LeClerc lacks historical round yet is underperforming

When is France going to be given a functional MBT.

  1. Which round?
  2. What is underperforming?
  1. OFL 120 F2
  2. Every LeClerc tank due to lack of its historical round
  1. The round would be cool but not for the pen but for the weight because F1 don’t produce much spall
  2. Please call it properly its called Leclerc.

ZTZ-99A - Functional Armor
T-80BVM - Functional Armor
STRV122 PLSS - Best armor in the game
Challenger 2 - Semi functional armor

“what is the historical round”
“well you can’t use that because that would make the tank on par with its peers”

Rethink your brain.


I really don’t understand this thought process you ask what round historically and then you counter that it shouldn’t have a round which has similar penetration to its peers what is your mind I can not comprehend your thought process

Rethink yours, lol.
Leclerc is fine with it current shell. Problems are its armor (which should better AFAIK).

I dont see arguements for new round or its stats to compare. Simply saying “Uh, it need new round BECAUSE” isnt an arguement. Leclerc has fine round (in terms of pen at least). Leclerc is more mobile than other NATO tanks, have better loading time than any other MBT except Type 10. So i dont see why it need “historical round” (specially because AFAIK F2 has similar pen performance, if not fully the same)

You had me in the first half but saying the Challenger has semi functional armour

1 Like

Hull down the turret can not be penetrated without hitting the chamber.

eh kinda but its more or less the same with leos and abrams if not better for them

Your claim of parity being required while the Pantsir was added is comical.

Yes those tanks have functional armor. The Challenger’s design keeps it from being functional due to its lack of speed and high profile hence “semi functional”. There are situations where its armor is effective but that’s situational.

Well, Pantsir is SPAA and Leclerc is MBT, so idk how its relevant. Others (not all, but at least majors and several minors) have comparing SPAAs anyway

Well apple pie but blueberry pie please enlighten me as to why you are commenting on this thread?

OFL 120 F1 = 589mm @ 0m
OFL 120 F2 = 613mm @ 0m
Shard Mk 1 = 720mm @ 0m

AMX-30B - 9.0
AMX-32 - 9.7
AMX-40 - 10.0
Ares - 10.7 (OFL 120 G1)
Leclerc S1 - 11.3 (OFL 120 F1)
Leclerc S2 - 11.3 (OFL 120 F1)
Leclerc SXXI - 11.7 (OFL 120 F2)
Leclerc XLR - 12.0 (Shard Mk 1)


can the Leclerc even ufp a t80u rn

most of the tanks that have similar pen are 125s and have greater post pen OFL 120 F1 shatters a lot more inside tanks than most other Nato rounds because of the lack of pen more pen doesn’t really open up many weak spots just really helps with post pen consistency

T-80U armour just like all Russian tanks UFOs

T-80U hull with Kontakt-5 should only offer 506mm KE vs APFSDS

When apfsds defeats
506mm at 0 degrees
It defeats
236mm at 68 degrees - 630mm KE LOS
[T-80U’s hull construction angle]


Only russian and chinese have 125. Challengers, STRV are 120.

You have these thing saved somewhere? Cause half of your responses are looks like copy paste