Leclerc armor, not MSC. Here pretty much everyone agrees that MSC should in fact not have any armor
1 Like
0.95 to 1.03 thickness to efficiency coefficient yeah, my favorite fantasy
even armors from 2010s can’t hit that but the French 1990s NERA was simply that advanced huh?
The Leclerc is stated to have protection across a 60 degree arc to its own ammunition, that is OFL 120 F1. so yeah, around 600mm KE for the UFP, aside from the driver port which probably is less than half of that
That’s sooo cool, ignoring the fact OFL F1s performance at combat ranges would be in the low 500s for flatter parts.
And at the UFPs angle it would be in the high 700s, which again is pure fantasy as Leclerc’s armor doesn’t have the density nor space to stop that.
Also, source.
i dont remember OFL 120 F1 having around 600 mm of pen and considering the armor in the leclerc hull ufp that seems rather impossible
for example take a look at Merkava’s wich its optimized for an angled design, it dosent even surpass the 400-500 reallistically
and even russia requires this, and a very specially designed ERA that works much better on angles to do that
In game every penetrator use the LO formula, and shockers, for most modern APFSDS, the formula tends to under estimate the penetration. LO is just less realistic as MV of APFSDS increases.
As for the penetration of the OFL 120 F1, it is stated to penetrate the modern t72 (of the 90s) at 2000m frontally according to some documentation.
To me, the x-ray just isn’t realistic, but there’s just no available pictures with better information on that. That’s there main reason as to why there aren’t any reports on the actual armor, devs want some diagrams and shit
1 Like
Lmao? Official BW tests of DM43A1 from the higher pressure L/55 of the 2A6 give only 30% chance of it defeating a T-72B 1989 at 1200m so I call big cope.
There’s a reason why they adopted the DM53 instead of staying with an inferior product like France did.
Oh actually you are right that I am wrong. It’s OFL 120 F2 that was supposed to achieve that.
well yeah if LO formula wasnt used wt would be impossible to play, and reallistically speaking 600 mm of pen would be too much even for that UFP to handle, it really would depend on angle armor performance, and as for statements you really need a source for that man, that’s why i normally accompain something i saw with its source whenever i can and if i cant i just say i saw once but that it should be taken with a grain of salt, and also im using X ray so thickness can be seen
We are indeed missing the ranges at which the armor was stated, although it was visibly tested in an indoor firing range, so estimations are in the hundreds of meters
That would be considering x rays are correct, which is unlikely. For example I believe the Leopard 2A7 was also said to have terrible hull armor because the devs managed to give it lower LOS armor thicknesses compared to the 2A6 (or was it the str 122 ?)
do you have the image source or anything, i could do an aproximate calculations based off size and distance
the thickness and shape are correct issue is the value not the size itself
There are no public images of the Leclerc that was used as the test target sadly. We know it was fired at using as the Leclerc ammunition, OFL 120 F1 and the HEAT one. There’s only one picture that is available of an armor module with 3 impacts : 1 APFSDS and 2 HEAT, which show no penetration at the back
However there isn’t specific information on the conditions of the firing range, which the the entire issue at hand, hence why last reports were refused
not very helpful tbh also i see u mean the central part of the ufp i tought you mean like the really angled part
We know the Leclerc was tested basically everywhere and was scrapped after the firing tests. There’s just no public information for the aforementioned test.
We’ll have to wait 40 more years to get them, since France has a 70 years classified time frame lmao
1 Like
The backplate bulged so we can conclude the APFSDS was in fact REALLYYY CLOSE to perforating it, depending on the simulated engagement distance this would mean ~520mm to at best 540mm KE, which ironically puts it near what the flat part of the hull is currently capable of in WT…
And then on top of that there’s 15mm of UHH steel with a ke coefficient of 2, that we have sources on, front and back of the module, which is effectively 60mm KE, bringing it very close to 600mm of armor frontally.
Anyway, the MFP is probably mostly correct, but the main issue is the UFP. It should be around the current armor around the driver, but around the same level of protection around the MFP. And of course the LFP is basically unarmored
2 Likes
The whole module is 580mm thick…
I believe this is for the add-on composite blocks that are present on the tank’s sideskirt armor, not the tanks actual composite armor.
A hstvl can pen the LFP at the thickest point… Which imo makes no sense if it’s boasting 500mm of composite.