Eh… these are easily bypassable, so the Cope Cage name is pretty apt, for actual effective anti-drone protection you pretty much need to turn the tank into a hedgehog, at which point it’s something else.
Like on the pictured Leclerc the only thing that would protect is from drone dropped grenades, and even then not really.
Its just light cage amor. There are different levels of armor for different applications, its just mass media and anti Russian propaganda. Litterly every country now with a tank has dabbled in the light cage armor class.
Wait until you see this
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VXbZ2I3Oaato
Accepted a report for a 6 second reload on the leclerc.
Wild af if that goes through
This isn’t going to go through. The OG report that got us to 5s clearly outlined that the 6s reload was the operational reload, while the 5s (and even 4s) can be achieved mechanically. Also, that report had like 15 sources, many being primary.
Oh I am well aware but as I was informed on another thread by @Ralin none of that matters.
So rather than bicker about it on a T series thread I thought I’d bring it here and see what the leclerc users say.
I cannot possibly see it going through as it would absolutely demolish the tanks capabilities.
However, the original report for 5 seconds was 2 years ago and also had at the time a mention of “the only source we will use states 6 seconds”
From a gaijin mod.
So likely they can use this as an excuse to revert it / nerf the leclerc.
The only good secondary source close to the primary one that was in the report was Le système Leclerc. FERRARD Stéphane and Gérard TURBE just stated 6 seconds.
This has never been stated anywhere.
What is this “primary source”? These are just tertiary journals, which are basically poor sources.
Here I have included the manufacturer’s brochure, two books by authoritative authors who are recognized by developers as experts, and a report by the US Army.
It’s not even funny; one of the player’s sources was a Russian magazine about plastic model kits.
That’s not a source.
Neither video in the report shows reloading in 4 or 5 seconds.
First video. Reloading begins at 0:04 (and we are not even sure that this is the very beginning of the cycle, as there is a cut there).
At the same time, the gun is lowered into place at 0:12. That is, the cycle took 7-8 seconds.
Second video. The timer starts not after the shot, but after the gun is lowered, which is fundamentally incorrect, since the gun is lowered during the reloading cycle, usually while the conveyor belt is rotating. And the timer does not end after the gun returns to its initial angle, but immediately as it begins to rise, which is also incorrect, since for the T-80, for example, the cycle diagram includes raising the gun at the end. Otherwise, reloading would be ~0.25 seconds faster.
As a result, 8 seconds pass before the next shot.
Did anyone even look at the sources and videos before making any claims?
Yes we have for years compiling sources and such to make sure leclerc has a correct reload rate. It’s 6 seconds while in training and literally any every source out there states 5 for combat scenarios.
even the book you claim to be properly accurate states it’s sub 6 seocnds when translated.
As proven on the other thread.
THe GIAT brochure you keep harping on about I cannot find anywhere the sources Godvana used I cannot find anywhere, even the books state it can be faster than 6 seconds.
Hell the same books also state it should be 10 seconds on the move to save it from wear and tear, does that mean leclerc gets a 10 second reload?
Primary by whos standards? cause they’re primary by gaijins standards stating 5 seconds BTW.
If this is the list of sources;
Then non of these are primary materials.
How is janes not a primary source xD
GIAT in their brochure and submission to the UK MOD for replacement of Chieftain both claim 6 seconds;
GIAT submission to UK MOD;
GIAT marketing;
These are both primary and authoritative materials. And no claim from a magazine is overriding that. You’d need an equally authoritative sources like the French MOD or a newer claim from GIAT.
Janes is extremely low quality and not remotely primary. It is a news publication, primary claims come from operating countries MOD’s and manufacturers. Not news orgs.
They’ve accepted it before hand but?
As well as all this, why does leclerc get a 5 second reload then if there are as many primary sources debating that?
So yet another nerf for france incoming? lol
Im aware they’re primary sources.
good read them.
However as another said on teh T80 reload buff thread the sources ralin used said sub 6 second reload.
We don’t accept Janes, you could include it as a tertiary source but mostly pointless if you have other primary materials or accepted secondary materials.
I’d often advise against including tertiary sources at all, as it can just be a reason for rejecting the report for not meeting sourcing guidelines. If you can make your point with Primary or multiple secondary materials do that, tertiary sources are completely unnecessary.
Mistakes happen? But no idea didn’t handle the original report.
The report has been there for a while, not sure why you’d think discussion on the forum would some how increase the expediency of the report being fixed.
I see, well cheers man! , I was tyring to build a report on L15A5 penetration values with primary sources as well as osprey but I had to put ion the back burner.
even the original one from2 years ago states they would keep it at 6 seconds as well though.
I dont think that at all, It’s merey discussing it , on a leclerc thread where it should be discussed? as it’s something which should ideally be talked about before it potentially gets accepted / rejected by devs to know the communities stance on it?
Only 4 months as far as I can see for the latest one :(
For penetration the devs use weight, penetrator type, materials and dimensions. So bear that in mind when you work on that report. Penetration values like “500mm @ 2km” aren’t accepted.
No idea then.
Forum discussion ahead of a report being forwarded isn’t a prerequisite to it being forwarded. Does it meet the sourcing guidelines? Is it something that “can” be reported (eg not a datamined value)? Then it gets forwarded. There is no requirement to check in with a relevant thread on the forum.
Yeah plenty of older reports than that haha. Just the way it is unfortunately.
Nah I know, however I believe what I am looking for is quite difficult to find, as L15A3 was replaced by A5 though they use the same design, as well as similar materials if not the same just a different combination / quantity in the alloy.
It’s been a long daunting search TBH D:
No I don’t mean it’s a pre-requisite for it to be forwarded, I am merely drawing attention to it as so folks don’t S*** the bed if it ever goes through if you know what I mean, perhaps my wording wasn’t great as I’ve been alt tabbing from games to comment.
I mean I am bringing this here, purely because I mentioned leclercs reload and was corrected / debated with Ralin about it on the thread for reload rates on the autoloading soviet style and chinese tanks, and decided it was best to bring it here, a discussion on Leclercs oppose to there. Thats all :)
Oh yeah I’m painfully aware xD I mean there are so many vehicles in game can imagine it’s difficult to get through em all, never mind actual bugs with in game mechanics and such.
Do note that half of your sources say reloading in less than 6s. Also, the Giat Mobile brochure says “redoublement du feu en moins de 6s”, which in turn counts the entire firing sequence from the moment the first shell was fired to the moment the second shell was fired, including the time required to move the breach in position, all happening in less than 6s.
Furthermore, the documentary on the MSC prototype, which uses the same loading mechanism, does state that the mechanism is capable of reloading in 4s
Most of your sources may not state that the reloading is 5s, but they do state that the reloading speed is at lest less than 6s, if you actually quote the entire sentence
Aint that better to take to an abrams thread or PM gunjob?
Read this again please:
