That myth has been busted months ago.
My Leclerc “assumption” is backed up by hard stats and not just personal opinions and feelings, unlike what’s commonly being done on this forum.
4 Likes
In a thread about the Merkava, your opinions on the leclerc aren’t really valuable are they
1 Like
Just telling you that Leclercs don’t really need armor buffs to be competitive tanks.
Their suffering is also one of many myths this community still believes to this day, just like long rod spalling.
2 Likes
As we know, most minor nation tanks are already signifigantly statistically superior to their major nation counterparts (as observed with copy&paste slop having better stats in minor trees)
Although using this as an argument to deny the correct representation of these MBTs is not only counterproductive, but also negligent of ‘historical’ performance in a game markets as being historical.
TLDR: just because the stats are better, doesn’t mean they should remain artifically nerfed
Yes, which is why I stated that’s one of their only pros. You see how convenient copypaste slop was to determine Leclercs aren’t struggling all that hard, despite the community cries about Leclercs being in a “dire” state.
If they have nowhere to go up due to limited BR steps and if they’re performing decently at their BR, then the only option is indeed to leave them artificially nerfed.
Also, what about spalling, is it still affected by shell weight and velocity ?
1 Like
They dont.
So, the APDS-FS in the game work exactly the way the HEAT vehicles should?
They’ve done that so they can easily kill light vehicles without causing overpenetration?
I don’t know about overpen, just putting that video down so people stop parroting clearly false information.
3 Likes
Alright mate.
You can’t even respond correctly
Well your statement was pretty blatantly false, what else is he going to say?
1 Like
Its not at all.
The survivability of the T series is substantially worse now than the Type 90s and has been for a while now.
Don’t confuse protection with survivability.
Survivability wise, you can kill the turret crew in practically any frontal or side-on shot, and disabling the tank is equally easy, and possible through the turret cheeks for most top tier rounds, compared to T-80/T-90s commonly (whether accurate or not) eating spall to it’s autoloader and crew having unrealistically high tolerance to shrapnel, especially relating to shots through cupolas and above the breach
1 Like
Also autoloader preventing ammo rack explotions and fuel tanks eating whole sabot rounds
The type 90 eats the spall as well.
They are modelled the same files wise last i checked this is exactly my point, the russian ones dont soak more spall at all.
The turret crew you cannot wipe in one tap through the front directly, as wlel as this the side shot is irrelevant cause any mbt side shot is a one tap.
That happens with the type 90s as well…
Exactly the same .
The T series tanks are equally easy to disable, you cab literally put a round through the top of the turret and break its auto loader due to the arm being modelled
Are we fighting the same type 90s???
When I shoot at a type 90 it dies, whether 105 or 120, and I only tend to die to them when caught off guard, in fact I don’t think i’ve ever lost an engagement to a type 90 (especially fuji) where i’ve shot first
1 Like
are we using the same Type 90s xD ¿¿ cause fighting them they take substantially more hits than the T series when Im hitting them, especially with rounds like M829A2 and A1, as well as Dm53 etc.
You have 10 games in the type 90 I’ve over 150 between the 90 and 90(B) , at can tell that once they got the auto loader modules their survivability sky rocketed in comparison to before said modules.
My point being with original comment, the damn auto loaders are brought up for russian tanks in soaking spall and shots, when in reality it’s every damn tank, even my Leclercs soak spall with their auto loaders, hell sometimes can even fire back and retreat to repair.
Well I just miss when hitting an Autoloader just blew up the tank, and generally I’m not a fan of these new modules, since they aren’t coming alongside shorter repair times, so a lot of the time you are effectively knocked out for 30s because of a glancing blow or non-damahing penetration that may happen to hit the colossal components that are being added, like new turret traverses and electronic/hydraulic components
This statement contradicts itself, if it’s non damaging then it won’t be damaging any modules will it.
the modules are a good addition TBH, it gives the game more depth, gives more leeway to all players as well
Non-critical shot is what I meant, as before that would entail something like a glancing blow that hits optics or radio, or turns a breach yellow for example
In-game, the Merkava 4 has in many places composite with KE effectiveness similar to rubber lmfao. Ranging from 0.20x to 0.25x against KE. (Rubber is 0.20x). Get out of here with that garbage take.
Meanwhile, the composite CE protection is ALSO negative in places. Example in point, the composite hatches are 280mm thick but only provide 210mm against HEAT.
Boosting the effectiveness of said armor from 0.20x to 0.40x KE which is an insanely more realistic estimation for such a heavy tank, would proof the tank against modern ammo.(For reference, Abrams DU is closer to 0.50/0.55 effectiveness. So we’re still below heavy NERA with a 0.40x modifier)
Similarly, giving it a more realistic CE modifier would also proof the tank against Kornet level threat.
The only problem here has always been Gaijin giving unrealistic modifier values to the Merkava(and to the Namer)
10 Likes