I've drag raced a Leclerc in a M1A1 in real life. That thing is fast.. like it wasn't even close it just shot ahead of us and kept on going. She's a lot lighter than you'd think and that's where she gets her speed from I believe.
Okay now I've watched the whole video and that was hilarious. Its best summed up by that the tanks are just fine, this was just an example of tremendously bad tactics; also some poor damage modeling. All tanks are weak on the sides, top, and rear and people have spent the last 100 years coming up with all sorts of anti tank options, no one is invulnerable and those are just the facts of life. Modern tanks draw their advantage from being able to deliver more precise kinetic energy at a much longer ranges in addition to having superior armor and mobility. Tankers will always orient their armor to face the threat and peak over terrain when possible to limit their exposure to incoming fire. rather than just charge and get destroyed. A more fair test for every tank involved would be for them to stay on line but to creep forward till each successive row of tank was within range and then have them stop and eliminate the targets. This would also test the max effective ranges of each tank. Also fun fact, the Leo and the Abrams use the exact same main gun. Modern Sabot rounds would melt through a Panzers armor; it wouldn't even present a challenge. Fun test boys, apparently the Leo just doesn't give a fuck lol.
@@reefta I doubt such a battle would have taken 4 minutes, forget an hour! IIRC Abrams MBTs were sniping T72s in the Iraq desert for 3-4k meters; one shot a T-72 through a sand dune. Another got a double hit with one round!
The Merkava's barrel is not short to operate in urban environments it's a common myth but it's not true. It's the same length as the L44 as it's just a domestically produced version of it. The gun just looks shorter because the first part of the barrel is covered up by the turret.
@@knochi956 The newest Abrams SEPv3 still uses L44 gun, which is a bit of a bummer, as it lacks performance with tungsten rounds compared to the new Leopard's L55 gun.
@@AgneDei No major Loss of penetration with the L44 and the M829 Round. They are still capable of hitting out to about 4600 meters with like an 80% change of first shot kills if I recall..
@@jerrybeard2670 Don't compare depleted uranium core to tungsten core rounds, that's dumb because L55 can also use them with significantly higher performance than L44. You just can't work around physics.
smoothbore has no negative ballistic effect on modern fin-stabilized sabot rounds and eliminating the lans and grooves from the barrel reduces weight/manufacturing complexity while adding potential diameter to the projectile at no cost.
@@grimreapers to fire HESH projectiles, the rifled gun on the Chally is very outdated, this is seen on the new version of the tank the Challenger 3 now has a smooth bore cannon. Smooth bores are also able to fire higher pressure cartridges while having significantly less wear on the gun itself
@@grimreapers Because British use HESH rounds that needs to spin to work properly, this is the only reason for the rifled barrel in the Challenger 2, but it is an old round, in fact the British are thinking of upgrading the Challenger 2 with a smoothbore Rhenimentall L/55 because it wears much less than a rifled barrel and today there are much better ammunition that can replace the HESH
@@grimreapers Because the British really liked the HESH round which needs a rifled gun to work well. They've only just decided to switch to the L55 smoothbore (used on the newest leopard variants). for the challenger 3
Yeah I kind of figured that DCS not having all of the data on these tanks was the main reason. Besides they're there to be destroyed by modern aircraft.
T80 is derivative and development of T-64, Russia's top of the line tank from the 60's and 70's, while the T-90 is a development of the T-72 which is a cheaper tank intended for large numbers and also export markets. The 64 and 80 were more well developed and refined than the somewhat more economical and basic 72 and 90 respectively, though of course a lot also depends on the level of advanced equipment on the specific model.
"The 64 and 80 were more well developed and refined than the somewhat more economical and basic 72 and 90 respectively" If by "well developed and refined" you mean "riddled with issues, prone to failure, overambitious and badly designed" then yes... yes they were.. The T-72 wasn't cheaper because it's worse.. it was cheaper because it already had a pre-existing industrial base for its production.
And if I'm not mistaken also had larger brass, standard ap round of the panzer 5 were lighter but the round itself was about 3kg's heavier, also about 250-300 Ms velocity higher on standard ap
@@piminat0r Yeah. Same with the Tiger 1 vs Tiger 2. Both technically 88mm, but damn the Tiger 2 gun packs a hell of a lot more punch. 88 x 571mm vs 88 x 822mm shells AND a longer gun. A more logical progression, both in terms of armor and firepower, would have been the Panzer4 -> Tiger1 -> Panther, -> Tiger2. Sure the Panther "only" has 80mm of frontal armor compared to the Tiger 1 100mm. But the panthers armor is sloped back while the Tiger1 armor is almost completely flat, thus making the Panthers armor effectively thicker. (not that any of that level of armor matters against modern 120mm guns). And the long 75 on the Panther had more penetration than the 88 on the Tiger1.
The IMI 120mm barrel is 44 calibers, just like the M256 in the M1A2 and Rh-120 on the Leopard 2. Merkava has the power pack mounted in the front (for extra crew protection), so the gun probably sits a bit further back on the chassis. The power pack and transmission on the Leopard 2 is absolutely amazing, so winning the drag race is no surprise.
Abrams have 2 ammo racks. One near the breach and one in the back. Loading from the first one takes very little time. You're supposed to shuffle ammo from the bigger shelf between fights. Loading ammo directly from the rear shelf takes a lot longer.
The ammo is stored in an armored compartment..The ready rack behind the loader and the semi ready rack behind the TC. Ready rack holds 25 rounds. Semi ready 20. To access the Semi ready rack you have to disconnect the hydraulic door actuator on the ready rack, fold down TC's seat and then wrench door partially open to start pulling rounds out. Takes about 10 plus minutes to do complete transfer.
Watching tank battles on the gulf war and the commanders were saying they were going fast and could fire once every 6 seconds and just drive through the enemy without slowing down.
The Merkava has active shield, which of course not simulated here. with that, with a full crew it is a lethal monster. aiming and shooting fast in a hard terrains. DCS is a good flight sim, but not too good with the tanks yet.
the reason the merkava's barrel seems short is due to the turret being mounted more to the rear than the more traditional middle position and the face the add-on armor it posses extends so much on the barrel, when in reality the gun is as long as a Leopard 2 or a M1A2
Not very accurate, the M1 is deadly at long range so the aiming system doesn’t appear to be accurate. They would have wiped them out at long range. I suspect these tanks are not so accurate but it is a flight sim
They claim they're trying to make a Digital Combat Simulator but their prime focus is flight. I believe the M1 is deadly at range when stationary, but not sure about moving and of course a video game can never be that realistic anyway. :)
I think it was the ammo they used…sabot is great against composite heavy armor…but non composite pure armor they might have done better with a heat type AT round…I think they used that with the Chicom tank and the hit ratio seemed better until the Panther 75mm/L70 high velocity sent them all to Mao’s tomb
Don't get me wrong, I love DCS for what it is, but it simulates tanks so poorly that I'd expect a 2A7 to perform worse than a 2A4 for no conceivable reason other than "Because it's DCS." After all, the M1A2, which is closer to a 2A7 in real world capabilities, did worse than the Leopard 2A4. Another way to look at it: the Leopard 2A4 already performs, compared to the M1A2, as if it's actually a Leopard 2A7.
