WOT is a fantasy. Not really a good source of information
I know but the sources for 5s reload are omnipresent
People, this is not a thread comparing the Leclerc and the Leo 2, it’s a thread about fixing the Leclerc.
Could you please stop the derail or create a separate thread if you wanna talk about it? Thanks.
18 Likes
I mean, the Reddit video I posted above is a good sign and a good reminder of why we’re fighting for, among other things, a buff to the Leclerc’s mobility and agility. People assume that it is in a good enough spot and, as everyone can see on the video, it’s almost on par with the Challenger (!!!) while falling behind every other MBT.
1 Like
Oh I agree, I linked to this video earlier in the thread myself. I wasn’t especially targeting anyone with my comment, just the ongoing debate that started long before you linked the video 😉
1 Like
That thing is fucking fast, holy shit :D
But the braking force and suspension travel is staggering too. Man, this is so much more alive than the model in WT gives it credit. Makes all the Tanks in WT look “sleepy” by comparison.
Btw, this seems to be an S2 refit, no? It has the different commander sight but the S2 gen armor by the looks of it.
How is there a Leclerc in WOT? In the standard game? Have they advanced this much?
There’s an interesting view to gain from a game design perspective though. Not that it is a fundamental argument, but the tank gets strengths in some areas while having weaker stats in others. It has an edge you can exploit if you decide to. Now in WT, this isn’t so much the case currently. Especially not for the poor Ariete, who sort of got that treatment as the ultimate “glass cannon” but… fell behind as other nations seriously bulked up.
Color me confused to this day, but I don’t quite get how the top Leopards required DM53 that much. At least not when considering that I actually need to weakspot snipe them in the tank that is one-clickable by their ammo. Again, talking from a game design perspective.
The latest S2 variants got a CITV, so that’s probably one of them. The S2 in game probably is of an older model
That was actually an error of mine. It has the standard S2 commanders sight. I checked again :)
Does not dismiss your point, but the one in the vid seems to be an original S2. Or rather one without the CITV upgrade.
No, the tranche 9 (last S2 variant) Leclercs received 3rd gen IRIS thermal imagers over the 2nd gen ATHOS. Only the SXXI received CITVs.
Fun fact: IRIS thermal imagers are also found on the periscopes of French nuclear submarines (although a scaled-up, more powerful version obviously).
Another fun fact: IRIS thermals are the best 3rd gen thermal in-game yet the devs refuse to treat it as such.
Just look at the identification/ recognition/ detection (I/R/D) ranges for IRIS vs ATTICA GL (found on the Leopard 2A7V). Both IRIS and ATTICA GL are LWIR (long wave infrared) thermal imagers…
IRIS
Spoiler
ATTICA GL
Spoiler
I/R/D=12/5/2.6
An idea of what I/R/D looks like
So IRIS is better (despite being invented in 1995 lol). Obviously, ‘detection’ doesn’t look like much (if anything) and long ranges, this is why the French also built in an automatic search and tracking function to figure it out for the crew.
This same function was not seen on Leopards until the 2A7V IIRC. The Abrams didn’t get this function until at least the SEP v2 - even then I have doubts.
Quick correction the SEPv3 is lighter then all but the M1A1 (without DU) from 1985.
1 Like
That’s ATTICA-Z for PERI R17A3 that entered service with the ‘vanilla’ 2A7 in 2014, it has less detector elements than ATTICA-GL for EMES. There is no hard data on GL’s I/R/D as far as I’m aware.
Also note the targets, for A-Z it was 2.3x2.3m (i.e much smaller than any MBT), in case of IRIS they talk about “NATO tank”, so I assume we’re likely talking about your average ~8.5x3m target. Not exactly a fair comparison.
despite being invented in 1995 lol
ATTICA was at the very least already ‘on the market’ as of 2001 (earliest mention of them I could find during my 2 minute long google search), in one form or another.
2.3m x 2.3m is just a NATO standard target. It’s a fair comparison, otherwise I wouldn’t make it:
I was under the impression that both the commander and gunner use the same thermal imager.
Spoiler
Similarly, the manufacturer states that the PER 17 A3 (which is the brochure from which the graph comes from) uses “The latest generation of ATTICA thermal imagers” (i.e. ATTICA GL)
Spoiler
1 Like
2.3m x 2.3m is just a NATO standard target. It’s a fair comparison, otherwise I wouldn’t make it
According to your own source(s), 2.3x2.3m target is equal to a car “The values of these parameters are given for several characteristic targets (human, car, standard NATO target [MBT], ship, etc.)”, while for IRIS the target is a “NATO tank”
I was under the impression that both the commander and gunner use the same thermal imager.
