This is what they look like on the other variants too irl, but gaijin implemeted them as composite. in real life they are supposed to work by shattering the apfsds and reducing its penetration, likely they also have some kind of composite inserts, its pure nonsense than only the 2a4m CAN has them modelled as RHA
arent those Leopard 2A5/2A6 wedges tho?
yes, but these were designed to defeat entirely different spectrum of threats than the 2A4M upgrade package.
As far as I know, 2A4M upgradde was meant to be a low-intensity theatre upgrade for afghanistan, intended to protect the composite armor underneath from taliban fired RPG-7s, not to defeat modern APDSFS.
Yes and it likely that KMW used same solution as on the other leopard 2 variants - similar arrowhead cheeks as on the 2a5 which were already developed
Yes, i posted them because theyre pretty much hollow too, and they probably add composite inserts in them [both the 2a4m and 2a5/6/…] just maybe not before the public or something
either way gaijin has them modelled inaccurately anyway
I see that you agree with me in a way, so what do you have against my suggestions? In my opinion atleast DM53 buff could be done
its not likely because the post I linked earlier comes directly from canadian tanker operating Leopard 2A4M.
the whole issue is more nuanced and I simply dont like your argument.
yes, thats the gist of it - but as to why it should be done, it requires some careful explanation.
well there can be changes due to balancing reasons to my knowledge, i would say that its lacking in many sectors compared to the abrams and t80 and this change could balance it out more
oh trust me, i know. i tried to explain it in detail, currently the rough draft sits at 4 A4s, pictures and graphs included.
yeah i guess im gonna make a bug report about it having spall liners atleast, but i guess theres tanks which have it harder [55t ariete with no armour]
You never added context to your image about it being APFSDS. So, I don’t understand the attitude and making it some sort of gotcha moment. Settle down.
+1 for DM53, it’s a valid buff.
Okay I made a bug report about it having spall liners and access to 120mm IM HE-T ammo with also the addition that the gun is capable of firing DM53, but what do you know they insta flagged it as duplicate, which Im not aware of why, because I havent made any bug reports about this topic, only 20days ago about the damage model of the 2A4M which got fixed not long after. I also dont think that pointing out a bug report made 1year ago is duplicating if thats the issue? Likely the minimum wage moderator just saw my two posts about the same tank without reading it and insta locked it
because 2A4M spall liners were already reported on its release.
Is that really an issue? I think that they havent implemented it because of balancing, BRs were different and all that stuff. But i think that they point of view of its balancing could have changed, or atleast thats what i thought. I mean back then the Clickbait didnt even have M829A2 so like i said they could just give it DM53 or implement the spall liners now, as an answer to balancing
War Thunder seems to be run by people who suddenly gain an interest in a certain game mechanic, they then implement it in a half-baked manner (dozer blades, spall liners, turret baskets, etc.) and then promptly move onto the next thing, without implementing the previous mechanic to all vehicles that should have them.