Main page

You know, the Leopard 1 would only really be nice in-game if they had an engine like the Ubermaybach which pulls in some ridiculous, made up amount of HP for balance. Then we'd effectively have a batchat with alpha, but no autoloader. Hmm, and I bet it wouldn't be a bad mobile sniper either.

 Forged, on Jun 15 2012 - 09:31, said:

Leopard 1 would be added with a new line that is going to start in the VK DB. Since Leopard 1 is cardboard and agile while E-50 is more of heavy medium with better frontal protection than a KT.

It is telling that the Russian developer referred to the Leopard 1 as a "cardboard dream".  It's going to be a ammo-rack on tracks. (a very pretty ammo-rack though)

 JDCollie, on Jun 15 2012 - 16:52, said:

Well, considering it was really an ammo-rack on tracks because of the doctrine it was designed, I dont see a problem with it.

I think that Leopard 1 will be something like batchat but instead of autoloader it will get extremely good accuracy on the move since it had all those fancy stabilizers. It would use it's small size and mobility to theoretically avoid shots while dealing damage on the move.

 NightFalcon, on Jun 15 2012 - 23:17, said:

With 8.7m long hull and 2.7m height, with a 3.3m width, its not really a small tank. Its quite big to be honest

http://www.inetres.c.../Leopard1A2.gif

Compared to other German tanks its really small

 NightFalcon, on Jun 16 2012 - 02:20, said:

thats like saying an elephant is small compared to a whale.

Thing is it should be better then the T-61a which sucked and no warsaw pack nation wanted it and every nation wanted the leo-1



everyone is hung up on the armor of the leo-1 when they infact should be talking about the problems with the t-62a it has way more problems

The T-62 shares some of the T-55's limitations: a cramped crew compartment, crude gun control equipment (on most early models), limited depression of the main gun and vulnerable fuel and ammunition storage areas. The automatic spent-cartridge ejection system can cause dangerous accumulations of carbon monoxide and possibly actual physical injury to the crew from spent cartridge cases ricocheting against the edge of a poorly aligned ejection port and rebounding into the crew compartment^{[citation needed]}. Crew members often suffer blunt force injuries and burns from ejected cases bouncing around the interior of the tank^{[citation needed]}. Later designs fitted a deflector behind the commander to protect him from this, but other crew members remain vulnerable. (Perrett 1987:38) Opening the ejection port under NBC (nuclear, biological, or chemical) conditions would expose the crew to contamination.^[5]
Each time the gun is fired, the tube must go into détente for cartridge ejection; the power traverse of the turret is inoperable during ejection and reloading operations. Since manual elevation and traverse are rather slow and not effective for tracking a moving target, rapid fire and second-hit capabilities are limited. The turret cannot be traversed with the driver's hatch open. Although the tank commander may override the gunner and traverse the turret, he cannot fire the main gun from his position. He is unable to override the gunner in elevation of the main gun, causing target acquisition problems.^[5]
To fire the 12.7 mm antiaircraft heavy machine gun, the loader must be partially exposed, making him vulnerable to suppressive fire, and he must leave his main gun loading duties unattended.^[5]
The T-62 never enjoyed the anticipated success for numerous reasons. First, the T-62 was more than twice as expensive as the T-55, and many Warsaw Pact nations passed on the new tank because they did not feel that the improvements inherent in it warranted the cost. Secondly, in 1968, a 100 mm HVAPDS tank shell capable of piercing Western armor was developed. Use of this ammo made the T-55 gun almost as effective as the T-62s, undercutting the T-62's original selling point: a bigger, more powerful gun. Third, the T-62 was almost immediately rendered obsolete upon its introduction by new Western tanks like the Chieftain, Leopard 1 and M60, and it became depressingly clear to the Soviets that work had to begin on an even newer main battle tank to keep pace, even though the T-62 was brand new (this even newer Soviet tank would become the T-64). Finally, the T-62 was slow and could not keep up with the new Soviet BMP (Infantry Combat Vehicle) – the principal infantry fighting vehicle which the T-62 was supposed to accompany. All of these factors combined to ensure that the T-62 enjoyed relatively low commercial success, and only briefly served in first line Soviet units before being relegated to training, to reserve status, or being exported to Third World clients

 thejoker91, on Jun 16 2012 - 03:20, said:

 thejoker91, on Jun 16 2012 - 02:04, said:

The earliest versions of the Leopard 1 were no taller or wider than the T-54 although it was longer. The width you listed is nearly the same as that of the T-55 (3.37 m). Comparing the Leo 1 to the Lorraine or calling it "big" is extremely inaccurate from what I've seen. Its dimensions will be like the BatChat.

