Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
shadowness1234

KPZ-70

65 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

Leopard 1 A4 turret armour is composite, but by no means well-armoured:

 

Leopard 1 A4's turret armour is either similar, or identical to this, there's no way this could be considered too powerful currently.

 

20 minutes ago, F7UCutlass said:

Keiler just had air space in between, Leopard 1A3/A4 had composite inbetween IIRC

 

According to a fairly reliable German source.... The 1A3, 1A4 and 1A5 basically just had a thin fiberglass layer between the add on plates and main armor. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Conraire said:

 

 

According to a fairly reliable German source.... The 1A3, 1A4 and 1A5 basically just had a thin fiberglass layer between the add on plates and main armor. 

Well that source is pretty wrong considering the 1A5 were upgraded 1A1 vehicles with the original cast turret

Edited by RoflSeal
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Well that source is pretty wrong considering the 1A5 were upgraded 1A1 vehicles with the original cast turret

 

Yup original cast turret with the ability to use bolt on Lexan armor, also could stow apfsds. 

The 1A3 is welded with plastic filler between two plates construction on the turret.

The 1A4, is welded apparently without the composite filler.  He did say the 1A4 was actually the first Leo 1 that could stow the apfsds rounds. 

 

As far as the thread goes though, there's no reason to go into the composite armor prototypes and tanks.  It's quite easy to go even into the Mid 80s without even touching composite armor, with production vehicles, with pretty much all current nations.  I'm starting to think people just want power creep for the sake of even more and more powerful guns.  While not thinking about the fact that even the 105 with the move to apfsds is pretty much powerful enough to handle even early composite tanks..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Leopard 1A5 is Leopard 1A1 fitted with effectively Leopard 2's FCS. Pretty much all 1A5s are upgraded from 1A1A1s except the Belgians who don't have the add-on spaced armor.

It would be quite clear if a Leopard was fitted with Lexan, considering that Lexan is the polycarbonate used to make see through riot-shields and visors.

It is quite clear, there is no bolted on, shiny, see-through plastic on Leopard 1A5s

 

 


6196848470_b517a56ac1_b.jpg

leopard+21.jpg

S3sJM8u.jpg

3QnVuDi.jpg

 
 

 

but instead the same add-on armor as on the A1A1. Obviously how we know these are A5s are the new, much bigger gunners periscope and the clipped off stereoscopic rangefinders

 

Edited by RoflSeal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

 

It would be quite clear if a Leopard was fitted with Lexan, considering that Lexan is the polycarbonate used to make see through riot-shields and visors.

It is quite clear, there is no bolted on, shiny, see-through plastic on Leopard 1A5s

 

Uh... lexan does not HAVE to be clear...  and the bolt on panels are quite clear in illustrations and photos of 1A5's - eg this pic of a 1/35 scale model shows them clearly - they are the camoflaged "spaced" armor on hte sides and rear (AFAIK the spaced armour on the mantlet is steel)

 

Image result for leopards bolt on lexan armour panels

 

Here's a photo of a Brazilian 1A5 - again he side panels are easy to see: https://howlingpixel.com/wiki/Leopard_1

Brazilian Leopard 1 tank.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I am struggling to see any difference between the A1A1 side panels and A5 side panels

10069805344_0c269042c2_b.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugger - actually I think you are right - oh well....  that's one error I wont make again!! :O

 

Nonetheless Lexan still doesn't have to be clear sheets :)


the Canadian C2 apparently has a complete 1A5 turret - and looks like this - which certainly shows added something over the standard 1A5 - probably MEXAS_M if the wiki page is correct.

Leopard C2 MBT

Edited by Josephs_Piano
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't leopard 1a5 move the main ammo stowage out of the hull into the turret (I'm guessing the bustle) as well? AFAIK, other than that and the added FCS/ computer gismos, they were pretty much just the vehicles from the leopard 1a1 batches upgraded as export models. 

