Why would a round developed later and with which 60,000 rounds were produced and was noted to have been in use as recently as 2013 be weaker
The Leclerc has negligible armor there is no reason to not add a round with similar performance to other NATO nations to a tank which has only the benefit of its autoloader which has been nearly made pointless with the addition of the Type 10s / BVM / Challenger reloads
Idk why people believe that.
There was rounds like OFLE 120 F1B and OFLE 120 F2 but info about it very hard to find of it perform
I linked the source for it being in use previously in this thread.
“The depleted uranium arrow munitions equipping Leclerc tanks provide them with an essential defense capability against modern, overprotected, very agile tanks that can neutralize targets at long range.”
We know OFL 120 F1 isn’t DU, that leaves the OFL 120 F2 which is noted as being made with DU.
Pick one, put it ingame.
The Leclercs deserve to have similar performance to other NATO tanks without these ahistorical nerfs that have been arbitrarily applied.
Well yes that’s why it’s better than the F1, as I said.
F1 family is tungsten
F2 is DU
Shard is tungsten again
Well I’d like it to be on the Leclerc ingame lol
Ok yes i misunderstood your message. Thought you said that DU penetrated less than tung
As far as I understand, OFLE F1B and F2 use the same penetrator as earlier rounds just with a temperature insensitive propellent.
Like DM53 vs DM53A1/DM63
I just wonder if lerclerc armor get fix what it will looklike? against 3BM60 it very hard to find anything about Leclerc
There’s no available data beyond flat statements on shit like Wikipedia but assuming a modern NATO tank, one of the most expensive available, wouldn’t even be able to handle itself against regular NATO rounds seems silly. The ABRAMs is easier to model because it’s so obviously thick. Same with the Leo 2. The Leclerc’s armor is very strangely set and without having access to classified information you can’t explain why [x] performs well against [y].
LeClerc still underperforms compared to other MBTs yet is ahistorically and arbitrarily nerfed
So basically… just like everyone that isn’t Russia? Myriad of MBTs is ahistorically and arbitrarily nerfed just to make them “balanced”.
America / Germany / Britain / Japan / Italy / Sweden aren’t missing the round their tanks have been using since ~1990s
We’re using a round that was developed in 1992 for a tank developed in 1997 and a modernization of the tank that was developed in 2003
The OFL 120 F2 round was developed in 1996 and has been the main used round for the past 30 years against modern armor threats until SHARD was developed.
SHARD is too overpowered for the current game meta, but OFL 120 F2 is on par performance with every other NATO nation in the game. The Leclerc’s armor is subpar compared to USA / Germany / Britain and has numerous modeling issues that make its lack of serious armor worse. Couple this with the lack of its historical round the Leclerc is underperforming with no justification other than laziness. It’s unacceptable.
2PL is missing DM63A1 (only KEP in use on that MBT, seeing as DM43 was never used by either Germany or Poland)
2A5 & 2A6 are missing DM63 & DM11
M1A2 SEPv1 is missing M829A3
UK is missing L28A1
You actually mentioned Italy? Really?
We’re using a round that was developed in 1992 for a tank developed in 1997 and a modernization of the tank that was developed in 2003
Sounds like exactly the same situation Germany & US are in.
OFL 120 F2 is on par performance with every other NATO nation in the game
There’s exactly 0 evidence stating it’s on par with stuff like M829A2 or DM53 apart from some schizo estimates done by Sombralix, and if we include the fact DM53 should have the capability to defeat Kontakt-5 at extreme ranges, there’s even less of an argument to make in F2’s favour (in fact if L27A1 had its anti-ERA performance modelled, it would be better than F2 any time of the day despite weaker statcard performance). The round in “use” wasn’t F2 either, it was F2B as F2 did not pan out originally and was decomissioned in under 2 years (something something hazard cus the staballoy wasn’t made properly).
has numerous modeling issues that make its lack of serious armor worse
Leopard 2s gun area moment. PSO called as well! Oh wait, Type 10 too!
Leclerc is underperforming with no justification other than laziness.
Sounds exactly like SEP and Leo 2 situation (but other than laziness, i’d say it’s the devs not giving a shit).
1 Like
Super rounds with ~700 RHA penetration aren’t suitable for the current game meta
60,000 rounds were produced and as I’ve shown in this thread DU rounds were in use as recently as ~2013
Seems like it’s in service to me.
“The depleted uranium arrow munitions equipping Leclerc tanks provide them with an essential defense capability against modern, overprotected, very agile tanks that can neutralize targets at long range. These shells fall into the category of conventional weapons and are not prohibited by any international convention. Our armed forces only consider the use of shell fire with high penetration capacity in a volume strictly adapted to operational necessity, and only against overprotected battle tanks.”
L28A1 is a Tungsten version of L27A1…
DM63/A1 are both IM versions of DM53…
M829A3 is only slightly better than DM53…
“Super rounds”.
60,000 rounds were produced and as I’ve shown in this thread DU rounds were in use as recently as ~2013
120 OFL F2B.
Now, we don’t know whether this round is different compared to the original OFL F2, but it’s got a different name (and is made from DU). As stated already, the original F2 was hazardous due to improper alloying of the staballoy, and was very quickly decomissioned, afterwards France learned and corrected the mistakes of the original F2 and put F2B in service.
Per performance.
Okay let’s implement the OFL 120 F2B then
I do not care what it is named, put in the DU rounds France uses and adjust penetration to be comparable with other NATO nations in the game.