It would, Gaijin is never going to model any of the improvements anyways.
It’ll just be a Leopard 2A7V with Trophy, which is fine. The Leopard 2A7A1 would be a sidegrade or downgrade to the 2A7V and Germany really shouldn’t be getting those when Sweden has had three 3A7V counterparts for 5 years or so already.
The worst case of that is the new model for long turreted M60’s, so including the Magachs, M60A1, M60A3, etc.
Go into the Protection Analysis and try to black out it’s breech with mantlet shots, it just ain’t happening.
It’s just worse. The 2a7a1 was a 2a6ma2 original upgraded to 2a7V but missing some parts of the armour what makes it worse
Highly doubtful, despite all 2A7A1 hulls being newly built (and thus likely featuring the same main composite as 2A8, which may or may not differ from 2A7V etc. idk) I dont really trust gaijin to care enough to improve it over 2A6 etc. (especially given that there are afaik no explicit numbers for how much this composite outperforms older ones)
2A7A1 also does not feature the bow-addon screens that would be too obvious to ignore if present.
In theory, they could also instead add one of the Leopard 2A7 demonstrators (such as the one from EUROSATORY 2022), which would include the APS, a RCWS and feature the addon bow-composite-screen.
Eventhough that would essentially just bring us to what is pretty much comparable with 2A8.
Where did you find this? The bundeswehr states it’s from the existing fleet.
When the vehicle is ready.
That’s not what the bundeswehr said. That stated it was from the existing fleet. So not new leopards
Thats not the sole interpretation the BW article leaves, because the turrets are infact taken from existing Leopard 2A6A3’s, the hulls of which would obviously not be operational afterwards.
However, the fleet itself would not be shrunken because the turrets are being modified and reused for the 17 Leopard 2 A7A1’s.
What the article itself says is only that the vehicles are per se from the existing fleet and as such seen as a stop-gap to 2A8, which will add to the fleet.
Also, the BMVg confirms that the hulls had to be replaced.
Note: What is possible here, is that the 17 Leopard 2A7A1 that will be given to the troops feature the newly built hulls, wheras VT-ETB (i.e. the test-vehicle) used/uses an existing/upgraded hull.
FCS/Battery does nothing of note on MBTs. On RU and NATO MBTs, it disables stabilizer, thermals, and laser rangefinder. FCS/Battery on RU and NATO SPAA/IFVs/Lights disables what it does on MBTs, but also disables firing. There is no bias here.
However, I never really agreed with the introduction of turret basket.
Autoloader doesn’t really eat up shells any more than say, a driver would. Most of all modules eat a bit of spalling, and the “autoloader moments” you see in clips are usually due to ammo literally not being there. Just because you hit the autoloader, doesn’t mean you hit the ammo.
Spikes need a rework, but they would be OP if they 1hk’d every time with their current lock requirements. You dont even need to see enemy tanks to lock them and send a spike their way, and, though lacking IOG, often just don’t care about smoke anyway.
Abrams’ are getting their turret necks fixed, and that is the only MBT that actually shouldnt be dying to a 30mm frontally.
This is a complicated scenario I won’t comment on.
That is my concern. What is the point of adding 2A8 when you only add the Trophy system. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t 2A8 have 7 degrees of gun depression?
USA also has an extensive amount of strong premium CAS, as you mentioned.
This is not exactly an RU problem. Major nations make the most money, and get the most attention. This is unfortunate but a reality we have to accept.
Here’s the truth, Gaijin doesn’t care about bug reports. How they implement stuff is completely up to them and their balance team. The whole bug reporting site is nigh useless because Gaijin has already made up their minds on how they want a vehicle to perform. WT, despite its advertisements, is an arcade game, and balance comes first.
This is an isolated case that I can make a theory for. A while ago, Challenger, along with TKX, were the fastest reloading top tier tanks. TKX had 4s and a lack of armor, while Chally had 5s, but only for 4 rounds. I assume when everything around it got buffed, they just don’t care to change that.
Be grateful that Challenger 2 UFP is overperforming, it should be more like ~350mm rather than the ~520+ it is right now. It should be the same as the CR1 in the Gulf War.
