Well im really sorry that I can't post here smothing about WBG-X In abstract - it wasn't possible because of sevral resons first was minimum lenght between lens (quality case) second was requirement for complete isolation WBG-X from the crew. WBG-X had brilliant images in 1980s. but it have some disadvatages on of it is, how to say it, - noisiness as a jet taking off, and it's working under gass pressure to cooled it to -198C.
Sorry but it wasn't so easy as You wrote -all solutions have many aspects as I wrote. Im pretty sure that germans was able do bulid simpler thermal sight whit shorter optical channel and lower quality and ranges but germans requirement was really hight and they want to have the best night sight in that decade. And they got it. It was diffrent point of view where more sophisticated WBG-X was choosen despite its flaws to ensure a real advantage vs soviet tanks.
BTW: we shouldn't forgot that ranges in thermal sights are really dependent on weather conditions. The mean range of identification mens that in perfect wether it was up to 2000m (even 3000m for WBG-x), but during fog and stormy wether it was even less then 2000m (~1800m according to friends from Leo-2) .
And the most inportant for Germans was: image quality and simplicity and reliability.
TTS (AN/VSG-2) is also noisy, but if You say that WBG-X is like flying jet then TTS is fairly superior to it in that manner. Crews described sound of TTS as it sound like loud clicking. And hey, TTS offering comparable (if not better but we do not know this) image quality to WBG-X do not need to be isolated from crew, just like TIS.
So if I can understand Americans why they didn't use TTS because it was expensive, I do not understand Germans why they didn't use TTS? It wasn't avaiable at that time? IRCC Americans allways saying that they could use TTS instead of TIS but they were unable due to costs savings.
Remember that each lens causes a decrease in image quality! How mirrors - no idea but lenses - without any doubt made huge decrease in image quality.
In EMES-15 we have ~12 mirrors and ~7-8 lens
in M1 main sight we have ~ 16 mirrors and 18 lens
So it's not suprising that TIS have mucht worse imaging - more lens - worse imaging.
As You can see my proposal do not change internal layout of EMES-15, IMHO from mechanical point of view it was possible to place this differently. The real problem was turret design. Germans were in a hurry to design their tank, especially that they wanted to show it to Americans, but they made mistakes (admitt it, they are also humans, they can make mistakes) and later to not increase costs and to no increase time for vehicle induction, they decided to left turret as it is.
LOL - when and where I ask. In erly 80s? No way Sorry but it's not true.
Well it is true. Sorry I understand that You defend Your friends, but everyone everywhere bash other designs, and Leopard 2 was never really criticized, it is time to criticize it in a way this tank deserves it.
Yes, but those countries wants Leopard-2 not M1. For many resons.
And I wolud like to remember You that in Swizterland, Sweeden and Greece when was normal (more or less) trades whit test Leo2 just win. Not Abrams.
Where, when was comparative tests, was choosen Abrams? Could You show me that case?
But You completely forget the context and history of these tests. In each test, Sweden, Greece, UK (I don't know about Switzerland) initial winner was M1A1 or M1A2. However Americans were unwiling to sold their tank with their newest DU armor, neither they wanted to sold it cheap. Germans used occasion and offered variants of Leopard 2 better than these ones used by Bundeswehr and not only they wanted lower price for them, but also offered additional older A4 variants from their own stocks.
So yeah, M1 was in most cases initial winner, but political and economic factors decided that cheaper Leopard 2 was choosen.
And when ended? You know many yers ago was some article in RAPORT-wto where those soviet simulators and polish beskid was described. I have not met a person from 10Tk.Bde. who don't seay that 25 yers old germans simulators and whole treinig system was better then those ex soviets and ours systems. Sorry.
Because Poland was in WarPac, because WarPac countries allways had weapons and equipment worser than Soviet Union. Never ignore the context.
Slighty improvmend which proved test during greece trade. BTW: Chally2 ergonomy was modeled as Leo-2 ones - especially about FCS and comander sight.
Challenger 2 FCS is not modelled on Leopard 2 because this FCS is modified M1 Abrams FCS.
My friend - It's make me sad when You are rude.
