Why would anyone want to see SHARD ammunition on Leopards when they can have DM73-83?
This is pretty much insult for Rheinmetall and Leopards.
3 Likes
They can have both.
Make top tanks like the lower BR stuff. All the rounds [the gun is capable of withstanding the pressures of in accordance with interoperability]! Give players options!
I try to justify the unhistorical munition choices by imagining that, in an all-out war, currently historical operative munitions are depleted in the early stages of war and NATO starts just sharing available munitions hahah
But I would very much rather have everyone have their historical shell choices instead anyway.
Indeed. If SHARD is to be implemented, it should be for Leclerc XXI and XLR (whenever it comes), which are the only planned operators for this shell so far.
The Leopards should get DM63/73/83, the Abrams should get M829A3 and A4, etc.
Keep some identity to firepower!
8 Likes
yeah, the dm 53 isnt even that big of an upgrade specially when the cl3143 spall more and the war kit giving you 20mm of extra protection feels insulting to human intelligence
1 Like
Armor spalls, rounds fragment.
No.
Leopards should only have Rheinmetall ammunition, not the other way around.
5 Likes
OFL F1 is locally produced DM43.
RH120s should get realistic ammo options, not just what militaries used IRL.
“Realistic, not just what’s used IRL” is like saying “a hexagonal sphere”…
If SHARD came for every 120, then every other shell would be pointless, redundant and abandoned; and it woul strip away the identity off the firepower of these nations’ vehicles.
Then I’m sure you’ll have no problem with M1A1AIM getting M829A2?
The first batch of KE2020Neo just got delivered to the German and British armies, so why would SHARD be needed for them when there are domestic equivalents?
2 Likes
Realism is not history, and never has been.
And War Thunder has always been a mix of both.
Again- what’s the point of M829A3, M829A4, DM63, DM73… if everyone just gets the same 700+mm pen shell they never operated out of nowhere?
You strip away the firepower signature identity of the Abrams; their domestic Depleted Uranium shells optimised for their native M256 gun…
You strip away the firepower signature identity of the Leopard; the Rheinmetall shells made for the Rheinmetall guns…
Everyone just goes around with unhistorical 700mm pen shells which makes the firepower of all of them to be the exact same thing and call it a day.
1 Like
You don’t strip away any uniqueness.
Players will still choose on preferences, especially if there are different SL costs.
Yes there is! They are bloody sexy tanks!
(Please excuse the silly humor!)
1 Like
“Yeah, I’ll pick the 652mm pen shell over the 720mm pen one for no particular reason.”
No one is picking a substantially worse shell to save 100 SL xD
Besides, it is also a matter of balance.
SHARD is fitting for the Leclercs because they are otherwise mediocre.
But why on Earth should Leopard 2A7V get access to this shell? Apart from unhistorical, it would break balance even more.
4 Likes
I won’t deny it, specially since their tricolor camo was fixed xD
If I want to bring 3 MBTs in my lineup, I’ll do - and if I desire to use all of the 8 machines I bring and win the game, I’ll do - and already have tons of times. Having a highly capable MBT when most of the other guys bring their “last resort machine”, has been a great advantage for me when playing the French.
I don’t get where this accusation of me being a bad player by using 3 Leclercs in my lineup is coming from, but like @SPANISH_AVENGER pointed out already, every member in this thread took your message as that and frankly I don’t think there’s a good argument for this lack of kindness.
If anything, I’d never judge a player on their lineup personally. People play what they like and if they have fun doing it, they might save your game, because their are capable at the craft and strategy they formed. If I play Italy, you’ll see me rocking the Centauros before any MBT. They qualify for “big gun go boom” and I like their speed and role. Basta.
4 Likes
Yea! So damn nice!
1 Like
No. OFL 120 F1/ DM43 was a joint project between France and Germany. Germany never procured DM43 because:
a. The shell wasn’t ‘German enough’ for them, and
b. They wanted to develop a more lethal shell
For example, the penetrator for OFL 120 F1 was developed by France’s Cime Bocuze. But France never felt a need to develop a brand new shell for service; rather, they developed OFL 120 F2 which instead used a DU penetrator to further extend the effective range of the Leclerc against Soviet threats at the time (i.e., the T-90, etc.).
8 Likes
That explains more of F2’s… unique position than previous information I had.
Thank you.