panzersaurkrautwerfer

At this point, can we just vote Russia off the island?

In the AAR I'd really like a CSI mode that would highlight the penetrations (maybe with a colored "pole" showing the axis of the strike) and the damage inflicted.  Sort of helpful in determining why one tank was destroyed, or just because I'm bored figuring out of if it's a total loss, or just a mission kill.  

1.  Those aren't Spanish trails.  They're a tech demo the Peruvians ran.  It's not a realistic test, it was shooting targets in an empty desert under optimal conditions, nor is a total of six missiles a good sample size for performance.
 
2. I operated M1A2s for a while, and trained on both the M1A1HC and M3A2.  I'm pretty familar with what thermal optics are capable of.
 
3. This is what thales claims the Catherine can do:

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinefc_uk_071005.pdf

You'll note the ranges listed, I have never claimed the optic could not detect (or "find") a target, the difference is the Catherine FC, its just in wFOV it doesn't have great resolution so a lot of things are going to look like a tank, and then at nFOV it's still going to have issues at 2.5 KM or so figuring out what its looking at.  I've used similar generation thermal optics, and that's about how it runs down.  The newer M1A2 optics are something else entirely, and I've located "hostile" tanks during training exercises by the glowsticks* strapped to their antennas at combat range.
 
 
*During night live fire training glowsticks are attached to the antenna, green and red so that an observer without night optics can figure out turret orientation at a glance.  The crew in question did not remove their glowsticks for a few days, and despite hiding behind a berm, I was able to figure out where they were hiding at range because of the glowsticks on their antennas were a different temperature than the air around them, and were slightly above the berm itself
 
This is not something a Catherine FC, or even earlier generation M1 is capable of in the slightest.  

Statements like this make me question your expertise tbh.  

From the manufacturer's specs, it will see something, but does not have the resolution to tell you quite what it is. Basically it'll need a bit longer to go from "there is something out there" to "this is a legitimate target" than the M1, while the M1 is more able to go from "I see something/I should shoot this" a lot faster.  It also helps that effectively with thermals that the M1A2 has two spotters with equally powerful optics, while the T-90AM does not.  

Even using the daysight.  When you're "scanning" in thermals (which is to say moving the optics back and forth looking for a target), a tank will be pretty obvious, hey look a bright spot, better look at that now.  When you're doing it in daylight, even with moving targets it can be tricky You're looking at something like 8 degrees of area at a time, with the optic in motion, unless the tank is hauling and throwing up a roostertail, at 2.5+ KM you might not see it.  
 
If we're in a race between spotters, the one that has effectively illuminated "hullo!  I am a tank!" type targets vs "I'm looking for something green in a field of green." the thermal will tend to win, and the thermal equipped platform will shoot first, and given the nature of AT weapons kill first.  
 
Really the abject last thing you want to do against an Abrams if you're using Russian MBTs is get in a fight at ranges over 1 KM.  

Quoted because I am just that worth quoting:

 
 
We keep acting like there's tiny little digital mens in the tank, and their behavior is largely regulated by tiny digital eyes and brains, when in reality it's a whole mess of numbers and systems that are trying to replicate inherently chaotic, non-system results.
 
That said:
 
1. The T-90 in a treeline will be as obvious as it would be in the open with thermals.
2. T-90AM optics are still pretty "Eh."  The engagement range you selected is beyond the range of the Cathrine FC to be able to tell a M1 and a BMP-2 apart, but well within the M1's ability to tell you if the commander is out of the hatch and wearing sunglasses or not.
3. The GSR on the Russian vehicles sees really well through fog, and dark, but has a lot of problems with pretty much anything else. Trees, piles of trash on the ground, buildings, exposed rock faces, the target even being partially masked by terrain can all result in a "something is there!" but not a confirmed target*
 
 
So basically this is sounding like someone is rageful their Russian stuff is performing like Russian stuff performs.
 
*GSR is best used as a sort of tripwire, like it's your first warning something is there, but generally ground mounted radars are best to let you know where you look, vs the be all end all of spotting

I think this might not be an unfair assessment.  Or at the least, failing that this is something that brings a strange, but generally inoffensive dude some sort of happiness.
 
