We have already seen reports of errors regarding the missing front additional armor for the PSO.
PSO should not have front additional armor but should have reinforced base armor.
If additional armor is to be added, it should be designated as “PSO-VT,” which is equivalent to the well-known Leopard 2A7+.
In the development blog, we are explicitly informed that the Leopard 2 PSO we are about to receive is the version exhibited in 2006.
The Leopard 2 PSO uses the same chassis as the Leopard 2A6EX Demo2, and we can see noticeable changes in the rear of the vehicle, primarily due to the improved MTU 883 Ka-501 engine.
The Leopard 2A6EX Demo2 is an improved version based on the same chassis as the Leopard 2TVM MAX.Therefore, we can conclude that the chassis armor used in the Leopard 2 PSO is the same as that of the TVM MAX, but with the removal of external additional armor on the hull.
According to the Swedish test reports that have been discussed multiple times on the forum, the Swedish version uses the Leopard 2TVM Max, while the German version uses the Dtech armor without external armor (likely from the prototype Leopard 2A5). Since the Leopard 2 PSO uses the same chassis as the TVM Max but removes the external armor, it can be inferred that the PSO’s hull armor data should be approximately RHA 670mm.
I hope to see the correct armor data for the PSO appear on the Live servers.
Brother, your work is great.
Hope we can get the right armor on L2PSO.
Lots of this is wrong, in Sweden the TVM 2 Max/Min was used for Germany, was called Leopard 2 Improved, Sweden has their own kit. So no, without add-on armour PSO should not be 670mm KE. We know roughly the capability of D-Tech hull which is 560-580mm KE. As for it having D-Tech, I mean it’s possible, there is just no proof either way, so I presume it’s the same standard as in game, D-Tech turret, C tech hull
I’ve seen your statement as well, but the information I’ve encountered indicates that the Strv 122 sent for testing is indeed the TVM MAX. However, in any case, the data presented on the dev server is incorrect.
Furthermore, I believe that the PSO definitely uses Dtech armor because the PSO is essentially the A6EX, and the A6EX is the TVM MAX.
TVM Max uses B-Tech on the hull so I’m not sure you want to go down that alley.
According to your description, the external additional armor RHA equivalent would reach 300+mm, but the actual thickness is only 150mm. This doesn’t align with common logic.
you realize that the TVM did use the add on in the swedish trials right?, even the source that youre using with the armor protection chart shows the improved leopard used a reference like a leopard with the add on… not even mention that it would be illogical to belive that the german tank in the trials removed its add on for the penetration test while the swedish one retained it, so no the tvm hull is 670 with the add on not without it,
400mm ke resistance for the upper glacis…same weak paper armor as any other current ger and nato tank. Even 3bm42, which is a shell roughly 2 BR brackets lower, can probably take this so called new top-of-the-line tank out. Why is this even added?
Why can only rus, sweden and china have tanks, which are somewhat armored? Im tired of playing tanks which can be lol zapped with third person aimed center mass shots. Especially on all these small brawler maps we finally need armor.
Unfortunately, the same document shows that the GER solution which sent to Sweden for testing was in the B+D2 configuration