This " proves" nothing that couldn't have been "proven" by the game for nearly a couple of decades. Maybe it "proves" experts just like to be quoted as being "experts".( or that the Russian like to play mind games with the gullible..... ) There is
nothing earth-shattering about this new "revelation" It's one reason armour was beefed up on subsequent version of the Leo 2 and why most nations that buy surplus old 2A4's upgrade them BEFORE sending them into battle.
The ONLY way to hit "the vulnerable ammunition compartment" of a Leo 2a4 is with a side turret hit. The side turret "HEAT "armour in game for a Leo 2a4 is 42 ----------the HEAT penetration of a 9M111 Fagot is 40 but the
BEST HEAT PENETRATION the game can give is
55 for a 9M111 Fagot and 55 is bigger than 42 and therefore a side turret hit of a 2A4 with a 9M111 Fagot DOES INDEED have the capability of penetrating the side turret armour of a 2A4. Anyone could have set that test up in this game long before anyone had heard of ISIS/ISIL OR before Turkey bought used 2A4's and sent them into battle without armour upgrades
What the more honest commentators will admit is that the 2a4 was not designed to deal with the type of threat environment the Turks putting it into where an enemy can pop up from anyplace and launch a missile into the side of the tank.
So all the hand-wringing that's been going on over this is a big yawn really..... maybe all it proves is the Turks need better infantry screens to protect their tanks better.
but really ........this is NOTHING that hasn't been proven about other tanks during the conflict in Syria. Maybe all it proves is the Turks bought into the fantasy that the leo 2 was invulnerable which is certainly is not....but neither is a T-90
