He doesn’t quite know what he’s talking about.
Username please. Also 3 KD is not a “pro” player.
If you get shot where the turret basket would normally be placed in a Leclerc (so upper front plate or side shot) you get one shotted.
But sure we can add turret basket to Leclerc, it won’t really change anything to its survivability though.
That being said 12.0 seems too low, and 11.7 is certainly not reasonable. 12.3 would be adequate imo. In any case, the models that won’t have a better round (Shard) should not go higher than where they are currently whenever the next decompression comes.
1.3 hp/t lower isn’t much. Especially at top tier, where mobility differences are less important due to an overarching similarity between most.
Its quite a bit slower to accelerate and position.
Don’t the Japanese top tiers have a rectangle of good composite? The Leclercs are entirely green across the front except for some small areas on turret, and survivability is equally horrible. Armour of Leclerc is pretty much the second/third worst after Ariete. LFP is vulnerable to EVERYTHING, similar to CN tanks, and you will get destroyed by stock rounds, 2S38s, and various other threats, so as to embarrass the vehicle.
Additionally, vehicles are balanced individually rather than as lineups (except for performance/capability change w/balancing), and the addition of daily 5 backups further weakens that point.
Leclerc vs DM53 @300m
Spoiler
Does penetrate that right cheek, doesn’t destroy the tank but does knock out the commander at least.
Type 10 vs DM53 @300m
Spoiler
Penetrates both cheeks, even when it says it doesn’t.
Also penetrates the line of composite, and crew-kills the tank.
Same for the UFP.
TLDR, both tanks are equally butter to DM53, and autocannons can kill both.
Leclerc vs BMP-2M’s 30mm APFSDS @300m
Spoiler
Repeated fire will eventually spall and kill the turret crew.
Type 10 vs BMP-2M’s 30mm APFSDS @300m
Spoiler
Repeated fire will eventually spall and kill the turret crew, though Leclerc will survive for a second or two longer.
It’s true that DM53 is a good reference point since many top tier tanks use it. However, you should also consider the performance of other common top tier shells.
Specifically, 3BM60, top shell of the Russian TT. Similar in performance are slpprj m/95, DTC10–125, OFL 120 F1, and L27A1; these are the top shells of the Swedish, Chinese, French, and British tech trees respectively.
Although many assume top shells to be similarly effective, this is not the case upon further examination. Therefore, defense against DM53, the best top tier round, only offers part of the picture. Let’s examine the performance against the aforementioned shells (excluding DM53), which I will arbitrarily call Group 2 shells. As opposed to Group 1 shells (DM53, M829A2, Type 10, M338), which have top penetration exceeding 610mm, Group 2 shells have ~580mm or less. Below demonstrates the same comparison but with Group 2 shells:
Type 10 UFP 500m
This shot is very inconsistent even head-on as shown here. Given a nonzero heading angle, or especially given favourable elevation, it becomes good armor against Group 2 shells. The 37° armor slope angle part is shown here; the 66° part is slightly stronger, and the 85° angle part above that is an automatic ricochet defeating all APFSDS.
Type 10 Turret 100m
The turret areas which are not highlighted here consistently defeat Group 2 shells even from close range.
Leclerc AZUR UFP 500m
The inconsistent shot area here is much smaller. The UFP (all areas above the prominent structural steel edge above the cursor here) does not present any problem at all. There is no ricochet zone in the hull armour either.
Leclerc AZUR Turret 100m
The Leclerc’s commander turret cheek armor confidently defeats Group 2 shells. The gunner’s side, however, has just ~270mm.
We can see here there is a significant difference in the armor protection of the Leclerc and Type 10. Overall, the Type 10 has more armoured area, which makes a significant difference against Group 2 shells. It has significant hull protection and armor in front of both turret crew. Type 10 is significantly stronger against 5 of the 10 top tier nations in game. Additionally, note that defense against Group 2 shells at standard ranges shown here is similar to defense against Group 1 shells at extreme range, >~2000m.
What makes the Type 10s worse than the Leclercs imo is that some of it’s advantages are too niche and it’s disadvantages are too obvious.
