Using the Leopard 1

[jenrick]

So far I have had little success in using the earlier generation Leopard. I know it's fast, but it's under armored compared to the other NATO tanks, and the gun is nothing to write home about either. Any suggestions on how to employ them?

-Jenrick

[Mad Russian]

Yes, do what the West Germans did. Wait for the Leo 2 and pray you never have to fight in a Leo 1.

They are all the things you say they are. When they have to go up against mainline Soviet equipment from the late T-72's through the T-80's they are at a distinct disadvantage. Keep them back and fire at long range whenever possible. Put them in good cover like hills/towns and then have them take as big a toll as they can.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jenrick]

Well after some serious experimentation I'm starting to get a handle on the Leopard 1.

Rule #1: It is not a match for any Soviet tank in a fair fight. You can play with the numbers all you want, but if you try to go toe to toe with a WP tank unit you are asking for failure. Even the A4 and A5 variants which have an actual chance at killing most WP tanks, just don't have the armor to stand toe to toe with them.

Rule #2: Use the Leopard 1 as a well armored AT unit with a particularly long range AT weapon. Position them in the same general locations you would a Jaguar or Marder. Just like a Marder or Jaguar, do not expect them to stop a WP tank company barreling at them without lots of interlocking fields of fire.

Rule #3: The Leopard 1 should not be in HOLD very often, instead use it to make flanking maneuvers or use SCREEN for a mobile defense.

In general if you treat the Leopard 1 as a particularly well armored ATGM carrier, you wont be far off from how to use it. When facing tanks pick your terrain, take out a few enemy units, and then get the heck out of there. It does however work WONDERFULLY when faced with anything else the WP has besides tanks. A company of Leopard 1's will slaughter APC's, SPATGM carriers, etc gleefully.

-Jenrick

[ComradeP]

That's a good strategy. The Leopard 1 is similar to a vehicle like the WWII Marder in that it has a reasonable to good gun depending on model and intended target, but is very vulnerable itself.

It's more of a shoot 'n scoot tank or a powerful scout tank than a real MBT.

Still, with the Soviet reluctance to fire at long distance targets, it might still snipe some older Soviet tank models without advanced armour.

[Sabre21]

Once the East Germans get into the game, many of their units still had the T-55's. Along with many Soviet 2nd echelon armies that still had T-62's, the Leopard I would do well. I think you hit upon the correct strategy, also use smoke when you can to cover your withdraw.

[jenrick]

Well I was typing out a long detail post with stat comparisons when the internet ate it. So here's the cliff notes version.

The Leo 1 is basically just barely achieving parity with early generation WP tanks, in terms of armor and main gun. Some of the later models of the T-55 and T-62 have it on both armor and gun. In terms of capabilities the Leo 1 doesn't get a LRF until the A3, and thermals till the A4. Every WP except the T-10 has a LRF (now whether that's correct or not, I don't know. WP armor is not my speciality). Now there are some real world factors such as gun stabilization that I know the Leo 1 had that the WP took a while to implement, but I have no clue if this is implemented in FCRS.

With the above in mind, I still think trying to go toe to toe with a WP tank unit is a bad plan. If nothing else you need almost a 2:1 kill/death ratio to trade unit for unit. It makes a great killer of every other WP ground unit that's not a tank.

-Jenrick

[wodin]

Well in my last game I had a Leo platoon that took out 46 tanks!!

[jenrick]

Ah those are Leo 2's which are a whole different ballgame. The Leo 2A4 is roughly equivalent to the M1A1, while the Leo 1A1 is proably closer to the M48 then the M60. The later Leo 1A5 has a much better fire control system but the armor is still lacking badly.

-Jenrick

[Mad Russian]

Wodin, Leo 2's are nothing like fighting with Leo 1's. There is no bigger difference in tank models than that of a Leo 1 and 2.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jenrick]

If the Leo 1 had been up-gunned to the the 120mm L44 in the A4/A5 configuration I think it would have made a dandy "light" tank. Good speed, armor that will stop anything except a tank main gun round or an ATGM, and a gun that would destroy anything on the battlefield for the time period.

-Jenrick

[Mad Russian]

ROFL..that's exactly the issue with the Leo 1.

"Armor that will stop anything but a tank main gun round or an ATGM".

The Leo 1's gun wasn't bad. Speed doesn't replace armor plate. I know Guderian said, " The engine of the Panzer is a weapon just as the main-gun." That didn't mean you could skip armor plating.

Good Hunting.

MR

[jenrick]

I can see where the designers were going with the armor, as the march in HEAT technology looked to be making RHA plate pointless against cannon rounds. If that was to be the case then why slap more useless armor on it, as it already had enough to shrug off most anything else in the WP inventory.

The cannon issue is that they didn't keep developing HEAT rounds for it, and just jumped on the KE train. Which worked great for the Leo 2 and the L44 120mm gun, but not so much for the L7 105mm. If they had stuck with HEAT as the primary round they may well have been able to keep the Leo 1's cannon relevant for a good while longer.

-Jenrick