Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

heretic88

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. Well, according to a soviet instruction for T-62 gunners (памятка экипажу обЪекта 166 по борьбе с танками леопард, центурион, м60а1 и амх-63), the average speed of the Leopard is 32km/h. For the M-60, its 24, for Centurion its 17, for AMX, its 35km/h.
  2. Im not really sure what to think about the Leopard-1. Yes, it had great mobility, also good firepower. But that total neglect of armor... And its not just the protection-firepower-mobility triumvirate. For quite a long time, it didnt have a stabilizer, this somewhat negated its advantages in mobility. I have a soviet gunnery manual for T-62, and they acknowledge that the Leopard is very fast, but then strongly emphasize the lack of stabilizer, as an exploitable weakness. The night fighting ability of the Leopard until the PZB-200 was also quite deficient. At night, it actually had a 3 man crew, since the gunner didnt have any night sights, so he could do nothing at all. The commander now had to aim the gun, distracting him from his other duties. This is even worse than soviet tanks with their quite poor IR sights, where the commander at least could help with observation, at least for shorter ranges (~500m). In my opinion, the Leopard was greatly inferior to the M-60A1. The american tank was slower, but actually had better cross country capability, had the best armor in the world until the appearance of the T-64 (fully 100mm APHE/APDS/APFSDS proof frontally). It also lacked stabilizer, but had much better night fighting ability. Probably it was also the best tank in the world in the 60s.
  3. So basically this means, that the heavier Leo-1A2 turret only had somewhat thicker side armor... Quite unimpressive. Leopard-1 was an incredibly poorly armored tank. Strange that they didnt even try to make it proof against BR-412D, which though not particularly good at penetration (basically ww2 tech), had incredibly devastating behind armor effect.
  4. What if they just made some typo? Maybe that data is for the M900 and for some reason they wrote M833 instead?
  5. Thanks for the explanation! So, what do you think where does the 500mm for the M833 (in Militarysta's chart, and also in some russian sources) comes from? And what criterias did they use to determine such result?
  6. This is whole chart is strange... 360-370 should be M774... M833 should definitely penetrate more than 400mm. 430-440 (where M900 is on the chart) is more believable for it. Armor values are also off. "T-62 basic" looks like a T-62M with metal-polymer blocks. T-72A and M1 should have the exact same protection...
  7. Just asking, isnt the 500mm penetration of M833 is a little bit overestimated? I find it suspicious that it is more powerful than even contemporary 120mm and 125mm APFSDS. Yes, DU, and also the rod is longer, but its still a huge leap compared to M774.
×
×
  • Create New...