The 2A4 is missing its DM33 which makes its gun quite weak for 10.3.
It’s outperformed by 9.3 mbt guns for no reason at all, not to mention guns at its own br.
People mention it’s armor which is non existent at 10.3 and speed when its outmatched by Abrams and T-80 series. Turret traverse is good but it doesn’t matter as much as people say it does.
6 Likes
Man maybe you should try playing the Abramsm if you seriously think DM23 is underperforming.
M774 had much less pen than DM23, but why is that ok?
410mm is enough
9 Likes
how about because of better armor better mobility and better reload ?
better armor? haha
the leopard has good mobility too. It outreloads the better T-72 shell and it has armor that can resist the better reload of the M1.
2 Likes
I wouldnt exactly call armor that you can UFP with 9.3 shells “better armor” but mobility + firepower are are quite sufficient for 10.3
I presume you’re referring to the M1 here? If not, discard what I’m about to say.
The UFP of an M1 is among the most heavily overperforming armor in the entire game, it is currently resistant to APFSDS with 802mm(!) of LoS penetration at point blank range:
Meanwhile, it should be vulnerable to shells such as 3BM-42:
1 Like
If you want it to receive DM33 that’s okay, but don’t give us a Surprise Pikachu face when the Leopard 2 moves to 10.7 as a result of this unwarranted buff.
It is not.
It doesn’t have particularly great armor, but it also doesn’t need it given the level of mobility, firepower, gun handling and survivability it has.
I’d suggest commenting on the Leopard 2A4 1991 (C-tech) suggestion thread, I’d much rather get a late 2A4 with DM33 rather than messing with the current Leopard 2A4 (B-tech).
4 Likes
Yeah why not? when Russia can have 3BM42 start from 9.7 what wrong 10.3 and have DM33 well Abrams could use M833 as well M774 are suck ass for 10.3
1 Like
Nope, 2A4
3BM-42 is compensation for the inferior survivability, gun elevation speed, reverse speed, lack of neutral steering, poor turret traverse rate, poor gun depression and worse reload rate.
The M1 and Leopard 2A4 are already better vehicles than the T-80B and TURMS-T, with DM33 the Leopard 2 is just going to end up at 10.7.
Ah, yeah the UFP of the Leopard 2A4 seems to be underperforming in-game, there’s a bug report on that that has been forwarded but I’m unsure what the status is.
2 Likes
you are aware that on the models M1A1 AIM with DU inserts and all following variants were fitted with 50 mm UFPs while maintaining the same angle?
Leo is very fine at its BR, it is a jack of all trades having thermals, decent armor, speed, gun, reload, survivability and overall mobility. New round would only qualify it for an uptier where rest of those things would start to matter less.
I heard that kind of excuse for Russian many times Russia suffer this that those bla bla bla where my compensations of Leclerc Challenger and Ariete when it need No?
Please provide evidence for that claim.
Further, I don’t see how this is relevant to the 10.3 M1 Abrams.
Whataboutism doesn’t really get this discussion anywhere I’m afraid.
The M1 and Leo 2A4 are superior to the T-80B, Challenger 1, etc. and I agree that the Challenger also needs all the help it can get.
I don’t play the Leclerc so I can’t comment on that, but the Leclerc also isn’t at 10.3.
1 Like
Those Russian tanks don’t have the exceptional mobility and survivability of the Leo 2, which is already the best 10.3 MBT by a good margin
1 Like
Oh no, its almost like Gaijin intentionally doesn’t always give vehicles in-game the best ammo or ordinance they could get IRL so they don’t have to be put up in br too much that would hurt the vehicle more than help it if they gave certain vehicles certain things.
Now in all seriousness, the 2A4 is perfectly fine as it is as DM23 is quite good for the 2A4 which sits at 10.3 which is the same br as the M1 Abrams which is more mobile and has a faster reload but a worse gun with worse rounds and worse armor, and the T-80B has a bit of a better round with 3BM42 but whose mobility isn’t as good as the 2A4 and is very vulnerable to ammo racks out of the three (unless you are bold enough to take hull ammo in the 2A4).
Last time I checked the M1A1 in-game is still based on the base model of the M1A1 AIM given to Australia which is an export version which in particular has DU equivalent inserts but not DU inserts which results (from what I recall) the M1A1 AIM in-game having better chemical protection but interior kinetic protection than the M1A2.
sorry what ? t80b t80u t80bvm all leave leopards in the dust in a straight line
And survivability is rather questionable
you do realise i was talking about the m1 having better armor right ? :D
My bad, misunderstood your comment since the topic is about 2A4 👍
Leopard 2a4’s armor and dm23 is trash at 10.3 (it’s 2’nd worse mbt at this BR, the worst is M1 Abrams with even worse round)
Even 9.0 - which can’t face it - can lol pen ufp from 2km+. Everything around 10.3 BR can pen it even easier.
considering that 10.0 is perma uptiered to 11.0 DM23 is useless and have to pixel shot weakspots when 90% frontal area is lol pened xd
