Ahh, i see why i was cherry picked to respond to, that message of mine had been liked by 5 russian mains and it pissed off а British main?
@ron_23 you see how people are in this thread? I probably have the least amount of involvement for any tank v tank related comparison and bro brought me out as if I am the one who’s complaining about russian tanks being bad… in any or shape.
Its primary engine was the diesel…?
@ 8:45
You:
Me:
also nothing is worse than the Arietes
Chally is vastly better than those. And is kinda on par with t-80s and such tbh
you:
It’s funny because you don’t own any of the vehicles you mentioned, only challenger. Saying Leclerc is bad is the height of madness. I haven’t played much with them and I found them extremely good at everything they do. How can you talk about those vehicles without even owning them? I even have the Challenger 2 and it’s a great vehicle. I suspect a skill problem.
I speak French. Here’s what they say:
14:15: “To allow greater fire rate and avoid complicated movements in the turret, it exists a system of two revolvers feeding the gun automatically”
14:40: “The tank commander activates the revolver(pushes the lever), the shell falls in the slide.”
14:45: “The tank commander activates the ramrod(pushes second lever), the shells is introduced in the chamber, the breech closes.”
So, instead of pressing a button like more modern technology allows, it is simply a mechanical system requiring the push of two levers. Nonetheless, there is no human loader and at no point does the Gunner or TC manipulate the shells, the loading is entirely mechanical and automated. it is a complete autoloader, albeit with 1952 tech.
Once again, assisted loading is something else. A good example of a tank with assisted loading is the T-10M. later T-10 had a mechanical rammer implemented to ease loading of the 122 mm gun but the loader still had to do the bulk of the work.
All in all, just admit you were wrong and move on. It’s not like you’re being paid by the hours/posts to defend the honor of Russian tanks.
Even worse, even if he owns it he will still be dogwater in them and fail to see their advantages and disadvantages due to his sheer incompetence.
There are plenty of people that did and still do well in said bad MBTs.
These tanks not being so good is still no excuse to almost go 0.5 in them.
If you go by that definition, every “autoloader” is an assisted loader since you need human input to start the reload sequence.
While the rotation is mechanical, it doesn’t make it any less of an autoloader, since contrarily to assisted loading like on T-10, you don’t need a crew member specifically for this task at all (Commander does it in AMX-13), and no crew members has to handle any round.
Neck autoloader is also the one that makes more sense because there is less parts. It disappeared momentarily after it was found out that oscillating turrets could not protect against NBC, but came back right after when gun neutral position was implemented.
This architecture is now on Leclerc, Type 90, Type 10, K2, and the upcoming KF-51 if i’m not mistaken
Nobody went for the carroussel arrangement
The americans were also experimenting a lot with oscillating turrets in the 50s, but tbh i don’t know how all their loaders work exactly.
In any case, trying to give paternity for an invention to one country or even one person only is usually impossible.
Let’s imagine a random imaginary equipment :
Who made said equipment ?
Arguably : all 4 of them
Ever heard of “A fool with a tool is still a fool”? A powerful tool is still a useless tool if the person using it lacks the necessary knowledge and skill to apply it correctly. They are like those dumb lottery winners who manage to blow through their millions in such a short time lol no matter how big the amount they win
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have a clue.
BN and CR2E are alright.
Leclerc is a very good tank and i will take it over T80 anywhere.
This myth keeps on being regurgitated.
Russia was not the sole creator of the concept of reactive armour. They were not the first to employ it and develop it in a practical way that was actually useful. Israel led the way with Blazer. The US were playing around with the concept in the 1950s, Picatinny Arsenal IIRC.
As with most forms of tech - the Russians can usually be relied upon to be a generation behind the rest of the planet and furiously claiming to be leading the pack.
ERA. Composites. Regen steering. Thermals and related EO systems (using French TI hardware until sanctions). NERA (which I don’t think they can get the hang of even to this day). Autoloaders that don’t eat bits of crew and act as turret ejection systems. Even pallets. Yes, palletised logistics are still not in use. I kid ye not.
That’s just the ground domain. In the air, with a few notable exceptions of ‘oh crap - that might be good’ moments (MiG-29, Su-27 on first appearances) they are similarly hobbled. At sea their ships and submarines seem to be very adept at sinking themselves in peacetime without any external assistance.
You know, this all the usual basic military technology that the West worked out in the 1960s/70s. This is all public information, so don’t take my word for it - have a look in any relevant book…
If the events of 2022 onwards have illustrated anything - it is that Russian military technology really ISN’T as good as the sales brochures say. Innovative. Sure. Interesting. Certainly. World-beating? No. Not by quite a margin.
To try and claim otherwise is up there with thinking the moon is made of cheese.
Сlaiming smarter than every one and repeating stupidest myths in one sentence the bar was so low and even with that you failed.
Saying everyone else is wrong except for him, might just be the best unintended example of the dunning Kruger effect lol
I mean he is not wrong.
Leclercs are great and I would also pick them over the T-80s anytime.
Im sure you have something valuable to add.
2 K/D in the leclercs is good but not super uncommon, even I managed it.
But for some people denying that the Leclercs are great helps maintain this image (or myth) that french mains are these amazing players with subpar vehicles.
Leclercs are the most average mbt ever seen
Armor ? Not great, not terrible
Fire power ? Not great not terrible
Mobility is good though
I wouldn’t compare them to challengers
What comes before Leclerc though, oof
The thing with the Leclercs is that, just like the Abrams, their combination of mobility and reload makes them incredibly potent in the hands of even semi decent players.