Also, in-game vehicle size has nothing to do with reality. The King Tiger is actually no taller than the Sherman, the KV-2 is taller than either. So real life size has very little impact on in-game vehicle size anyway.
Edited by KillaJules, Jun 16 2012 - 14:02.

 KillaJules, on Jun 16 2012 - 13:54, said:

Except its weight its similar to lorraine, armor is similar to lorraine, engine HP is similar to lorraine, HP/ton is similar to lorraine and size is similar to lorraine. Meaning, its very comparable to lorraine. And T-54 is shorter in height and length than Leo 1.

You cant say for sure the dimensions will be like batchat, the same way I cant say for fure the dimensions will be like anything else, but we do have certain guidelines. Most lower tier tanks are undersized while higher tier tanks are more often than not the correct size. Some discrepancies do arise, but still, real life size for a tier 10 tank is a good guideline.

Yes, those things are similar to the Lorraine, I was referring to size.

Lengthwise, the Leo 1 is intermediate between Lorraine and T-55. However, the Leo 1 has the same width as the T-55 and is much shorter than the Lorraine.
Edited by KillaJules, Jun 16 2012 - 15:00.

 KillaJules, on Jun 16 2012 - 14:52, said:

Shorter in what sense? Im sure its not as tall (I dont know how tall a lorraine exactly is) but lenghtwise the Leo 1 is longer than KT and almost as long as E-100.

 eat3reat3r, on Jun 13 2012 - 23:56, said:

We won't be seeing production models in this game, which has happen more than a thousand and one times to all tank tree, as a matter of fact the leopard 1 has many MANY prototypes i dare say.

first time the idea of the leopard was concieved was in 1956 and specs came out during 1957 and the improved models where forseen in 1959, even before prototypes were finished.

Most likely that means the tanks that we will be getting would be those of specs seen on paper and prototype designs of 1960 but maybe without the changes that had to implemented when certain ideas on paper couldn't be brought to real life.

If you had the 1965 leopard tanks, you would see the tanks combating the in missile era which is not what world of tanks devs want cause missile bascially killed the idea of light armored tanks everywhere.

hate those missiles ruin the most fun about war, running in like a mass of hot heads

 thejoker91, on Jun 16 2012 - 15:29, said:

Shorter as in, distance between ground and turret roof. The Leo 1 is a good 70 cm lower to the ground than the Lorraine. The long chassis will make hiding behind buildings difficult at times although if the Leo 1 has good gun depression then it should compensate.

 Teuen101, on Jun 16 2012 - 13:23, said:

All in-line with my experience on the T-62 ... Not only per quote, but when the gun was in position to Eject, the sight-picture was lost as the sights were slaved to the gun ... ie, the sight picture moved skyward ... which required a time-consuming re-acquisition of the target when the gun returned to battery - nearly impossible vs a target moving laterally across the sight picture ... This design flaw did not exist on the T-64 or T-72; when then gun was in the Eject position, the sights remained on-target.

Well, from what I can find the Lorraine is 7x3.3x2.85 (lenght, width, height) meters. That means, Leopard 1 is 1 meter longer and barely 15 cm less tall than Lorraine 40t. Now, if Lorraine size is wrong, I dont know exactly how they are going to size Leo, but really looks like a longer lorraine thats more close to the ground with a longer turret.

Leo 1 is a good 60 cm lower to the ground than the the Patton and the Patton doesn't suffer too much from lack of armour. Leo 1 is closer in height to T-54 and they have identical width.
Edited by KillaJules, Jun 17 2012 - 12:28.

The only thing I can say as an owner of an E-50 is that the view system penalizes sniping tanks now, and the Leo 1 will be even more penalized unless it has an ungodly view range.