Most of them are identical to already in-game projectiles, or only slightly better, I don’t get your logic here.
The main selling point of them is literally;
German rounds (DM63/A1); can’t explode - otherwise identical to DM53
US rounds; can now defeat ERA and are roughly equal in performance to the German rounds
UK round; “look, we now use Tungsten instead of DU!”
adjust penetration to be comparable with other NATO nations in the game.
So you want the performance of this round to be artificially adjusted so that “you” can have an easier time? Ignoring the fact the term “NATO rounds” is a broad one and includes powerhouses like DM53, but also weakasses like L27A1.
Man, can’t wait for DM53 with 1000mm of penetration in that case! Actually y’know what, just add DM83.
Every round ingame uses fake numbers. Actual penetration values aren’t public knowledge.
It can be assumed that a NATO nation using a DU round with the same caliber as every other NATO round would have similar penetration performance.
Britain is the odd duck because they use a specific round for their tanks. They’re compensated for this with the best manual reload rates in the game. Their armor is also much more functional than France’s.
Right now Italy / France / Japan / Britain are suffering unnecessarily because Gaijin refuses to develop their trees.
One of the immediate things Gaijin can do to improve France’s top tier performance would be to give it its historical rounds which will put it on par with every other NATO nation’s penetration performance.
This should not require an immense amount of developer resources to do.
And all of them are calculated via L-O using known measurements, unless OFL F2 magically turns out be longer than DM53, it will never “perform the same”.
It can be assumed that a NATO nation using a DU round with the same caliber as every other NATO round would have similar penetration performance.
Sure, that is if we completely forget that material is just half the calculation, the other half is;
velocity
diameter
mass
length
density
Look at DM53 vs M829A2 for example, former is made from Tungsten, the latter from Depleted Uranium, for them to perform similarly they have to be of nearly equeal size, where DM53 is 685x23mm, and M829A2 is 690x22mm - one is 10m/s faster than the other; and the difference when fired from the same cannon is about ~5mm of penetration.
If M829A2 wasn’t nearly the same as DM53 when it comes to dimensions, it would never perform this way, and vice versa. DU isn’t some magical material after all.
historical rounds which will put it on par with every other NATO nation’s penetration performance.
To reiterate, there is no evidence that OFL F2 is equeal to stuff like DM53/M829A2 - both of those are significantly heavier and carry more energy to target (~4.3kg for F2 vs 4.92kg for M829A2 and 5kg for DM53 in terms of penetrator weight). Last I checked the F2 isn’t particularly fast either - 1740m/s, so its performance would be more comparable to M322/M829A1 if anything (albeit very likely still worse than the latter).
lol - Someone else stated DU performs better at a slower velocity anyway
Which doesn’t represent real world penetration mechanics because it’s fake. The numbers are made up, no reason France needs to suffer because the fake numbers thing says the fake values are worse than the other fake values.
1750m/s when fired from the L/55
1670m/s when fired from the L/44
lol - Someone else stated DU performs better at a slower velocity anyway
IF both rounds are identical and have constant energy at L/D of 30.
Which doesn’t represent real world penetration mechanics because it’s fake. The numbers are made up, no reason France needs to suffer because the fake numbers thing says the fake values are worse than the other fake values.
Contact Mr. Odermatt in that case. He’s done monumental work to bring this calculator to life and a lot of the rounds calculated via it reflect the performance of actual projectiles in real life. You calling it “fake” is nothing short of proving that you’re ignorant person that’s willing to throw out a perfectly valid way of fact checking how an APFSDS round may perform because it doesn’t confirm some sort of wild fantasy.
It’s a good way to judge performance averages. It does not represent real world values.
Considering both this and that War Thunder is a video game Gaijin has lee way to “balance” rounds.
Ingame the Leclerc underperforms compared to other NATO nations. This should be changed. The fastest possible buff that would immediately improve their performance would be to give them the round they historically use and provide penetration values comparable to other NATO nations. 610+mm penetration is not illogical and would reflect real world performance averages.
The F2 was in use for quite a while with indeed having 60 000 rounds produced, those numbers are correct.
The F2B was an improvement passing from tungtsene to DU but the basic F2 had no issue as far as i know.
Because it’s against RHAe… something that NATO used to do very frequently, and some nations still do so; hence how we know M829A2 is accurate; it had a 50% chance to defeat 700mm RHA at 2km’s at a LoS of 60 degrees IRL, in the game is penetrates like 702mm at that distance and angle.
Considering both this and that War Thunder is a video game Gaijin has lee way to “balance” rounds.
The only way rounds are balanced atm is if they lack special properties, like the capability to defeat heavy ERA - the only rounds currently balanced in that way are DM53 & L27A1.
610+mm penetration is not illogical and would reflect real world performance averages.
Sure, back it up with some evidence first. For now all i’m seeing is wishes, cus that would imply OFL F2 (which as far as we know is identical to OFL F1 when it comes to dimensions) somehow has a much better staballoy than M829A2, even though both are made from DU with around a 0.75% titanium content in it, and the former is much lighter and shorter.
Even if there were no prooves (which isn’t true it’s just that it’s well hidden for the moment) the Leclerc performs very bad in game while being almost always the best in NATO exercices (taken away the challenges involving crew members since they’re only 3).
That may be a sign pointing out that somehting is wrong at the moment in game.
There are far better rounds than the F1, even though the exact stats aren’t know atm.
My point is, if a tank is suffering because the data regarding the tank isn’t known, then either lower its BR or artificially buff the penetration as a method of balancing to bring it on par with it’s opponents.
The entire point is that the “true” performance (which would actually be APFSDS vs a specified composite armour) isn’t know for any round, the perforation of a round in the game is against RHAe (Rolled Homogenous Armour equivalent), for which the performance of many rounds is in fact known, and the armour is also modelled that way - hence why Leopard 2A5s hull offers the same amount of protection against DM23 as it does against DM53.
artificially buff the penetration as a method of balancing to bring it on par with it’s opponents.
DM43 on the Leopard 2PL be like: velocity reported 2 years ago, still not fixed.
And it has to aim for weakspots on Russian and Chinese vehicles, but so do vehicles with DM53 so that’s quite irrelevant imo.
IMO quite funny that you think Leclerc is so bad that it has to receive artificial buffs to be “on par”, whereas a Chally 2 has absolutely nothing going for it, and yet its players are nowhere near as abhor. Then there’s the Ariete.
Well hopefully it can pen tanks that don’t have armour … that’s not very relevant.
That’s the core of the issue. Even when aiming at those, there is no garantee that it will pen. The BVM is simply impervious for example.
Really ? It has good armour and is able to do well in a hulldown, something that the Leclerc can only dream of.
That’s my problem, if you had to choose between all the top MBTs, no one would ever choose a Leclerc as it has literally nothing that makes it interesting.
Sure the Challenger is quite similar despite having way better armour, but this thread is about the Leclerc.
You can totally create a new thread on why you tink that the Chally is bad and we’ll talk about its issues there but saying that “the Challenger is worse so don’t buff the Leclerc” is kinda weird.