No, ATTICA-Z has a much smaller matrix with significantly less detector elements than ATTICA-GL (388x2xx something, don’t remember exactly for Z, while GL packs a matrix with 640x512 DL), the lesser amount of LD will result in a worse performance for ATTICA-Z, which is understandable considering the fact it’s over 10 years old by now, probably turning 15 y/o soon’ish.
Do remember that ATTICA is a family of thermal imagers, as such there can be significant differences between one ATTICA & a 2nd ATTICA (GL versus Z, the Attica-Z itself has at least 2 versions as well, one for the Leopard 2 “small” and one for the Puma “large” it appears I’m wrong, both GL & Z are based on the same 640x512 matrix according to BTTR [but there’s no data on GL so i’d say this needs further confirmation], with Puma they seem to be using a different version).
As much as i love reading your posts can you two keep this discussion on Dm please?
This thread should be about Leclerc mainly.
6 Likes
I’ll just leave this since I think it’s still relevant to the Leclerc. I think this should put the argument to rest.
Spoiler
Full source:
STANAG 4347 (ED. 1), NATO STANDARDIZATION AGREEMENT DEFINITION OF NOMINAL STATIC RANGE PERFORMANCE FOR THERMAL IMAGING SYSTEMS.zip (1.6 MB)
And if anyone is interested, I came across this paper from SAGEM (the manufacturer) about the IRIS thermal imager found on the Leclerc S2 T9 and SXXIs.
Just very quickly and I think there should be no further reason to discuss:
Spoiler
Yes, going back over this it seems to be the case as PERI 17 A3 and PUMA are using thermal imagers with different spectral wavelengths.
PUMA
PERI 17 A3
However, the PUMA brochure pre-dates the PERI 17 A3 brochure by about 11 years:
PUMA
PERI 17 A3
Which makes me think, if anything that the PUMA would use ATTICA Z and PERI 17 A3 is using ATTICA GL
2 Likes
They can be adapted.
Spoiler
Spoiler
However, the PUMA brochure pre-dates the PERI 17 A3 brochure by about 11 years:
Said brochure is what originally led me to believe that ATTICA-Z uses a matrix with less detector elements than GL, but it doesn’t. Why? Because the scanner with the 384 x 288 pixel detector is ATTICA-P, which predates both Z & GL.
Spoiler
Right, now there’s no need to discuss this further.
1 Like
These responses are being quoted from a Community Manger which has answered some of the many questions people are looking for.
-
“The armor will be looked at as soon as the developers will be able to look at it. It’s worth noting that all modern MBTs armour questions are hard ones, since some stuff is classified, sources contradict eachother and whatnot, so it takes a lot of time and effort to come up with decent conclusions.”
-
"From my previous experience with the Leclerc reload reports I can tell you that the reload of 5 seconds with continuous fire is currently considered unlikely. The part of the autoloader which sends the shell to the breech may work for 5 seconds as seen in the videos, but it doesn’t represent the actual rate of fire, to which things like the gun rollback and moving the gun into the loading position and from it also contribute.
In one of the videos provided in this report, for example, you can see that the time between the actual shots is close to 6 seconds. Moreover, sources about Leclerc do contradict eachother (and they might contradict due to the fact that the loading mechanism itself seems to work for 5 seconds, like some other videos show), so at least currently it is unlikely there is some evidence that the reload should be 5 seconds. However, the developers do study the sources the players provide, so if the reload of 5 seconds is realistic, and there is enough publicly available evidence to that, then sure, some day the reload may get changed. "
Basically, they aren’t able to find reliable sources which helps understand the armor of the MBT’s which is one of their main problems when it comes to trying to make tank armor realistic. Now if you are curious about why other nations get more vehicles unlike France it’s due to other nations having more vehicles but from what i was told they’ll still give France a few vehicles here and there to either fill up the gaps or just to make France a fun playable nation.
I’m sorry, but this is absolutely laughable…
Spoiler
If you couldn’t tell, I ran out of space to add more possible candidates. That’s excluding all the projects we can’t find photos of yet know existed - such as a VBCI with a TML105 turret.
