Meh idea. I think later vehicles should return using lower quality munitions too, such as T-90A or Leopard 2A5 or M1A2
Therefore this is acceptable only if a C-tech 2A4 gets introduced.
2 Likes
I do feel like the 2A4 is kinda meh at the moment. I’ve had some insane penetrative shots against the turret cheeks recently and more 3BM60 slingers at 11.0 with the Arena hasn’t helped.
1 Like
Logic behind the 3-piece ammunition is that all detonable elements (eg. the charges) can be stored below the turret ring and therefore hidden behind terrain when in a hull-down firing position. APFSDS projectiles are inert, HESH projectiles are mostly inert, and Smoke projectiles are stored in the lower hull.
Ou, thanks, makes sense, dead turret crew is better than exploded ammo.
Basically;
The Leopard 2A4 we currently have is a weird Frankenstein mashup between an early and a late iteration.
Instead of this, we should have 2 Leopard 2A4s:
1- The ingame one should receive full C-tech armor and DM33, be made 11.3.
2- An earlier iteration with full B-tech armor and DM23 should be implemented as 10.7.
Disregard the BRs on this image, I made it years ago hahah.
15 Likes
it makes it not shoot back for sure. But it leaves an opportunity to get away safely most of the time.
nah nooooo way.
Its hull is weak but not SO weak, some APFSDS dont pen it ufp and some do it unrealiably. Same goes for cheeks.
No, its the propellant which is positioned under the turret vertically that explodes much. With Vickers Mk7 it is a wall from left to right side of a tank straight under the turret so it usually gets hit if hull is penetrated. With challengers its the same but the group of propellant is a bit spaced.
Penetrator themselves usually dont get hit as they are mostly in turret if you dont carry all the ammo possible. And i dont recall them exploding.
I do also believe it is balanced as it is
1 Like
huh? As i can see with the image, the ingame one is basically the B-tech with about 2-10% difference here and there. Just the devs being devs making it by their trusted secret documents
300mm < 105 DM23(338mm) < 360mm
Leopard 2A4 is already an incredible tank, a buff like this would make it go up to a BR where you don’t want it. Better to do SpanishAvenger’s C Tech 2A4 w/ DM33 at 11.3 and our current one stays as is.
4 Likes
430<445 (3BM42)<450
also…
what the actual fu…
when did they manage to break something?
Either the camera here is broken or leopard`s left cheek became less protected than M1 Abramses
AH YES, THEY DID BREAK SOMETHING
is there an A tech?
The sight is a weakspot. Flaw in design.
Its not sights tho. Its the block under sights. And its like, counted 200mm instead of 415 on the man’s picture rh for some reason
A 2A0 at 10.3 with no thermals and DM13 (or DM23 still) would be also be appreciated.
1 Like
This is where I have been getting lol penned recently as well.
Just how recently? I was quite surprised to see this, its ridiculous
Literally a few days ago iirc. Think it was Mango from a UD.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/opkHVanXstCP
It’s a bug on the 2A7V, not a “flaw” of the design, as the armor was wholey designed starting the 2A5 variant to resist 700mm+ KE, including that part of the turret.
1 Like
Interesting. I would suggest bug reporting it again as clearly its been shelved down in a basement.
then it would go to 11.0 or 11.3