A similar test was conducted FOR REAL in 1998 in Greece. The tanks that took part were the M1a2 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Leopard 2a6, T-80U and T-84 from Ukraine. The test included among others: firing on the move, starting at 60% slope, traversing a ditch 2 meters deep in water, vertical obstacle, detection and identification of target at night and endurance and fuel economy run for 1000 km. To no-one's surprise Leopard came first followed closely by Abrams, then Leclerc and T-80 and T-84. Leopard was also somewhat cheaper than the other western tanks. As far as i know it is the only comparative test of modern MBT ever.
With the turbine engine it's quite interesting for the Abrams to get a good result in a test where the fuel economy is a factor. I guess it had small weight for the final score, as besides that it's a great tank.
@@AgneDei Abrams came marginally first in the technical evaluation actually, it scored well in optics an fire control devices. Only when price was evaluated Leopard went on top, again marginally. There where also 2 companies that didn't present a tank in the test.
I'm wondering how accurately modeled the tanks really are. Realistically, there's no WW2 round that is getting through modern composite armor. The Challenger 2, Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. would have probably gotten through this without losing a tank. Also, the Abrams should have the best side armor of the group. The Abrams' designers sacrificed a bit of frontal armor to beef up the armor on the rest of the tank. The other western MBTs went for max frontal armor.
@@tomriley5790 the original Abrams and the original Challenger both had Chobham armor, but even then, I believe it was arranged differently on the two tanks. Since then, both to tanks have undergone numerous upgrades. The Abrams is now on version M1A2 SEP v3 and the Challenger is on version Challenger 2 LEP. They have both upgraded their armor significantly since the original versions, with the Challenger now on version 2 of Chobham armor, and the Abrams now includes depleted uranium as part of its armor. Both tanks are extremely well armored, but I believe the current Abrams has slightly better all around armor than the Challenger 2.
@@Nicolas10391 The Challenger 3 is in development, but won't be in service for like 5 more years. Same deal with the M1A3, in development, but not in service yet.
The Abrams doesn't fire missiles, Rhinemetal did develop a missile for the 120mm used by both the Leopard and Abrams but the project was later dropped as neither one was interested in it
Smooth bore guns use a Sabot round when firing Primary Armor Defeating rounds (Sabot) Penetrator encased in a discarding sabot carrier which is discarded after round exits barrel. penetrator is basically a dart flying at roughly 4-5 times speed of sound in a near flat trajectory...Very accurate..
It would only really work if they tried to use actual combat tactics and not drive fast to the enemy and hope you can hit them before you expose weaker side armour.
I would like to know what the actual speed and acceleration was. I can't say anything about current tank speeds/acceleration but the M1 can definitely run over 100kph cross country (regardless of what the official speed is). The original speed was limited by the surplus M60 track which was used.
Former M1 driver, I've ran around 72mph (116kph) flat out on desert dirt roads. Though the tank slows down A LOT when a hill gets involved. (plus I tweaked the governor settings on mine)
@Local Techpriest yeah..I was always jealous of you guys being in an armored vehicle that could pull a wheelie. I was Artillery (SP) always with AD'S or CAV and you ran circles around us.. (of course we could shoot further and over hills 😉)
I feel like you could've dropped the chieftain and added the Japanese type 10, the Italian Ariete and the Korean K2. Also, if this was realistic then all of the tanks used would be getting one shot kills as soon as they see the crappy old WW2 tank.
Sabot rounds are depleted Uraniam rounds peeps. Also, the reactive armor by the A2's are classified, so are how the servo stabilizers keep the tank leveled while hauling ass.
The Leapard, Abrams and Leclerc all have the same German designed 120mm smoothbore gun, the Challenger 2/3 is having its rifled gun replaced by the 120mm smoothbore gun and im not sure about the Leclerc, as for the Russian and Chinese tank they also have the same gun as each other a Russian produced/Chinese licence copy of 125mm smoothbore.
The modern armor piercing fins stabilize discarding sabot round has a muzzle velocity approaching 5577 ft/s 1700 m/s or Mach 5. The tungsten penetrators will go faster initially and the depleted uranium penetrators are heavier so they start slower but they keep their velocity longer.
To be fair, it also has the original Leclerc, T90 and only the M1A2 Abrams and not the Series XXI, T90M or M1A2 SEP V3. Most of the assets in DCS are fairly old.
cap! the merkava doesn't have a short gun, its turret is placed backwards on the hull since the engine is in the front. it's basically the same gun as the m1's and leopard.
Chieftain has a rifled barrel. Same gun as the Challenger 2 I believe. It was a very successful tank gun implemented on many vehicles. Most use smooth bore guns these days that are all the same gun or copies of. No surprise that the Leopard won the drag race. It was designed to be fast and maneuverable.
The new Challys are going smooth-bore, too - but I wonder if it can fire the HESH rounds the British Army likes to use so much or if the latter has finally called time on that particular munition type?
The LeClerk: No "Frog" legs for you, Cap!! To be honest, in an armored vehicle, I would love to see an aluminum block diesel Merlin pattern engine. Wasn't it the British that developed the composite armor?
OK, here's the game for Sunday fun day. However many tanks on a side you can do without crashing the server but not king of the hill (which takes for effing ever). Use a medium terrain environment so there are some surface structure to hide behind but not mountains. Just wipe out the other team. Simple. Limit the zone to about 10 miles by 10 miles just to keep it snappy. Might I also suggest 2 man teams; driver and gunner. Both sides have access to the same tanks if they want them, just assign red and blue and do your PID. (Sock will kill a team mate "accidentally" Battle to the death, last tank rolling, that side wins. Put an insignia on the tanks if you can to make PID easier.
Smoothbore cannons are accurate because thanks use Fin Stabilized rounds that stabilize the round in flight like rifling in a firearm. Also the smoothbore cannons have a longer life.
