Recently the Chilean army uploaded a video to their social networks where you can see the loader of a Leopard 2A4 CHL tank loading armor-piercing ammunition with a blue belt underneath, I spoke to some people and they told me that it could be the Israeli IMI ammunition M322 or M338 since they are apparently the same, I would like to know what you think.
Although MOD 290 is license production version of M322, MKE’s Deputy General Manager (at that time) stated that they’ve “made significant progress localisation” of M322 and completed qualification tests. Related part is highlighted with red (You should note that I cannot pin point the date of article):
Isn’t there any other ammunition that is similar? or that it has that blue stripe at the bottom? If not, then Chile also has this type of ammunition that penetrates quite a bit.
I don’t think I ever seen any 120mm APFSDS with that specific blue strip only IMI’s M322 and M338 and MKE’s MOD 290.
As you probably know, M322 is currently in-game used by Israel as M322, Sweden as slpprj m/95 and Italy as CL3143. Since Swedish Str 122 and Leopard 2A4CHL uses Rh-120 L/44, M322 performance would be identical, 589mm penetration at point-blank range. Problem here, Leopard 2A4 is at 10.3 while Strv 122 at 11.7. I doubt 2A4CHL would be using it in War Thunder.
That being said, depending on how extensive up coming Leopard 2A4 modernisation will be it might be used by modernised one.
I made a Chilean sub tree for Israel where I included the version of the normal Chilean Leopard 2A4 CHL (without the camouflage system) and I put it in BR 10.7 and I put the Leopard 2A4 CHL with the Israeli camouflage system in 11.0 (as a folder) which It would be the one that would also integrate the Israeli ammunition with more penetration
I mean it is actually better to have regular 2A4 and 2A4CHL I do support that but bumping CHL to 11.0 is kind of off. 2A4 is at 10.3 I highly doubt CHL would perform very different than regular ones.
There is still hope for better modernisation I would reserve such round for that if it ever gets fancy stuff like APS or additional armor.
In fact, in the Latam project we took into account the Italian Ariete to give the BR to the Chilean Leopard since, as you say, the Chilean with that ammunition is better than the Italian. In my tree I also gave it a BR of 10.7 without the camouflage.
It’d be the most glass cannon of glass cannons. Don’t see it being that enjoyable or easily balanceable. Might make a good event vehicle, though.
DM63 is nearly identical to DM53- it uses the same projectile but with a new, more reliable charge that gives it a slightly lower muzzle velocity of 1650m/s vs 1670.
So it’s got the firepower of the 2A6 (still the best in-game, though not by as much anymore) but everything else is the 10.3 2A4.
I think that a BR of 10.7 or 11.0 is justified if we compare it with the Italian Arietes that have similar armor and similar penetration capacity to the Chilean Leopard.
Here I leave you a comparison of a normal Leopard 2A4 (10.3) from the German tree and a Ariete PSO (11.3), you can notice that even though the Ariete has a higher BR of +1.0 than the Leopard 2A4, they have very similar armor. This is a projection analysis of the two of them facing an M1 Abrams (10.3) at 2000 meters and you can see that the two can be penetrated by similar areas, even the Ariete seems to be a little more vulnerable in the chassis since it has more BR than the normal Leopard 2A4.
As for the ammunition they use, the Ariete PSO has the DM 53, and the Leopard 2A4CHL of Chile has DM 63 and the Israeli M322 ammunition (as I was able to demonstrate with the video I shared) so in terms of penetration capabilities they are also similar.
Ariete PSO ammunition, 11.3
Leopard 2A4CHL ammunition
We must also take into account the Chilean Leopard’s special camouflage kit that allows it to be more difficult to detect using infrared and would give it more survivability, especially against helicopters, drones or aircraft and perhaps adding a new mechanic in the game so that tanks or Vehicles that have used similar kits in real life can use these in the game as well, in addition to giving it a unique appearance within the game.
The Chilean tank is also currently undergoing a modernization process by the Turkish company Aselsan, so its vision devices and other internal improvements will give it better performance, and it would not be too different in performance within the game as an Italian Ariete, so saying that it would be the most glass cannon of all seems unfair to me
Taking all the factors that I demonstrated here, I believe that a BR of 10.7 or 11.0 is justified for the Leopard 2A4CHL from Chile
Leopard 2CHL has DM53 and the 120 L/55. Its firepower is identical to the 2A6. This is an upgrade over the Ariete. The mobility is very similar, and the armour especially on the turret is a downgrade, but not a major one.
