There is multiple holes on both sides of the turret
beautiful.
The mantlet/inner cheek area in general is just incredibly weak because the inner cheek composite blocks have trash modifiers, and the mantlst itself has even trashier modifiers as part of gaijins fantastic manufactured weakpoint policy for NATO vehicles.
The leo’s also suffer from a really odd phenomenon where when 2 plates or different armors meet, instead of being a strongpoint due to volumetric shenanigans, it tends to form an armor hole, courtesy of gaijin’s wonderful modelling errors, or if you are a bit more cynical and jaded following years of gaijins shenanigans with NATO vehicles, intentional mismodelling.
I also noticed the weak turret armor. Now I know why. Right now the A6 is still the best Leopard 2. Hope the non functional spall liners and the armor holes get fixed. RIght now side hits spall as if its one of the older Leopards, no difference. All this additional armor weight at the cost of reduced mobility …and exactly for no benefit.
Gun breech still spalling as well. Often it KO’s all three turret crew.
what was the logic behind making the leo2a7’s armor values significantly lower than the strv’s? Havent touched germany in like a year because of this bs. Hull armor is like 100 mm less effective and the turret is also weaker. Its like the a7 we have is using leo2a4 b tech armor…
???
2a7V has armor holes in the turret, can kill it with mg fire if you wanna
Because they used the ~ 30 year old Swedish trials without knowing what was really tested there.
The data from the trial gives the so called Swedish solution better protection than the German solution.
Problem is that the two different vehicles there were SVT (based on a 5th batch B tech hull) and TVM max (based on a 8th batch C tech hull).
The K protection is about 60-70mm KE worse on the 2A7V hull in game which coincidentally is the difference between B and C hulls irl (B is 300, should be about 360 in game).
So yes, 2A7V has a C hull in game (which has very much realistic values) but they nerfed the addon to match what was achieved by B tech + addon in the trials.
1 Like
You can’t but the problem is there yes
The 2A7V is a really poor-quality implementation,Gaijin.
happens a lot with non ru tanks, i wonder why…
??? better to have a ufp that shatters? rounds instead of penetrating …^^
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qMzs0ZtIZQ7T
Gonna affect ALL Leopard 2s lmao.
We already debunked it and now they are using a secondary source to nerf it again
1 Like
huh ?
I dont get it…
leopards still have 40 and 10 or not ?
They have 40/40 which is correct.
Most of the “armor” on A5/6/7 are just some piece of NERA hang in the turret and the hull so they can be falled off with enough force (got shelled, ate enough HE, … or even a tank crash might make it falls off)
Spoiler
That speed was verified by three independent sources.
Maximum speed of the stabilizer must be distinguished from the maximum controlled speed.
- Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und Leopard 2
- Kampfpanzer: Die Entwicklungen der Nachkriegszeit
- Technology of tanks by Richard M Ogorkiewicz
3 Likes
Maximum speed of the stabilizer must be distinguished from the maximum controlled speed.
How will that be accomplished?
Currently you control the gun directly in WarThunder, no FCS, no decoupled sights.
Will this be done just for tanks with an FCS, or for WW2 tanks too?
Does this hint at the upcoming implementation of a more complex FCS? I would gladly welcome it, being able to lead moving targets, or program shells properly.
How will this be done for other tanks? Information on the FCS are very scarce, especially on brand new tanks e.g. the 2S38, Type 10, etc.
Will you just estimate that their actual aiming speed is just let’s say 25% of their maximum speed? I don’t really see how that will be accomplished fairly.
5 Likes
Same way M1 Abrams is controlled in-game.
Abrams in-game has a 40 degree per second stab in WT, but only 20 degrees per second controlled movement.
This code is old and has been here since probably two plane stabs were introduced.
1 Like
That’s not reflected in the game. There’s no stabilizer speed, only the maximum travers of the gun.
For the Abrams that’s 40/24.
The stabilizer is only limited past a certain top speed
for the vehicle on the ground.
“gunStabilizer”: {
“hasVerticalGunFreeMode”: false,
“hasHorizontal”: true,
“horizontalOmegaMult”: 1.0,
“horizontalSpeedLimitKPH”: 75.0,
“hasVertical”: true,
“verticalOmegaMult”: 1.0,
“verticalSpeedLimitKPH”: 75.0,
“speedFromVehicleVerticalMult”: -1.0
Do you have details on the Abrams vertical drive (and horizontal)? I would be interested in its performance
There is a stabilizer speed for all tanks with stabilizers.
In War Thunder that stabilizer speed is 40 degrees per second in elevation for Abrams.
The manual-input [control] speed is 24, which is what you see on the X-Ray.