As a tank fan I can answer this without watching the video. IRL, the answer is probably the Leopard 2A7 but it is yet to be seen what the Challenger 3 can do in battle. I'm also a little shocked you bothered with the cheiftan mk3. Doees anyone even still use it? 8:16 it's slightly lighter and has a more powerful engine. It achieves this with the angled spaced armour on the front of it's turret. The LeClerc is essentially the same idea but it doesn't have the power to weight ratio and i believe has taller ratios in it's gearbox (don't quote me on that). 9:41 Torque or the force of twisting. Torque is what gets things moving. The heavier a thing is the more torque you need to get it moving. Once it is rolling there will come a point where torque is replaced by power (in vehichles HP or PS) 14:58 the problem with that is if you get a shell go through it's an immediate mobility kill and the tank is lost. Which means it will fail the test as it will not be able to shot while moving. 20:50 The chally has a stablised gun. The cheif doesn't. So, everytime the chief hit's a bump it puts the gun off target. chally has no such issues. 22:03 So explain how sabot rounds can do it then? No? Ok i will then. The real answer is the angle of slope. The angle of slope increases the *effective* armour thickness. With a hard round tipped shell like a WW2 tank shell, this angle and the roundness of the head is what causes the bounce (reasons why ther UK invented Squash head shells). Sabot rounds being thin and pointy counteract this somewhat. It's like the difference between stabbing something with a spoon and then stabbing it again with a knife 26:09 This is simply down to the type of shell being fired. The modern tanks are firing armour piercing fin stablised discarding sabot rounds (APFSDS) the fin stabilisation increase round accuracy and they are also considerably lighter which also increases muzzle velocity. The Panzers are mostly likely firing Armour piercing capped Balistic capped (APCBC) rounds. This are heavy AF and wobble slightly while in flight. This increases aerodynamic drag, decreasing accuracy and velocity. 33:23 They are for killing targets dug in behind cover and for highly mobile targets where the turret can't move fast enough to keep a lock for the cannon. Some countries do use them against aircraft but they are not actually designed for that use.
I believe the Abrams is one of the heaviest tanks out there. Yeah it didn't win the drag race but you got to give it to the Abrams for how well it did for its weight.
3:07 The Russian T-Tanks are not Follow-up numbered in Versions or something. So for example, not like German Leopard 2A4 -> 2A5 -> 2A6 -> 2A7 are newer versions by rising numbers. The T-72, T-80 and T-90 are more like parallel-productions/constructions that each will always be upgraded to the newest stand of technology if possible. T-80 and T-90 use the same Gun but while the T-80 uses a Gasturbine, the T-90 has a V-12-Dieselengine. This makes the one not Better than the other, they are just different models for different uses. And the T-72 is more or less a cheaper mass-Version that is used in larger groups to overrun enemys when possible. But that does not mean that the T-72 is less modern equiped, it just has an other usecase and is not compareable with T-80 and T-90. I know, the T-80 is an old sovjet tank and the T-90 was intoduced in 90th but that makes the T-80 not less important or less powerfull. They all will be upgraded parallel.
@@TeenTeenFpv that is true. But for example, the T-90 was developed in the 90s But in its core it is just a T-72 that was given a T-80U fire control system an reactive armor. So it is basically a renamed T-72. If you watch in the T-72 history, it ends with the Object 188 (T-72BU) which is the T-90. Even the T-64 is still in use, modified to be as effektive as All others
The modern fire control systems on these tanks have such a high hit rate on the move none of these WW2 tanks would be able to hit the target. Pzgr 40 as used on the Tiger is about 800ms-1 the DM33 on the Leopard 2A4 is about 1500ms-1 Leopard 2A7 is regarded as the best tank in the world.
@@hanz2035 Of course tanks are always a compromise, the best tanks generally are a mix of firepower, armour, crew protection and mobility. The list of truly elite tanks is short. Leopard 2A7v+ and the (STRV122B) M1A2 SEP V3 K2 (untested but looks very capable on paper) T90M and MS. Merkava IVM Then we have second tier tanks Challenger 2(TES) Type 10 Leclerc T-72B3 (Ukraine is not a fair assessment of this tank) ZTZ 99. But yes you could argue all day about who has the best tanks, but the important thing is not to be blinded by nationalism.
@@lukewhitehouse4103 not sure I would put the T-90M up there, it still lacks some pretty essential features like blowout panels, and it might still have the old autoloader flaw that prevented earlier variants from using longer more modern APFSDS rounds, not sure if that has been fixed or not.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 The T-90M-MS-SM exported to India and the current Rusfed version has had the autoloader armoured in 400mm composite armour, the rear of the turret has been extended to allow safe storage of additional rounds stored with blow out pannels. A Hardkill APS not fitted to all tanks as of yet, India will likely fit the Trophy system to their T-90SM tanks. The laterst in FCS and battlefield control systems and its just looks so damn good. However all these points are subjective.
Leclerc, M1A2, Merkava, and the Leopard 2A4 all have the same 120 mm smoothbore cannon. the only odd one out is the merkava's weapon systems creator falls under a different name, but the same technologies. The Leopard 2A5 to 2A7 have an L55, or the barrel length is 55 calliber length long, instead of the L44 as in the M1A2, Leclerc, Merkava, and Leopard 2A4. As well, the Leopard has a 2200 HP engine for getting into trouble, and the leclerc just needs to retreat fast
Merkavas barrel is exactly as long as that of Leopard 2A4 and A5. L/44. It was not built to be used in urban environments, that is just a neat side effect. Israel built it's own 120mm gun, so it's not a license built version of a Rh120 nor the M256. The Leclerc is actually quite a good tank it seems. Not sure it ever saw actual combat, But from what I've heard this TS armor and fire power are both quite substantial.
the 500-600mm armor of the leopard 2 is an equivalant to if it was just steel armor. the armor is not really half a meter thick that would go against the focus on mobility the leo 2 was designed for
I'm not mad, because honestly how is DCS going to model anything with such highly classified stats with any sort of accuracy. Seeing the French tanks win after you called it the duff tank was totally worth it.
I'm probably wrong about this,, but I think the Leopard has a diesel and a gas turbine for some extra Umph when it's needed. besides that,, I think it just had better acceleration,, after a bit most of the tanks was traveling at pretty much the same speed.
So, most NATO tanks now use, a German gun (licensed for building), UK armour, used to be Chobham, now ?Dorchester, and a lot of American tech. Each army then decides on survivability, weapon/ammo mix, power/manoeuvrability, comms, ergonomics, reliability/field maintenance and service intervals. Thank you Bovington Tank Museum 😆
T-90 has also inherited all of the T-72's flaws and is a death trap, as it's less than stellar combat record testifies to. T-80 itself is in essence a simplified (in manufacture) and more robust (especially suspension) evolution of the T-64. When I crewed Chieftain in the 80's and early 90's we feared the T-64 far more than we did the T-72 as they tended to be used by professional units and not just conscripts going through the motions. But I'd still rather be sat in a Mk.11 Chieftain than any of the Soviet era Russian MBT's still in service, no matter which bells and whistles they have bolted on them., a 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS round will still spoil anyone's morning and the L11A5 gun Chieftain and Challenger 1 shared is still a record holder in combat. But any wagon is only as good as the quality and training of their crews, as the news from the Ukraine proves daily.
@@ser43_OLDC Not even T90A, the original Obj 188 derived design (just called T90) was the only one even related to the T72, and only in the construction of the turret. This was changed with T90A.
