First, what difference does it make what I or anyone else thinks if there are documents? Documents don’t reflect personal opinions.
Second, I never said the Duplet was inferior to the K-5.
Third, I never published “conflict sources.” What does that even mean?
Fourth, no source on the Leclerc’s reloading time mentions barrel elevation.
Fifth, the gun’s elevation and depression time are included in the reload time for autoloaders; otherwise, the T-64/80 would have a reload time of ~5 seconds.
Let me remind you of the sources I used:
The first and second is a manufacturer’s brochure. The other two are very authoritative books. The author of the first is apparently one of the tank’s creators.
@H_ngma_
Internal armor plating doesn’t show up in all cases.
This is a known issue with the x-ray system.
On top of that, as my screenshot proves, the autoloader module is well behind the armor plate that you falsely claim isn’t present when it obviously is to everyone that read my post:
Elevation times are not included to reload times and T-80 certainly cannot achieve 5 second sustain reload. Autoloader has to physically rotate in order to load next shell which takes more than 5 seconds.
You’re talking about static reload time while ignoring the part where Leclerc achieved 6 second reload on the move.
Even your sources states that.
Not to mention all sources you posted take average time to reload in Leclerc which includes barrel raising, if you dont know this such a simple fact then there is no reason to talk.
You might not openly said it but that doesn’t change what you tried to imply on OPLOT thread, lets not try to play naive in here.
Would you look at that, it even shows up in the x-ray.
I didn’t have internal armor on my x-ray when I was looking at Leclerc earlier myself, and it appears Ngma didn’t either.
It could be reason to be misguided but knowing how blowout panels work in basic level should point to existance of armor plate blocking crew from ammo.
Not as slow as Russian designs which is why Tyoe-90/10 series can achieve those reload times.
No it doesnt unless gaijin wants them to balance.
Thats what we call static reload smart guy.
Its a known facts that published reload times does include barrel raising on NATO tanks otherwise we would have get 3-4 second reloads on tanks that has human loaders. try not to embrass yourself in this case.
Is that the reason why your own source states Leclerc can achieve 6 second reload time while its on the move? Reload times gets affected during in motion so dont act like you dont know this either.
Ok i take back my comment and Gaijin is not inconsistent in that regard. There is actually a bug not showing that plate when even one filter is turned on.
Mea culpa for not considering that X ray is giga bugged i guess.
Do note that the comparison you posted there, is for the Leopard 2 IVT which had B-technology armor installed, not C-technology, so the 2A7V is worse than the first iteration prototype (as the TVM, i.e what became the Strv 122A, was the second iteration).
edit: DO NOTE, even the Strv 122A doesn’t actually reach the Leopard 2 TVMs armor values, they all underperform, and Gaijin keeps pretending they’re not.
I’d say the one problem I have with the armor plates that separate ammo in both manual and autoloaded tanks is that they’re destructible. Even if for example something like the Abrams had that armor plate penetrated from the crew compartment the vast majority of the explosion would still vent through the blowout panels. Sadly according to gaijin the ammo door that separates the ammo just magically disappears (without a weight reduction from the vehicle lol)
