite add-on armor in the A5DK, STRV122, and LEO 2E versions), at least as much or more than the M1A2.

So i think that the leo's vulnerability is somewhat exaggerated in steel beasts....though i agree that the Abrams has the best overall protection scheme and survivability .

[Maj.Hans]

In terms of armor and vulnerability, I have the feeling that the frontal armor on the A2-SEP might be somewhat underestimated. Someone else posted a while back about new estimates, where the weld lines were, etc. Of course we also don't know for sure how much more effective the newer generation of armor packages is and all those other goodies.

For the Leopard 2, I realize that it has hull ammo storage, but also that unlike the T-Tanks the individual rounds are at least stowed in individual tubes rather than strapped to the crew...Er, I mean, scattered haphazardly around the tank. My gut feeling is that they wouldn't put the turret stowage under blowout panels unless they knew that the steel tubes would provide some degree of protection.

I understand that metallic cased ammunition doesn't tend to explode turrets off of tanks quite as rapidly as combustible cased ammunition does unless one or more of the rounds are penetrated or heated up hot enough to detonate. Closed bolt automatic firearms, for example, can get hot enough to cause chambered ammunition to eventually go off on it's own, but the brass case serves as a heat sink so that the powder inside isn't instantly heated up to a temperature where it can light off.

My theory is that in the event of a hull penetration that does not penetrate one or more of the metal stowage tubes, the ammunition stored there would be safe unless there was a fire, and even then it might not go off instantly.

[Hedgehog]

My theory is that in the event of a hull penetration that does not penetrate one or more of the metal stowage tubes, the ammunition stored there would be safe unless there was a fire, and even then it might not go off instantly.

Well Spall fragments still have a fair amount of energy, enough to penetrate a "Thin Steel Tube" at least. (Think your car's door skin for think-ness, If in doubt ask Ssnake. )

Challenger 2 has armoured powder bins, but I don't think they are wet stowage like Chieftain's were.

[dejawolf]

Well Spall fragments still have a fair amount of energy, enough to penetrate a "Thin Steel Tube" at least. (Think your car's door skin for think-ness, If in doubt ask Ssnake. )

Challenger 2 has armoured powder bins, but I don't think they are wet stowage like Chieftain's were.

ammunition storage tubes on leopard are sheet metal yes, although from the drivers compartment it's partially shielded from spall by all the driver gadgets and panels.

there's also spall liners all over the hull interior on the newer leopard 2A5.

propellant charges and HESH rounds are all wet storage in the challenger 2.

the water provides a little extra resistance vs KE and HEAT, but not much.

[Hedgehog]

ammunition storage tubes on leopard are sheet metal yes, although from the drivers compartment it's partially shielded from spall by all the driver gadgets and panels.

there's also spall liners all over the hull interior on the newer leopard 2A5.

propellant charges and HESH rounds are all wet storage in the challenger 2.

the water provides a little extra resistance vs KE and HEAT, but not much.

Well the primary purpose of the water is to put the fire out!

Whether it actually does this is a matter for debate.