@@infinitetk4165 All russian tanks are shit, all just propaganda, in reality it is just rusty garbage from 1970 that get renamed now and then. Plenty of T90 rotting on Ukrainan fields. Shit tanks with shit crews
Leclerc is one of the few western tanks with a autoloader and thus only 3 man crew, which helps with saving some weight. Also, the gun is pretty much the same one as the Abrams gun... NATO caliber
It is NOT "Panzer 7" for the Tiger 2, it is "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B Tiger II " because allthough a completely new design, somehow in the german naming System both Tigers were "6" ;-)
So a number of things here and at this point I'm only 4 mins in: 1) Chieftain also has a rifled gun with the Mk3 utilising the L11A5 2) the Merkava's barrel is the same length as that of the German Leopard 2A4 at 44 calibre length, its just the shape of the turret mixed with the fact that it's powerpack is mounted at the front which gives the illusion of it being shorter. 3) The Abrams, despite looking massive on the screen in the lineup is actually one of the smallest Western tanks going. Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are both a fair bit longer and taller both in the Hull and especially noticeable with Challenger when it's gun forward as it utilises a 55 calibre length L30A1 main armament whereas the US M256 is a license built Rhinemetall L44, so 44 calibre length. Additionally the Abrams cannot fire ATGMs through its barrel, however the Israelis have trialled ATGMs with the Merkava 4. 4) The T-80U will be better in most regards than the T-90 because it is in real life. The T-90 sounds newer but is essentially a T-72BM, they rebranded after the disaster of the first Chechen war to get the funds to design it and that war is also where the T-80 fell out of favour because many of them got schwacked in grozny.... It wasn't really fair on the tank but it was scapegoated and I won't explain it all here as there isn't the space but essentially there was alot of politics at play between the design bureaus (T-80 is designed by a totally different manufacturer than T-72/90). Short of it is that the T-80 was designed as a more expensive, complex and capable machine that was to be fielded by Guards tank units rather than the riff-raff but couldn't be rolled out army wide because of the expense and complexity.... Still made in excess of 7500 of them though so by our (British) standards, thats alot. 5) ah the ZTZ96.... What can I say? Its a piece of shit and not even a durable piece of shit like much of the stuff the Russians pump out en-masse 😂 6) The Leclerc is a capable machine, not as armoured as other Western tanks but its built to a different doctrine. 1500hp has turbine in something which weighs less than 55 tons means it's got some beans and they're cool inside. Worked with them when I was deployed alongside the French a few year back (I was on Chally 2).
Would like to see Japan's Type 90 added to the mix in this sim. Would love to see the newer support MBT Type 10 but I'm sure it's way too new to model in any realistic way.
I served on Chally 1/2, the armour setup on them was peacetime armour. The Chally has upgraded combat armour on the front and sides during wartime this would have made a huge difference, unsure if you could do another with the upgraded???
Too bad about the cows, a lot of videogame rating boards don't allow any kind of violence against animals. So it may have been turned off in order to pass muster in those areas.
Hmm, Sabot is a shoe made of wood. When the french was unhappy about those new machines taking their jobs, they chucked the sabots into the machinery, thus the term saboteur. Seems a bit odd to be firing wooden shoes at tanks, but,, what do I know. ;)
I think of Cap like a new teacher at a school. Simba, Sock and everyone else (minus Kortana) are his toughest students. His attempts to control the class will ultimately cost him his sanity.
You are doing it wrong. Most of these tanks are not designed to fight from an advancing position over flat terrain. They are supposed to fight from a hull down position. The have weak lower glacis armour.
It’s funny how in real life an Abrams can’t kill an Abrams but this simulation is taken as gospel. I believe there are real accounts of damaged Abrams needing to be destroyed to prevent capture and at point blank range another Abrams couldn’t penetrate the armor to get the job done.
I've drag raced a Leclerc in a M1A1 in real life. That thing is fast.. like it wasn't even close it just shot ahead of us and kept on going. She's a lot lighter than you'd think and that's where she gets her speed from I believe.
Okay now I've watched the whole video and that was hilarious. Its best summed up by that the tanks are just fine, this was just an example of tremendously bad tactics; also some poor damage modeling. All tanks are weak on the sides, top, and rear and people have spent the last 100 years coming up with all sorts of anti tank options, no one is invulnerable and those are just the facts of life. Modern tanks draw their advantage from being able to deliver more precise kinetic energy at a much longer ranges in addition to having superior armor and mobility. Tankers will always orient their armor to face the threat and peak over terrain when possible to limit their exposure to incoming fire. rather than just charge and get destroyed. A more fair test for every tank involved would be for them to stay on line but to creep forward till each successive row of tank was within range and then have them stop and eliminate the targets. This would also test the max effective ranges of each tank. Also fun fact, the Leo and the Abrams use the exact same main gun. Modern Sabot rounds would melt through a Panzers armor; it wouldn't even present a challenge. Fun test boys, apparently the Leo just doesn't give a fuck lol.
@@jasong3442 true that, but it would make a boring video to watch tanks fires from 2km away for an hour or so.
The Leclerc is probably even quicker in reverse in real life lol
It has very good hydro pneumatic suspension for the smooth ride on uneven terrain.
@@reefta I doubt such a battle would have taken 4 minutes, forget an hour! IIRC Abrams MBTs were sniping T72s in the Iraq desert for 3-4k meters; one shot a T-72 through a sand dune. Another got a double hit with one round!
Leclerc: *slowly turns turret towards jeep*
Me: 🤣 I know where this is going
TWAT! 🤣🤣🤣
The Merkava's barrel is not short to operate in urban environments it's a common myth but it's not true. It's the same length as the L44 as it's just a domestically produced version of it. The gun just looks shorter because the first part of the barrel is covered up by the turret.
Yeah, they didn't want to import the L55.
thx
@@knochi956 The newest Abrams SEPv3 still uses L44 gun, which is a bit of a bummer, as it lacks performance with tungsten rounds compared to the new Leopard's L55 gun.
@@AgneDei No major Loss of penetration with the L44 and the M829 Round. They are still capable of hitting out to about 4600 meters with like an 80% change of first shot kills if I recall..
@@jerrybeard2670 Don't compare depleted uranium core to tungsten core rounds, that's dumb because L55 can also use them with significantly higher performance than L44. You just can't work around physics.
I was crying laughing when simba shot cap. You could almost see the tank smirk.
I was NOT happy
smoothbore has no negative ballistic effect on modern fin-stabilized sabot rounds and eliminating the lans and grooves from the barrel reduces weight/manufacturing complexity while adding potential diameter to the projectile at no cost.
So why have rifled barrel?
@@grimreapers Rifled barrel would benefit more from HEAT or more other chunky projectiles I believe
@@grimreapers to fire HESH projectiles, the rifled gun on the Chally is very outdated, this is seen on the new version of the tank the Challenger 3 now has a smooth bore cannon. Smooth bores are also able to fire higher pressure cartridges while having significantly less wear on the gun itself
@@grimreapers Because British use HESH rounds that needs to spin to work properly, this is the only reason for the rifled barrel in the Challenger 2, but it is an old round, in fact the British are thinking of upgrading the Challenger 2 with a smoothbore Rhenimentall L/55 because it wears much less than a rifled barrel and today there are much better ammunition that can replace the HESH
@@grimreapers Because the British really liked the HESH round which needs a rifled gun to work well. They've only just decided to switch to the L55 smoothbore (used on the newest leopard variants). for the challenger 3
73 Easting and Medinah Ridge pretty clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of the M1's armor
Exactly. No way these 1940's tanks are taking out an Abrams.
