My honest reaction to that discussion.
2 Likes
Right, because crew testimonies are soo reliable, not.
Source on this.
Spoiler
How do you even justify the armor of a tank with a prototype, this is not how it work?
How do you justify a production tank’s armour being worse than a prototype? You keep repeating that Leclerc improved the armour going from prototype to production version, but here you are trying to claim the opposite for the Leopard 2A7, lol. Almost is if the point shot over your head faster than SHARD can fly.
Are you there to just cry about how the leopard is underpowered or because you actually care and know a bit about the Leclerc? This is also not how a strawman argument even work.
Should we roll back to you being the one talk about how 2A7V is less armoured than 122B+, and me explaining why that is?
Source? This seems like a suspect affirmation. Sweden has been showed to actually produce a lot of armor package for their tanks, they even prepared some for the Abrams and the Leclerc. I greatly doubt the aesthetic argument.
Sweden hasn’t produced any armour packages for their tanks since they accepted the Leopard 2 for service. Strv 122s armour is MEXAS-H (developed by IBD), 122B+'s armour is AMAP-B - also developed by IBD.
The armour packages for the Abrams & Leclerc were modified MEXAS-H packages (hence why they improved the protection by 50 - 100%, just as they did with the Leopard 2 Improved).
You are comparing a dry weight to a engine full of fluids, empty the Leclerc engine is about 2100 kg.
Source?
Who are you trying to fool? Do you just pretend to be this way?
Yes, reading is hard, I know:
5 Likes
I was going to respond to your other comments, but if you’re going to be this disingenuous I see no point. “Regenerative” is obviously a translation error since it’s originally a brochure in French. But here’s another brochure which states 72 km/h offroad:
Spoiler
One also has to appreciate how you’ve cherry picked which brochures you consider ‘reliable’ to back up your claims. Here’s also another display from a few years back:
But hey, it’s obviously not worthy in your eyes…
Anyway, what’s even more funny is how you’ve deemed a direct quotation from an interview with a French colonel as “doubt[ful]” when (as I seem to have remembered correctly) you cited some secondary source as reason to have the Leopard 2A7 hull brought up to par with the turret.
So let’s say the turret protection on the 2A7 is at least that of the Strvs… so you’re saying the hull (which to my knowledge has 700mm LOS) can withstand 820 KE? Doesn’t that contradict your earlier rant about how such a thing would be virtually impossible?
Anyway, here’s a picture of Martin Klotz in case putting a name to a face will make it more ‘reliable’ for you:
Spoiler
Also, just for future reference, the Leclerc does not use a conventional diesel engine. The French strapped a helicopter turbine to a V8 and called it a day, but it allowed for a lot more instantaneous power. Also the interview with Klotz is from 2000, so it would include the 1500 hp engine found on current Leopards. So unless you have you’re own primary source stating the Leopard can reach 1500hp in less than 8 seconds, I’m going to be sticking with the Klotz.
6 Likes
Can’t be, you finally understood what I meant?!
Bold of you to talk about being disingenious after making some of the worst claims I’ve seen up to date (you overshadowed the claims of Japanese players quite frankly).
But here’s another brochure which states 72 km/h offroad
Both of them state “trail” speed & use that interchangeably with “off-road”, if we consider the fact they don’t mean one and the same, other tanks can also achieve their top speeds on trails, although fair enough.
I’ll come back to this in a sec tho (might be able to calculate the trail speed of a 2A5 if the video wasn’t sped up).
(which to my knowledge has 700mm LOS)
Yes, of the hull when the add-on armour is not fitted, with the add-on armour it increases to ~900mm+, how is that a contradiction?
You’re aware that Strv 122 already achieves ~750mm RHAe KE due to increased hull LoS, right? Unimaginable that the same could be done with a 2A7V.
cited some secondary source as reason to have the Leopard 2A7 hull brought up to par with the turret.
It was rejected, so you’re latching onto a report that achieved nothing (granted we included direct evidence of the new hull armour array, and Gaijin still treated it worse than anything we imagined, making the armour worse than that of a Leopard 2 KVT, a prototype from 1990 - 91). Also we don’t need to imagine the turret performing “the same” as 122s, it has to perform the same at least because German & Swedish tanks used identical inner & outer armours up until the 2A7V.
Anyway, what’s even more funny is how you’ve deemed a direct quotation from an interview with a French colonel
You’re taking offense to me doubting a claim that isn’t backed up by anything? Mkay.
So unless you have you’re own primary source stating the Leopard can reach 1500hp in less than 8 seconds, I’m going to be sticking with the Klotz.
Shifting the burden of proof to the other person, okay, got it. I’d love to have information on how fast MB 873 develops its power, however the best source on it has been deleted from existence to my knowledge, so sucks for me :)
Good job missing the point again.
Yes because sometimes a tank can have a lesser armor than a prototype version. For the Leclerc we have a dozen of documents showing they actually improved it. You will have to prove this for the leopard too or maybe not considering the devs are really much into Germany now.
You said the armor was there for aesthetic, this is extremely ignorant. Most of this is classified, I just think it is fair to assume Sweden does a decent job at it.
Sure, this doesn’t prove anything though. Also the Leclerc don’t really use Mexas.
It just means you can replace the armor modules, if you were not so full of bad faith you would try to ignore this kind of mistake…
I’m going to be honest, if you have a secondary source to contradict it - I’m all ears. But the way I see it, it’s the best available source.
What is it you’re doubtful about? The fact that a helicopter turbine performs better than a turbocharger? Or that the person in charge of the Leclerc program from the French army side of things is not ‘reliable’?
I didn’t know this. Fair enough
But this isn’t the point. KNDS make the specific distinction between off-road and on-road. For the Leclerc, the off-road speed is 72 km/h which aligns with independent crew testimony and an official French army document.
