Dev server was updated from what I can read, any Leclerc changes??
Nothing
1 Like
We wouldn’t even notice the change it if it wasn’t for the XRay view :^)
1 Like
Hell leclerc is in bad state and gaijin will do nothing for it, france generate low income not like ussr with Turms-t or 2s38, but still love to play leclerc and stop massive braindead ussr players t90m and t80bwm rush. At least the france top tier planes is still very good
honestly been having more problems with the 2a7 and strv 122+ more than anything else
1 Like
Well looks like another patch with no good modern French tanks/IFVs and no Leclerc fixes. Sad really, I would love to finish the tree :(
3 Likes
Gaijin messes with AZUR’s X-ray view giving me a false glimmer of hope that they might change Leclerc armor.
Le bruh
At least we go shitty anti air at 2 rank who nobody gonna play
5 Likes
And I think that the CV9035NL will be 9.7 or 10.0 so same shit …
1 Like
But regarding the armor situation of Leclercs, do we have at least primary sources that state armor in the game is wrong?
I’m more concerned about the reload speed + the mobility of the Leclerc
Instead of Leo/abrams, the Leclerc was designed to be extremely mobile and that’s why it’s less protected than leo/abrams
In game leo/abrams are almost as mobile as the Leclerc is, it’s not the case at all IRL
4 Likes
That is not the case at all. Both tanks were designed to be as mobile as it is possible without unecessary drawbacks in regards to reliability & sustenence (maintenence), here’s a photo from a Leopard 2A6MA3s driver position showing that the speedometer goes all the way to 100kph:
So why are they “only” capable of going ~70kph per most sources? Both vehicles are mechanically limited to preserve their powerpacks, which normally begin to experience higher failure rates when pushed above their nominal rating. If they had more powerful cooling & more modern transmissions, both vehicles could reach 100kph (a report from Ukraine in fact states that a crew of a Leopard 2A6 managed to reach 83kph on road, although I gotta admit they didn’t show proof of doing so) without any issues, in terms of acceleration the latest Leopard 2s (despite being 65+ tonnes) are at the level of the Leopard 2A4s, a version that was over 10 tons lighter, admittadely, this is the one area where Leclerc should outperform them in… and it does.
The reason why they’re better protected is due to their armour being generally thicker & heavier on average, a 2A7V for example based on available data & estimates packs 11 - 12 tonnes of composite. Leclerc’s composite also generally covers a smaller area than on the other 2 MBTs, so most of the weight is located frontally, while Abrams has the entire turret side area covered by armour, and Leopard 2 has internal side hull armour (being the only MBT in the world to feature it). Also consider that Leclerc only has a crew of 3 with an autoloader, as such the turret has a smaller (flatter) profile and has no need for as much armour compared to the other two.
tl;dr, no, it’s not like those two can’t just zoom around, they very much can.
2 Likes
Any source about the 90km/h.
But it is the case. The Leclerc is much more mobile than the Leopard. From the Head of MBT and AFV Programmes at the time:
Spoiler
If as you say, the latest Leopards are able to accelerate as fast as the 2A4 and then let’s say the 2A4 uses “the best conventional diesel [engine]”, it’s still taking almost 3x as long to reach full power.
This is why the Leclerc is stated as being able to accelerate 0-50 km/h in 4 seconds when you look at French army documents. The Abrams accelerates 0-52 km/h in 7 seconds and the Swedish trials still found that the Leclerc had better acceleration despite the Hyperbar system at the time being plagued with issues.
Spoiler
The Leopard has a governed top speed of 70 km/h or so? The Leclerc has a top speed of 90 km/h and according to crew testimony has “phenomenal aim” travelling at over 80 km/h; similarly, Leclerc firing exercises include firing at 90 km/h.
A 2022 study by Omsktransmash found that the Leclerc was most mobile. Now before you completely disregard it because its Russian, keep in mind that the Russians had plenty of time to observe the Leclerc and Leopard at the Hellenic trials - even then that was a UAE Leclerc which is fitted with a German powerpack and not Hyperbar.
Spoiler
Quickly regarding armour: The Leclerc is able to use a lot heavier for its volume than the Leopard or Abrams because its a much lighter vehicle that also concentrates its armour in a smaller profile. As such, the Leclerc S1 has 5-6t more armour than the Leopard or Abrams.