Yeah I kind of figured that DCS not having all of the data on these tanks was the main reason. Besides they're there to be destroyed by modern aircraft.
@@fredkruse9444 A 1940s tank could penetrate the Abrams from the side, just no chance from the front.
T80 is derivative and development of T-64, Russia's top of the line tank from the 60's and 70's, while the T-90 is a development of the T-72 which is a cheaper tank intended for large numbers and also export markets. The 64 and 80 were more well developed and refined than the somewhat more economical and basic 72 and 90 respectively, though of course a lot also depends on the level of advanced equipment on the specific model.
But wasnt T64A , T64B variants worse than T72A,T72B variant in all aspects?
"The 64 and 80 were more well developed and refined than the somewhat more economical and basic 72 and 90 respectively"
If by "well developed and refined" you mean "riddled with issues, prone to failure, overambitious and badly designed" then yes... yes they were.. The T-72 wasn't cheaper because it's worse.. it was cheaper because it already had a pre-existing industrial base for its production.
The Pz-IV and th Pz-V barrels may be the same caliber, but the Panther's is certainly longer, thus a higher muzzle velocity of the projectile.
And if I'm not mistaken also had larger brass, standard ap round of the panzer 5 were lighter but the round itself was about 3kg's heavier, also about 250-300 Ms velocity higher on standard ap
@@piminat0r Yeah. Same with the Tiger 1 vs Tiger 2. Both technically 88mm, but damn the Tiger 2 gun packs a hell of a lot more punch.
88 x 571mm vs 88 x 822mm shells AND a longer gun.
A more logical progression, both in terms of armor and firepower, would have been the Panzer4 -> Tiger1 -> Panther, -> Tiger2.
Sure the Panther "only" has 80mm of frontal armor compared to the Tiger 1 100mm. But the panthers armor is sloped back while the Tiger1 armor is almost completely flat, thus making the Panthers armor effectively thicker. (not that any of that level of armor matters against modern 120mm guns). And the long 75 on the Panther had more penetration than the 88 on the Tiger1.
The IMI 120mm barrel is 44 calibers, just like the M256 in the M1A2 and Rh-120 on the Leopard 2. Merkava has the power pack mounted in the front (for extra crew protection), so the gun probably sits a bit further back on the chassis.
The power pack and transmission on the Leopard 2 is absolutely amazing, so winning the drag race is no surprise.
В этой гонке должен был победить Т-80У он имеет 27 л.с на тонну и самое низкое удельное давление на грунт
For the fighting ability test, for better results, use a wider battle spread. A narrow spread has the same effect as being surrounded on 3 sides.
Abrams have 2 ammo racks. One near the breach and one in the back. Loading from the first one takes very little time. You're supposed to shuffle ammo from the bigger shelf between fights. Loading ammo directly from the rear shelf takes a lot longer.
The ammo is stored in an armored compartment..The ready rack behind the loader and the semi ready rack behind the TC. Ready rack holds 25 rounds. Semi ready 20. To access the Semi ready rack you have to disconnect the hydraulic door actuator on the ready rack, fold down TC's seat and then wrench door partially open to start pulling rounds out. Takes about 10 plus minutes to do complete transfer.
Watching tank battles on the gulf war and the commanders were saying they were going fast and could fire once every 6 seconds and just drive through the enemy without slowing down.
Should have had the 'How well can it make tea' test between the British tanks.
The Merkava has active shield, which of course not simulated here. with that, with a full crew it is a lethal monster. aiming and shooting fast in a hard terrains. DCS is a good flight sim, but not too good with the tanks yet.
There's a great WW1 mod for DCS that includes many tanks and vehicles. Would love to see them included in tests like this.
When Simba shoot Cap, I laughed so hard I got light-headed. Thanks, Simba I needed that laugh!
the reason the merkava's barrel seems short is due to the turret being mounted more to the rear than the more traditional middle position and the face the add-on armor it posses extends so much on the barrel, when in reality the gun is as long as a Leopard 2 or a M1A2
Not very accurate, the M1 is deadly at long range so the aiming system doesn’t appear to be accurate. They would have wiped them out at long range. I suspect these tanks are not so accurate but it is a flight sim
They claim they're trying to make a Digital Combat Simulator but their prime focus is flight. I believe the M1 is deadly at range when stationary, but not sure about moving and of course a video game can never be that realistic anyway. :)
I think it was the ammo they used…sabot is great against composite heavy armor…but non composite pure armor they might have done better with a heat type AT round…I think they used that with the Chicom tank and the hit ratio seemed better until the Panther 75mm/L70 high velocity sent them all to Mao’s tomb
Considering how well the outdated Leopard 2A4 did, just imagine the current 2A6 or new 2A7, which are basically a new generation :-)
Don't get me wrong, I love DCS for what it is, but it simulates tanks so poorly that I'd expect a 2A7 to perform worse than a 2A4 for no conceivable reason other than "Because it's DCS." After all, the M1A2, which is closer to a 2A7 in real world capabilities, did worse than the Leopard 2A4.
Another way to look at it: the Leopard 2A4 already performs, compared to the M1A2, as if it's actually a Leopard 2A7.
Oh, when Simba did The Thing to Cap... priceless!
A similar test was conducted FOR REAL in 1998 in Greece. The tanks that took part were the M1a2 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Leopard 2a6, T-80U and T-84 from Ukraine. The test included among others: firing on the move, starting at 60% slope, traversing a ditch 2 meters deep in water, vertical obstacle, detection and identification of target at night and endurance and fuel economy run for 1000 km. To no-one's surprise Leopard came first followed closely by Abrams, then Leclerc and T-80 and T-84. Leopard was also somewhat cheaper than the other western tanks. As far as i know it is the only comparative test of modern MBT ever.
With the turbine engine it's quite interesting for the Abrams to get a good result in a test where the fuel economy is a factor. I guess it had small weight for the final score, as besides that it's a great tank.
@@AgneDei Abrams came marginally first in the technical evaluation actually, it scored well in optics an fire control devices. Only when price was evaluated Leopard went on top, again marginally. There where also 2 companies that didn't present a tank in the test.
I'm wondering how accurately modeled the tanks really are. Realistically, there's no WW2 round that is getting through modern composite armor. The Challenger 2, Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. would have probably gotten through this without losing a tank. Also, the Abrams should have the best side armor of the group. The Abrams' designers sacrificed a bit of frontal armor to beef up the armor on the rest of the tank. The other western MBTs went for max frontal armor.
Not sure that's true - Abrams armour (non-export version) was based on the Challengers.
@@tomriley5790 the original Abrams and the original Challenger both had Chobham armor, but even then, I believe it was arranged differently on the two tanks. Since then, both to tanks have undergone numerous upgrades. The Abrams is now on version M1A2 SEP v3 and the Challenger is on version Challenger 2 LEP. They have both upgraded their armor significantly since the original versions, with the Challenger now on version 2 of Chobham armor, and the Abrams now includes depleted uranium as part of its armor. Both tanks are extremely well armored, but I believe the current Abrams has slightly better all around armor than the Challenger 2.