 

The 1a3 was the first leopard to recieve a turret with "high hardness armour", which is kind of like composite. It would be better protected than what we have now, but the UFP would still be warm butter to any tank above tier 3. Thing is, adding the 1a3/4 would mean that the "no composite" tech limit gets broken, and we'll be opening a whole new can of worms. As an upgrade to the German tree, adding APFSDS is feasible. Other than that, the only possible new vehicle to complement the current leopards would be the leopard 1a2, which would essentially be on par with the 1a1a1 we have currently. At the very least, upgrading the German tree in this manner would give them APFSDS to match the US and USSR, as well as more than one tank with a fully stabilised gun. Also, perhaps moving the leopard 1a1a1 to br 8.3 would be more fair if APFSDS is added.

 

I think that's about all can be added to top tier Germany without moving into composites/ forbidden technology. Another important upgrade would be the addition of tanks to fill the gap between br 7.0 and 8.0 (perhaps proto leopards), as the Leopard also suffers on a full downtier where it is only backed up by Tiger II 105s, JTs and Panther IIs against t54s ect. If all of those steps were taken, Germany would have nothing to complain about (at least, nothing which isn't also a problem for every other nation) at top tier. 

Edited by Dantheman66
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dantheman66 said:

The 1a3 was the first leopard to recieve a turret with "high hardness armour", which is kind of like composite. It would be better protected than what we have now, but the UFP would still be warm butter to any tank above tier 3. Thing is, adding the 1a3/4 would mean that the "no composite" tech limit gets broken, and we'll be opening a whole new can of worms. As an upgrade to the German tree, adding APFSDS is feasible. Other than that, the only possible new vehicle to complement the current leopards would be the leopard 1a2, which would essentially be on par with the 1a1a1 we have currently. At the very least, upgrading the German tree in this manner would give them APFSDS to match the US and USSR, as well as more than one tank with a fully stabilised gun. Also, perhaps moving the leopard 1a1a1 to br 8.3 would be more fair if APFSDS is added.

 

None of this really makes any sense:

 

  • High Hardness Armour layered/combined with regular RHA is not composite, I presume you wouldn't consider the Panzer III Ausf. L being a composite tank either would you?
  • Type-87 has composite already, so that non-existant tech cut-off has been broken for quite a while now.
  • APFSDS is as needed as the Leopard 2 A4 is, just fix the current shells and it'll be completely fine, HESH should have around about 147mm of ''penetration'' without the drastic 20% RNG factor, L7 APDS should be penetrating 127mm of steel @ 60° @ 1000 yards (914 metres) and have it's after-pen effects increased (FAR more spalling/fragmentation needs to be modelled) and HEAT-FS should also have it's damage increased.
  • US and USSR APFSDS wouldn't be that special if APDS had damage out-put equal to it, which I mentioned previously.
  • Regenerative steering and a properly modelled transmission for the Leopard 1 (among others) are far more needed than some APFSDS powercreep shell.
Edited by Necrons31467
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

None of this really makes any sense:

 

  • High Hardness Armour layered/combined with regular RHA is not composite, I presume you wouldn't consider the Panzer III Ausf. L being a composite tank either would you?

I was under the impression that some sort of plastic was sandwiched between steel plates on the leopard 1a3/4s turrets, making it "kind of" composite. I could be mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Leopard_1A4

Here's a wiki article (I know, wikipedia isn't a real source) which suggests the turret was composite;

"The next 110 vehicles in the fifth batch were fitted with a new welded turret, which was equipped with a new armour consisting of two spaced steel plates with a plastic filling between them (high-hardness armor), and a wedge-shaped gun mantlet, creating the Leopard 1A3"

 

I see that the Pz III L has "high hardness RHA" in game, but I think that's referring to something different to the armour of the leo1a4.

 

Quote
  • Type-87 has composite already, so that non-existant tech cut-off has been broken for quite a while now.

