jesus, then you are completly dellusional, there is literaly more differences in those 2 then the strv122 and leopard 2a5
or leo 2a5 and leo 2a6
we have way less differences in a tank in the game, what is strv122, strv122 b plss and the strv122b+ supposed to be then. Generaly L takes of you and shows you ahve no game knowledge, look at all the challengers, merkavas and arietes with less differences then those 2 KF51 variants, same as ABrams versions in between have less diffrences.
Your take is as bad as it gets jesus
strv122 and strv122b plss and strv122b+ even certainly, sounds more like u did fall on the head
Literaly the tank series with the most armor in the game, even more then 2a7V. Sweden having the 2 best tanks in the game since god knows how long with strv122 and strv122b plss
ah yes i overread it / forgot it because i am to distracted by your oblivionous and bad takes
besides that genius, KF51 series is far of being the best tank.
Its a sister alternative to the 2A7 nothing more
The KF51 is worse armored by quite a bit compared to 2a7 series, its supposed to focus on mobility and trades armor for active protection. That coupled with the autoloaders is just a side step to the 2A7.
Until those dont get the 130mm cannon they are not the best tank, and the demonstrator is worse as well since it lacks a lot of the features that are still getting integrated
So your whole primise is completly wrong and bad in the first place
So I ask, why doesn’t it do this, if similar companies do it? It could participate in the same tender in Chile, and no one would say anything to it, unlike in Turkey
EODH not pitching their products is not grounds to say they can’t pitch them cus “KNDS something”. You’re making heaps in logic to justify your narrative.
there is literaly more differences in those 2 then the strv122 and leopard 2a5
When I say “different enough” I’m not JUST refering to the specific capabilities and parts of a vehicle. As I’ve talked about earlier this also refers to playstyles, but there are major difference between the the 2A5 and STRV122 in terms of how they function. Tell me, what does having the Hungarian KF51 on top of having the Italian KF51 add to the Italian tech tree?
Whatever that second quote response was
So you’re either misunderstanding what I’m saying or I haven’t been clear enough and I’m too tired to decide.
Bit off topic but are we having a laugh “strv has the most armour in the game” like what?
You’re definitely having a laugh if you think the KF51 is a side-step from the A7V. Similar armour with far greater manoeuvrability, LWS, hard kill and soft kill aps, better ammunition types and variety, and a RWS.
so just completly nonsense by you, there is sth called line up
There doesnt need to be a reason to justify it, you dont seem to understand the base aspects of the game
yes? they have more armor in the game then the 2A7V, seems like again you dont know basic stuff
everything part of the 2a7a1 as well besides greater manoervrability and the RWS.
Everything better existing in the 2a8. The KF51 is not great, somebody seems to not understand that the “better” ammunition gets to be used by 2a7s as well
And yet again you have no idea what you are talking about. KF51s do not have softkill capability.
Only the KF51U is advertised with it, and take a guess the Tank is not real, purely mock up not functioning
I give the tender for Chile as the closest example, since it is strangely logical. Rheinmetall, KNDS, RUAG and unofficially Turkish companies participated in it. All of them are engaged in the modernization of Leo 2, and are independent.
Every reputable company, especially in the defense sector, will fight for part of the market or at least to promote its related products. The same RUAG, which is not so strongly represented in terms of tank modernization, is participating in this, and the Greek company is not? Very strange, don’t you think? My logic is related to doing business in the IRL, and not somewhere on paper
As far as we know, the Chilean modernization with Aselsan currently includes internal communications and FCS, and $400 million was paid for that. Two new tenders will now be opened to see what the different companies offer in terms of additional armoring and APS packages. We’ll see what they offer. Although Turkish companies are initially being consulted to take advantage of already established ties, as I said, they have not yet been awarded phases 3 and 4 of the modernization. If they do not comply with what the Chilean army wants, they will consult companies from other countries.
Hello! Basically, that’s not really a weakspot or problem in real life, for two reasons;
1- “Weakspots” in real life do not really exist. In most cases, in most engagement ranges, gunners are to shoot at the center of mass of a vehicle and the shot will land… wherever it can. In War Thunder, you can pixel-hunt few cm wide weakspots, but this isn’t a typical activity in real life.
2- In real life, Challenger 2 is mostly meant to be used covering that plate with terrain, trenches, etc- it is not to be exposed in general.
Furthermore, in real life, the lower plate is fully coated in spall liners which significantly dampen damage by reducing spalling. Gaijin however actively refuses to implement these despite the numerous comprehensive and clear bug reports about it.
Remember, too, that the lower plate weakspot isn’t as big as it appears; half the lower front plate overlaps with the composite module of the upper front plate, so the weakspot is actually half as big than it looks.
Cool… all of those produce combat vehicles, EODH doesn’t, they produce armor kits, something that Chile wasn’t even looking really into at the time. Have you even considered that EODHs solutions that aren’t MEXAS/AMAP based aren’t even really ready? You would have if you had read the article I linked before…
I still don’t see a reason why they wouldn’t be “allowed to export cus KNDS” other than “My source is that I made it up” from ya.
Ngl it’s sad how the US hasn’t really shown its ability to make MBTs in the past decade or so. The SEPv3 is definitely a step up from earlier models, but with the publicly available information it seems to just be akin to a stopgap with no real replacement
I know it’s in development (and that the SEPv4 was cancelled for it), but there’s no real details about it and the US doesn’t seem to be innovating or doing large changes anymore. The software and modularity side of things are important, but that’s the bare-bones for Western tanks at this point.
It is like meta trend for new tanks now. All armies were short of hands, so crew should be lowered if it can be. Also, decades of experience gained by western armies positioning their armours on eastern europes like Poland or Baltic nations show that 60 tons were too heavy to freely operate on those areas.
Leopard 2AX and challenger 3 are exception but those are all like stop-gap between current MBT and real next generation tanks.
I personally disagree; it’s going to be a major overhaul for the Abrams, which has been stated by multiple officials close to the project. The whole reason for the project is from the vulnerabilities seen in Ukraine with all the MBTs that are over there right now. The US isn’t innovating or doing large changes anymore, I mean they literally just revealed NGAD winner and soon to announce the navys 6th gen fighter winner too. They are definitely still doing major changes.