This thread wouldn't be the worst thing to happen.  It'd be sort of like Coast to Coast, in that yeah it's sort of a marginal place of sometimes dubious statements, but you have to tune in to encounter it, and it keeps the rest of the airwaves a bit more grounded.  
 
Addendum:
 
However a Kettler coast to coast thread would be better off in general discussion.  

Statements like this make me question your expertise tbh.  

Generally a lack of warfare is preferred in both polite, and professional circles.  
 
Re: Leo 2
 
I do hate the fan club.  It's a good tank.  Not even a "good" tank, nope, it's quite well designed and capable.  But it has this following wherein simply repeating Deutch qualitat at increasing volumes, and talking about German armor in World War Two is enough to prove the Leo 2 is the best tank to ever tank.  
 
Statement: "Best Tanks"
 
Entirely depends on who you are, and what you're doing, and what your military is capable of supporting.  The Abrams is awesome, but I wouldn't want to try to support an Abrams fleet as Columbia or something.  The Merkava is a great example of something that's very powerful in its niche, but pretty "eh" outside of it (granted, 100% it's going to do all its fighting in said niche, so that rather makes sense).   The more practical reality is if the Leo 2 was the M2A5 Leopard, and the M1 was the <insert german name here>, in the hands of similar personnel, the US Army wouldn't be stronger or weaker for having Leos, or the German Army much worse off for being M1 users (Green party objections to DU, and fuel consumption excepted)   

Yarp.  Thermals work a lot better than NVGs on a good day, which stands to reason they'll do a lot better on a bad day too. 

Re: T-90 Article
 
It's actually pretty bad.  There's some howlers in there like comparing the M1's loading process to a bolt action, while the T-90 is a "semi-automatic" (if we're using small arms analogies, the M1 is a bolt action, and the T-90 is a bolt action with a machine that operates the bolt at near human speed), claiming the T-90's smaller size makes it more urban capable (it doesn't, the size/weight difference comes chiefly from the turret, which has only limited effects on the actual ability to fit in places, and both suffer about equally from gun tube length, while the Abrams has much better gun elevation factors).  It also praises the Russian focus on evolutionary designs vs revolutionary designs, while totally neglecting the M1 is pretty much exactly what he's extolling in the progression from M1 to M1A2 SEP v2.  It is pretty bad.
 
I could go on further if you would like however!
 
Addendum: M1 tanker time in service
 
Here's a loose estimate from time in service starting from graduation from basic by crew position:
 
Driver: 0-3 years*
Loader: 0-4 years*
Gunner: 3-9 years **
Commander: 7+ years +
 
*A lot depends on the unit.  Certain units consider the loader the entry position to tanking, while others prefer the driver to be most junior.  However both are good entry level positions on a tank, and most soldiers will serve as both before moving on to being a gunner.  Average rank is PV-2 through Specialist
** Nearly all gunners are Sergeants who've been both drivers and loaders.  Some units that are short on Sergeants will put more junior ranks in the gunner's spot if the soldier is especially good.  For instance my Company had several PFC/SPC gunners because they were that good, and the Army hates Korea and just opted not to send new Sergeants to us for a few months.  Some gunners will stay in position longer, especially if they're the sort of dude who is a good sergeant but who've done something to make them less likely to be promoted to Staff Sergeant.  
+ The two "wing" tanks are commanded by Staff Sergeants, frequently promoted from internal to the organization.  The Platoon Sergeant is usually an angry dinosaur of a man with something around 14-20 years of tanking under his belt, and he will be a positive terror if you do "tank thunderdome" like we used to do with MILES.  The Platoon leader frighteningly enough has something like 1-3 years in the Army, but usually will only be in the platoon for 12-24 months at most.  Generally his gunner is the most senior gunner in the platoon, and serves as sort of a co-tank commander, keeping the tank in good order and fighting it when the platoon leader needs to attend to the platoon.  Tank commander is much the same, although he may have prior experience from his platoon leader/XO time, or being a Cavtasitc dude like yours truly who has not been in a tank since officer's school.  
 
