If you guys want to know more , read the comment by Polish tank
commander posted by Xerovix in the new MN forum , which was
orginally from this thread in Militaryphoto forum which orginally
from a Polish forum:
Question:
How can you compare the armour of Leo-2A4, PT-91 and T-72M1
Answer:
It's not really comparable. I was talking with a friend who was
taking part in shootings to an armour covered with ERAWA (polish
reactive armour. It didn't stand any chance against APFSDS, against
HEAT it was much better. I had a couple of pics from the German
shooting range, after the shooting a T-72. It's funny but in
Germany you're not allowed to use combat APFSDS because of it's
range, so they used some training APFSDS. The tank was shoot apart
no matter on the place of hit/impact. The shape of the tank has
completely no
meaning so there's no ricochetting (spell?) about which I was
taught as a tanker for years, in the most round places the shelles
went throught the tank (in and out).
Question Leo2A4 has a better power to weight ratio, how does it
look in practice?
Answer
Also uncomparable. Acceleration, breaking, mobility on the pitholed
road in hard terrain are couple of times better than ours "t"
series tanks. Two examples. In 2002 we used ours WZT2 based on
PT-91 underpinnings. We had the same training ground as the Leos
and the Wzt which is lighter because it has no turret was far
behind the Leos. It was possible to go faster because it was enough
power but the suspension gave up. The second I was driving a Leo in
a light terrain (sandy) 65km/h.
Question:
How can you compare the accuracy of Leo-2A4 to PT-91 and
T-72M1?
Answer:
There's no need to talk about T-72. As for PT-91 it had something
called by the producer "floating/wandering (?) point of impact".
Someone want to ask more about accuracy? Leo with a good trained
crew can destroy a target that appeard in his sector in 14-16
seconds. No PT-91 or T-72 could do that, maybe by a chance.
Question:
Can you compare the ammunition of Leo-2A4 to the
PT-91/T-71M1?
Answer:
The basic purpose of a tank is a fight against other tank and this
is what the APFSDS is the best for. The APFSDS of the T-72 is
restricted in lenght so it's restricted in armour penetration
(two-parts ammo). Leo doesn't have such problems. The PT ammo has
better velocity but it's not as effective. The plus for the PT is
the HE round. We didn't recieved the HE rounds yet for the
Leo.
Question:
Couple of questions regarding the FCS
- minimum and maximum range that are automaticly entered
- max. speed of the target
- max. perpendicular wind speed
- time of recalculating correction
- air temperature
Answer:
- range is 200-9990m (above 4000 fire is blocked)
- it depends of the turret angle speed and target range (possible
to hit a target running at 65km/h)
- realtime (for me unnoticable)
- air temp is entered manually
- windspeed is entered manually, the maximum value I was entering
was 15 m/s more is not needed but I can check it.
Question:
How the practical rate of fire looks like compared to T-72
autoloader. Is live loader faster? And is he an advantage or
disadvantage.
Answer
In theory the PT-91 auto is faster. Good manual loader makes 4
rounds in 20 sec. Autoloader is very unreliable. It has the ability
to jam and than the fight with an "alien" begins.
Question:
How often do you use laser rangefinder. Is it useful in times when
more and more tanks has systems similar to OBRA (automatic smoke
grenade launcher when laser detected)?
Answer:
We use it always before the fire. And as for OBRA it's not useful
as in the very second the shell is on it's way. OBRA is more useful
against other sources lighetning the target. In modern battlefield
there will be so many laser beams OBRA can fool the crew and FCS
itself.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=86408&page=4
