Jump to content

New BR changes feel incredibly out of touch


1 hour ago, BeriY_ said:

Personally i'd say the T80B is better, Leo 2A4 has trash hull and turret armor, the T80B can lol pen it.

 

53 minutes ago, Taeblamees said:

To be fair the cheeks of 2A4 are absolutely fantastic, but the sheer size of the mantlet doesn't do them any justice.

The "Leopard2A4" we got in game is one of the better armored tanks for 9.7-10.0.

Only ZTZ-96A, T64/72/80B and IPM1 are more armored on the turret but each with considerable setbacks.

 

It is a standard A4 with turret armor upgraded to 1988 Tech C configuration. At direct angle, the cheeks are completely immune to M833 and L23A1, while resistance to 3BM42 beyond 1000m.

This puts it better armored than standard M1, both Challenger 1s, both Type 90, all Ariete (including 10.7 one), and all French tanks under 10.7.

 

It is valid to complain on Leo2 issues like losing too much speed at turns, but armor-wise it is good enough for 10.0.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

It is a standard A4 with turret armor upgraded to 1988 Tech C configuration.

In-game it's B Tech , hence it isn't imune to Mango.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BeriY_ said:

In-game it's B Tech , hence it isn't imune to Mango.

In-game it is certainly better than B tech but not sure if up to C tech.

Most sources give under 450mm KE (some as low as 300mm) for B tech. Which isn't too bad considering it is from 1979.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Loongsheep said:

but not sure if up to C tech.

No that's what the 2A5 has in the turret cheeks.

That's around 550-600mm KE.

 

Ok so I looked through some books, Wikipedia has some bad misinformation going on it looks like.

So, apparently the ammo hatch was only removed on the last few tank of 5th batch entirely.

So a handful of Leo 2A4s did have it.

 

That means we got a vehicle produced anywhere from March 1982 to end of 1986.

It could be anything from 2A1 to 2A4.

But it is from 1991-1994 because of the Feldjustierspiegel on the muzzle.

 

It simply can't have a C turret historically except there was some weird modernization where only the turret received an upgrade.

 

Vehicles that received C tech from the get go (from the 97th of the 6th batch onwards) got it in the hull and turret.

 

Edited by NoodleCup31
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Loongsheep said:

Most sources give under 450mm KE (some as low as 300mm) for B tech

Which is why the turret at 430 in game was kinda correct.

Only the hull is a mess.

Edited by NoodleCup31
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

This puts it better armored than standard M1, both Challenger 1s, both Type 90,

 

3 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

IPM1 are more armored on the turret but each with considerable setbacks

For some reason the Abrams mantlet has 350 KE.

And since when do all of them have the 380mm hull?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Remember the Challenger 2 (F) before we drowned them with bug reports to fix? NERA modeled as ERA?

I'm pretty sure it's still labelled as ERA on the wiki, which is pretty funny

6 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Yeah, same case as T-80BV.

Fair enough I guess. I just don't understand why they couldn't just outright make it a T-80BV rather than downtiering it into an already full 9.7 lineup.

8 hours ago, BeriY_ said:

Personally i'd say the T80B is better, Leo 2A4 has trash hull and turret armor, the T80B can lol pen it.

2A4 can also lolpen the T-80B though, and the T-80B will die in one shot, whereas the 2A4 will just absorb hit after hit unless you're close enough to crew snipe. I've been playing the 2A4 a bit lately and I seem to just survive so many situations that I shouldn't, whereas with my T-80B you make one mistake and you're dead.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

whereas the 2A4 will just absorb hit after hit unless you're close enough to crew snipe

Uh what

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/01/2021 at 23:31, watch_your_fire said:

Recorded from my first two games this morning:

 

 

:facepalm:

Sry but if the m1 dude didn't saw that you HAD 2 crew member left and went for hitting the engine over and over again you would had been killed with the 2 hit...

Edited by MuricaxSuffers
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Fair enough I guess. I just don't understand why they couldn't just outright make it a T-80BV rather than downtiering it into an already full 9.7 lineup.

The official (sorta) post in a Chinese WT sub-forum changed all "T-80B" to "T-80BV" on the dev blog post. Chinese players usually get very technical with the vehicles and the admin saw that coming.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/01/2021 at 20:47, watch_your_fire said:

 

2A4>T-80B>T-72B'89

2A4>T-80B>T-72B`89>M1 Abrams

M1 need 9.7 even more ... soon the repairs for M1spaded  fall down to 3k SL ... :D .

Edited by Haxburch
  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/01/2021 at 15:57, MuricaxSuffers said:

:facepalm:

Sry but if the m1 dude didn't saw that you HAD 2 crew member left and went for hitting the engine over and over again you would had been killed with the 2 hit...

He was actually shooting through my side armor, and from the hitcam he would know I only had 2 crew.

 

Reality is, the 2A4 is way more likely to survive any given engagement than the T-72B'89, because war thunder logic dictates that crew layout>armor

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

Reality is, the 2A4 is way more likely to survive any given engagement than the T-72B'89, because war thunder logic dictates that crew layout>armor

One thing I don't get is why some Leopard 2 players constantly downplay the advantage of having a spacious layout that boosts survivability...

 

When it is literally shared by both the Leopard 2 and Abrams series. The Abrams being "hard to kill" is literally the most common complaint against it.

Edited by Loongsheep
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haxburch said:

2A4>T-80B>T-72B`89>M1 Abrams

M1 need 9.7 even more ... soon the repairs for M1spaded  fall down to 3k SL ... :D .

Disgusting

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...