I wonder, in game the 2A6 is grouped with the 2A5, while the Leopard 2 PSO is an standalone vehicle, since the PSO is based on the 2A5 the PSO should be foldered with the 2A5 and not the 2A6…
Or just move the PSO after the 2K reasons for it:
A: It would gave the line an worthy end vehicle
B: since the line with the 2K displays an line with DDR/NVA, Prototyps and Demonstrator vehicles, get the PSO out of the Production line and move it to the Demonstrator line
not Leo2a5PSO，
baseed on Leo2a6ex_Demo2_hull and Leo2a5_turret
It’s actually not close to either A5 or A6.
Add Leo2A6exDemo1 and Demo2 and place the PSO in this folder
They really did an oopsie putting the PSO into the production line.
Should be behind the 2k.
After the PSO the 2A7+ then (maybe in a folder). And between any other prototypes/demonstrators.
Here are five reasons why the Leopard 2A5 PSO should be placed after the Leopard 2K in War Thunder and not in the same line as the Leopard 2A5, 2A6 and 2A7V.
Prototype Status of the PSO: The Leopard 2A5 PSO was a demonstrator and never saw full-scale production or widespread deployment. In contrast, the Leopard 2A5, 2A6, and 2A7V are fully operational main battle tanks that were mass-produced and fielded. As a prototype, the PSO fits more logically in a line with experimental vehicles like the Leopard 2K rather than with production models that saw extensive use.
Incomplete Combat Readiness: Since the PSO was only a demonstrator, many of its systems and upgrades were never fully tested or optimized for modern combat scenarios. This sets it apart from the more advanced models like the Leopard 2A5 and 2A6, which were refined for real-world combat situations. The Leopard 2K, as an earlier prototype, offers a better comparison to the PSO, as neither vehicle reached the level of modern battlefield readiness.
Limited Adaptation and Development: The Leopard 2A5 PSO was designed specifically for urban warfare and remained a demonstrator for adapting the Leopard 2 to asymmetric warfare. It never achieved the same technological development as later production models. In contrast, the Leopard 2A6 and 2A7V were continuously developed to meet new combat demands. Since the PSO did not undergo such modernization or serial production, it fits better in the developmental line of earlier variants like the Leopard 2K.
Lack of Military Adoption: While tanks like the Leopard 2A5, 2A6, and 2A7V have been adopted and used by various armies worldwide, the Leopard 2A5 PSO was never actually fielded in combat. Its concept remained theoretical, and it was never accepted as an operational tank. This lack of military deployment makes it less appropriate to place it alongside fully developed combat tanks and more fitting to place it with other prototypes like the Leopard 2K.
Non-Comparable Performance in Modern Combat: Due to its role as a demonstrator, the PSO does not meet the performance standards of modern main battle tanks. The Leopard 2A5, A6, and A7V were optimized for modern battlefields with advanced targeting systems, mobility, and armor. The PSO, on the other hand, focused only on specific scenarios (urban warfare) and lagged behind the later production models technologically. The Leopard 2K, being an earlier prototype, provides a more logical placement, as both vehicles represent experimental developments.
In summary, the Leopard 2A5 PSO, being a demonstrator and lacking full operational development, is better suited for placement in the same line as the experimental Leopard 2K, as it did not undergo the same level of refinement or deployment as the Leopard 2A5, 2A6, or 2A7V.