The armour isn't modelled the same as "proper" composite would be in game - with different protection against HEAT and Kinetic shells. Even though it's definitely non RHA, most people don't really notice the difference. Plus, it's only 25mm of armour on an SPAA on the least popular tech tree in game. If the Leo1a4 was added, I imagine it would really fire up demands for the t64 and t72. In spite of that, it would be nice to see in game, and would probably be balanced OK.

Quote
  • APFSDS is as needed as the Leopard 2 A4 is, just fix the current shells and it'll be completely fine, HESH should have around about 147mm of ''penetration'' without the drastic 20% RNG factor, L7 APDS should be penetrating 127mm of steel @ 60° @ 1000 yards (914 metres) and have it's after-pen effects increased (FAR more spalling/fragmentation needs to be modelled) and HEAT-FS should also have it's damage increased.

I'm not against this, and I would be happy if gaijin either fixed the shells as you say or added APFSDS. In fact, I would be overjoyed if the leo's stock shells actually became good. 

Quote
  • US and USSR APFSDS wouldn't be that special if APDS had damage out-put equal to it, which I mentioned previously.
  • Regenerative steering and a properly modelled transmission for the Leopard 1 (among others) are far more needed than some APFSDS powercreep shell.

Also agreed. I would like to see regenerative steering added.

Edited by Dantheman66
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

None of this really makes any sense:

 

A HESH should have around about 147mm of ''penetration'' without the drastic 20% RNG factor

Agree on the RNG, don't agree on the penetration. See no reason why the 105mm HESH round would have 147mm of penetration when highest limit for scabbing to occur is 1.3x the caliber.

Edited by RoflSeal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

None of this really makes any sense:

 

  • High Hardness Armour layered/combined with regular RHA is not composite, I presume you wouldn't consider the Panzer III Ausf. L being a composite tank either would you?
  • Type-87 has composite already, so that non-existant tech cut-off has been broken for quite a while now.
  • APFSDS is as needed as the Leopard 2 A4 is, just fix the current shells and it'll be completely fine, HESH should have around about 147mm of ''penetration'' without the drastic 20% RNG factor, L7 APDS should be penetrating 127mm of steel @ 60° @ 1000 yards (914 metres) and have it's after-pen effects increased (FAR more spalling/fragmentation needs to be modelled) and HEAT-FS should also have it's damage increased.
  • US and USSR APFSDS wouldn't be that special if APDS had damage out-put equal to it, which I mentioned previously.
  • Regenerative steering and a properly modelled transmission for the Leopard 1 (among others) are far more needed than some APFSDS powercreep shell.

 

Sadly, I gotta say it, we all know composite armor is coming eventually..  It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.  Since in order to keep adding new content over time, they'll have to push into that barrier.  Thankfully like I said though, its easy to push into the early 80s without going true composite armor tanks, though we'd basically be using most nations second line tanks at that point. 

 

ERA is also eventually coming, it's already in the CDK and they're most likely just looking at tanks and afv's that are steel armored that used it.  Again, ERA pushes into the early 80s. 

 

APFSDS will become necessary for late tier 5 vehicles, as they'll need something capable of fighting those early composite tanks. 

 

11 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Agree on the RNG, don't agree on the penetration. See no reason why the 105mm HESH round would have 147mm of penetration when highest limit for scabbing to occur is 1.3x the caliber.

 

It depends on the manual you look at.  Some list Nato single heavy(150mm) for 105mm HESH.  The 127mm value in game, is actually the value for 80% chance of deadly spall under US protection criteria.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

None of this really makes any sense:

 

  • Type-87 has composite already, so that non-existant tech cut-off has been broken for quite a while now.

pretty sure it was already statet that we have an Type 87 proto ingame who didnt have the comp armor

Edited by JG27_Iluminas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JG27_Iluminas said:

pretty sure it was already statet that we have an Type 87 proto ingame who didnt have the comp armor

 

Not really relevant, just go into the Polygon test drive and fire at the 30mm thick front plate with anything that has about 60mm of penetration (or less), you'll note you're striking multiple layers of armour, not exactly ''true'' composite, but it represents it being there.

Edited by Necrons31467
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.