It’s cause it’s only using the two steel plates in the calculation.
I also wouldn’t accept the manufacturers website they are trying to sell the item. Would you trust NII Stalis website for the efficacy of Relikt ERA?
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Velocity is non-negotiable as it’s a hard stat that does not change and isn’t reliant on as nearly as many factors as ERA’s performance. Gaijin’s data for 1660m/s is pretty much non-existent, nowhere have I been able to find it on the net, they pretty much made it up and it goes against everything that’s public.
You possibly can’t be serious with that logic either. Rheinmetall & GDLS have absolutely no reason to fabricate the velocity of DM43A1/KE-W A1, nor does the Bundeswehr have a reason to lie about it. Heck, they’ve been using manufacturers data for nearly (DM43 is the irregularity here) every projectile up to date, but somehow DM43 should be an exception? The OFL F1 (the French name for DM43A1) is set up according to such data as well.
Even by applying pure logic one should be able to see that their stats for DM43(A1) are pure nonsense. It uses the same type of propellant as DM53 (L1), but is a whole kilogram lighter. In what world does a lighter projectile using the exact same type of charge flies at a lower velocity than the heavier one?
If you’re going to peddle nonsense, do us a favour and don’t, at all.
3 Likes
I prefer to have better mobility, better gun handling, blow out panels, better breach armour than just better thermals personally, as poorly spec’d the leclerc’s are compareds to real life i prefer to play them over the challenger, especially now they have that 5 second reload. Ironically i think the challenger 1 is much better to play than the 2 as well.
1 Like
You miss the point entirely, velocity isn’t non negotiable. Velocity is a vector its a variable perhaps you mean speed?
Velocity changes, barometric pressure, size of the charge, barrel length, humidity all have impacts on the Projectile.
Gaijin don’t use available information…Why would they imagine the game when Leos can just shoot T-80BVMs anywhere and one tap them. That’s not good for gameplay and when you consider Russia is still the largest nation played, perhaps apply some common sense. We know based on tests NATO ammunition is designed to counter Russian K5 ERA.
I didn’t say lie, but they certainly exaggerate, have you not seen military ads before. The aim of Rheinmetall is to sell military hardware. The Bundeswehr didn’t make the round.
The facts for the round are incorrect, we know that and we know L27A1 is wrong as is DM53 but we cant start using the manufacturers website as a credible source.
Probably saving that for T-90M Obr 23
Massively the CR2 is crap, the CR1 is playable although not great
1 Like
Sorry, if your point was to make a comparison that is completely off the mark then yea, I did my best to conciously avoid it.
Muzzle velocity (to be precise) isn’t negotiable, velocity loss is, to a degree. The report in question is and always has been for the L/44, as that’s what the data is for, and all sources state the same MV regardless of whether you like it or not.
I didn’t say lie, but they certainly exaggerate, have you not seen military ads before. The aim of Rheinmetall is to sell military hardware. The Bundeswehr didn’t make the round.
Again, why would 3 different institutions (actually, more than 3) all exaggerate the performence of the round? Listen, if you haven’t got a good reason to claim that the velocity ““claimed”” by Rheinmetall, GDLS and the Bundeswehr (who btw, had to test and qualify the round, because otherwise it would not be called DM43(A1), since that’s a naming scheme only used by the Heer, so I think they would have a pretty good idea of how fast it) then I’d really suggest to be quiet.
The facts for the round are incorrect, we know that and we know L27A1 is wrong as is DM53 but we cant start using the manufacturers website as a credible source.
We always have been using manufacturer’s data, sometimes backing it up with additional sources. At this point I wonder if you have any idea what we’re talking about honestly, because pretty much all APFSDS are set up according to such data.
I also take it, that, if I were to ask you for proof of manufacturer data being wrong on L27A1 & DM53, you won’t actually have anything to back your claim up, correct(?)
Now, since this isn’t a thread about DM43 and/or how Gaijin handles data on APFSDS, I’m gonna drop this talk, since it’s unlikely I’ll be met with a reasonable response and might end up wasting my time at the end of it.
2 Likes
Just noticed that the Leclerc is also the only rank VII tank sitting at 11.7
Which means it gets stock HEAT while already being the worst MBT. Any explanation from the devs or it’s just another middle finger to the french players ?
11 Likes
Take a look at France rank 7 currently. Now imagine that the two Leclercs are moved up to rank 8… there’s not a lot left in rank 7 is there? One might say that an empty rank 7 would compel Gaijin to add more vehicles to France (one can only dream).
But if Leclercs would be modelled accurately then earlier varianta could be placed at a lower BR. But that’s currently a WIP.
10 Likes
Even if nothing was added to rank VII, who cares if it’s empty ?
Ranks mean striclty nothing while playing with HEATFS at 11.7 does
You can’t efficiently research rank 8 without any rank 7 vehicles. And an empty rank 7 would look pretty bad and just further confirms what everyone knows to be true - that French ground is completely neglected by the devs.
1 Like
You can’t effeciently research those either with a tank that can only capture points at best.
In my case I researched every Leclerc while playing 7.7 or under. Sure it’s not efficient but at least you don’t have a breakdown every time you play.
Yes, I’m well aware of the issues plaguing the Leclerc and I agree.
1 Like
Now the game counted thermal channel magnification. Many France tanks optics now is fixed 10x in game. Do you know the thermal magnification for
amx30b, amx30 brenus， amx32-120， amx40 and amx10rc？
reports need to be raised if necessary
Btw Super amx30 will change to 4-12 and amx32-105 will remove its thermal (reports acknowledged)
1 Like
It was the A that got nerfed, and all other t-72 too afaik, the plate wasn’t visible on x-ray
Also, this is a reminder that the X-Ray can have stuff that’s present but not part of the damage model [Leclerc UFP] as well.
Would have to test in a match, but it’s possible there was two by whoops.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any info on the optical zoom of the thermal imager. But, the COTAC system on the AMX 30 B2, AMX 32s and AMX 40 have a dedicated rangefinder sight with 4x - 8x optical zoom. Perhaps the devs would consider this. It was on my to-do list but I will get around to it in the coming days.
There’s also an upcoming bug report for how the CASTOR thermal imagers on the AMX 30 B2, AMX 32 (120) and AMX 40 are modelled in game. In reality these thermal imagers achieved the same performance as the 2nd generation FLIR on the Abrams; therefore, they should be modelled accordingly. The thermals on the Challenger 2 are already modelled as being of the 2nd generation despite in real life only being a 1st generation technology - the same policy should apply to France.
Performance of CASTOR according to French army documents:
Spoiler
Performance of the M1A2 SEP FLIR according to US army documents:
Spoiler
I will move both of these issues up the to-do list.
Yes, this is uses a German thermal imager and doesn’t apply to any other vehicles in France.
5 Likes
so 2 issues you will do：
1，COTAC MBT magnification changed to 4-8x or 4-10x？
2，upgrade these mbt thermal channel to 2nd gen？
Just verify if I understand correctly
It seems nothing can be done for amx10rc
Also do you have any turret travese rate for amx32 and 40
In game they are even slower than amx30b，if elevation rate could be buffed is awsome as well
- COTAC MBT optical zoom could be changed to 4x - 8x but it is ultimately at the devs’ discretion
- These MBTs will be modelled as having 2nd generation FLIR in-game
As for the AMX 10 RC… I will have to look into it more.
Not that I recall. I would have to go digging through what little source material I have for them but to be honest not much source material even exists for these tanks in the first place.