Should the top BR Leclercs receive a better top munition choice? [POLL]

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1
  • Yes, OFL F1 is lacking.
  • No, OFL F1 is sufficient.
0 voters

I will be completely honest; I would rather take a rate of fire increase than a new shell.

But since Gaijin seems so reluctant to do this… why not give this a try, hahah.

As of now, all Leclercs have the same top shell choice; OFL F1.

Since no armor changes or otherwise are modelled ingame either, this makes all four Leclercs feel exactly the same. There is no sense of progression between the Rank VII S.1 or S.2, and the Rank VIII S.XXI or AZUR. OFL F1 is insufficient and having all Leclercs use it is suboptimal, not just gameplay wise but also in regards to a sense of progression

The situation is aggravated since the OFL F1 shell is lacking penetration power compared to most other Top Tier shells, such as DM53 (both from L/44 and let alone from L/55), M829A2 (and the warranted upcoming M829A3), or even Type 10 and M338. Most of the times, these shells are equipped by tanks with significantly better protection, survivability and/or rate of fire, as well. The only other shell with worse performance than OFL F1 found at Top Tier is L27A1.

This low penetration value makes Leclerc’s current technical status rather mediocre. It has a standard rate of fire, coupled with mediocre protection and low survivability. These matters deserve to be addressed too, since they involve historical inaccuracies, but they already got their own threads.

Given the situation, I would like to suggest replacing OFL F1 on the Rank VIII Leclercs (S.XXI and AZUR) with either of these options :

-Option 1: SHARD, NEXTER’s latest shell development. Its development ended in Late 2022 and the French army adopted it for its Leclercs in 2023.
-Option 2: DM53, which is fully compatible with Leclerc’s gun. While unhistorical, it appears not to be an issue when it is needed for gameplay purposes; an already ingame example would be the Arietes receiving it.

I don’t personally consider the latter optimal, since it would be unhistorical ammo choice; however, it’s still an option that is available for gameplay purposes if there was any difficulty implementing SHARD Mk.1.

Before they are brought up, I didn’t include OFL F1B and OFL F2 among the options because, as it turns out, they wouldn’t be any better than OFL F1; besides, OFL F2 would be an unhistorical choice, too.

I would also like to point out that, as long as all Leclercs share the same BR, they should all receive this new shell. Ideally, S.1 and possibly S.2 too would be lower BRs with F1; but, as of now, they are the same BR as S.XXI and AZUR; so, if a new shell was to come, it should come for every Leclerc. If Top Tier was decompressed and the Rank VIII Leclercs increased in BR with the new shell, it would be fine for S.1 and S.2 to remain with OFL F1.

33 Likes
2

nuh uh

6 Likes
3

120 F1 is shit

13 Likes
4

What are the stats on Shard? Unless you have anything concrete I would say that there isn’t enough info to implement it yet. No to DM53 unless it was used on Leclercs.

Given past treatment of NATO rounds with Gaijin’s speculation on the abilities of the M829A3/A4, I doubt there would be much improvement anyways.

5

Hey, don’t be mean to poor OFL F1! :(

It was an excellent shell back in 1998, when Leclerc was first put in service.

The issue in War Thunder is that the shell is forced to face:

1- NATO MBTs it was never meant to face.
2- 2020s tanks it was never meant to face.
3- A mix of both.

Basically, OFL F1 would be fine if Leclerc S.1, for example, weren’t the same BR as Leopard 2A7V.

OFL F1 was meant to face T-72Bs and T-80Us… not T-90Ms and T-80BVMs!

12 Likes
6

I don’t have the specs at hand right now, but I believe someone obtained a penetration nearing 700mm using the formula Gaijin uses to implement shells.

2 Likes
7

Those are the rough calculations for SHARD using Gaijin formula and we do know from KNDS that according to them the improvement over OFL 120 F1 is roughly 15%.

I don’t personally think there would be anything wrong considering DM53 was given to Ariete’s as well despite the fact it was never used by it. As another example at a lower BR, the T72AV TURMS never shooted 3BM42, however its still here, for Gaijin ammo is also a balancing tool;
However this is a personal opinion and this thread is here for discussing about it!