In a comparison the Type 10 only has reload and pen as an advantage, and you can argue that the penetration difference doesn’t make a meaningful difference.
Meanwhile the Leclerc can use it’s full gun depression without having to stand still to use the suspension at some point, has significantly better gun handling and also doesn’t lose all it’s speed when it has to turn unlike the Type 10.
Leclerc: better gun handling (horizontal 40 vs 30 deg/s, vertical 30 vs 10 deg/s), autoloader capacity (22 vs 14 rounds), mobility (27.9 vs 27 hp/t), turret side armour, (turning capability?).
Type 10: penetration (615mm vs 576mm, keeps edge at angles), reload (4s vs 5s), overall armour, thermals (Gen 3 gunner/commander vs Gen 2 gunner of most Leclercs), LWS, smoke configuration (4 vs 2 volleys), hydropneumatic suspension (gives much better depression), optics magnification (max 13.3x vs 10x), smaller profile, autotracking.
1 Like
Lets be honest in most of the situations their armor is similar.
And what significant difference does that make? As long as it’s better than gen 1 I can’t think of a big advantage of having gen 3 thermals over gen 2.
The AZUR also has LWS, but yeah overall I’ll give you this one.
A niche and situational gimmick, especially since you have to sit completely still to change the suspension.
And how much of an advantage is this when neither has a TF or proxy rounds.
The points I didn’t cover I either agree with or arr unsure about. I have played both the Leclerc and Type 10 and I’d pick the Leclerc 9 out of 10 times over the Type 10.
Obviously to some degree which tank players like more is personal preference and depends on playstyle. Im quite sure theres tons of players that prefer a more conservative and “safe” playstyle of not sitting in the front row constantly handling multiple enemies (and the chaotic sound queueing you have to deal with to do good at it, especially when theres bomb sounds and all the other stuff overlapping) As an example i personally do surprisingly well (for my standards compared to my other mbts) in the T90m…Even though it feels like the overwhelming opinion seems to be its not good which is understandable, it has glaring downsides. Whether that is because it maybe suits a playstyle i intuitively can do better in without having to force it, whether that is due to (maybe) better teams i dont know. But im sure it can be the same in the Type 10/Leclerc comparison. Everyone does/can do better in some other vehicle with different strenght/weaknesses.
I would take the type 10/TKX over the leclerc any day of the week because its just so much better at getting into the very dangerous forward positions and defending them vs multiple enemies that try to get you out of it in a coordinated push. Even if youre on a open map on a flank the better gun depression, reload and the much more reliable round makes me like it way more. Im not sure in what situation i would pick the leclerc over it (But maybe thats also partly my fault because i usually spawn the sluggy AZUR as first spawn and should better pick one of the faster ones early)
Thing is, the type 10/TKX is the most similar tank to the Leclercs (in playstyle which is somewhat defined by mobility/firepower:reload and round/pen and post pen damage) and for me it holds several key advantages over it while the advantages the Leclerc has are barely noticeable:
-1 sec faster reload
-Better Dart
-Better Gun depression (with hydropneumatic suspension, obviously you need to set that up but working a ridgeline on a flank im sure you can spare those 3 seconds to set up a “safe” peek, while in the leclerc you basically have to expose your hull in lots of positions, or the suspension bouncing just griefs your shot or gets you killed if youre not careful)
-gen 2 commander thermals
1 Like
Do these even play a role since they removed thermals from binos?
Like outside of niche cases like EBRC Jaguar being able to launch Akerons while mostly hulldown or PLSS periscope thingy, do commander thermals do anything for type 10, or does lack of commander thermals impact leclerc in meaningful way?
