S1 armor was indeed meant to be in the 450s mm area all around if i remember correctly, the issue is that it’s very inconsistent currently, with the middle plate being 550 and the upper plate being 200-300. Saying it’s overperforming is an oversimplification of its current state.
420 mm to be precise. Though yes, the fact that every single pixel widly varies in KE performance is a general issue of the game for most if not all tanks. But in general from 20-30 deg its front armor is overperforming significantly, both turret and hull.
Nah, i mean it’s this whole area :
A bit more than a few pixel. And it’s quite impactful too as it offers large weakspots for some autocanons to go through (namely 2S38 and HSTV-L). Fixing it would make the hull imprevious to small caliber guns but weaker to MBT rounds on the bottom.
damn how someone can be so pathetic, congrat you are great at something. Why are you talking about the leclerc when im talking about the ofle 120 F2 itself ? dont know what to say ?
we are not talking about the gun of the leclerc, to do a fair comparaison about shell we should in this case use the same barrel as reference big brain, we are talking about the shell not about the gun got it ?
so for you, having photo of a shell in flight alow to estimate the performance of the whole shell ? including the materials inside the shell ? you are talking about shell like it was just a piece of metal and nothing more, like you could know everything just looking at it
and what the hell are feeling doing there you are in another world damn, take care of ys bro
so for you, a document saying that they have no confidential knowledge about the armor of the leclerc, means the leclerc has no armor ? everything write in a poor newpaper ? damn you fly high
First, to answer about the OFL 120 F1 and OFL 120 F2:
- OFL 120 F1 has been correctly reported. It’s currently slightly underperforming (some sources claim around 600mm of pen), but this is explained by the game’s use of the L-O formula for APFSDS penetration. Most high-velocity APFSDS are somewhat underperforming using this assumption when compared to real life (and the OFL is one of the fastest shells, I believe). So as far as in game goes, it’s actually correct. I will probably be corrected on this, but the dm53 is also visibly underperforming
- OFL 120 F2 also has enough information to use the formula, and it would end up with 1mm less penetration at close range while retaining better penetration at long range. This is also due to the formula not being accurate for DU shells. This is common across all DU APFSDS already in the game.
In real life, the OFL 120 F2 is visibly capable of retaining the penetration of the OFL 120 F1 at 1 extra kilometre in distance.
Spoiler
As seen in this screenshot, the manufacturer of the French APFSDS claims better penetration for the DU shell as well
The only shell that would bring better penetration is the Shard. There have been attempts to find enough information to use the LO formula, and I believe some people have estimated it in the game at around 650mm plus or minus 20mm.
The armour of the Leclerc is another discussion.
The Leclerc tested in the Swedish trials didn’t use the final production armour. In fact, when the French army received their first Leclerc in 1991, they weren’t impressed with its armour either. GIAT had to make some changes: transmission had some issues, reliability, and armour as well. The Leclerc used in the Swedish trials is a tranche 1 or 2. The French in-service Leclerc received the S1OP package by the time they entered service in 1997, which is basically an S2 without the A/C.
As for the S2 armour, it has received some extra thickness, which isn’t represented in the game on the turret, meaning that all Leclercs are underperforming here. This is clearly visible when looking at pictures.
Spoiler
This is the armor of an S2, as we can see, there’s an extra thickness at the edge of the armor. This is neither present on the S1 (pre S1OP) nor in any Leclerc in game
For the hull armour, the 420mm value was taken from a trial that did not actually test the armor (only the Swedish trials did any testing on them, and from those trials, only the turret armor leaked). It could very well be a low estimate. I am not sure that the armor testbed Leclerc was already tested at that point. The one known thing is that the Leclerc was tested against its own ammo (range and actual testing conditions are unknown), and armour should at least be able to defeat it at a reasonable range (let’s say under 1-2km), meaning it should be protected to around 500-550mm at least, and as what was found during the Swedish turret trials, which also happens to at least prove that the 420mm from the British trials were at least a low estimate, or simply that armour improvements did happen between the prototype that was tested by the British. Also it is to note the Swedish did not consider an armor upgrade of the hull necessary, and their requirements are known
As for chemical armour, a UAE Leclerc (that uses an S2-derived package) was hit by a Kornet, which was stopped after penetrating a fuel tank (another ATGM did kill the driver, which shows that there is a weakspot on the driver side). In game a kornet would achieve full penetration if not actually over pressure the tank by hitting the UFP. The thing is, whether we believe this or not, the upper front plate is massively underperforming, and armoring from 420 to 550 wouldn’t save it from top-tier rounds but at least make it resistant to autocannons, HSTVL, and 2S38. but, as it always goes with the Leclerc, there is insufficient evidence for the actual effectiveness of the S2 and later armour packs. For example, the S21 turret is claimed to be able to withstand « next-generation APFSDS, » but good luck arguing with that.