As if the BMPT in hull-down isn’t extremely dangerous and doesn’t turn the tide of battles. Meanwhile, most vehicles capable of hull-down - for which it’s the main capability - weren’t over-BR’ed constantly. “Check out my video of me slaughtering the BMPTs.”
As if “volumetric hell” happened to everyone equally, when in fact it occurs incomparably more often in tightly packed T-80s T-90s. “Check out my video of an Abrams getting a shell lodged in its fuel tank.” The Russian “fuel driver” drama is no joke, and it happens all the time even with perfectly centered shots.
As if there were no unequal treatment in terms of balance. Selective realism, while the basis for RU buffs isn’t disclosed or is questionable, and other factions are required to provide nearly scientific-level evidence which is then ignored anyway. “Look, Chinese Abrams performed great.”
People pushed so hard to break the pattern - the armor composition is being changed without external evidence that we can’t provide to Gajin. Those damned Sweden trails.
As if Russian players’ top-tier CAS weren’t powerful, their AA outstanding and Helis couldn’t solo the battle. “There are equivalents - take a look at this or that.” RU is among the leaders, and it can buy itself an excellent top-tier CAS. You can really feel this combination in battles. It just works.
Ground RBs are still won thanks to tanks, but the outcome of battles is often turned around by CAS.
Your video and posts, which try to prove the obvious(weakspots), rely on cherry-picking(volumetric) and generalizations - doesn’t hold up when we consider the overall picture and the player base as a whole.
Okay so. BMPT is not turning the tide of battles anymore, both are performing rather badly on statshark globally. It was unbalanced at 10.3 and 10.7, not anymore.
Fuel tanks are a universal issue, and have equal chance of BS on all tanks. I can provide many, many clips of NATO tanks doing fuel tank shenanigans if youd like.
Selective realism is a good thing if done correctly. However, Gaijin overcorrects to make people go grind (money) that nation for the new vehicle. There are historical examples of this. M1 Abrams with no competition, 2A5, 2A6, Strv 122, 2A7, were all OP on release and slowly balanced once the hype had dried out.
It is true RU has great CAS and arguably the best AA, but it is a tradeoff to other nations due to their worse tanks. All LDIRCM helis are rather equally OP. Su-30SM2 is easier to use than F-15E, Rafale, or Typhoon, but all have their pros and cons. Su-30SM2 is just the most consistent due to the speed of 38MTs. I don’t have SMSV, so I wont speak much on it, but it is definitely very powerful. However, even it has its weaknesses. Due to it being SACLOS a maneuverable jet can dodge the missile, and if you dont have LOS on the target, you can’t kill it. Not to say ARH or IR sams dont have weaknesses too.
While some of the clips I have could be cherry-picked, I try to include a good amount of testing/sample size and if not my own experience behind what I say. With over 12k games in this hellhole (top tier) I like to think I’m usually saying the right thing. Of course, I could be wrong (we’re all human after all), and am open to corrections.
Appreciate it. I understand, and I do not mean any of this as an attack either.
I really don’t know, haven’t looked into the 2A8 much.
-7.4° max according to KNDS brochure, but then again its’ KNDS and they (specifically KMW) dont have the best track record of providing accurate figures in their brochures or their info-cards during expos (the latter being extremely absurd sometimes)
And then again the 2A8 brochure is basically just 2A7 brochure but with the 7 replaced by 8.
Which is also why it has stuff like Trophy-APS & Mine-Protection listed as “now shown/not depicted”, when thats like the main point of 2A8…
Now if you consider that this is literally the 2A7 brochure but new font, it all suddenly starts making a lot more sense…
There are also some claims around that the -7.4° figure comes from the SPECTUS (the driver optics from HENSOLDT) optics’ placement, which does atleast sound somewhat plausible.
I think respecting the facts is more important than balancing the game, because what I want to experience is a real ‘war simulator,’ not just a game. From Gaijin’s development direction, it’s evident that the game’s competitive advantage is to simulate reality as much as possible.
Now that we have the embt it is nice but it is as good as a Leo 2 pso or 2a6 we need the new leopard 2a8, the 2a7a1 looks like the aps on just a 2a6 not the 2a7
And the 2a8
And the .50 cal
Literally what it is.
That’s a demo of 2a8 not likely what we would get.
