The Leclerc is in dire need of a buff

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
2676

I don’t own this data, but I know a thing or two about engines. It isn’t so much about a Diesel Engine developing the power here, but a combustion engine based on the amount of air it can get. And the reason the Leclerc develops the power so quickly is the Hyperbar feature, that describes a gas turbine replacing a turbo charger and thus delivering peak air compression much quicker as it does not need spool up like a regular turbo does, which is dependent on the exhaust flow. It is equivalent to the new E-Turbo chargers used on some sport cars (mostly engineering adventures by manufacturers) and race cars (The Lancia Delta in Group B combined Turbo- and Supercharger for this reason). They “eliminate” (or extremely reduce) what is commonly described as Turbo Lag and means the engine delivers its power much, much sooner.

Based on this the idea of the gas turbine charger is a prooven concept. The only matter that can be considered debatable is the time it takes to reach it, but it will surely be faster than any regular turbo.

2677

Torque, the Leclerc is equipped with a V8 hyperbar. The main difference with other engines is that it doesn’t need to reach high RPMs to get full power, you get it instantly and the tank is quick from the get go. It does not really increase top speed much but it does increase acceleration a lot.

It is not really a secret that GIAT sources contradict other GIAT sources sometimes, using crew testimonies give a us a better idea of reality and might be a solution for a middle ground.

The turret of the Leclerc was actually much heavier than it’s NATO counterparts when the final version of the tank was made. Also your British document refers to a Leclerc T1, where the armor was still in development so it needs to be ignored.

The Swedish STRVB+ is lighter than the leopard 2A7V and better armored, what is your point? “This is not how it work at all” but it does, the composition of the armor matters A LOT, more weight does not always mean more armor. The STRVB + showed it is possible to be lighter and better armored, and the Challenger to be heavier and less armored. ( Also let’s remember the turret of the Leclerc is actually heavy )

Plus the Leclerc received great attention for the weight. Just for the tracks titanium was used to save 800kg compared to other MBTs. The point of the autoloader was to reduce the dimension of the tank to be lighter. They also fitted a V8 which is lighter and more compact to save weight and there more.

I will answer if you need any sources, I did not link them because it would’ve take forever to make an appropriate post.

2678

Sorry you lost me here, documents? Since when are crew testimonies & articles “documents”?

But sure, lets talk documents:
image

GIAT’s brochure on the Leclerc.

  • what @Wulfalier posted.

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.

SEPv3 is the version where fuel efficiency improvements were carried out(!). Along with increase the hp outout of the engine. It also doesn’t explain why 2A7V is considered less “battle worthy” than the SEPv1.

The density of depleted uranium is in the realm of tungsten, lead, and other heavy metals.

Sorry what? Lead has a density of 11.34g/cc, DU & an alloy with a high content of W sit between 18.5g/cc - 18.6g/cc, with pure W being 19.3 g/cc on average.

How is lead comparable to them? Lead is closer to steel in terms of density than to those two heavy metals.

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 think you misunderstood me. I never said Leclerc can’t have or can’t use dense materials as part of its armour. I said that that Leopard 2 & M1 use heavy material (metals) as part of their armour and have a bigger space to pack that armour into, so they can jam in more of them (or of normal NERA - which by itself progressed since 1970s). Do you see my point now? In no universe does the Leclerc come out comparable… unless the armour is made out Adamantium… this actually reminds of-

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.

How is this relevant?

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

Okay, now what about those:

  • ground pressure issues (6 wheels, most of the weight being located at the front, this cannot simply be compensated by “good suspension”, and i’ve no idea why you mentioned the transmission here)
  • centre of mass

The turret’s centre of mass (assuming the 21 tonne weight is absolutely true) would be located at the 2nd or 3rd wheel, throw in the hull armour weight, we have have absolutely horrible strain being put on the most forwards two wheels… how is this compensated for?

The tank being shorter but at the same time having such an un-even weight distribution will cause nothing but issues, to both stability of the vehicle & suspension, ground pressure, will make it easier for the vehicle to dig itself into the ground etc.

The issue here is that Bossman threw in a quote (that by itself is unsupported), and then claimed that Leclerc magically packs so much armour in weight, yet it causes no issues? Leopard 2 needed stronger torsion bars each time an upgrade to the frontal armour was carried out, and each time they added heavier stuff to the turret’s rear to fix any balance issues - and we’re talking about ~12 (to at best 14) tonnes of armour, a % of which is located on the sides of the vehicle, as such not putting as much strain on the front… but again, Leclerc with ~8 tons more experiences none? I hope you’re seeing what the issue is now. The weight of Leclerc’s armour simply cannot be that high, i’d be amazed if it is more than 6 tons in fact (ffs it doesn’t even need more than that considering the flat turret design).