As for the titanium add-ons, some things are claimed: The Leclerc S1 hull features titanium (probably for the fuel tanks lining), and some claims made by Marc Chassillan, who is currently considered a secondary source (since he often gets things right, but also sometimes isn’t completely correct, such as for the turret rotation speed).
As for the often found argumentation of “composite can’t have better than 1 KE coefficient, hence Leclerc can’t have decent KE protection” : In the late 1990s, France and the USA cooperated on high-density ceramics which demonstrated that they could obtain a KE effectiveness of over 2 for the same weight as RHA, when tested against APFSDS. This was likely used on SXXI. But then again, there’s a missing link that would allow to confirm this completely
Spoiler
Thanks Mulatu for the different elements give (Swedish trials, Ceramic testing, S1OP configuration…)
10 Likes
DM53 is underperforming because its density is currently too low but I have no way of proving it via public documentation, and I’d rather not get nuked lol.
OFL F1 is correct tho, even slightly overperforming because its penetrator is shorter than Gaijin predicted, they’re counting a part of the interior steel tip as part of the WHA rod.
As for chemical armour, a UAE Leclerc (that uses an S2-derived package) was hit by a Kornet, which was stopped after penetrating a fuel tank
The fact it PENETRATED the fuel tank means it went through the armor, that’s not protection against the Kornet, that’s being lucky that the massive fuel tank managed to disperse the jet enough that it didn’t cause any catastrophic damage.
As for the often found argumentation of “composite can’t have better than 1 KE coefficient, hence Leclerc can’t have decent KE protection” : In the late 1990s, France and the USA cooperated on high-density ceramics which demonstrated that they could obtain a KE effectiveness of over 2 for the same weight as RHA, when tested against APFSDS. This was likely used on SXXI. But then again, there’s a missing link that would allow to confirm this completely
I had Mulatu use the exact same argument on discord against me but all this prove is that there is maybe a specific single layer that has high KE coefficient, not that the whole armor block does.
Armors are made up of more than a single layer, they have to balance protection, ceramics are also typically insanely brittle, even the modern ones, making a composite out of only ceramics would mean the French Army would have to replace the armor box every single time a tank is hit making it completely unsustainable and frankly pointless as tanks are meant to remain in combat for long periods of time.
It’s a false cause fallacy bro.
2 Likes
One of the best toptier lineups with the best cas plane, clearly needs a buff.
Maybe Nexter shouldnt have build absolutely middery :)
Maybe with their 140mm gun they finally manage to beat DM53s penetration.
One can only hope
Didn’t go through the fuel tank, while in game it will do it 100% of the time, if it didn’t already overpressured
Well, on this aspect I can share an anecdote I was told : The French army discovered at some point that the armor lost insane effectiveness values. They searched for the reason and found out that operators used the edge of the armor as a can opener, which caused degradation to the armor. This could be attributed to the fact that the Leclerc uses more dense Ceramics than other composite layouts. This would also correlate to the fact that the Leclerc is 1m shorter and yet about as heavy as the M1 and Leo 2 configurations of the 2000s (leopard 2A5, M1), with a smaller crew compartment, meaning that they had to put all that weight somewhere, and yet its currently less armored in most aspects compared to those 2
Again, I’m not saying this is definitely proof, or this would have already been reported ages ago
The rafale is indeed very strong. Are the Leclerc’s better than “mid”? I would not say so. They are definitely not bad, but could definitely benefit from substantial buffs, like half of top tier vehicles (Merkava, Ariete, Challengers…). The whole GRB game mode should not revolve around having to have an insane CAS lineup to make up for the mid ground vehicles.
