if its another variant it hurts nothing, but having a higher BR mbt thats before the 2a5 would help germany’s lineup situation
1 Like
moving 2a4 up in BR will automatically make it cardboard, even if it gets C pack which would add several percent to its protection while making it meet top tier rounds all around, thus making it glass cannon.
Funniest line of today
It has all the good stats while lacking really bad stats. E.G. For example, the M1 Abrams has good mobility (faster than 2a4 but not making 2a4) but lacks in turret protection, hull protection, has huge weakzone, has worst ammnition at 10.7. On the other hand them ZTZ96 have good munition, and have great protection, but have bad mobility, bad reload, bad traverse, bad rear movement speed. If we also take into account them soviets at 10.3, which also lack commander sight, thermals, OR armor…
Meanwhile Leopard doesnt have downsides, which makes it OP.
1 Like
would it?
There are basically no lineups between 10.7 and 12.0, and 12.0 only exists as premium machinery.
why do you think im advocating for it to help
1 Like
if it gets C-tech it would easily bounce and absorb most rounds into its turret.
quit lying
you calling M4A2 is some serious skill issue brotha
abrams mobility is better in aspects where the 2A4 lacks
turret protection is BETTER than 2A4, not worse as you tried to lie about it
hull is also better because you actually have to try to not hit that slim beak when on 2A4 you can shoot where ever you want on the hull
the breech on abrams is so much smaller than on 2A4
ammunition is only 40-50mm less penetrating than leopard 2a4s DM23
2AV lacks thermals
leopards are the first MBT armour germany gets and even then, it doesnt get good until 2a5 but only really until 2A7
idk what to tell u brother… youre mistaken
If it wont get the “cheeks” from 2a5 - nah. It wont even stop same DM33s.
Not even talking M900/M892As
sure thing
It is better, but not so much to make 2a4 as bad as t-72s
thats factual lie. 2A4 bounces them L23A1s, and M1 doesnt
Thats also incorrect, the “face”, e.g. the UFP, is quite unreliable even with best penetrating shots of the rank, and the “roof” where the driver`s hatch positioned is also unreliable. While any shot to M1’s hull roof is penetration.
Thats fact
saying it like its not basically 10%
2AV isnt 2A4, and 2AV sits lower than 2A4 for that
So? Its not about “is it okay that they have it”, its about that they DO have it and its pretty balanced where it is. So making a glass cannon out of it is basically doing worse for yourself.
Or you are, huh
Since i don’t have expert I always rate leo2s lower than t72s. lmao 7.02 reload vs ptw 6 on the same tonk
It’s by far one of the most overpowered vehicle in the game and ive been saying for years it needs to be 11.7
Even me that barely plays this tier have almost 2.0kd in the leopard 2A4, it’s absolutly busted
Well thats what i’m asking you. I see no help in being only tank on battle rating
maybe around the breach but the cheeks are nearly untouchable
Depending on angle tho. Plus with “around the breech” Abrams mask becomes even bigger that 2a4s one.
Gentleman, can we call this a “skill issue”.
imagine the 2A5 cheeks without the add on
oh and better mantlet too
was never the comparison. its better, even if only a little
wrong. 2A4 bounces them on the cheek but not the mantlet nor the sight cutout area. while M1 doesnt have that issue on the turret at least
idk what ur using bro but in my 72M1 the darts go in pretty easily on the leo
mayhaps, but its just a 10% more aimed shot thatll do the trick
neither are soviets at 10.3 equal to americans at 10.7
thats a fact, and i dont deny it
all im asking is for a NEW Leopard 2A4 (8th batch) with DM33 and C–tech
all i see is embed fail
It is not.
It’s perfectly average for 10.7 and it isn’t superior to it’s 10.7 peers (Vickers Mk7, Challenger Mk3, M1 Abrams, T-80B, etc.) to justify a BR increase to 11.0, let alone a absurd 11.7.
Claiming the Leopard 2A4 is equivalent to an M1A1 is truly ridiculous.
2A5 cheeks without wedges are still capable of withstanding DM53 at 700 meters last time I tested (which admittedly, is quite a while ago).
C Technologie turret cheeks are around the 500-550mm range head-on, thus easily capable of withstanding DM33 at point blank range.
such armour would be worthy of 11.0 wouldnt you say?
provided that it keeps the DM33 and no CITV and no wedge. could be a great gap filler vehicle
Well judging by the game performance, it would be exactly as i say - it still will be glass. Tho the hull would hae some better protection, so DM23s alikes bounce better. But a higher BR puts it in disadvantage still
While thats true, it also has troubles with mantlet, and has huge turret floor that also pennable. And angled protection is also weak. I wouldnt say M1 has better armored turret anyhow.
tho as we talk “Protection”, they are only ones to compare. 10.7-ish T-80s are either worse protected, or just the same overall.
thats a shame qwq
Can thy show it?
While i find it interesting as last time my 2a6s cheek got shot off, the JM33s did the job pretty easilly.
?
Those cheeks stop DM53 point blank… you most likely got killed by a ‘pixel shot’ thru the exposed turret ring (which in reality should be covered by the turret cheeks, but Gaijin doesn’t care and keeps the model inaccurate to artifically nerf Leopard 2s, since 2019 heh)
1 Like
the 2a4 is in the top 3 best MBT in 10.7
I’m not an expert on this topic at all, but the Leopard 2A4 C Technologie is not the same thing as a Leopard 2A5 with the wedges removed.