Regardless, the tank has a lot of experience contained within it, and troop quality is certainly something the US Army hopes to leverage into the future.
 
Addendum:
 
I do envy the sort of unrestricted training areas the Russians have though.  

You might want to do a check and see how many M1A2s there are vs how many T90s there are in Russian service before you say such things.

He comes.  The lamentations of the ground dwellers will be heard to the heavens, and all laid low at His passing.  It has been foretold in Prophecy.  

The T-90A in its current incarnation is...basically the ultimate T-72.  It is a good tank, compares well to many mid-90's tanks.  However:
 
1. It still has issues with the autoloader effectively limiting the length of main gun rounds which ensures it will have inferior conventional gun performance compared to similar western guns.
2. The armor array heavily leans on which ERA is equipped.  Newer ERA like Relikit or whatever it is still offers some good performance, but the majority of it is kontakt of various vintages, which largely has been surpassed by modern AT systems.  The base armor array under the ERA is not effective against most threat systems.
3. Russian optical systems are based on a French downgrade system.  This is not a positive sign. It also means while it has hypothetical stand-off capabilities with the through the gun ATGM, it will not be as able to leverage that range because it does not have the systems to readily acquire targets in battlefield conditions at that 4 KM+ distance.
4. As is common with Russian vehicles, it has packed a lot of stuff into a tight space.  Any penetration stands a fair chance at causing either loss of vehicle or at the least mission kill level damage.
5. While the commander has his own optic, it is not as capable as western CITV style systems.
6. As with most Russian vehicles, god help you if you're tall.  Even if  you're small crew comfort is limited, which detracts from being able to conduct long duration operations (such as the US march to Baghdad in 2003).  
 
To the positive end of things:
 
1. It is fairly cheap for what you get.  You should not expect it to perform miracles, but if you're India and you're staring down the finest Chinese export tanks from Pakistan, it is a very potent tank.
2. While it is not magically more reliable, it is however designed to be repaired and maintained by a much lower standard of maintenance.  This should not be confused with better readiness (see the various Arab military forces and how their Russian hardware is broken as often as the western stuff) but the "replace the whole unit and put in a new one" design is well suited to forces that lack a large pool of mechanics.
3. It is quite light for its performance, and its small size has its advantages.  While disastrous in a penetration, it does mean that it is a smaller target, and better able to cross bridges and somesuch.
4. It can hypothetically scale protection with ERA packages, which is to say unlike western tanks, which need depot level work at the least to upgrade their armor (see the M1A1 to M1A1HA conversions in Kuwait 1991 for a good example), mounting better ERA blocks is much easier as long as the blocks are similar to the previous generation.
5. Respectable firepower.  While it does not stack up to western MBTs, it does hold its own against peer tanks, and there isn't much short of a western MBT that it cannot defeat through firepower
 
It's not a bad tank, there's just a false understanding that it is a one for one peer for western tanks, when the reality is that the current generation of in-service T-90s lag somewhat behind the other top tier tanks.

Weight.  It's the same reason the Rangers did not like the base model, and why MGL type launchers haven't got much traction.  If you've thrown body armor, rifle, 300ish rounds, water, NVGs, optics and batteries on a guy, he's already pretty weighed down.  Adding an entirely different weapon system and ammunition might make the guy simply fall over.  The weight of an M320 and rounds is not insignificant but there's a lot less than an XM25 or a larger system. 
 
Re: Rangerjection
 
The Rangers work in a way that could best be described as raid-centric.  Basically they're going to be whatever transport is mission proper (often helicopters, but in Iraq they borrowed Strykers pretty often because of how quiet and fast they could be), get booted out, and then do whatever they're there to  do  (generally seize HVTs, although hostage rescue, or high risk cache/insurgent node seizure pops up sometimes).  
 