So how does that warrant a .7 power BR?
It seems like your own points demonstrate why the 2CHL is closer to on par with the 11.3 Ariete than the 10.3 2A4.
The 3rd gen optics and multi-spectral camouflage would close the performance gap with the Ariete.
So 11.0 for the base version and 11.3 for the upgrade.
2A4CH has L/44 and first generation TVD (gunner only), same as German 2A4.
The improvements of the 2A4CH have to do with adapting the engine to the Andean altitudes (better cooling system) and more modern communication systems. Both of these things have no impact on the game currently.
However, 2A4CH has access to better ammunition than the German 2A4, because it is simply a version that entered service in Chile in the 2000s.
The armor of the 2A4 is much better than the Ariete series (considering 360° protection). The LWS and third-generation TVD on the Ariete don’t make up the difference. If 2A4 has similar rounds to the Ariete, they will both have similar performance (personally I think the 2A4 would have a higher BR, it seems like a much better tank to me). And if the 2A4CH also has multispectral camouflage (and gaijin makes it a functional mod and not an ornament) it will be even better.
The Argentine friend here is right, the Leopard 2A4CHL has 120mm L/44 but with access to better ammunition, it is a matter of seeing the barrel, I don’t know why some pages claim that it has the L/55, perhaps it was going to be a modernization that it was never carried out.
Hopefully they can get L55 with Aselsan.
Either way L44 imperceptibly underperforms in-game and is still lethal.
Chile has access to Israeli ammunition. Let’s compare the situation of the 2A4 with the Merkava 3B (with the same ammunition as the 2A4CHL). The Merk is much inferior in mobility, a little inferior in survivability (although it has LWS, many smoke grenades and the engine in front to compensate) and the same firepower (same cannon + TVD). Merkava is 11.0 so 2A4CHL could easily be 10.7/11.0
MKE has 120mm L/55, so there is always this possibility, but I’m sceptical about it. Nearly every reports regarding modernisation only mentions electro-optics and mechanical/electrical system upgrades. If there were talks for more such as new armor package, main gun, ammunition etc, they would’ve been also reported.
Which one though ? If M322, it won’t cut. Leopard 2PL is siting at 11.3 with DM43, Leopard 2A4 with M322 would be out right inferior. M338 on the other hand, would make it playable but I doubt it is M338.
But why ? Why is all the effort for bumping Leopard 2A4 to 11.X ? Just leave both Leopard 2A4 and 2A4CHL at 10.3 and wait for the modernisation. It is almost always better to have back-up MBT, if you bump it to higher BR both 2A4 and 2A4CHL would be left without proper back-up.
Just now I was going to share new news about the update of this tank, the first news is from a couple of weeks ago where it is mentioned that in the south of Chile there was a Marder 1A3 and a Leopard 2A4 CHL, this is interesting since these Vehicles are never in the south but in the north in the desert landscape of the country so it is very likely that they are the prototypes that were testing in another environment besides the desert, the same news mentions that they could be prototypes and that these will be used as an example to modernize the total number of vehicles.
The second news is from today and confirms the updates that we were talking about before, which for now will be a new electric drive system for the turret which will increase its rotation speed, improve safety features and facilitate the work of maintenance, new fire direction systems, new periscopes for commanders and gunners and a new vision system for the driver.
FIDAE 2024 was recently held here in Chile and the first mock-up of what will be the new Leopard 2A4CHL was shown. you can see the following:
Phase-I consists of:
Fire Control System (VOLKAN-M or VOLKAN-II)
Gunner’s Sights (Likely KARTALGÖZÜ-200)
Driver’s Vision System (Either GÖREN-100 or GÖREN-200)
Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (ATS-65)
Laser Warning Receiver (TLUS)
360⁰ Situaitonal Awarness System (YAMGÖZ)
Remote Controlled Weapon System (SARP)
Phase 2 will consist of adding an APS system, either Pulat or Akkor, what has not yet been confirmed is the additional armor, so we will have to wait a while to know.
Now I leave you some photos and video taken by me on Friday, April 12 during FIDAE 2024, and a photo of the Chilean defense minister receiving a smaller model of the modernization of the Chilean 2A4 leopards:
