Should Leopard 2A4 get DM33?

11.7 may be a bit much 😅

Type 90 would be a lot more mobile than heavier 2A4 due to the add-on weight, possibly now being as mobile as the M1A1s / IPM1s:
image

And a 4s reload is much better than a 6s reload.

The armour would be better than the Type 90 for sure (especially the turret ring and LFP), though the turret cheeks and lower UFP would be practically the same.

The gun handling would still be better than the Type 90, though I wouldn’t say 30 degrees per second is that bad at 11.7.

I think 11.3 would make more sense.

11.3 for the 2A4(C) if it only gets DM33

The M1IP is at 11.3, with M900, and a 5s reload, at 11.7 you’d have to give it DM53 to make it a match for the M1A1

image

For comparison what a 2A4(B) w/DM23 sees when it faces an M1IP, I painted that part of the LFP orange, because even though it can be perforated, it has very little energy left, and hits like that can often result in just minor damage.

1 Like

I thought of that, until someone pointed out that it would basically be immune entirely to M1 without even being a full BR above.

Yep! That was my original idea.

The current 2A4 we have is an early capability one; I would like to have a mid-life capability one, with modern armor and DM33.

I am not suggesting a Late capability one with DM53 because it would be too awkward to balance as a 12.0-12.3 where its armor would be useless, hahah.

1 Like

I was the one to point it out:

I’d just give M1 Abrams M883…

1 Like

I mean… it’s then an M1A1 equivalent, DM53 L/44 has only like 25mm more pen than M829A1, and the armors are pretty comparable. I don’t think a 25mm different in pen should result in 0.3 to 0.7 BR upgrade over the M1A1 which gets a shorter reload.

4 Likes

11.7 Leo C with DM53 would be fine tbh.

Though I’d rather it just have DM33 and be 11.3…

1 Like

Could split them into 11.3 2A4(C) 7th batch w/DM33 and C-tech side skirts, 11.7 and 2A4(C) 8th batch w/DM53 and D-tech side skirts.

4 Likes

Yeah that could work too.

Would finally fill the 10.7 - 12.3 MBT gap for Germany.

1 Like

Mind you, do you know if the 2PL uses the B or C tech hull armour?
Currently it’s rather underwhelming…

The C tech hull armour of the later 2A4s would actually be pretty scary for HSTV-Ls and RDF-LTs (they can’t pen anywhere from the front – same against 2A5s, 2A6s, and 2A7s).

B-tech

In that case it would still be better than the current hull armour for it.

True! In hindsight, an M1A1 equivalent Leopard 2A4 could indeed be fun. Only issue, lack of lineup; but I supposse that could be fixed over time.

Leopard 2A4 (C) with DM53 would be to M1A1 what Leopard 2A4 (B) with DM23 would be to M1, basically; 1 second reload traded for slightly better penetration and armor.

2 Likes

I still think M883 may still be necessary
Especially if the hull armour gets buffed to 360mm KE.

1 Like

100%

It’s not like we are talking about M900 or anything; M833 is just a 15mm buff, which is enough to make the shell more serviceable in uptiers but not enough to throw off the tank’s balance. It’s a no-brainer, in my opinion. Besides, it was the tank’s main service shell.

1 Like

i like to see it with C tech armour and DM33, at a higher BR like someone already suggested.

And for the love of god, fill the hull ammo rack from the top down, not bottom up, like any sane person would. Why would you load the rounds at floor level, while the top rows are easier to access?

Because?

LMAOOOOO

IDK about the standard 2A4, but a 2A4 should get DM33 to start the 11.0/11.3 lineup for Germany, cause boy do they need it.

He’s not demanding the ZTZ96A [10.3], Vickers Mk7, Challenger Mk3, or T-80UD get buffed.
Arguably Ariete P as well, but that really relies on you not getting hit.

T-90s for example, Vickers MK.7

u forgot the T-90 s too