To that end most of the fighting they do is with the initiative, and rapid movement onto and through the objective is of the paramount.  They also tend to have priority on support assets to a rather insane degree*
 
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, being suddenly under fire from a covered position while on patrol is a reality.  This makes the weight trade off more attractive because while the Rangers use the grenade launcher a fair bit, they're often using it as a launcher for other things (flares, LTL, etc), and often they're attacking the enemy in his hole where he is less likely to be behind hard cover.  Some 10th Mountain platoon however is much more likely to be checking out the local villages to see if they're still living in the 13th century, and as part of that wander into an ambush from the sort of positions the XM25 smites well.
 
*In what I view as a giant mistake, the course you take prior to being eligible for command or senior staff positions as a Captain is shared between Armor, Infantry, and Special Forces types.  My class tragically was a mix of one former scout (me), one tanker, two international students (one from Ghana, the other from Croatia), one lost aviator (they could take our course too) seven light infantry type guys, and then a whopping seven special forces bound dudes.  One of the SOF dudes had been in the Rangers from 2LT until he showed up to the course.  And I kid you not, every scenario revolved around "well we can just use our air support for that" for him.  It's like his brain just couldn't comprehend that not everyone was followed by a platoon of Apaches, an AC-130, and an element of F-16s just waiting for the word to do something.  I was about ready to kill him when he said "well in a real war, the air force would handle this!" during our heavy mechanized defense scenario which involved holding off a enemy mechanized battalion with our assigned mech infantry team.   

Tank operations in urban areas for dumbys:
 
1. Use your infantry to lead. They can better move through hard cover, and are good sensors (or their eyeballs and situational awareness is pretty good)
 
2. Clear on line, everytime.  When you move your infantry forward, try to keep infantry broadly in a line across the front.  This achieves two things:
  a. IRL, it's clearance of fires.  If I know the next squad over is literally 90 degrees to my right, I'm not trying to guess if the shadowy figures in the windows to my 1 o'clock are friendly or not.
  b. It keeps enemy AT assets from slipping through.  If you're advancing unevenly, or bypassing buildings, there's a chance the last remaining conscript with -2 leadership with an RPG-7 is going to smoke your Abrams with a rear shot.  By clearing on-line you ensure that behind your troops there's nothing but ruins and bodies
 
3. Hold your armor  back, and identify armor-friendly avenues of approach.  This prevents the enemy from trying to mass AT assets because he knows broadly where your tanks are, but you should know how to get your tanks to the front as fast as possible.  This pairs well with the clearing on-line because it ensures that all these avenues of approach are clear of hostiles, so fast moving your tank is a no-threat exercise.
   a. Alternately, do not hold it back, but keep it just behind your infantry as an overwatch piece.  Infantry clears to the next intersection, then tank moves up to said intersection and holds there until the infantry gets to the next intersection up.  Repeat until in Moscow.
 
4.  When your infantry identifies something worth tanking to pieces, then bring the tank forward to start using direct fires.  Often the best technique is use the infantry to suppress the target while using a "target" command on the enemy position (assuming it's a building) to bring it down on the OPFOR's head.  Then keep the tank in overwatch while infantry moves in.
 
 
Some things just to remember:
 
1. No one likes it when a building falls on them.  Don't be afraid to flatten a few buildings you can see tracer fire from, or even knock a building down to give your tank a new LOS (this is historically pretty common, in Aachen US engineers would blow up buildings, or otherwise knock down walls to open new firing angles for tanks)
2. There's no infantry carried AT systems in CMBS that reliably can kill most tanks from the front.  Javelin is the only one that could but it is not so hot from close ranges.  As long as you clear, and secure the flanks your tank will be king of murder mountain.
3. All of these tactics also apply well to IFVs, just be mindful the IFV is still likely to respond poorly to the AT4/RPG type threats from the frontal arc.  Conversely autocannon fire is murderously effective against infantry.  
4. Tanks are great spotters for artillery given their robust coms, and unlike an infantry type spotter, he's not going to get suppressed by small arms fire from the target.  Suppressing with the tank's MG's, then doing a full battery precision strike on the enemy who's pinned down in the target building is often very effective (I'm not sure I really need all six shells hitting, but I find it tends to ensure building destruction, and rarely leaves survivors).  
 
