Gesamtwerk Leopard 2 The Full Story of the Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank and the Leopard 2-based Combat Support Vehicles - Frank Lobitz
1 Like
And why not?
They confirmed mid 2022 that there will be a 2A7 and I bet it’s gonna be the base model first.
You’re right though that it’s not really an improvement. A lot heavier and still crappy thermals + even using optimistic estimates for a D hull it would protect against precisely nothing at top tier and only reliably stops 3BM46.
I’d argue it’s a sidegrade at best, the weight increase just isn’t worth it.
DM63 will detonate like every other shell. They won’t give a decreased explosion chance for a single vehicle.
Except test results shows its the quite opposite.
İrl DM63 is almost immune to getting explode by fire or enemy shell.
And Gaijin will not implement this for ingame purposes.
Considering M338 shell also does have this feature irl and Gaijin didnt implemented, you’re probably right about that.
Base model 2A7 has no confirmed upgrades over the 2a6 that would be relevant fpr in the game, base one would be a useless addition at that point 2A6EX , 2E, or PSO-VT ,would be better options
@Panther2995 @NoodleCup31
They… they already have?
some of the soviet shells are “diesel soaked” in secondary racks and has a lower risk of exploding. (though Gaijin has implemented this to the shells in the autoloader as well which isn’t comparable to real life). so why wouldn’t they add the same thing to the DM63?
The only thing changed from DM53 to DM63 is the propellant and bottom of the casing. the new propellant has a lower risk of unwanted detonation, isn’t temperature dependant and gives a higher pressure (and thus higher muzzle velocity). The new casing bottom is just to be able to handle the higher pressure.
That feature is exclusive for Russian tanks only.
M338 shell that you can find on Merkava 4 series also does have same feature you can find on DM63 but in game it will explode like any other NATO shell.
Funny thing is Merkava’s does have wet storage and fireproof containers for their ammunition yet they just blow up like a light vehicle in this game.
Pretty sure wet ammo racks only benefit from the fuel reducing / preventing spall so you have to hit a piece of ammo directly to blow it up.
Russian shells also blow up with more or less 100% chance, problem is that the charges pretty much cannot blow up at all and they are also the biggest target of vital parts in a high tier T series.
What? this does not make sense, they blow up att 100% chance but cannot blow up att all at the same time?
Yes, but reducing spalling and reducing the risk off spalling blowing up a shell reduces the total risk of that shell blowing up in general. so you have to hit the ammo directly but on Nato shells you can miss the ammo with the shot and still blow up the ammo. so the total risk in soviet tanks is lower.
The diesel thing yes, but the function of having a lower risk of ammo detonation should NOT be nation exclusive. it should be given to every ammo that has that feature. and every storage compartment that has wet storage should also get it.
i’m just saying that the programming for changes to the risk of ammo exploding already exists and should not be that hard to implement where it should be.
Russian tanks have two piece ammo.
Shells and charges.
Oh i misunderstood, Shells i read as the package of casing and projectile (compare to shotgun shell).
if i understand correctly you use the word shell in the meaning of projectile?
İ agree.
Hopefully we can see some improvements for all tanks in this area.
I tried reporting that, but it was closed down on the basis of “it’s not a mechanic yet”, hence we need to make a suggestion (I tried 3 times, all 3 were also rejected :p).
Yea just like the MUSS, “360° softkill isn’t in game yet”.
Keep in mind that 360° hardkill was already available on the Black Night at the time iirc.