Please excuse if this sequence was already posted :
the colonel presenting the armored vehicles basically says “On a un [une protection d’] arc frontal particulièrement efficace sur le char Leclerc, notamment sur toute la plage avant, c’est-à-dire la protection de la caisse”, which you could translate by :
“There is an adequate protection on Leclerc’s entire frontal arc, especially on the upper front plate, which is the hull protection” (last part of the translation sounds weird, but “plage avant” in french does not really indicate that it’s the hull, which is why he specifies it a second time).
He then goes on to specify that it’s a succession of layers (mille-feuille) which is NERA as we all know, nothing special here.
Not a source on itself, but it doesn’t scream “upper front plate = weak point” like it does in game…
I´m talking real life, not ingame. BTW I estimate SXXI armor to reach 700mm KE protection, at least on the turret front.
Regarding XLR I´ve seen no mention its gotten a different base armor. All public statements talking about increases in protection always refer to the addition of reactive armor at the hull sides.
Notice the total weight increase by 2.4kg and the slight elongation from 975 to 984mm for the total length of the round
Someone did some pixel counting here Shard APFSDS for Ariete and arrived at the conclusion that it would get 720mm @0m from L/52 gun. (something something, pinch of salt, you know the drill)
A more conservative estimate would be to take the OFL 120 F1 current pen value and apply the “15% increase” marketing pitch by Nexter, which would give us 575*1.15 = 661.25 mm of pen, assuming of course OFL 120 F1 is modelled correctly, and assuming there is no difference between OFL 120 F1 and OFL 120 F1B (Latest Nexter APFSDS)
If that’s the case M829A2 is severly lacking in penetration in game.
Not versed enough in US ammo to tell tbh
But to be fair, i would already be happy with 661 mm. 720 mm would straight up be the best APFSDS in game, and i’m not sure it’s really realistic, it’s just pixel counting
The guy who came up wiith the 720 value did it on a 0° angle. Is his calculation correct ? Probably not.
Regarding the 661 value, it’s straight from Nexter, who states a “15%” increase over latest APFSDS. Since the last APFSDS they sold is OFL 120 F1 with a 575mm pen at 0m, 0°, a 15% increase would result in a 661mm at 0m, 0°
The latest APFSDS they produced is the OFL 120 F2, but the LO formula basically breaks since it gives a worse penetration compared to the F1. I think it’s fair to say 660mm is the lower estimation
F2 is indeed uranium. But the shard isn’t advertising 15% more than tungsten, just, 15% more than previous gen. F2 does stand in that category
As for F1B, I’ve been told the differences are minimal, so it’s probably equivalent to the F1 in penetration
Measurement of the round in flight yields penetration dimensions of 680x24mm and L-O penetration in the order of 750mm. Still, big improvement over F1.