The Leclerc is in dire need of a buff

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…

Though so far I´ve seen no indication the XLR features different base armor than SXXI.

It does not as far as i know, except for the side ERA (NERA ?) and the slat armor.

It would basically be similar to the Leclerc S2 => AZUR we have in game, except of course the base tank is a SXXI

The additional ERA and the LWS would still bring something to the table at least.

In the above interview the presentel model is a SXXI though

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.

1 Like

Yeah the whole leclerc S2 and SXXI having no difference is quite comical

Gaijin decided to ignore the complete overhaul of the internal armor composition (looking at you, titanium inserts)

Close up of SHARD

shard-20210310

And a quick comparison between the in service OFL 120 F1B compared to SHARD :

Spoiler

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)

Weird Eng Dubbing but still pretty hot.

So about equal to M829A2 fired from L/44 according to that claim.

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

You have to remember that NATO testing is against 60 degree RHA plates.
So that’s 720mm against a 60mm plate unless otherwise stated.

1 Like

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°

2 Likes

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

1 Like

isn’t F2 uranium though ?

if that is the case the latest produced variant would likely be F1B, but once again, nobody really knows what the difference between F1B and F1 is

In any case, 660 is already very good, even for a low estimate, and if we need more pen, there’s Ascalon and leclerc T4

1 Like

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

Yeah that’s where i’m not too sure, as from my understanding F1B is actually more recent than F2

Could be wrong though

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.

image

2 Likes

what would that give us for a plate at 0° ?

640mm

2 Likes

not too far from the 660mm resulting from Nexter’s claim then

Quick question, they discussed the Leclerc and showed some interesting documents, but did anyone send this to the dev?