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 ?

Yes, I agree. My point there was that SLERA isn’t as light as Bossman might believe. Aside from that if Leclerc does incorporate heavy metals into the armour, it will be at the front, not the sides.

during which the M829A3 and other equivalents already existed

Right, but that’s PR jargon. Similar to how Japanese claim the Type 10 can stop all modern APFSDS, the “modern APFSDS” in Leclerc’s case can refer to anything from OFL F1/DM43A1, through L27A1, to DM63 & M829A3.

2679

Yup, agreed.

2680

This can (theoretically) be explained by the use of hydrogas suspension. A reference can be found with the Challenger 2 which is capable of running all of its additional armor without any suspension change. That’s why this is not a great reference to base any assumptions on. Each part can also be individually tuned for the respective weight, by adding or removing the amount of gas in the cylinder. That’s why it is so adjustable.

2681

It cannot be (theoretically) explained this way, sadly. Challenger 2s had not upgraded its frontal hull armour ever since the Challenger 1, meaning it kept a constant weight of ~1.4 tons for its hull array. Even if take into the account the TES packages, all that weight is distributed mostly evenely throughout the entire vehicle, rather than being focused only on the front i.e there no excessive strain being put at any section of the suspension (but even then, there are photos of Challenger 2s leaning forward due to this weight despite the hydrogas & even spread).

Now imagine trying it with the Leclerc, which per Bossman (“80% more armour in weight than 2A7V” - > 21 - 25 tons depending on how much you think 2A7Vs armour weights), but without balancing it out all around, and the hull array itself accounting for ~7.5 to ~8.5 of tons (??).

While I do agree that the hydrogas is generally more capable in this aspect… it’s not this capable.

2682

Sure, except not. Crew testimonies aren’t considered a source (in any sense of the word, this is why DM53 isn’t flying at velocities close to ~2000m/s, contrary to what some gunners previously claimed).

The turret of the Leclerc was actually much heavier than it’s NATO counterparts when the final version of the tank was made.

Source?

Also your British document refers to a Leclerc T1, where the armor was still in development so it needs to be ignored.

Why’s that? Unless the armour drastically changed between the document & production variant, it can be used with no problems.

The Swedish STRVB+ is lighter than the leopard 2A7V and better armored, what is your point?

Lets ignore the dozens of reports on 2A7Vs armour… or how it’s currently less armoured than a prototype Germany made in 1991… totally a great idea for an argument, isn’t it? More like a strawman argument, anyways.

The STRVB + showed it is possible to be lighter and better armored

The Strv 122B+ also replaced the heavy frontal add-on armour with an empty one… it’s cosmetic in real life, at this point I how wonder people haven’t figured it out yes, ah yes - 300kg for an entire side of armour, IBD apparently is was a company of magicians.

They also fitted a V8 which is lighter and more compact to save weight and there more.

Assuming Army Guide is even accurate:

Spoiler

image

Spoiler

image

The V8X is heavier than MB 873…

2683

IMG_1215

6 Likes
2684

3 Likes
2685

French army website is not a reliable source since a lot of the numbers are cooked. Same case with how the Bundeswehr website is not always reliable.

Regarding the brochure @FurinaBestArchon has attached above, it is from the early 2000s (even then GIAT would understate the performance of their vehicles). If we refer to this display at Eurosatory 2022, it states that the off-road speed of the Leclerc (note that the XLR drive train is the same as on previous Leclercs) is 72 km/h.

Spoiler

IMG_4665
IMG_46651920×1440 280 KB

Now look at the Eurasatory 2022 display for the 2A7 and note how it says the on-road speed is 60 km/h:

Spoiler

IMG_0054
IMG_00541920×1280 111 KB

It makes the distinction between on-road and off-road speed. Now if we refer to the testimony of a Leclerc captain:

“The tank alone weighs nearly 57 tons and can reach speeds of 70 km/h in all terrain and 90 km/h on the road”

Similarly, there is also a document from the French army which states a top speed of 90 km/h (which I’ve attached above somewhere).

Nevermind all the other secondary sources that state a top speed of 90 km/h.

And here, for shits and giggles… a Leclerc travelling at 80 km/h to demonstrate the brakes. Earlier in the video, the Leclerc crewman states they will be travelling at 80 km/h:

4 Likes
2686

A Rheinmetall engineer somehow specializes in weight repartition who got offended when someone stated the fact that Leclerc would smoke the Leo2A7 and Abrams on the asphalt.

