That’s not exactly how a contract in the defense sector works, but i will concede the round was qualified just recently
This whole paragraph would be true, if and only if the OFL 120 F1B+ didn’t exist, which was some upgrade over the ecisting F1 round. What was the increase of performance between the 2 is unknown unfortunately. As for the 15% increase of Shard, the base round which it’s compared to is never mentioned. Assuming that is the F1B+ (would make the most sense since it’s the most recent one currently in use), it would then be difficult to estimate its penetration since the pen of that round is still unknown.
The existing firepower isn’t bad i’d say, it could just be buffed a bit.
OFL 120 F1B+ is still the exact same penetrator as the OLF 120 F1 though, so whatever improvement they’ve managed to get out of it would be comparable to the difference between maybe DM63 & DM73, i.e 2 - 3%.
From now on, please refrain from talking about vehicles you cannot even bother to take 5 minutes to check the values in-game.
You are aware I am not talking about the protection here, right? I’m talking about the armor modules and how they’re modeled. Cus it feels like you’ve joined the convo without even bothering to read through it in the slightest.
Still it contradicts what the view says, so i’m not really sure that would change anything tbh. But yeah the 3D model could be reduced to 560 ish mm i suppose
Well to put it into perspective, with the current KE modifiers, it would put the beak at roughly Leopard 2A6s level of protection (~460mm RHAe KE), while the upper plate should, assuming Gaijin doesn’t pull anything out of their asses this time around, get buffed to about ~500mm RHAe KE, or the level CR 2s upper plate currently sits at.
Most already just shoot the upper plate, but at least the tank would become immune to majority of mid-tier projectiles, and it would change exactly nothing against high tier projectiles (DM53/M829A2/Type 10, etc).
The BRs have no place being this compressed to begin with. Somehow Gaijin is capable of making 3rd gen airframes not fight against the EFT/Rafale, yet Leclerc S1/S2 and all the Arietes get to fight the 2A7s and 122s…? xD
Yup, they decompressed air quite a lot (not enough i know, but still) but not ground at all, for some reason i can’t yet understand.
France top tier is also in this kind of weird spot where the air dev team keeps buffing the Rafale over and over again (hello 15G), while the ground dev team still can’t fix the damn manpads and is forgetting half the wheelie vehicle fleet (a special though to EBRC, still lost somewhere), it’s really strange.
I’m taking issue with the hull armor, especially since its x-ray modeled to have at least 550mm LOS thickness on the upper plate yet only models the two steel plates for ~300mm of LOS thickness.
@Jεcka 's posts are pretty much what I was complaining about in 2023 and 2024.
While I’d love extra turret armor, at least that has bounced sometimes.
I don’t want to sound rude or agressive, just adding to the conversation, but, you come to this thread talking about how bad the Leclerc armor is using a 3D model from KNDS website, and when the Leo 2 is brought up in the conversation about a 3D model from the same website, it can be dismissed, as “the Leo is gutted” to only show infos “deemed safe enough to be released”. That does sound like a double standard, and if the Leo 2 model can be dismissed, the Leclerc should likewise be dismissed because it shows the website’s 3D models, although “primary”, gives inaccurate/heavily undermined informations.
Because it is gutted? I’m sorry but what else am I supposed to tell? I don’t know KNDS’ reasoning for releasing a 3D model of the 2A7+ without pretty much any details about its armor cavities. If they had, I’d be posting them in German threads.
This is how it looks from the inside on the 2A7 model:
There is nothing to indicate where the armor cavity ends like on the Leclerc, they didn’t even model the internal plates on it, so I have literally nothing to go off on.
we speak about them because we actualy compared both models and saw the differences?
The leo 2a7v has clear differences where stuff was removed, hell there is points where u can look into it from the outside
I’m not complaining that the Leo 2 is gutted, just saying that if one model is gutted, the other most probably also be wrong. As I said in my first post about the matter, Giat (and Nexter, and visibly KNDS as a whole today) have a tendency to not give accurate geometry of their vehicles. That was shown in the diagrams of the Leclerc from the 90s and 2000s, and that’s obviously shown in the Leo 2 model. I haven’t had a look at the model because I absolutely have no idea how to use blender, but following this track record the model of the Leclerc obviously cannot be used for a report.
To me, it more than likely looks like a graphic designer did a blender model tracing the geometry on a diagram, without following exact measurements, to create the overall geometry of the vehicle