 
The American military has remained successfully fairly apolitical.  The only military coup type situation I could see is a civilian government that is either in flagrant violation of the Constitution (King Barack* the 1st kind of flagrant), or if called to do really bad mojo (King Barack* decrees the state of West Virginia will be decimated for its insolence!).  The military has remained rather loyal regardless of who's in charge (with the Bush and Obama years offering a good contrast between super-supportive, and not supportive of the military) and outside of some crazy stuff, will likely remain so. 
 
*This is no way an attempt at sniping at the current president.  If this was 2002 I'd be writing "King George W the 1st" or 1998, "King Bill." I don't really like the current president, but I recognize he's the legitimate leader of the country, and concede he's at least trying to do what's best for America in a legal and moral manner, I just differ with him on a lot of issues just what the "best" is.  Which gets further into the mindset, if he ordered me to go to Hati in my few remaining weeks on active duty, I would do so without question because it's my job to obey the orders of the commander and chief (within the confines of the Constitution) and he has the authority to do so.  I just don't think there's that feeling in the military of being a part of the government with a say in how the country is run, vs being a tool of the government to carry out policy set by the civilian administration within a legal framework.  

Tank operations in urban areas for dumbys:
 
1. Use your infantry to lead. They can better move through hard cover, and are good sensors (or their eyeballs and situational awareness is pretty good)
 
2. Clear on line, everytime.  When you move your infantry forward, try to keep infantry broadly in a line across the front.  This achieves two things:
  a. IRL, it's clearance of fires.  If I know the next squad over is literally 90 degrees to my right, I'm not trying to guess if the shadowy figures in the windows to my 1 o'clock are friendly or not.
  b. It keeps enemy AT assets from slipping through.  If you're advancing unevenly, or bypassing buildings, there's a chance the last remaining conscript with -2 leadership with an RPG-7 is going to smoke your Abrams with a rear shot.  By clearing on-line you ensure that behind your troops there's nothing but ruins and bodies
 
3. Hold your armor  back, and identify armor-friendly avenues of approach.  This prevents the enemy from trying to mass AT assets because he knows broadly where your tanks are, but you should know how to get your tanks to the front as fast as possible.  This pairs well with the clearing on-line because it ensures that all these avenues of approach are clear of hostiles, so fast moving your tank is a no-threat exercise.
   a. Alternately, do not hold it back, but keep it just behind your infantry as an overwatch piece.  Infantry clears to the next intersection, then tank moves up to said intersection and holds there until the infantry gets to the next intersection up.  Repeat until in Moscow.
 
4.  When your infantry identifies something worth tanking to pieces, then bring the tank forward to start using direct fires.  Often the best technique is use the infantry to suppress the target while using a "target" command on the enemy position (assuming it's a building) to bring it down on the OPFOR's head.  Then keep the tank in overwatch while infantry moves in.
 
 
Some things just to remember:
 
1. No one likes it when a building falls on them.  Don't be afraid to flatten a few buildings you can see tracer fire from, or even knock a building down to give your tank a new LOS (this is historically pretty common, in Aachen US engineers would blow up buildings, or otherwise knock down walls to open new firing angles for tanks)
2. There's no infantry carried AT systems in CMBS that reliably can kill most tanks from the front.  Javelin is the only one that could but it is not so hot from close ranges.  As long as you clear, and secure the flanks your tank will be king of murder mountain.
3. All of these tactics also apply well to IFVs, just be mindful the IFV is still likely to respond poorly to the AT4/RPG type threats from the frontal arc.  Conversely autocannon fire is murderously effective against infantry.  
4. Tanks are great spotters for artillery given their robust coms, and unlike an infantry type spotter, he's not going to get suppressed by small arms fire from the target.  Suppressing with the tank's MG's, then doing a full battery precision strike on the enemy who's pinned down in the target building is often very effective (I'm not sure I really need all six shells hitting, but I find it tends to ensure building destruction, and rarely leaves survivors).  
 
