Too bad it is not from the manufacturer, unlike the 2a7 and kh38mt one.
This brochure is an official information poster issued by the Ministry of Defence of Hungary (Honvédelmi Minisztérium) in cooperation with the HM Zrínyi Military Media Center.
What an interesting method of picking and choosing ones sources.
Especially considering that this is the only source specifically mentioning the 2A7HU and not just generically the 2A7. Should be a better source then according to the last denied reports.
Being from the manufacturer is a pretty big plus, also the 2a7/8 one is probavly extremely correct while this one is clearly hallucinating.
Like i sad the 2a7 issue is probably what actual limits are modelled in game vs wrong information outright.
I would love to see the meltdown if gaijin implements FCS aiming speed instead of stabilizer speeds or the actual IIR seekers of HAMMERS and Kh38.
Ah so you must have a manufacturer source regarding the 2A7HU that disproves that hungarian source, right?
This, it really does feel like you are the biased one, towards redfor in this regard, my friend
so a brochure that buffs a 2a7hu is incorrect, while being from the defence ministry of the country that procures the damn thing, but the brochure about 2a8 that was debunked to be wrong, with old information on 2a7+ and 2a7NO, and all the talking about spectus placement somehow isn’t ?
I don’t wanna point fingers here, but i feel some bias in these statements
1 Like
I love how everyone of tou just ignored the actual argument that FCS and stab limitations are implemented in a inconsistent way and you should focus on this instead of making up fantasy about sights or brochures.
Probavly the 2a5 and onwards have the same limitations but noone bithered to write that 9n the brochures.
Find a KMW brochure that says the same if that’s actual info shouldn’t be too difficoult no?
Who did i even write this for ?
Yeah, nah, you are the last person i will be talking to in this thread from this moment onwards
I am talking about the 72km/h brochure.
You’re just ignoring the stab limitations lmao and my whole argument, btw.
At least you guys stopped regurgitanting the night sight fanatssy and started crying russian bias. For me, that’s a win.
Mods should still be more liberal with the ban hammer.
Getting back to the stab limit, someone unenployed should get into this and expose the actual stab limits of modern tanks and bug report those. It would be funny.
I know russian tanks should lose a degree or 2, and the same for the abrams, but i am not certain.
Yeah, i agree, with how little argumentation and sources were provided, you shouldn’t be a part of this discussion, i didn’t say a word about russian bias btw, all i said is you are a redfor biased(you are claiming we are bluefoids, no ?)
You yourself seemingly can’t read or comprehend the information provided in this thread, the 72kmph brochure is literally taken from the ministry of defence of hungary, if that isn’t a valuable source, well…
Ok, find the same 72km/h number in the manufacturer data no? If it’s real that it should be easy.
I am not even debating the brochure issue, just making fun of the thread for making stuff up and circle jerking.
Sources should not be taken blindly, that’s my whole argument lmao, the leo2a7 issue is a perfect example of that.
IRL i bet my ass the stab will be limited to those numbers, the provlem is that will also apply to most other stabilized tanks.
Gaijin should realize this and take a decision, stab and fcs limitation for everyone or noone.
But you guys find it easier to make stuff up and cry russian bias
Can you provide us with ANY source that approves of the whole stab/fcs limitation thingy ?
if it’s real that it should be easy
How is Spectus sight on top of the hull being present, or not present, made up ?
Or is it that hard to realise that if the gun were to depress as low as the 9 degrees as per usual, it would squash the damn sight, hence the freaking 7.4 limitation ?
This is close to the fnatasy that you like to accuse other people of.
“trust me guys it’s surely the same on the other Leo 2s, they just never bothered to write about it over the last 40 years. Of course I don’t have proof, but you can totally trust me I know this stuff.”
-wolf_308lr, 2026
4 Likes
That’s just my opinion and it’s based on my understandinf on how things move in the physical word.
No proof nor credibility, nor the assumption that this should be taken as facts, it’s an assumption to try and explain those numbers.
At least it makes sense, unlike the sight hypothesis wich is just … lmao …
Also i was always under the assumption that all stabilizers eat into the mechanical range of cannons as a normal fact of life, i find strange that this is a topic of discussion.
then the elevation should be the one over the engine deck by this logic, no?
Also, this does not explain the upoer bound of the range.
Our opinion remains opinions , mine has sense and yours not so much, but at least you guys now understand that we have nothing to back any this with.
Maybe next time, you will be more mindful of what to believe as truth.
We literally dont. I have NEVER seen a source saying the things been tested, and I researched thenthing extensively and wrote up the whole thread on the evidence for and against its existence. The manufacturer has never even provided a picture of it being fired for brochure purposes, they use CGI images instead. Only pictures of static mockups in various configuration.
Either provide evidence, or stop making stuff up and derailing this thread.
1 Like
Three years ago, the Bundeswehr posted a video about the Leopard 2A7V. It clearly stated that the elevation range was -9 to +20. According to the latest information, we know from a video released by the Norwegian Army that the elevation range is 7.76° on the 2A8. Everyone can live with that. But why, then, are the Leopard 2A7V and 2A7HU also affected?
1 Like
Brochures are sacred. imao
2 Likes
They denied it and said it’s not clear which Leo version this refers to, lol.
Meanwhile, they just nerf the 2A7V’s gun depression based on the 2A8 brochure.
And they refuse to add all the addons from the same brochure.
And they don’t even give it the 7,62 roof MG or LWS even tho its in the official BW specs.
All that while the most modern, uparmored Leopard can’t even get the armor level of a 30 year old Strv122.
3 Likes