Since BMPT’s has been increased in br to 11.7 then 10.7 players on nato’s side are getting full uptiers to butt whooping by BMPT’s like an leopard2a4 as an example it can barely kill terminators from the side or anywhere with the DM23 since the nerf of it.
Leopard 2a4 could have DM33 because it pens less at a higher br than some 105mm cannon using tanks like leopard 1a5 for example.
I visited Finland’s parola tank museum and i went to try the leopard 2a4 gunner training simulator
there you were able to see what type of ammo you was using againts enemy tanks what you was shooting at and there i saw DM33 for leopard2a4.
Well, top tier decomp would help as would moving BMPT to 12.0 after the top tanks killing it got bumped up. It really shouldn’t be facing 10.7 tanks that can’t reliably deal with it.
Ammunition is a matter of balance, if Gaijin feel like Leopard 2A4 should have or not, it’s up to developers to add it. Naturally this would make one of the highest penetrating main battle tank of its battle rating (using numbers taken out from the Leopard 2A5) and also naturally having its battle rating increased. A lot of tanks “require” or better off—have access to better penetrators in real life, in-game is based of need or not.
It would be not be even top 5 pen at 10.7 ±1br with dm33. and the reason why gaijin nerfed dm23 was it over performing because of the players that play it. If it would be too op using dm33. How would you fix 10.7 ±1br.
If we filter out light vehicles and anti-air vehicles and only include the main battle tanks and M10 Booker* this list of highest penetration with the best penetrator at 10 m and 0° attack angle would be:
Object 292 with 698 mm of penetration at 10 m in a 0° angle of attack in first place,
M10 Booker at second place with 522 mm of penetration at 10 m in a 0° angle of attack,
T-72M2 Moderna at third place with 509 mm of penetration at 10 m in a 0° angle of attack,
Leopard 2A4 (and variants) and Ariete (P) with 481 mm of penetration at 10 m in a 0° angle of attack,
Challenger 2 Mk.3 (and variations) and Vickers Mk.7 in fifth place with 471 mm of penetration at 10 m in a 0° angle of attack,
T-80B, T-80UD and T-90S Bhishma TWMP at sixth place with 457 mm of penetration at 10 m in a 0° angle of attack.
And given the Leopard 2A4 balanced armor for mobility, definitely would have its battle rating increased, not instantly but at the long term. And undoubtely would be a negative thing to have the possibility to face better higher battle rating vehicles or remove a crucial vehicle out of line-up, that’s what happened with the Leclerc MSC which was supposed to be a “French Leopard 2” which had its battle rating increased a few months after its initial release, which was supposed to sit at battle rating 10.7. Definitely not fifth place, but fourth place if DM33 penetrator is added. Obviously it won’t be the same thing if we include the whole battle rating 10.7 range (battle rating 9.7 to battle rating 11.7) since vehicles above the battle rating 10.7 would naturally have better penetrators.
* list of vehicles at battle rating 10.7 for consultation
Just a small reminder that t90s some have 3bm60. And I used 11.0 and 10.7 mainly for the readon that they face almost every match when I tested the br.
Leopard 2A4 - T-80B - M1 Abrams - Challenger Mk.3 is one of the most balanced match-ups at higher tiers.
Of course, the fans of any of these nations usually comes up with a post like this one, and it’s always an equally bad idea.
The Leopard 2A4 doesn’t suffer any more than any other 10.7’s when uptiered. Comparing a vehicle purely against vehicles a full BR above them is also nonsensical as you can make anything seem to struggle like that.
The Leopard 2A4 should not receive DM33 any more than an M1 should receive M833, T-80B should receive 3BM-46 or Challenger Mk.3 should receive L27.
Instead there should be a separate Leopard 2A4 from the later production batches with C technologie armour and DM33, preferably at 11.3 as a IPM1 counterpart.
