They do use a metallic layered system. I do not have infos on how much layer and what width tho.
My bad, I did not expect those tiny indent to make such a huge difference
Once again, I really thought it was a typo. I don’t really understand your point here tho. Why couldn’t the Leclerc accept more composite ? The hull is several tons lighter, with a similarly powerful power pack, and excellent suspension system.
Once again, coming back to my error of misinterpreting you. If you have a problem with the Leclerc frontal armor, why not just adding more composite
How much more? Leclerc’s hull could very much also reach a weight limit much sooner than Leopard 2s (which is officially rated for up to 75 tons starting from the 2A7V), I don’t see why it couldn’t be mounted with “far more armour” either (when it has many times before, Leopard 2 REVO, Leopard 2 ATD etc).
Shorter hull allowing for more armour to be concentrated over a smaller surface area
This depends on crew placement once they’re moved down to the hull’s capsule. I doubt engine compartments will see more than just slat armour so they should be comparable in this case.
The Leclerc has more space for electronics which is why between the French and Germans, it was only the latter that struggled to fit all the computers to handle new optronics:
This is because Germany mounts all their computers in the turret. They also haven’t ditched analog solutions for data transfers yet (due to their preference for ‘reliability’ as such the space is more limited, but starting from the 2A8, they plan on fully switching to digital methods and thus freeing up a lot of space needed for more advanced electronic products. The hull by itself has more than enough space (especially after EPP is installed) to accept that which can be seen on RC 3.0’s example.
Btw, if you don’t mind, send the pdf over my way :^)
man sorry but that’s just cope honestly, shorter hull means that they have to either change the crew position to make the composite longer or extend it further away, it is lighter but because of the same reason its shorter and its missing armor in the lower hull, the leclerc has the same if not less space for electronics as a 2A7
Leclerc XLR is supposed to be weigh up to 65 tonnes (almost 10 tonnes more than the current SXXI). It has a much smaller frontal profile than the Leopard 2 so it could possibly achieve a similar level of protection to modern Leopards if weight were the only constraint to be considered.
Currently, the Leclerc hull (in real life) should have between 600 - 700mm LOS of composite excluding the lower front plate but that’s mostly empty. Whether the French would be able to increase that to the 1000mm that you previously claimed (awhile ago now) that the Leopard 2 has… well, none of us could answer that question.
I misspoke here, I meant shorter hull in terms of height.
I’d assume they would consider putting it in the hull if they could. Ah well, neither of us could ever really know.
Leclerc systems are also all analogue until the XLR.
Really? Have we not argued enough to consider each other’s sources legitimate?
buddy. nobody will use the EMBT, the embt literaly only is a showcase of the french german collaboration and how far the mgcs project is going.
If anything they might sell them as export, but neither france or germany gonna use them
Anything with a larger profile requires armour to be spread across a larger area. Therefore, less armour can be concentrated. If the Leclerc hull only needs to (hypothetically) fit 2m² of armour to cover the entire hull meanwhile the Leopard needs to fit 3m², well then, if both can only take up to 10t of armour - which one is going to be better armoured?
if there is more area in the hull dosent that mean more armor can be fit in that area? oh nvm i get it you mean the ammount of material used for a larger area but with the same or more lenght i was still stuck on the idea you were talking about hull lenght not height
Nice. Anything to show that German politics was directly responsible. I mean, I’ve attached the manufacturer stating that they couldn’t find the physical space to fit everything…
Almost? Since when is S21 only as heavy as S2 variants.
It has a much smaller frontal profile than the Leopard 2 so it could possibly achieve a similar level of protection to modern Leopards if weight were the only constraint to be considered.
What’s “similar level of protection” are we talking about because given Leclerc’s thinner armour pockets, I can’t see them achieving ~700mm RHAe over a wide arc the same way Leopard 2s do.
Currently, the Leclerc hull (in real life) should have between 600 - 700mm LOS of composite excluding the lower front plate but that’s mostly empty.
Whether the French would be able to increase that to the 1000mm that you previously claimed (awhile ago now) that the Leopard 2 has… well, none of us could answer that question.
Oh it’s not really a “claim” per se, I’m using known armour dimensions that are based on either ‘leaked’ or public blueprints of in-service Leopard 2 guts where the hull’s armour space was estimated at between ~700 and ~725mm. From there you cos(60) the add-on for the final results.
I misspoke here, I meant shorter hull in terms of height.
I don’t think it is smaller height wise either. The reason why Leclerc may appear smaller is because the turret’s flatter than Leopard 2s.
Really? Have we not argued enough to consider each other’s sources legitimate?
Why do you think it’s cause I don’t consider your source “illegitimate”? I just want to add it to my collection :)
It applies in all dimensions. If your vehicle is overall smaller (in heigh, width, length, or any combination of those), you can fit deeper armor hence more LOS, hence better armor for the same weight. Now, considering the overall surface coverage of the Leopard and Leclerc, as well as their weight, the Leclerc does not lag in this metric. Then, it will also depend on the composite tech, but that’s not something either of us can argue about