13 Likes
8

I don’t think this is enough documentation- at least given the treatment of XM885 on the HSTV-L and alleged improvements.

I disagree with the implementation of ahistorical rounds for balancing. I’d rather they just guess at the Shard’s performance- granted, other nations would get similar rounds like M829A3.

2 Likes
9

Isnt there like F2 shell for Leclerc?
If we take it from balance point DM53 is a good choice.
If they dont want to change te reload for Leclerc.

10

Unfortunately, OFL F2 turns out not to be that much of an improvement over OFL F1, as some people thought. Besides, it was never put in service, so it would be an equally unhistorical choice to DM53, which would at least be a significant improvement.

I believe the best choice would be SHARD; both an improvement and a historical choice (from 2023 onwards).

Lanz-Odermatt Formula

OFL 120 F1 (Tungsten)
600mm x 22mm Tungsten penetrator
1790m/s at 0m
1690m/s at 2000m
Penetration:
325mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 650mm LOS

OFL 120 F2 (Depleted Uranium)
600mm x 22mm DU penetrator
1720m/s at 0m
1620m/s at 2000m
Penetration:
320mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 640mm LOS

4 Likes
11

In real life, OFL 120 F2 has the same performance as OFL 120 F1 but retains more penetration at greater distances due to the DU penetrator.

Spoiler

image

“If the tungsten arrow shell perforates [T-72] armour at a distance of around 1,500 metres, it is the depleted uranium shell which provides a decisive advantage since it produces the same result but at a much greater difference”

12

Even then, it wouldn’t be much of a difference gameplay wise, specially when most maps are 2x2km cages and when the main issue is low point-blank penetration compared to its peers.

Also- remember Gaijin’s full criteria for shell implementation is the Lanz-Odermatt formula, according to which OFL F2 would straight up be worse than OFL F1 when fired from Leclerc’s gun.

1 Like
13

I agree. There’s just a bit of a myth that goes around that OFL 120 F2 is ‘equivalent to DM53’ IRL which is not the case at all. The French just never saw a need to produce a better APFSDS at the time.

3 Likes
14

Either that or a better reload

1 Like
15

Both Is Good Road To El Dorado GIF - Both Is Good Both Road ...

5 Likes
16

I mean we can ask for the impossible i guess, i never thought thr challenger 2 would get an armour rework… Yet here we are lol

2 Likes
17

I don’t play France (but i’m interested) and i feel so so sorry when i meet an enemy Leclerc,that tank truly is treated very badly by Gaijin

I voted that it’s lacking because i see the lack of pen when they shoot at me,i hope that the crowd of Pro-Gaijin players that repeatedly shout “no this tank is good because i have a K/D of 7 in it so it’s obviously OP” will not silence this survey

4 Likes
18

The rare day when you actually see someone playing a leclerc XD

2 Likes
19

Given the rather hilarious situation of France likely recieving a CV90 variant before any domestic stabilized light, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gaijin just gave Leclerc’s DM53 instead of SHARD.

I wouldn’t be complaining, but it would be nice to actually have the latest domestic ammunition in the French TT.

20

People put too much in historical accuracy in this game. Same with realism.

This game is not historically accurate, nor realistic at all.

You do not have historical MM (and let’s be fair, you would not want that, unless you are confortable with fighting a T-54 with a H39. You know, the H39, that is useless against interwar tanks)

Many tanks do not have historical issues, such as transmission/track randomly breaking (you would not want this either).

Shells are not historically accurate in damage, penetration, ammo loadout, etc. While historical stats would not be an issue, historical loadouts would.

Reload times are also not realistic, especially the Sturmtiger. And you would not want a 10 minute reload on it. Fast light tanks with manual loaders also reload wile goint at 90 km/h bouncing up and down. I don’t think it is possible to load in those conditions:
D5agmb

Damage models are also trash, overpressure for example is too strong, while plane damage models are way too durable against large calibre artillery.

Crew members can also just tank a .50 cal in the head and survive. Also you can revive a crew member that just go blown into 1000 pieces and into a fine red mist.

You can repair tanks in 20s without getting out of the tank too.

Do i need to continue?
Balancing is more important, than realism. If you want a realistic game, you would not play it, because it would be unplayable.