@@djzoodude challenger 3 is newest version.
@@Nicolas10391 The Challenger 3 is in development, but won't be in service for like 5 more years. Same deal with the M1A3, in development, but not in service yet.
Watched Tank Chats from The Tank Museum Channel and more, about each tank being used. It made for an enjoyable afternoon.
The Abrams doesn't fire missiles, Rhinemetal did develop a missile for the 120mm used by both the Leopard and Abrams but the project was later dropped as neither one was interested in it
If you're going to include a T-80 shouldn't you have some farm tractors nearby? You know, to drag the T-80 off the field? Just sayin'
lols
Hilarious when he blew the jeep up at the beginning. absolutly the funniest shit I've seen all day .keep it up boys .
yay, Leopard won the drag race, but this is not the newest design, that would be the 2A7 series
2A7V is the latent operational model
@@TheNecromancer6666 V's are older models upgraded to 2A7 levels.
@@ThePerfectOwnage 2a6's to be precise iirc
Smooth bore guns use a Sabot round when firing Primary Armor Defeating rounds (Sabot) Penetrator encased in a discarding sabot carrier which is discarded after round exits barrel. penetrator is basically a dart flying at roughly 4-5 times speed of sound in a near flat trajectory...Very accurate..
Love the tank video!!! please do a version of this comparing different IFVs like Strikers and LAVs and BMPs etc.
It would only really work if they tried to use actual combat tactics and not drive fast to the enemy and hope you can hit them before you expose weaker side armour.
I would like to know what the actual speed and acceleration was.
I can't say anything about current tank speeds/acceleration but the M1 can definitely run over 100kph cross country (regardless of what the official speed is).
The original speed was limited by the surplus M60 track which was used.
Former M1 driver, I've ran around 72mph (116kph) flat out on desert dirt roads. Though the tank slows down A LOT when a hill gets involved. (plus I tweaked the governor settings on mine)
@@YourTechpriest 👍😂
@Local Techpriest yeah..I was always jealous of you guys being in an armored vehicle that could pull a wheelie.
I was Artillery (SP) always with AD'S or CAV and you ran circles around us.. (of course we could shoot further and over hills 😉)
An Abrams would have a hard time killing another Abrams. I’m betting that the tank that slows down is suffering from dust filled v-packs. 😀
not it took a round to the front axle mounted gearbox and lost a bunch of gears.
The tensioners are mounted to the front bogies. But the drivetrain is connected to the rear drive wheels. Ask me where my Craftsman 15/16” is.
Not if they're both using DU APFSDS, during the gulf war an Abrams fired on another Abrams with a DU round and it went right through the frontal armor
@@nuclearTANK Ummm... that's inaccurate.
I feel like you could've dropped the chieftain and added the Japanese type 10, the Italian Ariete and the Korean K2. Also, if this was realistic then all of the tanks used would be getting one shot kills as soon as they see the crappy old WW2 tank.
Absolutely love this video, very entertaining, well done chaps.
Sabot rounds are depleted Uraniam rounds peeps. Also, the reactive armor by the A2's are classified, so are how the servo stabilizers keep the tank leveled while hauling ass.
The Leapard, Abrams and Leclerc all have the same German designed 120mm smoothbore gun, the Challenger 2/3 is having its rifled gun replaced by the 120mm smoothbore gun and im not sure about the Leclerc, as for the Russian and Chinese tank they also have the same gun as each other a Russian produced/Chinese licence copy of 125mm smoothbore.
The modern armor piercing fins stabilize discarding sabot round has a muzzle velocity approaching 5577 ft/s 1700 m/s or Mach 5. The tungsten penetrators will go faster initially and the depleted uranium penetrators are heavier so they start slower but they keep their velocity longer.
Do you think they might have used a heat type AT round instead of sabot, against old pure armor (not composite)?
Why isn’t the newer Germany main battle tank isn’t shown?
To be fair, it also has the original Leclerc, T90 and only the M1A2 Abrams and not the Series XXI, T90M or M1A2 SEP V3. Most of the assets in DCS are fairly old.
Because you haven't modeled it yet. Chop chop, get to it!
Cap, congratulations on the 200k!
thx
cap! the merkava doesn't have a short gun, its turret is placed backwards on the hull since the engine is in the front. it's basically the same gun as the m1's and leopard.
Chieftain has a rifled barrel. Same gun as the Challenger 2 I believe. It was a very successful tank gun implemented on many vehicles. Most use smooth bore guns these days that are all the same gun or copies of. No surprise that the Leopard won the drag race. It was designed to be fast and maneuverable.
The new Challys are going smooth-bore, too - but I wonder if it can fire the HESH rounds the British Army likes to use so much or if the latter has finally called time on that particular munition type?
The LeClerk: No "Frog" legs for you, Cap!! To be honest, in an armored vehicle, I would love to see an aluminum block diesel Merlin pattern engine. Wasn't it the British that developed the composite armor?
When Cap says, "say hello boys 🧐", that's when I know the fun is beginning.
OK, here's the game for Sunday fun day. However many tanks on a side you can do without crashing the server but not king of the hill (which takes for effing ever). Use a medium terrain environment so there are some surface structure to hide behind but not mountains. Just wipe out the other team. Simple. Limit the zone to about 10 miles by 10 miles just to keep it snappy. Might I also suggest 2 man teams; driver and gunner. Both sides have access to the same tanks if they want them, just assign red and blue and do your PID. (Sock will kill a team mate "accidentally" Battle to the death, last tank rolling, that side wins. Put an insignia on the tanks if you can to make PID easier.
Great concept
Krazy Ivan scool of tank driving is modeled after the Krazy Ivan submarine driving school .....same instructors too 😁
Cap getting blown up was inevitable after that le clerc tank comment.
:(
@@grimreapers I nearly woke the wife up laughing at it.
Can the Challenger II really move that fast? I thought it is the most heavily armored MBT in the world but it moves like a turtle.
No idea TBH
Smoothbore cannons are accurate because thanks use Fin Stabilized rounds that stabilize the round in flight like rifling in a firearm. Also the smoothbore cannons have a longer life.
More an issue of the fins not rifling, and massive speed
thx
The merkava is basically a backwards cheftian chasis
I really want to see the last round where you go against the rows of old tanks.
Hey Simba, how did that battle look in the rear view mirror?
lols
Priceless Simba....Priceless almost pissed myself.
the turret front cheeks of the Leopard are designed to break APDS penetrators as they penetrate.
I used to be a leopard mechanic in Canada. The speed of that is really at the start. It’s speeds up like crazy for 65 000 kg beast
Tanker, tanker, don't be blue...
Tinkerbell's a fairy, too 😁
The Merkerva also has compartment in the back to act as a troop carrier
As a tank fan I can answer this without watching the video. IRL, the answer is probably the Leopard 2A7 but it is yet to be seen what the Challenger 3 can do in battle.
I'm also a little shocked you bothered with the cheiftan mk3. Doees anyone even still use it?
