If you couldn’t tell, I ran out of space to add more possible candidates. That’s excluding all the projects we can’t find photos of yet know existed - such as a VBCI with a TML105 turret.
France could only have access to indigenous vehicles but still easily be the 2nd most fleshed out TT, only behind the USSR. There are a plethora of candidates yet the devs just blatantly refuse to do anything about it. Instead, it’s: “Here have a Dutch CV9035 instead”.
Could you provide the full article possibly? Thank you!
Sure, the maximum reload could be 6 seconds if the gun is fully elevated and in the worse conditions possible, but that doesn’t mean the 5 seconds reload is not achieavable-
Having the barrel in such a position is a extremely rare occurrence, both in-game and in real life, hence why I will be referring to 5 seconds as being the correct reloading rate.
However, it seems that Developers don’t believe the Leclerc could take 5 seconds to reload at all, despite the numerous sources provided.
Except this rule comes only when it comes to buffing the reload of the Leclerc apparently;
If we follow this line of sight, then it means other tanks needs to have their reload halfed too- manually loaded tank should reload in more time if the breach is not leveled up or autoloaded tanks that needs to get locked in a certain position like the Leclerc should get their reload halfed as well by even more than one second, depending on the elevation of the gun and its elevation speed. Let alone in movement, where currently the reload speed of manually loaded tanks stays the same.
For your and Developers informations, i attached in the report a source that mentions the Leclerc breach needs to be locked in resting position (-1.8°) before even starting the reload, moveover, the same source affirm an effective fire rate of 10-12 rounds/min, proving in fact that 12 rounds/min are certainly possible.
The 10 rounds/min refer in the case of a fully elevated gun, which as i explained previously, is the worst possible situation.
Knowing that the reload occurs only when the barrel is in resting position, we can take a look at this video,
this was an official testing made my GIAT itself, proof of that claim will be attached below.
You can see that the barrel goes in resting position (-1.8°), and stays there for roughly 5 seconds, which is exactly how much the reload take. You may ask me why i had to specify this detail, and the answer is quite simple. The gun needs to be in resting position before even starting the reload, which is why we can confidently say the reload is 5 seconds, as can be seen on this video.
The reason why only 6 shots have been made in one minute of course is quite simple to explain as well, since the Leclerc FCS had to calculate and hit every target at that speed (50km/h), this has nothing to do with the reload itself however.
One could say videos are not a valid sources where we talk about reload, which i do agree partially, however those videos comes from Manufacter sometimes, and are backed up by Primary and Secondary sources.
“Redoublement du feu en moints the 6 seconds.” As stated from on the Brochure.
This quite much proves the fact that reloading in 5 seconds is possible, but Developers do seems to not even believe the Leclerc can reload in 5 seconds at all- They decided to give the worse possible value without an apparent reason based on the fact they do want to take into account the barrel movement, while this rule seem to be valid only for the Leclerc.
Without even counting that sources, just going by fact and logic, It is reasonable that they decided to give to every 120mm Abrams a 5 seconds reload for 18 rounds consecutively? Developers think an Abrams loader can reload 18 rounds consecutively at the rate of 5 seconds? That loader should be a superhuman then. Do Developers think this is possible at every elevation state of them gun, or while moving? Doesn’t seem possible, however here we are.
Of course, US Win Rates are miserable and Developers had to find a solution, which is fine of course, but i think its incoherent considering the barrel movement that reliogiousely for the Leclerc reload while we have clear example here of double standards with the Abrams reload buff, which shouldn’t be nowhere near this good in movement or for 18 rounds continuously.
Does the Abrams is a worse tank than the Leclerc? No as well, its flat out better, yet it keeps receivng buffs unlike the latter.
Me, together with several other people have been working on trying to fix the Leclerc, but all i see in this reponse seems like a joke to me, especially considering the work put into those reports and the time used.
The Leclerc have the worst round out of every top tier vehicle as well, @SPANISH_AVENGER recently made an excellent post about the rounds that could or could not be given to the Leclerc, but it seems Developers haven’t been paying attentions to that post as well, this is discouraging, are we losing time here?
Does Developers actualy read the sources attached?
In my two reports about the reload i have attached every possible public source about the Leclerc reload, everything else is classified thus is why i cannot share it, yet it seems more is wanted. What do they want? A statement from Emmanuel Macron or a Leclerc delivered to their Headquarters with some rounds so they can test it themself?
@Smin1080p@magazine2 could it be possible to know if this statement actualy comes from a Developer/Community Manager? Also, could it be possible to forward my post additionally with my reports about the reload again to the Developers?