 
The American military has remained successfully fairly apolitical.  The only military coup type situation I could see is a civilian government that is either in flagrant violation of the Constitution (King Barack* the 1st kind of flagrant), or if called to do really bad mojo (King Barack* decrees the state of West Virginia will be decimated for its insolence!).  The military has remained rather loyal regardless of who's in charge (with the Bush and Obama years offering a good contrast between super-supportive, and not supportive of the military) and outside of some crazy stuff, will likely remain so. 
 
*This is no way an attempt at sniping at the current president.  If this was 2002 I'd be writing "King George W the 1st" or 1998, "King Bill." I don't really like the current president, but I recognize he's the legitimate leader of the country, and concede he's at least trying to do what's best for America in a legal and moral manner, I just differ with him on a lot of issues just what the "best" is.  Which gets further into the mindset, if he ordered me to go to Hati in my few remaining weeks on active duty, I would do so without question because it's my job to obey the orders of the commander and chief (within the confines of the Constitution) and he has the authority to do so.  I just don't think there's that feeling in the military of being a part of the government with a say in how the country is run, vs being a tool of the government to carry out policy set by the civilian administration within a legal framework.  

Continued.

The T-90A in its current incarnation is...basically the ultimate T-72.  It is a good tank, compares well to many mid-90's tanks.  However:
 
1. It still has issues with the autoloader effectively limiting the length of main gun rounds which ensures it will have inferior conventional gun performance compared to similar western guns.
2. The armor array heavily leans on which ERA is equipped.  Newer ERA like Relikit or whatever it is still offers some good performance, but the majority of it is kontakt of various vintages, which largely has been surpassed by modern AT systems.  The base armor array under the ERA is not effective against most threat systems.
3. Russian optical systems are based on a French downgrade system.  This is not a positive sign. It also means while it has hypothetical stand-off capabilities with the through the gun ATGM, it will not be as able to leverage that range because it does not have the systems to readily acquire targets in battlefield conditions at that 4 KM+ distance.
4. As is common with Russian vehicles, it has packed a lot of stuff into a tight space.  Any penetration stands a fair chance at causing either loss of vehicle or at the least mission kill level damage.
5. While the commander has his own optic, it is not as capable as western CITV style systems.
6. As with most Russian vehicles, god help you if you're tall.  Even if  you're small crew comfort is limited, which detracts from being able to conduct long duration operations (such as the US march to Baghdad in 2003).  
 
To the positive end of things:
 
1. It is fairly cheap for what you get.  You should not expect it to perform miracles, but if you're India and you're staring down the finest Chinese export tanks from Pakistan, it is a very potent tank.
2. While it is not magically more reliable, it is however designed to be repaired and maintained by a much lower standard of maintenance.  This should not be confused with better readiness (see the various Arab military forces and how their Russian hardware is broken as often as the western stuff) but the "replace the whole unit and put in a new one" design is well suited to forces that lack a large pool of mechanics.
3. It is quite light for its performance, and its small size has its advantages.  While disastrous in a penetration, it does mean that it is a smaller target, and better able to cross bridges and somesuch.
4. It can hypothetically scale protection with ERA packages, which is to say unlike western tanks, which need depot level work at the least to upgrade their armor (see the M1A1 to M1A1HA conversions in Kuwait 1991 for a good example), mounting better ERA blocks is much easier as long as the blocks are similar to the previous generation.
5. Respectable firepower.  While it does not stack up to western MBTs, it does hold its own against peer tanks, and there isn't much short of a western MBT that it cannot defeat through firepower
 
It's not a bad tank, there's just a false understanding that it is a one for one peer for western tanks, when the reality is that the current generation of in-service T-90s lag somewhat behind the other top tier tanks.