I didn't meant to offend You but You are using non reliable sources. For example:
This is so full of crap. When I read it I wonder if authors are completely unaware how much BS they are writing there, or there is some other reason why there is so many mistakes there, so many untruths. It is the worst monography about M1 tanks I ever read!
And before You will start to blame Autors from NTW just answer yourself in how many book and periodicals You published a somewhat. And try to have minimum respect to the Autors. Those guys works meny yers with tanks - in our Armoured Corps.
These guys do not know nothing about any tank that was not in LWP or WP service. Sorry this is the truth. When I read some time ago a fragment of that monography I allmost died laughing, seriously.
Precisely for this reason. First example:
Altair - Atak niemieckiej opozycji
Do You want scans about Merkava Mk.III FCS and others? About ammo? Israeli industry have their own little dirty how-know with Germans.
Israelis are buying subs from Germany because Americans definetly won't sell them one, and besides this Americans don't manufacture such small subs, they don't need things designed to operate on sea, they are building subs that are operating mostly on oceans, that might be too big and expensive for Israel. So what alternative Israelis have?
And what we know about Merkava Mk3 FCS... besides that it is far more advanced than that used on Leopard 2? And a fact that it's sight are using double axis stabilization don't make them German made, new sights for M1 series also have double axis stabilization and are made in USA, and are far more advanced.
Besides this if You compare old Merkava Mk3 and new Mk4, You can clearly see that Mk4 is reapeting FCS and even sights placement pattern from M1A2, not Leopard 2.
Well - B-S. Just compare T-90 (in fact Ob.184 and 188) to others tanks:
or with Leopard-2A4:
And did You compare other tanks than T-72/T-90 series? No, You see this is the problem, that You take one Soviet tank model and make conclusions about other variants. Let's take T-80A, T-80U and T-80UD. Each of them do not have weak zones that have T-72B and T-90. Or let's take more modern T-90A, it also don't have these weak zones presented on T-90. So can we be fair?
And this is according to what? Eacht person can checkt on otvaga and btvt dates about trials in greece:
Отчет об учаÑтии Т-80У в тендере на поÑтавку оÑновного танка Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð²Ð¾Ð¾Ñ€ÑƒÐ¶ÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ‹Ñ… Ñил Греции
Static target, fire during moving tank:
"Ðbrams Ðœ1Ð2" - 17 hits for 20 shoots;
"Leclerck" - 20 hits for 20;
"Leopard 2Ð5" - 19 hits for 20;
"CR 2Е - broke up and don't pass;
Т-84 - 3 hits for 8 after that broke up
Fire at night during stand and moving, static targets:
"Ðbrams Ðœ1Ð2" - 20 hits for 20;
"Leclerck" - 19 hits for 20;
"Leopard 2Ð5" - hits for 20;
"CR 2Е" - 10 hits for 10 , CR2E do not shoot during moving!
Shooting in hunter-killer mode (emerging targets):
"AbramsÐœ1Ð2" - don't shoot for lack od proper ammo ;
"Leclerck" - 13 hits for 20 effectiveness ~0,65
"Leopard 2Ð5" - 17 hits for 20 effectiveness ~0,85
"CR2 2Е" - 8 trafień na 20 effectiveness ~0,40
Т-84 - 9 hits for 19 effectiveness ~ 0,47
During FCS tests in moving distance was 1500m, the target was moving target whit size 2,3x4,6m. The target was moving whit speed 40km/h
And once again M1A2 was not worser than Leopard 2, and due to unfortunate circumstances didn't shoot at one competition due to lack of ammunition. That's all.
On Mars maybe.
In Leo2 working hydraulic temperature is 65C. At 85.C there is warnning "WNA TEMP" and at 118.C system automatically turns off.
But this is in working pipes elements. Hydraulic pomp is diffrent story. Hydaulic pomp works under 6 bar pressure and about 160 C work temperature and have 32 litres of oil. So Yes "Hydraulics are not dangerous" -another good joke.