Unfortunately I cannot say where the above post comes from. Certainly it was not posted here on this forum as far as I can see.
What we can say is regarding the feedback and the report on the reload, the developers are considering an increase in the rate of fire for the Leclerc from 10 to 12 rounds per minute in the major update. The report will be reviewed along with all of the sources and information within and resolved.
New ammunition is not currently under consideration. Currently the reload is being reviewed. This in itself is a significant change that can alter the balance of a vehicle. So new ammunition wont be added at the same time as a reload change generally.
We only suggested a new shell as a last resort effort to buff Leclerc in case a rate of fire increase was not possible; but, if it’s going to receive a rate of fire increase, I think most of us are happier with this change rather than a new shell!
Both because a higher rate of fire is easier to make best use of, being a more significant change too, and for historical accuracy reasons as well.
Thank you for these news!
Apart from the armor, I would like to ask- is Leclerc’s diesel fuel tanks behaviour intended? I am referring to them exploding like IEDs as soon as they are scratched, lol. I am asking because I genuinely don’t know how realistic and/or intended this may of may not be.
Hey, happy to hear that then, we will see more about it once the update release i guess :P
Thank you for this news!
Hey @SPANISH_AVENGER, currently there are no difference betwen Leclerc fuel tanks and other tanks. Leclerc fuel tanks are just… Fuel tanks, they do explode as common as other tanks, unfortunately the only way to prevent this is by upgrading the crew, which will make survive fuel explosion most of the time.
The main reason why they seem to explode that much on the Leclerc is because they’re basically everywhere on the hull and they are internal fuel tanks.
If you pay attention, External Fuel Tanks on the Leclerc don’t kill you, but those are not on the front/not the one you are talking about i think.
Internal Fuel Tanks can kill you, while External ones cannot. There was a report about Leclerc fuel tanks, specifically the one you’re probably talking about. Currently we’re doing some research to prove those specifical fuel tanks are separated from other modules by a bulkhead. In the case those fuel tanks would be external, they probably wouldn’t kill you at all.
Of course if i said something wrong Smin can correct me, but i think i explained it the way he could have told you too.
If Leclerc gets a 5 second reload, armor improvements and/or others, I guess I’ll have to spend a few GE to max out their vitalities, hehehe. Only maxed in one of them so far- others are at 3/5.
Ideally, the fuel tanks would be separated by bulkheads… I hope so!
Even T-90M’s front fuel tank is counted as “external fuel tank”, so I am hopeful for Leclerc.
I would love them to start rolling out the fixes. If Gaijin will implement the 5 second reload it’ll motivate me to play france more. Not to mention that it does need a buff. I can only hope they decide to do something with the armor, since it feels horrible that even the 2S38 can kill the Leclerc from the front, both with its APFSDS, and its APCBC shell.
The reload is the current focus for review. The armour protection is split over multiple reports across the series and requires a deeper investigation.
All of the previous reports were investigated and answered. The information was insufficient to make any changes from. None are open from a couple of years ago regarding protection spesifically. All of the open reports regarding protection are from the last 6 months or less:
Couple years ago some guy stuided Leclerc’s armor protection and created very detailed report, developers rejected it and told us they will investigate armor profile further and work on it.
So safe to say nothing has been done about overall protection aside from recent reports looks like.
Also one thing: its becoming pretty clear that Developers are not studying on any vehicle properly, most of the time they add something with inaccuries and expect us to report and fix it. Recent Leopard2A7,M1 Abrams incident and Challenger 2’s are pretty good example.
İs this how it works know? Developers are getting more dependent to playerbase and avoiding any more further investigations?
Our own investigations and searches for new materials are always ongoing and not limited to any time period. If the developers do not find anything sufficient however from which to make changes, then no changes can take place. There was not a promise that the armour would definitely be improved, simply that our own investigations and re-review of the matter would take place. We have continued to check and review all reports that have come in since and answered them in response.
The current ones that are under investigation are all under 6 months old.
Like how you guys couldnt find any further information on Leopard2A7 or Abrams family?
For example you guys claimed torsion bar’s on Abrams family cannot even handle extra weight while playerbase has proved this was not true, same for Leo2A7V protection values.
İt was even more funny considering you guys increased Abrams weight every single time with new model while claiming extra weight couldnt be handled by torsion bars.
We are always grateful for any reports anyone from the community puts in. It often reveals information that can be new, previously unseen or unavailable during previous times when our own investigations take place (which can sometimes be years / months before a vehicle is even planned).
No matter how much research our own team do, the community will always be a larger and further reaching element, able to find things that possibly we cannot.
