The M1A1, Leopard 2 series, and Kpz 70 all use the same gun. the L/44, It has a different name for the US but it is the same gun. In game they have different accuracy, which i am fine with, but the damages should be the same.

I know Wikipedia is not a good source but it is all i can find with info right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_120_mm_gun


I think the Leopard 2 and M1A1 Abrams should have the same damage of 10. The KPz70, no.

You have point, but the same thing could be applied to WP tanks of the same timespan (by exemple, two 80's tanks with the same gun would use the same APSDS).

Yeah, I pointed this out as well in the suggestions thread.

There are also some other minor issues, like the Abrams having more side armor than it really ought to (MBT's, especially NATO tanks, are basically impervious to the front excepting close range. You need to flank to kill them. - This is armour tactics 101. The side armor on the NATO MBT's however, is not so good that it's better than the front armor of most other tanks in service...)

There are bigger issues with how armour is represented in game though, at least from a realistic standpoint. The biggest thing of note is terrain. Tanks and other armoured vehicles absolutely rely on small hills and dips around the map to avoid fire, fire from hull down positions, cover retreats, and so on in reality. The best way to describe it is that armoured vehicles should flow like water through the terrain. In game, these small terrain changes aren't represented in the slightest. (A low grade 1km wide hill can prevent two tanks from seeing each other, even if it looks nearly flat from the perspective of the tank)

Instead we get massive height increases at tiered levels. The terrain is completely flat except for the height increases. This was probably a design decision to cut down on map detail and lower polygon counts.

Would be overpowered I think. As Kovlovsky said, the same could be applied to many units.

This is in a way similar to the SAS being equipped with Redeye's ingame, rather than Stingers.

_________________

I mostly agree with you, except that nothing is totally impervious ^^.

I don't see why this would be an issue. Warsaw pact armour should have the same gunline stats if they're using the same weapons.

Also, since you mentioned ammo, I'd like to point out that the Leo2 and M1A1 actually did use different ammunition types, however the DM33 round used by the Leopard actually achieves greater penetration (slightly) than the M829 round used by the Abrams. (This changes once the upgrade to the M829A1 and up rounds are introduced, primarily due to the DU-Tungsten alloy used in the penetrator which grants a marked increase in penetration due to its intrinsic self-sharpening capabilities.)

Anyways, the absolute single biggest difference between the Abrams and Leopard in-game should be their engines. The Abrams has greater acceleration than the Leopard, but lower top speed, and uses up its fuel more quickly. This *should* translate to more quickly maneuvering around cover in a battlefield situation, but in practice the game doesn't really model cover and terrain well enough for it to matter.

In all other respects, these two tanks are basically the same. They were both based off a joint US-German tank project, both have similar levels of protection, both have similar stabilizers and electronics, both have the same cannon, etc. etc. The only significant difference is tactical and strategic mobility.

I think acceleration is more or less nonexistant ingame, sadly. Hopefully it can be adjusted in realism mods in the future, but currently tanks can go from a halt to max speed as fast as a damn dragster.

_________________

Quite true. There is always a caveat, but it really depends on how gritty on the details you want to get.

For example, the Leopard 2 has a weak point in its armor on the left side of the tank, next to the driver. There is a compartment here where extra ammo is stored, and it lacks a blow-out panel. It's very unlikely for a hit from the front to do anything to that compartment, but a lucky hit from the side could kill the crew, easily.

And then there is the turret ring - on both the Abrams and Leopard, a hit on the turret ring will easily penetrate into the rest of the tank, but getting the kind of angle where that happens is very difficult.

Neither of these covers other parts of the tank being hit - Commander TIS, gunner's sight, tracks, radio, etc. Just because a round didn't penetrate, doesn't mean you can't make the tank combat ineffective.

As far as penetration goes, the front armor of the leopard and abrams for all intensive porpoises (I couldn't help myself ) cannot be penetrated at a range of 2km's by anything in the PACT armory, except extremely powerful ATGM's like the AT-11. Though if you want to model it as realistically as possible, after 20 or 30 hits, *something* is going to get lucky and do damage at that range.

Things changed once those PACT tanks got within about 1.5km's. All things considered, it could be very difficult for a dug-in NATO force to actually eliminate enough PACT armour that they don't get within that distance, and once PACT armour *does* the fight is on much more equal ground, as NATO front armor would no longer guarantee protection against PACT cannons. Or in other words, NATO would be killing PACT armour in 1-3 shots, and PACT armour would be doing likewise.

Basically NATO doctrine for the cold war was to retreat during an engagement, grinding down the superior number of PACT armour with fewer but higher quality forces. That's the basic gist of it. The Abrams for example, is a big gas guzzler because it was not expected to operate very far from supplies, the idea was that as PACT pressed the attack, NATO armoured forces would slowly give ground with tank platoons operating using reverse bounding overwatch and pre-placed and prepared hull-down positions.

That's not to say that NATO tanks couldn't press an offensive or anything, only that they knew they were facing a superior number of armoured vehicles and utilized what tactics they could to press their intrinsic advantage as much as possible.

While I agree with almost all you said, there is another difference between the two tanks. The Leopard had different armor composition. The Leo don't have Chobham armor, it uses a different composition. I only know that Chobham is more specialised against HEAT projectiles, but I'm no expert.

Your post was very interesting Hear7breaker.

The single greatest indication of armour capability is weight of the vehicle. That's a rule of thumb guideline.

In regards to Chobham on the Abrams and Leopard, you're correct that the Leopard didn't use it, but the Germans independently developed armour that more or less did exactly what Chobham did. (and for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to just refer to Chobham armour as a catchall term for the type of armour on various NATO tanks)

The type of armour between the two was different, but of similar capability. Probably a difference between the two of no more than 100mm RHAe, and quite likely less than that.