Other thing that doesn’t even makes sense is that if his t-80ud does gets moved up, his kd will go down even lower from 0.4 to even 0.2 and why would anyone wants that lol. Maybe one day decided to give something a go, played a few games and realized that this thing sucks balls/doesn’t fit his playstyle, decided to crawl back to his overall better vehicles Leopard and never touch the UD again, hence it explain why he wants to nerf something he weren’t going to play again (lol)
1 Like
I noticed while playing the BMPT the last few weeks that many in the Leopard 2A4 let the mobility go to their head. This is a common scenario, for example. For some, all that mobility is a curse, and it’s a gift to USSR players facing them.
Poor america, not in sight, they deserve more nerf… nerf? Let’s nerf F-15E
Is it the mobility, or is it their ego being completely off the rails due to their delulu fantasies as wittman wannabes clashing with the reality of them being .6 Gamer Gods ?
What you posted is straight up not paying attention, it’s nothing special, but often you’ll see a leopard commit suicide in an attempt to secure a kill because as soon as they get a whiff of an opportunity, they’re very willing to cross a blatant killzone because they can’t fathom that some people actually have a good first hit kill probability.
The easiest solution in my opinion would be increasing the DM23 pen by 10mm for all metrics. (I don’t know if thats “realistic”, but gaijin doesn’t always use actual ballistics data.)
They don’t ever use actual ballistic data, they use a penetration calculator for all ammo, they moved away from historic data a long time ago.
so adding 10mm of pen would be fine :)
unless you have source confirming dimensions, weight or muzzle velocity of DM23 are incorrect, they just wont add 10mm pen for fun of it.
So not only thats not how it works, 10mm would also do literally nothing for 2A4. It wont help it pass any treshold, it wont increase spall by any significant amount, it doesnt solve the biggest issue 2A4 has - rather slow reload.
What Leo2s need is buff to their reload speed that would match expert crew + fully trained loader reload time to 6 seconds, same as T-80 autoloader.
2 Likes
I don’t think it needs any buffs though, M1 vs 2A4 vs CR1 Mk.3 vs T-80B is already one of the more balanced MBT comparisons at high-top tier.
2 Likes
Ye, its more like my wish for the reload speed to be buffed than something thats absolutely needed.
Spoiler
I just want reason to play my german lineup over abrams and booker with 5 sec reload dawg 😭
1 Like
Over the Abrams, Leopards have better composite armor modules, smaller weakspots and better survivability.
Over the Leopards, Abrams have better rate of fire.
Negate this ONE advantage of the Abrams tanks over the Leopards by giving the Leopards a better rate of fire, and you are basically turning the Abrams into pointless tanks compared to the Leopards.
1 Like
Leopard 2A4 and smaller weakspots lmao.
I wish the Leo 2A4 had any semblance of working armour, even if on the turret. 3BM42 turns it into cheese, especially with the unrealistic gunners sight weakspot.
If you want it moved to 11.0
Maybe, but it would be undoing the reason they moved to the calculator to begin with, as that was to remove the inconsistencies in testing between nations, for example the quality of the armour used in the tests between nations might produce different results.
If they are just going to make up numbers anyway then it defeats the point.
What would be better is if they actually took the round weight and velocity into consideration for post pen damage rather then the current system that just uses residual pen with slight adjustment for the gun size, for example currently a 105mm DM-33 dose more post pen damage then a 120mm DM-13 because the DM-33 has more pen despite the DM-13 having more mass and higher velocity which means it dumps WAY more kinetic energy into the target.
1 Like
Why would it be moved to 11.0?
The other characteristics of a vehicle stay the same, matching the expert reload instead of ace with T-80UD wouldnt really upset the balance the way I see it, unlike, say, adding DM33.
Also, again, more of a wish than something that is neccesary.
Better reload would just offset the excessive nerf that turret baskets provide IMO, I don’t see why they should have a longer reload then Abrams anyway.
Buffing one of the best 10.7’s in the game
Because:
Tell me, why on Earth would anyone play the Abrams if Leopards were simply and straight out the same and better in every single way?
Let alone all other tanks: Leclercs, Merkavas, Challengers… reload is the ONE thing these tanks have over the Leopards to not be completely pointless.
It would be pointless to play literally ANYTHING that isn’t a Leopard. The only thing preventing Top Tier from entirely becoming Leopard Thunder is it having a slightly slower reload than the 5 second reload tanks.
1 Like
After turret basket nerf and the engine deck automatic gun raising (ahistoric, given the footage from conflict that cant be named where 2A4s engage targets over its back while being fully stabilized), id argue that Abrams takes the cake, moreso with its 5 sec reload. Not that Abrams doesnt have turret basket, but its other advantages offset that greatly.