Spoiler
The Series 2 used a different armour package which increased the weight of the armour by about 2t. Then the SXXI replaced the turret side armour with SLERA to massively decrease the weight in an effort to compensate for the added weight from a new armour package for the turret frontal arc. Despite this, the weight of the armour still increased by 900kg.
So for the SXXI we’re looking at 8-9t more armour over the Leopard 2A4 or Abrams. That’s what? An extra 80% of armour in weight over the 2A7V? Now keep in mind all that armour is concentrated into a much smaller frontal profile.
According to an official statement from the French Minister of Defence at the time, the SXXI turret’s frontal arc is able to withstand M829A3. Marc Chassillan, who worked at GIAT on the Leclerc states the SXXI armour package was developed with M829A3 in mind.
There’ll eventually be a bug report that covers all this and you’ll be able to see all the sources.
But the Leclerc is much better than the Leopard in terms of mobility and for the SXXI and it’s turret at least it was able to achieve a level of protection on par with something like the Strvs (admittedly I doubt its able to achieve ~1600mm CE).
6 Likes
The speedometer of my car goes to 320kph, with a red arc from 270 to 320. But my car barely reaches 190kph (legal on the autobahn don’t worry), so I hardly see speedometers as evidence
3 Likes
Showing a report with 9 sources lol
How is it the case? Do you posses data for how quickly other diesel engines develop their power apart from this single snipet, which likely doesn’t even come from a primary source, personally I doubt that.
If as you say, the latest Leopards are able to accelerate as fast as the 2A4 and then let’s say the 2A4 uses “the best conventional diesel [engine]”, it’s still taking almost 3x as long to reach full power.
MB 873 is far from “the best conventional engine”, seeing as it dates its origins to 1960s.
The Leopard has a governed top speed of 70 km/h or so? The Leclerc has a top speed of 90 km/h and according to crew testimony has “phenomenal aim” travelling at over 80 km/h; similarly, Leclerc firing exercises include firing at 90 km/h.
Refer to the photo I posted. More’so, the “army source” also contradicts GIAT’s own pdf on the Leclerc, everything else can’t be considered reliable, seeing as its crew testimonies (well hello, a Leopard 2 gunner previously claimed that DM63 reaches mv of about ~2000m/s, do we just accept that at face value?) or articles.
A 2022 study by Omsktransmash found that the Leclerc was most mobile. Now before you completely disregard it because its Russian, keep in mind that the Russians had plenty of time to observe the Leclerc and Leopard at the Hellenic trials - even then that was a UAE Leclerc which is fitted with a German powerpack and not Hyperbar.
This study is about “overall mobility & sustainability”, which inclues top speed, fuel usage & other aspects. I can happily disregard it based on the fact it considers the SEPv3 as less capable than the SEPv2, and 2A7V as less capable than the SEPv1. It also considers SEPv2 as the best US version in terms of “speed, fuel reserve & durability” (yes, more modern version = worse based on this). It doesn’t deal with the vehicles presented to the Hellenic trials either, but with the most modern versions, as such they likely;
- had no data (would explain why SEPv3 & 2A7V are considered inferior to the SEPv2)
- Made it based on speculation rather than factual information, likely fed off of public sources that pre-dated the study by years at the time (SEPv3’s TIGER program increased the output of the engine, was that taken into the account? Likely not, since information on that wasn’t available until pretty recently).
(Why is 2A7V considered inferior to the SEPv1 when 2A6EX i.e the 20+ years old version won two [by extension, since Strv 122 won against it in Greece) trials against it?)
Quickly regarding armour: The Leclerc is able to use a lot heavier for its volume than the Leopard or Abrams because its a much lighter vehicle that also concentrates its armour in a smaller profile. As such, the Leclerc S1 has 5-6t more armour than the Leopard or Abrams.
God, reading this page gave my sleep paralysis demon actual paralysis, right, lets begin with the marked quote:
Their reasoning here is that Leclerc has “much denser armour” based on the assumption that Leopard 2 (likely 2A4) & M1A1 have greater armour coverage (yea makes sense, the armours of both date to 1970s, and neither incoroporated heavy elements, or even ceramics for that matter, alas that’s not a really fair comparison - we could optionally just refer to the British documents as well, where Leclerc’s armour is judged as inferior to both of them), the amount of tons itself however is completely made up. Leclerc’s armour pockets are sigificantly thinner than on both M1A1 & Leopard 2, so they can get away with a “theoretically” lighter/less denser armour and make up for it with sheer size… but that isn’t the case since Abrams uses DU inserts for the turret, i.e the densest/heaviest material & Leopard 2 employs ceramics (with a possibility of tungsten being incorporate into the sandwich based on secondary sources, which is yet another very heavy & dense material…).
