We are players using leopards; due to the nerf of the gun’s depression angles, we demand that in response, a new shell with the anti‑era mechanic DM73 be added.
The affected tank versions:
Leopard 2A7V,Leopard 2A7HU,Leopard 2A8,Leopard 2A8NO,Challenger 3
The new projectile will eliminate the need to target Russian tanks with Kontakt‑5.
2 Likes
This is the second time that leopards have been deliberately weakened without receiving anything in return. Here’s what I mean:
- A reduction in the maximum speed of the 2A7. In response, a faster acceleration was supposed to be added, but it didn’t happen.
- A reduction in the gun’s elevation angles. In response, a new projectile — the DM73 — should have been obtained; that’s what the L55A1 was designed for.
Wait I thought gun depression didn’t matter!
Maybe we can un-nerf Russian rounds while we are at it! (These are NATO numbers BTW):
What do u mean?
The length of the DM73 penetrator is ~685 mm x 23 mm (diameter).
The 3BM60 penetrator is ~620 mm x 22 mm (diameter).
At a speed of 1780 m/s for the first and 1660 m/s for the second, the 3BM60 cannot penetrate more than the DM73.
3 Likes
I mean according to papers published by NATO generals in the “International scientific journal” Russian rounds need a significant buff and Russian tanks still lack 3BM59m the DU variant of the massively underperforming (according to NATO sources) 3BM60, so carful what you wish for.
3BM59 will only add a couple of millimeters to the penetration and won’t change anything
Not according to NATOs generals, so you see you have a bit of a problem here, either Russians rounds are all massively underperforming or NATO is commanded by complete morons that purplish complete nonsense and nothing they say can be trusted… pick your poison.
The snail uses a single formula to calculate projectile penetration to avoid what you wrote.
2 Likes
Yep, so we can stop arguing about how Germany suffers then, as it’s all generic formulars used to calculate penetration vs protection.
The Soviet tech tree can use the 3BM60 ammunition, which entered service in 2016—yet poor players of the German tech tree are stuck using ammunition from 1998.
Thank goodness I don’t play the Leopard 2A4 or anything above it. Hahahahahahaha.
Honestly, this is the least they deserve. You people don’t even know how to stage a proper protest.
1 Like
3BM59 sat in the files for a bit, it had a maximum penetration of 670mm.
I don’t believe you.
This might have been added based on some brochure, not calculated using formulas.
Meanwhile the Type 10 using RHA in its composites rather than it’s nano-twined crystal steel armour
2 Likes
Idk, it might’ve.
Could also be the one from the April fools
Keep in mind that was used in the 2017 April Fools T-90A, long before any modern APFSDS came to the regular game. Nothing was reused from that event.
3 Likes
Was there a DM53 on the Leopard 2A5? What penetration did it have?
3 Likes
DM 73 adds 10mm of penetration over DM 53 at 0m, its literally a nothingburger addition if it comes.
Though this is mainly due to DM 53 dimensions and density being wrong currently (current values leave you with 19g for fins, tracer-compartment, tracer and nose-caps - which is not nearly sufficient, the tracer alone likely already weighs more).
Also gaijin ignores frustum entirely, which further decreases the penetration (but this is an issue for every dart that uses L/O formula ingame)
We could ofc also just copy paste the values of DM 53 irl, but uuh
“Guaranteed penetration (distance-dependent) of armour with an equivalence of circa 1m RHA”
~Rolf Hilmes
“More than 80cm RHA at several thousand meters”
I feel like that would not be all too balanced lol
Right now, there’s nothing that favors balance, either.
Let’s not pretend there is.
Honestly, it doesn’t really concern me. You can’t expect me to play a game where I get hit by a bomb the moment I start :)