I’m sure it’s Norway and Sweden, possibly Finland, but I have doubts for Finland.
1 Like
voted both cause in game the lepord is better but irl they are both pretty evenly matched
1 Like
The Abrams gun is a Rheinmetall gun, which is almost(!) the same as the leopard gun.
The MTU engine of the Leopard is superior to the Abrams gas turbine, not only in fuel consumption, but also in relation to heat dissapation from the exhaust.
So that’s why, in my book, the Leopard is the better tank.
What we can all agree on though, is that both tanks are superior to any russian tanks :)
1 Like
I agree with that in every aspect but profile, but yes XD
Modern tungsten composites have caught up to DU penetrators in raw penetration. The main benefits of DU now is a slightly better post-pen damage and being A LOT cheaper than tungsten.
2 Likes
That’s; arguable. Through its lifespan it costs more, in man hours, enrichment, and disposal; considering its “waste” though, and the government (US) regulates Nuclear Waste, they can practically get it for free at the end of its lifespan.
Of course Leopard 2 - basically a ‘golden standard’ among other MBT’s.
I occasionally notice the better reload decides duels in favor of Abrams’. So they’re better.
Which is very unrealistic to real life.
But the U in the DU has served it’s purpose and generated quite a bit of power by then no? Enough to cancel out the energy cost of mining it and processing it, and then the leftover can be used for weapons.
Overall just more efficient than tungsten which has a collective energy loss from mining to firing
1 Like
I vote for the European tank, though I think the Leclerc Is actually better irl because of the smaller profile, both the Leopard and the Abrams are too big, they’re humongous especially the leopard
1 Like
Not even really true anymore. Some WHA APFSDS have additional pyrophoric tail units to enhance their under armor effectiveness (cough DMXX series cough).
Also for those saying that “profile matters”, not anymore. With digital FCS and sights that can identify a vehicle out to 5km’s, whether you’re the size of a Leopard 2 or a T-72, you’ll still be spotted and engaged.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t say better, sure the incendiary effect would be better, but the spalling would also be worse by the self sharpening and the smaller size of the fragments of du
1 Like
Cost-use ratio is very large and hard to calculate, so it’d take a while to be sure.
Any tank with an Autoloader is almost always superior by default. (Excluding T-tanks)
Not really. Ingame its better to have more crew (loader) for more survivability.
Irl a skilled loader can reload faster than any autoloader. Especially when the commander orders a double shot where the loader already holds the next shell in his arms. There are tank vids where loaders insert new shells at super warpspeed. No autoloader is able to do that.
Not really, considering you keep one in the chamber, you only have one moving shot, then you have to stop to reload the gun, that is unless you are driving on flat paved ground (almost never)
Even Germanic industry has acknowledged it as Rheinmettal’s new MBT’s are fitted with a bussel autoloader, and even the EMBT project between them and France.
(Rhinemettal KF-51 Panther loader)
irl they’re very close. but for me its Abrams because of personel preference and potential to have access to round like XM943 STAFF and M830A1 with proximity fuse. And with .50cal that could do more things that LMG couldn’t.
Though fuel consumption leave a bit to be desired.
Ingame Leopards. Due to aiming weakspot being a things (turret ring) and with 60-70% of map in WT are very small or in urban place with no infantry around.
It mean having better armor profile against KE threat are better than having better armor profile against CE threat in this game.
DU and WA advantage are pretty much negligible. though US with DU offer them much cheaper cost due to more easy access to DU source than having to rely on WA munition.
Personally its the M1 Abrams, as I’m more familiar with it and have played a proper TT variant. The Leopard is cool though. (I’ve played the Leopard 2AV, still waiting to get to my 2A4 :) )
Personally I think both tanks perform well and are both equally good in their own playstyle, but that’s just me.
About Penetrators DU/WHA
Tungsten Penetrators have come a long way that now through production methods and composites they can be made to be also selfsharpening.
here an example of a research paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359645420300185
About Pyrophoric both materials are and while DU has an easier time to get ignitet the fact still stands.
the biggest difference today i would say is the V0 they are shoot at