The T-90A in its current incarnation is...basically the ultimate T-72.  It is a good tank, compares well to many mid-90's tanks.  However:
 
1. It still has issues with the autoloader effectively limiting the length of main gun rounds which ensures it will have inferior conventional gun performance compared to similar western guns.
2. The armor array heavily leans on which ERA is equipped.  Newer ERA like Relikit or whatever it is still offers some good performance, but the majority of it is kontakt of various vintages, which largely has been surpassed by modern AT systems.  The base armor array under the ERA is not effective against most threat systems.
3. Russian optical systems are based on a French downgrade system.  This is not a positive sign. It also means while it has hypothetical stand-off capabilities with the through the gun ATGM, it will not be as able to leverage that range because it does not have the systems to readily acquire targets in battlefield conditions at that 4 KM+ distance.
4. As is common with Russian vehicles, it has packed a lot of stuff into a tight space.  Any penetration stands a fair chance at causing either loss of vehicle or at the least mission kill level damage.
5. While the commander has his own optic, it is not as capable as western CITV style systems.
6. As with most Russian vehicles, god help you if you're tall.  Even if  you're small crew comfort is limited, which detracts from being able to conduct long duration operations (such as the US march to Baghdad in 2003).  
 
To the positive end of things:
 
1. It is fairly cheap for what you get.  You should not expect it to perform miracles, but if you're India and you're staring down the finest Chinese export tanks from Pakistan, it is a very potent tank.
2. While it is not magically more reliable, it is however designed to be repaired and maintained by a much lower standard of maintenance.  This should not be confused with better readiness (see the various Arab military forces and how their Russian hardware is broken as often as the western stuff) but the "replace the whole unit and put in a new one" design is well suited to forces that lack a large pool of mechanics.
3. It is quite light for its performance, and its small size has its advantages.  While disastrous in a penetration, it does mean that it is a smaller target, and better able to cross bridges and somesuch.
4. It can hypothetically scale protection with ERA packages, which is to say unlike western tanks, which need depot level work at the least to upgrade their armor (see the M1A1 to M1A1HA conversions in Kuwait 1991 for a good example), mounting better ERA blocks is much easier as long as the blocks are similar to the previous generation.
5. Respectable firepower.  While it does not stack up to western MBTs, it does hold its own against peer tanks, and there isn't much short of a western MBT that it cannot defeat through firepower
 
It's not a bad tank, there's just a false understanding that it is a one for one peer for western tanks, when the reality is that the current generation of in-service T-90s lag somewhat behind the other top tier tanks.

Re: Smoke
 
That looks a whole lot like just the end result of driving a tank fairly fast on dirt to me.  Tanks leave some epic roostertails (and it's why you want to be the first tank in formation on drives on dirt roads, and god forbid you're doing it in the mud).

Generally a lack of warfare is preferred in both polite, and professional circles.  
 
Re: Leo 2
 
I do hate the fan club.  It's a good tank.  Not even a "good" tank, nope, it's quite well designed and capable.  But it has this following wherein simply repeating Deutch qualitat at increasing volumes, and talking about German armor in World War Two is enough to prove the Leo 2 is the best tank to ever tank.  
 
Statement: "Best Tanks"
 
Entirely depends on who you are, and what you're doing, and what your military is capable of supporting.  The Abrams is awesome, but I wouldn't want to try to support an Abrams fleet as Columbia or something.  The Merkava is a great example of something that's very powerful in its niche, but pretty "eh" outside of it (granted, 100% it's going to do all its fighting in said niche, so that rather makes sense).   The more practical reality is if the Leo 2 was the M2A5 Leopard, and the M1 was the <insert german name here>, in the hands of similar personnel, the US Army wouldn't be stronger or weaker for having Leos, or the German Army much worse off for being M1 users (Green party objections to DU, and fuel consumption excepted)   

Weight.  It's the same reason the Rangers did not like the base model, and why MGL type launchers haven't got much traction.  If you've thrown body armor, rifle, 300ish rounds, water, NVGs, optics and batteries on a guy, he's already pretty weighed down.  Adding an entirely different weapon system and ammunition might make the guy simply fall over.  The weight of an M320 and rounds is not insignificant but there's a lot less than an XM25 or a larger system. 
 