8:16 it's slightly lighter and has a more powerful engine. It achieves this with the angled spaced armour on the front of it's turret. The LeClerc is essentially the same idea but it doesn't have the power to weight ratio and i believe has taller ratios in it's gearbox (don't quote me on that).
9:41 Torque or the force of twisting. Torque is what gets things moving. The heavier a thing is the more torque you need to get it moving. Once it is rolling there will come a point where torque is replaced by power (in vehichles HP or PS)
14:58 the problem with that is if you get a shell go through it's an immediate mobility kill and the tank is lost. Which means it will fail the test as it will not be able to shot while moving.
20:50 The chally has a stablised gun. The cheif doesn't. So, everytime the chief hit's a bump it puts the gun off target. chally has no such issues.
22:03 So explain how sabot rounds can do it then? No? Ok i will then. The real answer is the angle of slope. The angle of slope increases the *effective* armour thickness. With a hard round tipped shell like a WW2 tank shell, this angle and the roundness of the head is what causes the bounce (reasons why ther UK invented Squash head shells). Sabot rounds being thin and pointy counteract this somewhat. It's like the difference between stabbing something with a spoon and then stabbing it again with a knife
26:09 This is simply down to the type of shell being fired. The modern tanks are firing armour piercing fin stablised discarding sabot rounds (APFSDS) the fin stabilisation increase round accuracy and they are also considerably lighter which also increases muzzle velocity. The Panzers are mostly likely firing Armour piercing capped Balistic capped (APCBC) rounds. This are heavy AF and wobble slightly while in flight. This increases aerodynamic drag, decreasing accuracy and velocity.
33:23 They are for killing targets dug in behind cover and for highly mobile targets where the turret can't move fast enough to keep a lock for the cannon. Some countries do use them against aircraft but they are not actually designed for that use.
Thanks Sir!
I believe the Abrams is one of the heaviest tanks out there. Yeah it didn't win the drag race but you got to give it to the Abrams for how well it did for its weight.
4:03 😂👍
21:52 bounce kill😆👍👍
3:07 The Russian T-Tanks are not Follow-up numbered in Versions or something. So for example, not like German Leopard 2A4 -> 2A5 -> 2A6 -> 2A7 are newer versions by rising numbers. The T-72, T-80 and T-90 are more like parallel-productions/constructions that each will always be upgraded to the newest stand of technology if possible. T-80 and T-90 use the same Gun but while the T-80 uses a Gasturbine, the T-90 has a V-12-Dieselengine. This makes the one not Better than the other, they are just different models for different uses. And the T-72 is more or less a cheaper mass-Version that is used in larger groups to overrun enemys when possible. But that does not mean that the T-72 is less modern equiped, it just has an other usecase and is not compareable with T-80 and T-90. I know, the T-80 is an old sovjet tank and the T-90 was intoduced in 90th but that makes the T-80 not less important or less powerfull. They all will be upgraded parallel.
@@TeenTeenFpv that is true. But for example, the T-90 was developed in the 90s But in its core it is just a T-72 that was given a T-80U fire control system an reactive armor. So it is basically a renamed T-72. If you watch in the T-72 history, it ends with the Object 188 (T-72BU) which is the T-90. Even the T-64 is still in use, modified to be as effektive as All others
The modern fire control systems on these tanks have such a high hit rate on the move none of these WW2 tanks would be able to hit the target.
Pzgr 40 as used on the Tiger is about 800ms-1 the DM33 on the Leopard 2A4 is about 1500ms-1
Leopard 2A7 is regarded as the best tank in the world.
I would say that the 2A7 is very good but certainly not "the best in the world" because no tank is the best, they all have their disadvantages
@@hanz2035 Of course tanks are always a compromise, the best tanks generally are a mix of firepower, armour, crew protection and mobility. The list of truly elite tanks is short.
Leopard 2A7v+ and the (STRV122B)
M1A2 SEP V3
K2 (untested but looks very capable on paper)
T90M and MS.
Merkava IVM
Then we have second tier tanks
Challenger 2(TES)
Type 10
Leclerc
T-72B3 (Ukraine is not a fair assessment of this tank)
ZTZ 99.
But yes you could argue all day about who has the best tanks, but the important thing is not to be blinded by nationalism.
@@lukewhitehouse4103 not sure I would put the T-90M up there, it still lacks some pretty essential features like blowout panels, and it might still have the old autoloader flaw that prevented earlier variants from using longer more modern APFSDS rounds, not sure if that has been fixed or not.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 The T-90M-MS-SM exported to India and the current Rusfed version has had the autoloader armoured in 400mm composite armour, the rear of the turret has been extended to allow safe storage of additional rounds stored with blow out pannels. A Hardkill APS not fitted to all tanks as of yet, India will likely fit the Trophy system to their T-90SM tanks. The laterst in FCS and battlefield control systems and its just looks so damn good. However all these points are subjective.
Leclerc, M1A2, Merkava, and the Leopard 2A4 all have the same 120 mm smoothbore cannon. the only odd one out is the merkava's weapon systems creator falls under a different name, but the same technologies. The Leopard 2A5 to 2A7 have an L55, or the barrel length is 55 calliber length long, instead of the L44 as in the M1A2, Leclerc, Merkava, and Leopard 2A4. As well, the Leopard has a 2200 HP engine for getting into trouble, and the leclerc just needs to retreat fast
No, the leclerc has a longer canon than the 2A4, merkava and M1A2, it’s a L53
Congrats on 200k and keep up the good work
thx
Technically it did not use an autoloder using oscillating turret the AMX series
I hope they do something about that grass pop in. Really kills the immersion.
Merkavas barrel is exactly as long as that of Leopard 2A4 and A5. L/44.
It was not built to be used in urban environments, that is just a neat side effect. Israel built it's own 120mm gun, so it's not a license built version of a Rh120 nor the M256.
The Leclerc is actually quite a good tank it seems. Not sure it ever saw actual combat, But from what I've heard this TS armor and fire power are both quite substantial.
4:03 Simba deserves a medal for this. 🤣
neg
the 500-600mm armor of the leopard 2 is an equivalant to if it was just steel armor. the armor is not really half a meter thick that would go against the focus on mobility the leo 2 was designed for
I'm not mad, because honestly how is DCS going to model anything with such highly classified stats with any sort of accuracy. Seeing the French tanks win after you called it the duff tank was totally worth it.
I'm probably wrong about this,, but I think the Leopard has a diesel and a gas turbine for some extra Umph when it's needed.
besides that,, I think it just had better acceleration,, after a bit most of the tanks was traveling at pretty much the same speed.