You shoud demarcation damage to hydraulic lines (A this is indeed not so dangerous) and hit hydraulic pomp which is heated to 160 C. and work up to 6 bar pressure whit 32L of oil. This is really danger and this threat is palced in Leo-2 under turret bustle blow out plate. I have hope that now I explain more abot hydraulic in tank. BTW_ im almoust sure that hydraulic pomp in M1 just must have simmilar temperature and pressure and L oil inside.
I seen many damaged or destroyed M1's, I seen some reports few years ago. In not even single report, crew was injured by hydraulic oil leaking from hydraulic traverse system of turret. Not even single case. I seen reports saying about spall injuries, or broken limbs due to IED explosions or other similiar wounds, but not even a single one saying that someone was hurt by hydraulic oil.
Not to mention that US Armed Forces vehicles crews are far more better protected than their German counterparts. Heavy individual ballistic protection (in many cases not these small ballistic vests or plate carriers, but even IOTV ballistic vests), CVC helmets, on standard uniform there is nomex uniform. And such protection is not weared in combat zones but even during peace time, on proving grounds in US. While from what I seen, German tankers were some simple uniforms and berets... berets not CVC helmet but a beret even in peace time!
Whithout PERI analog? Of it must be worse. Sorry - no HK mode = worse.
This is like comparing a flamingo and ostrich, because ostrich can't fly it is worse than flamingo?
Unfortunatly not exatly - it depends on three factors: distance, scattering of ammunition on target, stab.error. In fact eacht gunner aim in center of mass, byt chanse to hit in center is raher low - and this all 30mm auto cannon ant others have bigger chanse to hit smth on turret corners then near turret center for that resons. Aim point is always diffrent then drop point.
Oh You are making ammunition dispertion way to big. But look on A5/A6 variants of Leo2 sight is on turret top, so what now Germans made that mistake and make sight more vurnable? Well they probably did, seeing how "solid" is it's "doghouse"...
BTW:
About EMES-15:
Kanal mit der Okularbaugruppe des EMES verbunden. Das ermöglicht es dem Kommandanten, neben dem EMES-Tagkanal auch das Wärmebildgerät des Richtschützen zur Beobachtung und Feuerführung zu nutzen
Das Wärmebildgerät hat unter normalen Bedingungen eine Aufklärungsreichweite von weit über 3000 Metern. Die Sichtweite wird erheblich herabgesetzt bei natürlichen Nebeln mit hoher Dichte und relativ großen Tropfendurchmessern. Hier wird ein großer Teil der Wärmeabstrahlung der Objekte absorbiert. Dennoch ist das WBG gegenwärtig das beste verfügbare Sichtgerät für Nacht und schlechte Sicht. Auch bei Tageslicht kann es helfen, gut getarnte Ziele zu erkennen und sollte deshalb im Gefecht ständig eingeschaltet sein.
Of course it is only in very good wether conditions.
And here You have explanation abour TIS and 1200m range in M1:
So verfügt das Hauptzielfernrohr des Richtschützen des Panzers Ml Abrams (...) Bei ungünstigen Witterungsbedingungen sichert es die Sichtbarkeit zum gleichen Ziel auf Entfernungen bis 1200 m. Die Bilddarstellung im Wärmebildzielfernrohr wird von einem Elektronenstrahlindikator überlagert, auf dem gleichzeitig alle für das Schießen nötigen Darstellungen und Daten erscheinen. Bei Verwendung kombinierter, verschiedener Nachtsichtgeräte erhofft man sich eine Kompensierung einzelner Mängel in der Anwendung der Systeme im Panzer. Werden die Darstellungen von Wärmebildgerät und Restlichtfernsehsystem in einem Bild vereinigt, überschreitet die Grenzentfernung für die Aufklärung von Zielen merklich die Entfernungen der einzelnen Bildkanäle.
Can You provide more credible source? For example M1 tank crew member manual about TIS and how effective it is? I said, Germans are not credible. I read too many German made reports about anything that were full of crap to take their claims seriously.
In abstract - it wasn't possible because of sevral resons first was minimum lenght between lens (quality case) second was requirement for complete isolation WBG-X from the crew. WBG-X had brilliant images in 1980s. but it have some disadvatages on of it is, how to say it, - noisiness as a jet taking off, and it's working under gass pressure to cooled it to -198C. 