2687

Which is for the Leopard 2A7 NO (copy-paste of it, they even say that it depends on the final drive, 2A7 NO & 2A7V have different final drives). It isn’t representative of all 2A7 variants. Look at the weight as well (2A7V is 66.5 tons last I checked, a 2A7+ can be 67.5 tons).

it states that the off-road speed of the Leclerc (note that the XLR drive train is the same as on previous Leclercs) is 72 km/h.

It also states that the hydropneumatic suspension has an hp output of 1500… as well as “complete protection regenerative and modular” (???). I’d love to know how they created an armour that can regenerate honestly. Nanomachine armour finally?

Y’all still haven’t figured out that KNDS promos always contain typos & mistakes or misleading info?

And here, for shits and giggles… a Leclerc travelling at 80 km/h to demonstrate the brakes. Earlier in the video, the Leclerc crewman states they will be travelling at 80 km/h:

He said/she said. Without a speedometer that’s not evidence.

2688

You missed the point, I said GIAT is a primary source that usually contradict itself. To know what it is true and what is not we can use crew testimonies to know which primary source is more likely to be correct.

Sadly I can’t find my source for now you can dismiss it if you want. (It’s pretty hard to find reliable sources on the leopard 2A5 )

Of course it was modified quite extensively, even the composition of the armor got changed.
The T1 literally refers to the first prototypes. The armor testing was not done until T3 - T4.

Source on this. this seems really sketchy, also we both know a prototype is not a production version. How do you even justify the armor of a tank with a prototype, this is not how it work? Are you there to just cry about how the leopard is underpowered or because you actually care and know a bit about the Leclerc? This is also not how a strawman argument even work.

Source? This seems like a suspect affirmation. Sweden has been showed to actually produce a lot of armor package for their tanks, they even prepared some for the Abrams and the Leclerc. I greatly doubt the aesthetic argument.

You are comparing a dry weight to a engine full of fluids, empty the Leclerc engine is about 2100 kg.

You also said I strawman but geez boy, look at yourself.

Who are you trying to fool? Do you just pretend to be this way?

2689

My honest reaction to that discussion.

2 Likes
2690

Right, because crew testimonies are soo reliable, not.

Source on this.

Spoiler

image

How do you even justify the armor of a tank with a prototype, this is not how it work?

How do you justify a production tank’s armour being worse than a prototype? You keep repeating that Leclerc improved the armour going from prototype to production version, but here you are trying to claim the opposite for the Leopard 2A7, lol. Almost is if the point shot over your head faster than SHARD can fly.

Are you there to just cry about how the leopard is underpowered or because you actually care and know a bit about the Leclerc? This is also not how a strawman argument even work.

Should we roll back to you being the one talk about how 2A7V is less armoured than 122B+, and me explaining why that is?

Source? This seems like a suspect affirmation. Sweden has been showed to actually produce a lot of armor package for their tanks, they even prepared some for the Abrams and the Leclerc. I greatly doubt the aesthetic argument.

Sweden hasn’t produced any armour packages for their tanks since they accepted the Leopard 2 for service. Strv 122s armour is MEXAS-H (developed by IBD), 122B+'s armour is AMAP-B - also developed by IBD.

The armour packages for the Abrams & Leclerc were modified MEXAS-H packages (hence why they improved the protection by 50 - 100%, just as they did with the Leopard 2 Improved).

You are comparing a dry weight to a engine full of fluids, empty the Leclerc engine is about 2100 kg.

Source?

Who are you trying to fool? Do you just pretend to be this way?

Yes, reading is hard, I know:

image

5 Likes
2691

I was going to respond to your other comments, but if you’re going to be this disingenuous I see no point. “Regenerative” is obviously a translation error since it’s originally a brochure in French. But here’s another brochure which states 72 km/h offroad:

Spoiler

Source 5 pg. 2

One also has to appreciate how you’ve cherry picked which brochures you consider ‘reliable’ to back up your claims. Here’s also another display from a few years back:

Spoiler

Figure 1
Figure 1964×1500 221 KB

But hey, it’s obviously not worthy in your eyes…

Anyway, what’s even more funny is how you’ve deemed a direct quotation from an interview with a French colonel as “doubt[ful]” when (as I seem to have remembered correctly) you cited some secondary source as reason to have the Leopard 2A7 hull brought up to par with the turret.

Spoiler

image
image1194×68 22 KB

So let’s say the turret protection on the 2A7 is at least that of the Strvs… so you’re saying the hull (which to my knowledge has 700mm LOS) can withstand 820 KE? Doesn’t that contradict your earlier rant about how such a thing would be virtually impossible?