Re: Rangerjection
 
The Rangers work in a way that could best be described as raid-centric.  Basically they're going to be whatever transport is mission proper (often helicopters, but in Iraq they borrowed Strykers pretty often because of how quiet and fast they could be), get booted out, and then do whatever they're there to  do  (generally seize HVTs, although hostage rescue, or high risk cache/insurgent node seizure pops up sometimes).  
 
To that end most of the fighting they do is with the initiative, and rapid movement onto and through the objective is of the paramount.  They also tend to have priority on support assets to a rather insane degree*
 
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, being suddenly under fire from a covered position while on patrol is a reality.  This makes the weight trade off more attractive because while the Rangers use the grenade launcher a fair bit, they're often using it as a launcher for other things (flares, LTL, etc), and often they're attacking the enemy in his hole where he is less likely to be behind hard cover.  Some 10th Mountain platoon however is much more likely to be checking out the local villages to see if they're still living in the 13th century, and as part of that wander into an ambush from the sort of positions the XM25 smites well.
 
*In what I view as a giant mistake, the course you take prior to being eligible for command or senior staff positions as a Captain is shared between Armor, Infantry, and Special Forces types.  My class tragically was a mix of one former scout (me), one tanker, two international students (one from Ghana, the other from Croatia), one lost aviator (they could take our course too) seven light infantry type guys, and then a whopping seven special forces bound dudes.  One of the SOF dudes had been in the Rangers from 2LT until he showed up to the course.  And I kid you not, every scenario revolved around "well we can just use our air support for that" for him.  It's like his brain just couldn't comprehend that not everyone was followed by a platoon of Apaches, an AC-130, and an element of F-16s just waiting for the word to do something.  I was about ready to kill him when he said "well in a real war, the air force would handle this!" during our heavy mechanized defense scenario which involved holding off a enemy mechanized battalion with our assigned mech infantry team.   

Weight.  It's the same reason the Rangers did not like the base model, and why MGL type launchers haven't got much traction.  If you've thrown body armor, rifle, 300ish rounds, water, NVGs, optics and batteries on a guy, he's already pretty weighed down.  Adding an entirely different weapon system and ammunition might make the guy simply fall over.  The weight of an M320 and rounds is not insignificant but there's a lot less than an XM25 or a larger system. 
 
Re: Rangerjection
 
The Rangers work in a way that could best be described as raid-centric.  Basically they're going to be whatever transport is mission proper (often helicopters, but in Iraq they borrowed Strykers pretty often because of how quiet and fast they could be), get booted out, and then do whatever they're there to  do  (generally seize HVTs, although hostage rescue, or high risk cache/insurgent node seizure pops up sometimes).  
 
To that end most of the fighting they do is with the initiative, and rapid movement onto and through the objective is of the paramount.  They also tend to have priority on support assets to a rather insane degree*
 
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, being suddenly under fire from a covered position while on patrol is a reality.  This makes the weight trade off more attractive because while the Rangers use the grenade launcher a fair bit, they're often using it as a launcher for other things (flares, LTL, etc), and often they're attacking the enemy in his hole where he is less likely to be behind hard cover.  Some 10th Mountain platoon however is much more likely to be checking out the local villages to see if they're still living in the 13th century, and as part of that wander into an ambush from the sort of positions the XM25 smites well.
 
*In what I view as a giant mistake, the course you take prior to being eligible for command or senior staff positions as a Captain is shared between Armor, Infantry, and Special Forces types.  My class tragically was a mix of one former scout (me), one tanker, two international students (one from Ghana, the other from Croatia), one lost aviator (they could take our course too) seven light infantry type guys, and then a whopping seven special forces bound dudes.  One of the SOF dudes had been in the Rangers from 2LT until he showed up to the course.  And I kid you not, every scenario revolved around "well we can just use our air support for that" for him.  It's like his brain just couldn't comprehend that not everyone was followed by a platoon of Apaches, an AC-130, and an element of F-16s just waiting for the word to do something.  I was about ready to kill him when he said "well in a real war, the air force would handle this!" during our heavy mechanized defense scenario which involved holding off a enemy mechanized battalion with our assigned mech infantry team.