You’re ridiculous honestly. They upgrade the armour, they use a newer add-on armour module - > protection goes down relative to a prototype with internal armour that was originally developed in 1970s. For all me & Manboss said today, you’ve presented idiocy in its purest form.
You said the armor was there for aesthetic, this is extremely ignorant. Most of this is classified, I just think it is fair to assume Sweden does a decent job at it.
AMAP-B that 122B+ is using was made by IBD, lol. Then again, do explain to me how they managed to fit armour for both sides of the hull & turret into just 350kg. I know that nano-ceramics are extremely potent for their weight, but this is beyond ridiculous. Funnily, when you look at the arrowhead, you can see that THERE ARE NO BOLTS (look at ANY OTHER Leopard 2 with the wedge add-ons, notice that all of them have giant bolts to keep the laminated sandwich in place… but you know which other Leopard 2 has no bolts? 2A4M CAN, and its arrowhead is EMPTY INSIDE) as such it has no multilayered armour, unless they made them magically suspend in the air.
Sure, this doesn’t prove anything though. Also the Leclerc don’t really use Mexas.
@Manboss191 Honestly, maybe I treated you too harshly.
It just means you can replace the armor modules, if you were not so full of bad faith you would try to ignore this kind of mistake…
Just admit it’s a typo holy moly. That’s what I was pointing out this entire time.
Yea it’s gone, there was a BW video on youtube that was showing off graphs for this, it’s deleted now. They also had a speedometer showing a 2A4 accelerate to 72kph in 11 seconds ¯_(ツ)_/¯
What is it you’re doubtful about? The fact that a helicopter turbine performs better than a turbocharger? Or that the person in charge of the Leclerc program from the French army side of things is not ‘reliable’?
The figures themselves rather than the person. Apart from the BW video, it was the only time I’ve ever seen numbers on how quickly an engine develops its power.
But this isn’t the point. KNDS make the specific distinction between off-road and on-road . For the Leclerc, the off-road speed is 72 km/h which aligns with independent crew testimony and an official French army document.
It kinda is, hear me out. Trails usually allow AFVs to move at the same speeds as they would on a road (hence why I’m working on calculating the speed a 2A5 is moving at in a video [it’s on a trail]), so I suggest to wait a sec - this will either prove me completely wrong & you right, or vice-versa.
The reason why you came here is because of a statement saying the Leclerc is faster than the Leopard, which is not a dumb statement and every signs shows that it is true.
But somehow you show a speedometer and take it as a ultimate evidence of our ignorance.
And I am the clown :).
1 Like
İ always wondered this.
Why Germans didnt integrated Arrowhead to turret armor but kept it as it is, is there any reason for that?
2A4M CAN’s arrowhead is different from other Leopard 2s.
İ think you misunderstood.
What im asking is why Germans kept using bolts to attach Arrowhead to turret armor instead of making integrated into turret armor with new builds Leopards.
You said
Which imply the tank can go up to 100kph because the speedometer said so when the engine limiter is removed.
This is literally what you said, not me. Otherwise why would you even mention reliability and such before this statement?
1 Like
How does this contradict what I said initially even? You’re really just pulling at straws, seeing as you ignored the part below that photo for no reason:
So why are they “only” capable of going ~70kph per most sources? Both vehicles are mechanically limited to preserve their powerpacks, which normally begin to experience higher failure rates when pushed above their nominal rating. If they had more powerful cooling & more modern transmissions, both vehicles could reach 100kph
…
What im asking is why Germans kept using bolts to attach Arrowhead to turret armor instead of making integrated into turret armor with new builds Leopards.
Because if its hit enough times, you can just take it off and put on a new one. You can’t do that if it’s integrated into the structure (well you can, but you will need a welding team at the site). @Panther2995
1 Like
I’ll take your word for it
With French manufacturer documents they always make the distinction with off-road and on-road speed. Some examples:
AMX 10RC (cross-country speed is incorrect as there's footage of the AMX 10RC going faster
AMX 32
Early 2000s Leclerc Brochure
French always differentiate between off-road and on-road speed. For MBTs there is about a 20 km/h difference between the two.
French manufacturer statements aren’t the best. For example, GIAT vaguely states the Leclerc acceleration is “under 5.5 seconds” when its actually a lot faster than that. Which is why you have to refer to the most recent statements as eventually GIAT decides to be a bit more forthcoming.
By all means you can show the footage you want to. But based on the previous trend of how GIAT/ Nexter make their brochures and how it aligns with various independent crew testimony, footage of the Leclerc travelling at 80 km/h (sure you can argue that it’s not - but I doubt it) and a primary source from the French army as well as secondary sources, I’d say it all indicates a top speed of 90 km/h.
4 Likes
And why would you come to this thread specifically to argue about that?
1 Like
On the other hand, even as much as some of you like to paint the 2A7V as not up to the real standards, the truth is that many tanks right now at top tier share that same fate. But at least the 2A7V players can enjoy playing a tank that is otherwise stomping at top tier, with one of the highest winrates and one of the best performances overall, paired with the Swedish tanks who, coincidentally, tend to share the same team with the Germans.
1 Like
When we talk about mobility it’s not only about “top seed” lol, we don’t care about it. The Leclerc accelarates way faster + turns way faster without losing energy, reminder that the Leo is almost 10 tons heavier so it just makes sense…
1 Like
Yea… almost as if regenerative steering is missing from the game, so heavier MBTs suffer more, whilst the lighter ones suffer less. Just look at the Chally 2s & Type 10, it’s a day & night of difference.
Point is, Leopards turn and behave better than Leclercs in game lol.