I just want to compare Leopard 2A4M with Leclerc.
Leopard advantages:
That’s… uh;
How are the “same mediocare armour” and “minimal difference in mobility” advantages, btw?
I’d also argue a 1s faster reload (lets be honest, in most situations it’s actually 1.4 seconds faster because I doubt anybody in their right mind will ace the CAN) is a much bigger advantage, qualitatively speaking, than a 3rd generation camera or 13mm more penetration, it’s not like KE-W spalls better either, since it weighs 4kg, same as OFL F1.
You could’ve made a much better case for yourself if you had simply stated that Leclerc S1/S1 are as good as 2A4M CAN is in most situations, but are at 11.7 and not 11.3… but I also kinda get why they aren’t 11.3, you can get some filthy downtiers there, and seeing as majority of Leclerc players aren’t lvl 5 to 15, they would stomp (been there, done that - Type 90).
A typical case of BR compression ngl, considering that 2A7V & 2A5 are at the same BR.
Unpopular opinion but Leclerc>Leopard 2A6 at every aspect
So, how long gaijin goin to avoid this conversations? Idk but its one of the biggest on the forum i guess
U cannot add armour just because no inf, ok, just give them SPALL LINERS!!!
Except Leo2A6 actually has better:
-Protection
-Elevation speed,
-Commander thermals (if you dont count XXI),
-Much better firepower,
-Spall Liners
-Gun depression
Only 3 things Leclerc do better:
-Gunner Thermal Resolution
-First Stage Stowage
-Reload Speed
Leo2A6 is a better package overall.
Leopard 2 is also faster than Leclerc, despite Leclerc being 10 tons lighter (Community Bug Reporting System).
You also forgot to mention that on top of having no spall liners, Leclerc only has 3 crew members, which means any penetration = certain death, even at some stupid angles (since the spalling changes, penetration on the left side of the tank somehow manages to kill the 2 crew members on the right side).
And don’t even get me started on the armor … it’s currently worse than the HSTVL - a light tank. Like, come on Devs. In my opinion, the Leclercs are currently light tanks … that cannot scout.
It would be nice if the Devs could actually take a look at the armor and improve it. It’s really what hurts the Leclercs the most. Even though mobility and a new shell would also be nice … Yeah, it’s a mess.
Besides perhaps Arietes (but Italy now has an amazing Leopard 2), Leclercs are currently and undoubtedly the single worst MBTs at top tier right now.
Anyway, needless to say this is the most ridiculous and unfounded take I have ever seen on the forums.
These mobility issues, plus the proven missing spall liners and UFP being worse than T-64A’s, are absolutely outrageous. How haven’t they fixed any of this yet? In fact, they actively refuse to do so!
Do you have a gofundme?
I won’t accept money.
There are no spall liners:
the worst thing tha i cant penetrate HSTVL in front, cz most of time its just angled like 80 * of armor where not even single nera protection, while leclerc with nera with like 75* in fromt or smth can penetrate everyone and this is 90% dead for lecl
Then just accept our thanks for all your work towards fixing frustrating vehicles to play.
Considering how advanced it was for its time, I doubt the Leclercs are not equipped with spall liners and to be fair, France being so secretive about its armor means there could be spall liners. I guess we will now for sure in about 20-30 years when the archives are declassified …
As I wait for my new source to arrive, I was reviewing the report. As it turns out, there are two variants of the Tropicalise. The original with the S1 armour package, and another with the S2 armour package. Sources indicate these were delivered from 2001 onwards.
The armour can be identified by the module extending beyond the breech. With the S1 package, it doesn’t:
So there’s another possible Leclerc to be added in the future. Anyway, the reason the report has taken so long is because it will address every Leclerc including the prototypes and will guarantee accuracy for French top-tier up until and including the XLR. Here’s an idea I was playing with a while back of what French top-tier could look like if everything was historically accurate:
Why can Germany get a 2001 projectile, but France can’t get a 1996 projectile.
OFL 120 F2 would have less penetration than OFL 120 F1 in-game. This is because the Lanz-Odermatt formula is used to calculate APFSDS penetration and for whatever reason the formula concludes that DU performs worse than tungsten at high velocities.
In reality, OFL 120 F2 performs better than OFL 120 F1. This is from Cime Bocuze whom manufactured the penetrators for French APFSDS:
Leclercs should be given SHARD. It really wouldn’t be that game-breaking as most of the weakspots would stay the same but it’d mean:
On another note, it would be nice if anti-ERA tips were modelled so OFL 120 F1 could defeat Kontakt-5.
Does the f1 have an anti era tip?
Because it looks like it is just a ballistic cap to me
Not to mention that it did poorly against duplet.
Yes, under the LKE I project that Rheinmetall led, DM43/OFL F1 was required to defeat Kontakt-5. The Germans, however, ended up dropping it in favor of the LKE II project, which had produced DM53, a much more potent projectile.
The ballistic tip is on top of the actual penetrator, and the defeat mechanism here is that the thinner tip, in theory, will limit the spread of force/energy over the ERA’s surface, thus fooling it into “thinking” it’s being struck by a 20- to 25-mm projectile.
Not to mention that it did poorly against duplet.
Duplet is also far more powerful than Kontakt-5 and much thicker, it has the power of a Gamma Ray Burst in its charge with how much energy & esplosives its storing;
This is from Cime Bocuze whom manufactured the penetrators for French APFSDS:
This would only be applicable if we’d have data on alloys they used to create that comparison. A more “alloyed” Tungsten matrix will perform worse against RHA (obviously, it’s less dense, weighs less, and carries less energy at both muzzle and on impact); a less alloyed Tungsten matrix (think WSM 4-1 of DM53) will perform much closer to DU as it has a similar enough density and thus weighs much more, but also travels at velocities high enough to trigger WHA’s very own adiabatic shearing, which in the end allows it to close the gap.
I’m also not sure of the accuracy of their graph, because Odermatt has one as well:
Where DU reaches its optimum velocity faster but begins to “drop” off after that, whereas Tungsten just continues the climb until it reaches 2 km/s velocity.
The difference between F2 (per Janes) and F1 (per WT) would be less than 20mm in the formers favor and mostly facilitated by the fact F1 is a bit faster (50 m/s to be precise, which for APFSDS is actually a huge difference).
Note: Odermatt has made use of the more accurate perforation measuring method, i.e., how much APFSDS made out of X material can realistically defeat; Bocuze has instead used the penetration method, which denotes that APFSDS has to completely erode in the process (KE rods are far more likely to run out of energy first than to be fully eroded by whatever they’re impacting).
French tungsten for rounds with an initial velocity of approximate >1600m/s has a density of 17.5g/cm^3 (OFL 120 F1) and tensile strength comparable to DU. OFL 120 F2 is supposed to penetrate more: OFL 120 F1 is stated to defeat the T-90S at 2500m and DU extends this range. At least one source states OFL 120 F2 has 15-20% more penetration than F1.