France could only have access to indigenous vehicles but still easily be the 2nd most fleshed out TT, only behind the USSR. There are a plethora of candidates yet the devs just blatantly refuse to do anything about it. Instead, it’s: “Here have a Dutch CV9035 instead”.
7 Likes
Could you provide the full article possibly? Thank you!
Sure, the maximum reload could be 6 seconds if the gun is fully elevated and in the worse conditions possible, but that doesn’t mean the 5 seconds reload is not achieavable-
Having the barrel in such a position is a extremely rare occurrence, both in-game and in real life, hence why I will be referring to 5 seconds as being the correct reloading rate.
However, it seems that Developers don’t believe the Leclerc could take 5 seconds to reload at all, despite the numerous sources provided.
Except this rule comes only when it comes to buffing the reload of the Leclerc apparently;
If we follow this line of sight, then it means other tanks needs to have their reload halfed too- manually loaded tank should reload in more time if the breach is not leveled up or autoloaded tanks that needs to get locked in a certain position like the Leclerc should get their reload halfed as well by even more than one second, depending on the elevation of the gun and its elevation speed. Let alone in movement, where currently the reload speed of manually loaded tanks stays the same.
For your and Developers informations, i attached in the report a source that mentions the Leclerc breach needs to be locked in resting position (-1.8°) before even starting the reload, moveover, the same source affirm an effective fire rate of 10-12 rounds/min, proving in fact that 12 rounds/min are certainly possible.
The 10 rounds/min refer in the case of a fully elevated gun, which as i explained previously, is the worst possible situation.
Knowing that the reload occurs only when the barrel is in resting position, we can take a look at this video,
this was an official testing made my GIAT itself, proof of that claim will be attached below.
Char leclerc 6 coups en 1mn (youtube.com)
Spoiler
You can see that the barrel goes in resting position (-1.8°), and stays there for roughly 5 seconds, which is exactly how much the reload take. You may ask me why i had to specify this detail, and the answer is quite simple. The gun needs to be in resting position before even starting the reload, which is why we can confidently say the reload is 5 seconds, as can be seen on this video.
The reason why only 6 shots have been made in one minute of course is quite simple to explain as well, since the Leclerc FCS had to calculate and hit every target at that speed (50km/h), this has nothing to do with the reload itself however.
One could say videos are not a valid sources where we talk about reload, which i do agree partially, however those videos comes from Manufacter sometimes, and are backed up by Primary and Secondary sources.
For example, on a Brochure from GIAT:
“Redoublement du feu en moints the 6 seconds.” As stated from on the Brochure.
This quite much proves the fact that reloading in 5 seconds is possible, but Developers do seems to not even believe the Leclerc can reload in 5 seconds at all- They decided to give the worse possible value without an apparent reason based on the fact they do want to take into account the barrel movement, while this rule seem to be valid only for the Leclerc.
Without even counting that sources, just going by fact and logic, It is reasonable that they decided to give to every 120mm Abrams a 5 seconds reload for 18 rounds consecutively? Developers think an Abrams loader can reload 18 rounds consecutively at the rate of 5 seconds? That loader should be a superhuman then. Do Developers think this is possible at every elevation state of them gun, or while moving? Doesn’t seem possible, however here we are.
Of course, US Win Rates are miserable and Developers had to find a solution, which is fine of course, but i think its incoherent considering the barrel movement that reliogiousely for the Leclerc reload while we have clear example here of double standards with the Abrams reload buff, which shouldn’t be nowhere near this good in movement or for 18 rounds continuously.
Does the Abrams is a worse tank than the Leclerc? No as well, its flat out better, yet it keeps receivng buffs unlike the latter.
Me, together with several other people have been working on trying to fix the Leclerc, but all i see in this reponse seems like a joke to me, especially considering the work put into those reports and the time used.
The Leclerc have the worst round out of every top tier vehicle as well, @SPANISH_AVENGER recently made an excellent post about the rounds that could or could not be given to the Leclerc, but it seems Developers haven’t been paying attentions to that post as well, this is discouraging, are we losing time here?
Does Developers actualy read the sources attached?
In my two reports about the reload i have attached every possible public source about the Leclerc reload, everything else is classified thus is why i cannot share it, yet it seems more is wanted. What do they want? A statement from Emmanuel Macron or a Leclerc delivered to their Headquarters with some rounds so they can test it themself?
@Smin1080p @magazine2 could it be possible to know if this statement actualy comes from a Developer/Community Manager? Also, could it be possible to forward my post additionally with my reports about the reload again to the Developers?
14 Likes