So, most NATO tanks now use, a German gun (licensed for building), UK armour, used to be Chobham, now ?Dorchester, and a lot of American tech. Each army then decides on survivability, weapon/ammo mix, power/manoeuvrability, comms, ergonomics, reliability/field maintenance and service intervals. Thank you Bovington Tank Museum 😆
the T-90 is just an updated T-72, making the T-80 a more modern/effective design. (short version)
Depends t-90A is a updated T-72 but the t-90m or proyvr 3 is arguably top 3 mbt in the world
T-90 has also inherited all of the T-72's flaws and is a death trap, as it's less than stellar combat record testifies to. T-80 itself is in essence a simplified (in manufacture) and more robust (especially suspension) evolution of the T-64. When I crewed Chieftain in the 80's and early 90's we feared the T-64 far more than we did the T-72 as they tended to be used by professional units and not just conscripts going through the motions. But I'd still rather be sat in a Mk.11 Chieftain than any of the Soviet era Russian MBT's still in service, no matter which bells and whistles they have bolted on them., a 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS round will still spoil anyone's morning and the L11A5 gun Chieftain and Challenger 1 shared is still a record holder in combat. But any wagon is only as good as the quality and training of their crews, as the news from the Ukraine proves daily.
T90A yes t90m no
@@ser43_OLDC Not even T90A, the original Obj 188 derived design (just called T90) was the only one even related to the T72, and only in the construction of the turret. This was changed with T90A.
@@infinitetk4165 All russian tanks are shit, all just propaganda, in reality it is just rusty garbage from 1970 that get renamed now and then. Plenty of T90 rotting on Ukrainan fields. Shit tanks with shit crews
Panzer IVs had 75s but the length went from 24 caliber in the IVD, to 46 in the IVF, then 48 in the IVJ.
And Vs had 75s but length 70 x diameter so higher speed 75..
Tigers had 88s 56 x diameter, King Tigers had 88s 71 x diameter so higher speed 88.
My daily dose of Cap voice
xx
Leclerc is one of the few western tanks with a autoloader and thus only 3 man crew, which helps with saving some weight. Also, the gun is pretty much the same one as the Abrams gun... NATO caliber
It is NOT "Panzer 7" for the Tiger 2, it is "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B Tiger II " because allthough a completely new design, somehow in the german naming System both Tigers were "6" ;-)
thx
I learned the C II has a rifled barrel from Jeremy Clarkson of all sources LOL
same here!
Panzer VII is not the Tiger II (King tiger or Royal tiger) Panzer VII is the Löwe. Great video though! Really enjoyed it!
M1A2 Maximum Speed: 42 mph. in real life vs the 37mph T90MS The M1A2 has 1500hp
T-90M*
T-90MS is the command tank (export version) used by India.
@@sweetballs4742 got it.. ty...
So a number of things here and at this point I'm only 4 mins in:
1) Chieftain also has a rifled gun with the Mk3 utilising the L11A5
2) the Merkava's barrel is the same length as that of the German Leopard 2A4 at 44 calibre length, its just the shape of the turret mixed with the fact that it's powerpack is mounted at the front which gives the illusion of it being shorter.
3) The Abrams, despite looking massive on the screen in the lineup is actually one of the smallest Western tanks going. Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are both a fair bit longer and taller both in the Hull and especially noticeable with Challenger when it's gun forward as it utilises a 55 calibre length L30A1 main armament whereas the US M256 is a license built Rhinemetall L44, so 44 calibre length. Additionally the Abrams cannot fire ATGMs through its barrel, however the Israelis have trialled ATGMs with the Merkava 4.
4) The T-80U will be better in most regards than the T-90 because it is in real life. The T-90 sounds newer but is essentially a T-72BM, they rebranded after the disaster of the first Chechen war to get the funds to design it and that war is also where the T-80 fell out of favour because many of them got schwacked in grozny.... It wasn't really fair on the tank but it was scapegoated and I won't explain it all here as there isn't the space but essentially there was alot of politics at play between the design bureaus (T-80 is designed by a totally different manufacturer than T-72/90). Short of it is that the T-80 was designed as a more expensive, complex and capable machine that was to be fielded by Guards tank units rather than the riff-raff but couldn't be rolled out army wide because of the expense and complexity.... Still made in excess of 7500 of them though so by our (British) standards, thats alot.
5) ah the ZTZ96.... What can I say? Its a piece of shit and not even a durable piece of shit like much of the stuff the Russians pump out en-masse 😂
6) The Leclerc is a capable machine, not as armoured as other Western tanks but its built to a different doctrine. 1500hp has turbine in something which weighs less than 55 tons means it's got some beans and they're cool inside. Worked with them when I was deployed alongside the French a few year back (I was on Chally 2).
ATGM are used for top-down attacks, armour is very thin on the top.
Doesnt look like armour is being modelled right, composite armour on most of these tanks would withstand 88mm even on the sides and certainly 75mm.
Would like to see Japan's Type 90 added to the mix in this sim. Would love to see the newer support MBT Type 10 but I'm sure it's way too new to model in any realistic way.
Type 10 would work if the others were actually up to date too.
Great Vid Cap!
T-80 is better than the T-90, because the T-90 is basically a renamed crappy upgrade of the T-72.
I served on Chally 1/2, the armour setup on them was peacetime armour. The Chally has upgraded combat armour on the front and sides during wartime this would have made a huge difference, unsure if you could do another with the upgraded???
Too bad about the cows, a lot of videogame rating boards don't allow any kind of violence against animals. So it may have been turned off in order to pass muster in those areas.
So they don't use the most modern variant of the Leopard 2.
Sounds like a fair comparison.....
Leopard has 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetal gun
2A4 has the L/44, from 2A6 on they use the L/55 (and L/55A1)
While the guns on the panzer 4 and the Panthers six are both 75 mm it's a 75/48 versus a 75/70 on the panther
Hmm, Sabot is a shoe made of wood. When the french was unhappy about those new machines taking their jobs, they chucked the sabots into the machinery, thus the term saboteur.
Seems a bit odd to be firing wooden shoes at tanks, but,, what do I know. ;)
A Leo 2 is over 40 years old. Latest model is the Leo 2 A7
thx
Weren't the Tigers IIs firing at the same time as the Tiger Is? It looked like they were too closely packed together.
Panthers 75LL was a high velocity cannon, totally different gun than in PZ IVs
I think of Cap like a new teacher at a school. Simba, Sock and everyone else (minus Kortana) are his toughest students. His attempts to control the class will ultimately cost him his sanity.
They are naughty boys
Laughed all thru this - "Carry on Tanking"🤣
Again sorry the 88 mm gun on the tiger one wasn't 88 43 and the 88 on the tiger 2 was an 8871 the same as the flak cannon
thx
You are doing it wrong. Most of these tanks are not designed to fight from an advancing position over flat terrain. They are supposed to fight from a hull down position. The have weak lower glacis armour.
It's not a war simulation, it's a test.
I’ll take the abrams everyday. Smooth barrel allows future rockets?
It’s funny how in real life an Abrams can’t kill an Abrams but this simulation is taken as gospel. I believe there are real accounts of damaged Abrams needing to be destroyed to prevent capture and at point blank range another Abrams couldn’t penetrate the armor to get the job done.
and the Tiger I, Panther, and Pz.4 guns not going to pen the font a of any of the MBT here and the Tiger II is a very very big maybe
You forgot Armata. It's ok. Sip your tea.