For me it does. You can spot enemies much quicker while behind a flat ridgeline or early when you are crossing the map since it has a much wider FOV than the gunner thermal (usually or on most mbts at least…i still love your commander view though, cv90120) and obviously is on top of the turret. you can sit behind a ridgeline and scan for enemies while only exposing the top of the turret. When moving a bit youre basically completely safe.
behind flat ridgelines with gun control bound to commander (like on fire arc in the far south west) you can shoot precisely into the whole b cap from behind the ridge, offsetting the gun parallax by using the laserrangefinder, while enemies there can only see the tippedy top of your turret, if they can see it at all. The shot wil arc over the ridge but from the commander view you can precisely target their weakspots (while from gunner view the whole enemy tank is obstructed by the ridge and thus precise aiming not possible). You can basically hit enemy tanks weakspots precisely under these conditions (admittedly, these positions are not plenty on the wt maps at the moment, but they are there if you know where and give you large areas on some maps that otherwise are way more risky to play), while they cant see you at all. That obviously is much easier and quicker, especially in bad sight conditions with good thermals.
Of course that feature is nothing you have to use, or have to use to do good, especially not in the most competed brawling close range positions mid map. but on the far flanks like the one i mentioned it helps immensely (if you want or like to play those)
not a great argument is it, I don’t think they are
This is why
I mean sure, nothing wrong with personal preferences.
again, completly fair, and I can see it being useful there, but thats the core issue I have with listing commander thermals as advantage (or at least advantage on same level as, say, spall liner) since what you described sounds EXTREMELY map dependent.
well in the mechanic as i described it is. But as in having optics with much wider fov than the gunner sight on top of the turret with good thermals to quickly see and identify enemies while you are moving across the map early game (or at any state of the game where you want to change position over longer distances across a bigger map) it is not depending on only a small portion of the maps. its only in close range urban environments where those dont matter. (which is about 50% of the maps or something like that). on some areas of some maps i chose to only shoot from the commander sight, sometimes for half a match. Some other tanks cant do that (or have a harder time doing it)
Anyhow, its an advantage nonetheless. people can chose not to use it. Same you could argue for spall liners only being an advantage in side shots, which 9 out of ten times if youre hit center of mass you will die to anyways, but maybe in the next shot. no one would argue that those are a situational advantage because they only (or lets say mainly) help in that situation? It is a feature that one tank has and another doesnt have access to…you can chose not to use bindings for turret mounted 50 cals and kill lightly armored vehicles at lower brs from behind hills or demobilize tanks in high tiers or you can chose not to use the hevt round of the abrams, thats on the player for not doing it. it is still an advantage that these tanks have…
on how many maps realistically will you have both wide and long unobstructed lines of sight that cant be covered with gunner thermals and would require panoramatic thermals instead?
thats completly fair, but its a subjective preference.
well yes, stricto sensu it is an objective advantage. But stricto sensu, if tank A) has max speed of 72km/h and tank B) has max speed of 71km/h, tank A) holds an advantage over tank B); realistically however, such difference is negligible to overall performance of the tank, because the utility one extra kilometer per hour brings will not impact the gameplay in any way.
Im not saying commander thermals are like one extra kilometer per hour, but they certainly arent as big advantage as spall liner either.
difference is that if theres one thing certain in this game, its that you will get shot at a lot. ergo a part of your kit that directly helps with getting shot is not as much situational as commander thermals, which offer more utility over gunner thermals only in niche cases. Furthermore, theres no gadget like spall liner; but commander thermals can be supplemented by gunner thermals.
If i had to choose between tank with spall liner and gunner thermals or tank with no spall liner and gunner and commander thermals, and these tanks were otherwise completly identical, im taking the first one, just saying.
but i digress. If you see commander thermals as advantage, they are advantage.
its not only that on a lot of maps you also have bushes or other soft cover that you can simply look over from commander thermals. maps where i would consider commander thermals quite an advantage in top tier are : carpatians (western side tho not played a lot), big tunisia, space port, fulda, poland, european province, hurtgen, ardennes, maginot line, el alamein (though not that much of a help there), normandy (the version where its not only the coastal town), pradesh, sinai, aral sea (at least the areas out of the city) iberian castle (eastern part though bushes there at a height where gunner thermals see below the branches, still useful around the hills), red desert, kalabria, flanders, fire arc, fields of normandy, volokolamsk, arctic (version where you can go around at the seaside), mosdok.
That is not a small part of the map pool.