Leopard 2A4M CAN doesn’t have a 10 second reload rate.
580mm pen with 6s reload > 700mm pen with 10s reload, or in other words: Only 20% more penetration for 66% worse reload rate.
M1A1 is a 11.0 MBT firing 600mm penetration APFSDS every 5 seconds.
Granted, the M1A1 is one of the strongest MBT’s relative to it’s BR in the game, but DM53 at 11.3 wouldn’t be that problematic depending on the other aspects of the vehicle. The Leopard 2 A7V would still be a significant upgrade over a 2A4M CAN /w DM53.
2A4MCAN with correct armor would have less armor then M1A1, worse reload, worse mobility, and a worse round (if it keeps KE-W).
Base 2A6 and 2A5 are both still pretty significant upgrades over 2A4M CAN with correct armor even with DM53. The only thing the 2A4M CAN might have that’s better is better gunner optics. (I can’t remember if it has gen 1,2 or 3)
At least it makes more sense than this strange shop Tornado for 70 bucks. No one knows for what this thing is good for. Too slow to bomb bases before others reach it…and just 2 AAMs. For GRB no apropriate guided weapons as well^^ The Canadian A4 will be very useful.
I see a lot of assumptions made about B-tech being the inserts used, but is there any actual source proving this? I kind of find it hard to believe deep modernization of the vehicle in the 20th century would omit replacing internal composites for new and more effective ones.
Tbh fix PSO and 2A7V armor is enough to make me happy at least for a while now as for planes well kinda hopeless but with AMRAAM use it as air spawn kill in GRB is probably still can make it work for CAS well GBU drop speed limit should be gone like gone for good because Tornado already can’t dodge pantsir without it speed (and Tornado need it a lot for deal with pantsir)
Idk, a lot of people here seem to assume its B-tech, ive heard because the original 2A4 NL were B-tech, or atleast believed to be b-tech, but i see no reason why with such comprehensive upgrades to the tanks that it should be assumed they remained b-tech.
it depends. Using the empty weights and thrust values from wikipedia (I’m lazy, ok) as well as adding 4x AIM-120 + 4x AIM-9, 50% fuel and the average male as pilot, with AB the F-15C performs slightly better (by 0.37%). Without AB the EFT has more TWR (8% more)
With heavier loadouts, the F-15 would get relatively better, but it always performs worse without AB
F-15C produces ~27,000lbf of thrust at sea level going 0.9 mach, per engine.
Typhoon produces 20,000lbf of thrust at sea level going 0.9 mach, per engine.
So despite the F-15C weighing 1.7 tons more, its TWR remains higher.
The wikipedia thrust of F-15C is static, whereas the wikipedia thrust of Typhoon is at mach 0.9 [I confirmed this by finding a document I won’t share due to not wanting to be a War Thunder forum statistic].
The hulls are pre-5th batch, as the return roller configuration shows. It is certainly possible that Canada upgraded the internal composites but this would have likely been more costly than buying add-on armour that also provides KE protection, like AMAP.
The 2A4s were procured specifically for COIN operations. Also, taking the canadian military’s funding into account, it seems unlikely that the internal composites were upgraded.