Anyway, here’s a picture of Martin Klotz in case putting a name to a face will make it more ‘reliable’ for you:

Spoiler

image

Also, just for future reference, the Leclerc does not use a conventional diesel engine. The French strapped a helicopter turbine to a V8 and called it a day, but it allowed for a lot more instantaneous power. Also the interview with Klotz is from 2000, so it would include the 1500 hp engine found on current Leopards. So unless you have you’re own primary source stating the Leopard can reach 1500hp in less than 8 seconds, I’m going to be sticking with the Klotz.

6 Likes
2692

Can’t be, you finally understood what I meant?!

Bold of you to talk about being disingenious after making some of the worst claims I’ve seen up to date (you overshadowed the claims of Japanese players quite frankly).

But here’s another brochure which states 72 km/h offroad

Both of them state “trail” speed & use that interchangeably with “off-road”, if we consider the fact they don’t mean one and the same, other tanks can also achieve their top speeds on trails, although fair enough.

I’ll come back to this in a sec tho (might be able to calculate the trail speed of a 2A5 if the video wasn’t sped up).

(which to my knowledge has 700mm LOS)

Yes, of the hull when the add-on armour is not fitted, with the add-on armour it increases to ~900mm+, how is that a contradiction?

You’re aware that Strv 122 already achieves ~750mm RHAe KE due to increased hull LoS, right? Unimaginable that the same could be done with a 2A7V.

cited some secondary source as reason to have the Leopard 2A7 hull brought up to par with the turret.

It was rejected, so you’re latching onto a report that achieved nothing (granted we included direct evidence of the new hull armour array, and Gaijin still treated it worse than anything we imagined, making the armour worse than that of a Leopard 2 KVT, a prototype from 1990 - 91). Also we don’t need to imagine the turret performing “the same” as 122s, it has to perform the same at least because German & Swedish tanks used identical inner & outer armours up until the 2A7V.

Anyway, what’s even more funny is how you’ve deemed a direct quotation from an interview with a French colonel

You’re taking offense to me doubting a claim that isn’t backed up by anything? Mkay.

So unless you have you’re own primary source stating the Leopard can reach 1500hp in less than 8 seconds, I’m going to be sticking with the Klotz.

Shifting the burden of proof to the other person, okay, got it. I’d love to have information on how fast MB 873 develops its power, however the best source on it has been deleted from existence to my knowledge, so sucks for me :)

2693

Good job missing the point again.

Yes because sometimes a tank can have a lesser armor than a prototype version. For the Leclerc we have a dozen of documents showing they actually improved it. You will have to prove this for the leopard too or maybe not considering the devs are really much into Germany now.

You said the armor was there for aesthetic, this is extremely ignorant. Most of this is classified, I just think it is fair to assume Sweden does a decent job at it.

Sure, this doesn’t prove anything though. Also the Leclerc don’t really use Mexas.

It just means you can replace the armor modules, if you were not so full of bad faith you would try to ignore this kind of mistake…

2694

I’m going to be honest, if you have a secondary source to contradict it - I’m all ears. But the way I see it, it’s the best available source.

What is it you’re doubtful about? The fact that a helicopter turbine performs better than a turbocharger? Or that the person in charge of the Leclerc program from the French army side of things is not ‘reliable’?

I didn’t know this. Fair enough

But this isn’t the point. KNDS make the specific distinction between off-road and on-road. For the Leclerc, the off-road speed is 72 km/h which aligns with independent crew testimony and an official French army document.

2695

You’re ridiculous honestly. They upgrade the armour, they use a newer add-on armour module - > protection goes down relative to a prototype with internal armour that was originally developed in 1970s. For all me & Manboss said today, you’ve presented idiocy in its purest form.

You said the armor was there for aesthetic, this is extremely ignorant. Most of this is classified, I just think it is fair to assume Sweden does a decent job at it.

AMAP-B that 122B+ is using was made by IBD, lol. Then again, do explain to me how they managed to fit armour for both sides of the hull & turret into just 350kg. I know that nano-ceramics are extremely potent for their weight, but this is beyond ridiculous. Funnily, when you look at the arrowhead, you can see that THERE ARE NO BOLTS (look at ANY OTHER Leopard 2 with the wedge add-ons, notice that all of them have giant bolts to keep the laminated sandwich in place… but you know which other Leopard 2 has no bolts? 2A4M CAN, and its arrowhead is EMPTY INSIDE) as such it has no multilayered armour, unless they made them magically suspend in the air.

Sure, this doesn’t prove anything though. Also the Leclerc don’t really use Mexas.

@Manboss191 Honestly, maybe I treated you too harshly.

It just means you can replace the armor modules, if you were not so full of bad faith you would try to ignore this kind of mistake…

Just admit it’s a typo holy moly. That’s what I was pointing out this entire time.