Its not only the player skill and its not only the vehicle…its definitely a combo of both and a 3rd factor being Gaijins laziness in releasing vehicles with correct damage models, stats, whatever but I genuinely think they are doing that on purpose to create the whole drama like it is with BMPT so that it drives even more people towards it.
Also I am not trying to say that you specifically pick on RU but we as a community in general do
Yeah but the previous comments (not yours) made it seem like its specifically an issue of deteriorating player skill in one of the tree majors and not the vehicles.
Of ccourse. Releasing broken or OP stuff to bait people into buying it and then doing the same over and over is just live service game monetization 101
Sure but in this case its really not a russia specific issue.
Exactly, its the issue of the business model as a whole that Gaijin is practicing
Imo it cant only be the players…yes they have their role in it ofc but the vehicle being advantageous in certain situations or aspects enables you to exploit them
1 Like
Issue is lack of back-ups of comparable quality. Your choices are rather the (by today’s top tier standards), just average MBTs, or a very insignificant IFV (Poomer).
Sweden enjoys a better performance by comparison simply because they’ve got a much greater number of tanks of basically Tier 1 performance.
If Gaijin could just fix the 2A7V itself to be what it’s supposed to be, i.e:
- better turret protection (supposed to be 860mm+ KE and 1800mm+ CE)
- better hull protection (~750mm KE and 1500mm+ CE)
- remove the double spall modifier from the breach
- make the trunnion RHA/CHA like it’s supposed to be
- make the driver hatch volumetric so it actually catches stuff instead of being a “shoot here for 3 crewmembers dead”
- make the neck guard ACTUALLY BE A NECK GUARDe and stop APFSDS like please it’s a 600mm+ long piece of solid rolled homogenous steel, how is it not protecting the neck???
- re-do the turret model so that the TURRET RING is actually BELOW the turret face (like it’s supposed to be)
(and these don’t even scratch the surface of how much things the 2A7V would have to have corrected in order to be an actual counterpart of its real life version, as currently the 2A7V doesn’t even have turret armor as good as the 2A5…, and the 2A5 itself still doesn’t have the turret armor it should have based on Swedish trials, lol)
Just that alone would be a gamechanger for Germany’s performance as many would flock to an improved/fixed 2A7V.
Ain’t even gonna mention the fact DM53 is underperforming by close to 35mm of perforation.
Optionally, fixing the SLM so that it doesn’t become a meltie in face of a LDIRCM heli, because it’s not supposed to, and add a modification to the Leopard 2A6 that turns it into the Leopard 2A6MA3 with additional upper plate armor and ATTICA thermals for a second MBT in the line-up with 3rd generation sights. Because frankly going from the 2A7V to the 2A6 is painful.
5 Likes
2A5/6/PSO still remain quite good, however, I think the PSO deserves its extra hull armor.
Not quite. Most of these are rather insignificant changes that only change its performance in a very niche scenario. The UFP is already at the critical ricochet angle for APFSDS and needs to angled down significantly for something to pen it. The trunnion/barrel bug should be looked at though, you can occasionally kill a Leo through its entire barrel.
Is it? Is there a source, I like to save these. Current L/55 DM53 already has 700mm of LOS penetration @2 km.
I would prefer LDIRCM Helis getting a significant nerf overall.
Touched on this with PSO but I guess this can also work. Though I don’t think Germany should get more than 2 uparmored Leos.
The blueprint that I own… yes
Rheinmetall in the very same documents claims confirmed perforation of 630mm RHAe at 2km’s AT 0 DEGREES when fired from the L/44 barrel. Currently, the DM53 doesn’t match this performance even out of the L/55.
Touched on this with PSO but I guess this can also work. Though I don’t think Germany should get more than 2 uparmored Leos.
It has an add-on for the upper plate, not the glacis, i.e where it can already ricochet APFSDS, but the add-on would give it some CE protection in that section so make it a little bit harder for HEAT to perforate.
Plug in.
Not quite. Most of these are rather insignificant changes that only change its performance in a very niche scenario. The UFP is already at the critical ricochet angle for APFSDS and needs to angled down significantly for something to pen it.
Thing is, as of now, the Leopard 2A7V is less armored than the pre-prototype that lead to the creation of the Leopard 2A5(!), what I’m suggesting are both performance AND historical/realistic buffs to both the armor, and the model, as the model does have inaccuracies that are so glarring, that my friend’s self-made 3D model is actually superior to Gaijin’s, and he’s worked on it for only +/- 2 weeks in his spare time between college classes…
The trunnion/barrel tho, yes, I agree.
I think the PSO deserves its extra hull armor.
Thing is, the PSO never had it. It could mount it, but it never has.
2A5/6/PSO still remain quite good
I agree, but the performance drop off compared to the 2A7V is great enough, that many times I just jump straight into the SLM instead.
That’s how I managed to kill you in your F-16 a few days ago in a match :P
1 Like
Mind sharing that one perhaps?
I think he means the extra composite screen that e.g. Strv 122’s get, which was actually on PSO, just a different version;
PSO-VT (2009)
Ingame PSO version is from Eurosatory 2006 / ILÜ 2007
(Eurosatory '06)
(ILÜ '07)
(sole difference between the one at Eurosatory '06 and ILÜ '07 is the RCWS afaik)
2 Likes
good looking leo.
Mind sharing it? If its not classified ofc.
I could see and probably wouldn’t mind these buffs, as it really wouldn’t change much of anything as to how 2A7 performs/plays. But I doubt this would shine the FOTM spotlight on Germany again. It would have to come with some other vehicles as well.
The PSO AspectOfTheRAGE showed or that 2A6 could mitigate this problem.
hahahaha yes I remember
Gaijin would never.
Just like I told the tech-mod Ralin, no, as it is a literal blueprint of the DM53/63, and it shows the actual construction of the penetrator.
You’ll have to unfortunately take my word for this, but it is a 682x22.5’ish penetrator with a density of over 18.500g/cc, you can plop these into the L-O calculator and see for yourself the performance it would have if fixed.
The PSO AspectOfTheRAGE showed or that 2A6 could mitigate this problem.
I genuinely doubt Gaijin would give our in-game PSO the add-on based on the PSO-VT. There’s more hope for them at least adding one of Bundesewhr’s 2A6 variants with 3rd gen thermals before 2027 than that.
4 Likes
Well then we can’t really expect Gaijin to change it then. Fortunately DM53 is not exactly a shell that suffers.
Well, it was hopium. I really like how it looked and 1650! hp engine would be sick.
1 Like
wait a minute, Ka-52M is actually capable of carrying LMURs?
is it also capable of carrying 8 LMURs while using the Iglas? as i know it has 6 pylons and LMURs only take 1 pylon per 2 missiles.
i would love to have that thing ingame, it would make grinding russian helicopters absurdly more worth it even with it’s ugly Mi-4AV.
iirc KA-52M has only been seen with single LMUR pylons
FYI, Mi-28NM has only been seen with LMUR on the outer pylons, so this still should have more, just Mi28 is modeled with too many
Are the 2A5 and 2A6 any different besides the barrel being shorter? the .3 trade off for a few mm’s pen seems too much
They’re not much different and should all be 12.3 tbh. Longer barrel is disadvantage in cqc.
Even then, 2A5/6/PSO are within the top 5 12.7s, but I digress.
3 Likes
If majority of players boycott NATO top tier, they would have to change things, but people just wont
I only have issues with ru CAS, NATO tanks easily bully t series into submission lol
1 Like