Conclusion? Whoever wrote that pulled it straight out of his ass.
So for the SXXI we’re looking at 8-9t more armour over the Leopard 2A4 or Abrams. That’s what? An extra 80% of armour in weight over the 2A7V? Now keep in mind all that armour is concentrated into a much smaller frontal profile.
No, we aren’t looking at anything like that. We’re looking at you making lapes in logic to justify Leclerc somehow “matching” vehicles with heavier & denser composite armours. This isn’t how this works at all. All that can be concluded from your ‘sources’ is “i pull at straws whilst not understanding the logic behind their reasoning” (so your argument is that Leclerc has 20 - 21 tons of pure armour? What is it made out of then, pure tungsten? nothing but DU? or maybe neutro star matter at this point? Because I don’t see how it could possibly fit that much armour into such a small frame at all)
Lets also talk about weight spread, so at ~56 tons, at least 37% is nothing but armour according to you - why is Leclerc not experiencing suspension & balance problems if that is the case, because most of this will be located at the front of the hull & turret, adding in the weight of the structure itself, as well as the cannon, fuel & ammunition - Leclerc should be by all accounts suffering from excessive strain on the frontal parts of the suspension.
SLERA
You are aware that SLERA isn’t light at all, right?
Rafael’s SLERA is also quite a bit thinner than the one on the Leclerc.
According to an official statement from the French Minister of Defence at the time, the SXXI turret’s frontal arc is able to withstand M829A3. Marc Chassillan, who worked at GIAT on the Leclerc states the SXXI armour package was developed with M829A3 in mind.
Source? Irrespective of whether you have one or not, M829A3 is longer than Leclerc’s turret at its thickest, but they managed to make it immune to it, likely not. They probably achieved a high enough protection that at a favourable angle, the turret will be able to resist it from a longer range.
Hm
First:source it can go 90km/h from instructor
Second:French sevice man said 90km/h
Third:Captain it can reach 90km/h
Fourth:Again crew member saidd it can reach 90km/h
Fifth:No link to a video but again it can.
And then you have this link,which is French army page.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/nos-materiels/nos-equipements-terre/nos-vehicules/vehicules-blindes-combat/char-leclerc
- Maximum road/off-road speed: 65 km/h (road), 50 km/h (off-road) acceleration 0-30 km/h in 7s
Im not saying that Leclerc cannot reach 90km/h. But like most of sources there are
This magazine says this
This tank driver says this.
This way Abrams should have 100km/h because it doesnt use governor.Or Helcat can push 110km/h.
If you consider that a speedometer as reliable but not the several documents listed by Mambos, then I don’t really see the point of arguing here.
Maybe because the SEPV3 is heavier without major fuel efficiency improvement to the power pack ? (this is speculation from my part. I am no expert on the Sep variants). Same for the 2A6EX, which is lighter than the 2A7V.
The density of depleted uranium is in the realm of tungsten, lead, and other heavy metals. While we don’t know the composition of composites and the thickness of the DU inserts both for the M1A1 and Leclerc, that does not mean that the Leclerc can’t reach a heavier and denser armor in the front by layering a higher percentage of heavy metals such as tungsten.
I don’t think I follow you here. The Leclerc is about 1m shorter than the Leo. Thus, less side armor is required, and more armor can be put at the front.
One of the strangely most advertised thing about the Leclerc is how good its hydraulic transmission is compared to others. It might give you a hint. Also, the Leclerc turret doesn’t goes forward was much as the Leopard for example, and the Autoloader on the back act as a balancer as well. The tank being lighter (edit, I meant shorter) is also less stressed in its longitudinal axe as well, so it can’t be compared apple to apple to the longer M1 and Leo 2
It’d be better to have the actual volume density instead of the area, it’s a bit harder to compare this way. Is it heavier denser than tungsten and other heavy metals that could have been use for the original composite off the Leclerc ? Without knowing the actual density of the original composite on S1 and S2 Leclerc, this comparaison does not have reasons to exist
I’ll let Manboss give you the actual source, as I don’t have it, but AFAIK, the document refers to a 60° frontal arc resistance to “modern APFSDS”, during which the M829A3 and other equivalents already existed