Also I was not talking about the need to buff them specifically. This is also for people that wish to know more about the Leclerc as a vehicle instead of saying “OFL 120 F1 bad, we need F2”
And this tells me that you are just here for the rage baiting
- Shard would already have a better penetration in game than the DM53
- Nexter doesn’t work on 130mm in the very lest. They work on 140mm.
You’ve already polluted the Rafale thread enough with the rage baiting, can you not start here ?
6 Likes
Because congrats, fuel tanks in WT have shitass CE coefficients. But this doesn’t prove the armor’s capability in positive terms, and reminder, Kornet’s penetration is actually OVERINFLATED, according to actual Russian sources it should be 960mm lol.
This would also correlate to the fact that the Leclerc is 1m shorter and yet about as heavy as the M1 and Leo 2 configurations of the 2000s (leopard 2A5, M1)
It isn’t? Leopard 2A5 was 59.9 tons and M1A2 was 62.4 tons, the S2 was what, 56 metric tons but that’s with the APU and A/C iirc, a Leopard 2A5 without the wedges is heavier than that.
If we take the Strv 122 into account it’s over 6 tons heavier.
meaning that they had to put all that weight somewhere
It’s called having no rear armor. This argument is senseless either way, you have no idea how much each component weighs, it could be that Leclerc simply is less weight efficient on the inside or its equipment weighs more.
1 Like
Shard and Ascalon are incredible underwhelming (typo with the 130mm, mb)
I have not ragebaited in the rafale thread at all, i confronted directsupport and his yunglings of acting in bad faith to unneccesariely buff the rafale based on misinterpreted information, on purpose. So do not try pull that card to discredit my stands
This is about the 120mm SHARD, nonetheless
15% down from 20% claimed few years ago over OFL F1
" We have thoroughly tested the SHARD under this aspect, and as it is a pulled projectile in the barrel it is less sensible at the muzzle, it can accommodate more defects and disturbances, so during trials we reached an accuracy close to 0.2 mil at 1,500 meters, which is a good result considering the increased length of the penetrator, a better performance compared to our previous F1 round,” Mr. Cahauveau states."
Apparently ~0.2mils at 1500m is better than <0.2mils at 3000m
1 Like
Mmmh, I did a quick leopard 2a5 lookup and saw 56 tons, I made a mistake here, in war thunder it’s indeed stated at 59.6 tons. I was also not comparing to the M1A2 which is indeed much heavier but to the M1, which still has overall similar if not better armor than the Leclerc
I don’t understand you point here with the rear armor. The Leclerc side and rear, as well as roof armor isn’t in any way better armored than the M1, and even the Leopard 2A4, despite weighing about the same. In fact, it has worse turret armor than the Leopard 2A4 on its side and only is significantly better than the leopard 2A4 on the MFP of the hull. The Leclerc also has a much smaller crew compartment volume, I don’t see how it could be less inefficient in that way. Same for the equipment, how could equipment make the difference for an entire meter in length of a tank. And, for exemple, the weight of the Leopard 2 engine is stated at around 2.2 tons from what I can see while the Leclerc is stated at a bit over 2 tons, so it’s even lighter in that case
As for the KE of the ceramic discussion, here is the answer given by Mulatu :
no one is arguing for 2KE effectiveness for thr Leclerc lol
Even if the ceramics only nake a 20% LOS of the total armour array that’s still a 1.2 KE effectiveness. (That is considering a base composite with a KE coefficient of around 1, which is already achieved with other composites such as D-tech)
Shard is doing completely alright. It’s at least equivalent, if not better than DM53, while indeed still worse than later DM variants.
ASCALON is currently in the development phase, and already has an energy output greater than the Rheinmetal 120mm, and almost equal to the 130mm. This is not considering that NEXTER says that they can increase the energy output much further if they want, while the 130mm by Rheinmetal will probably face issues as it’s based on the 120mm
Yes, ik, they can go from 18MJ to 20MJ if they want (140mm), meanwhile L55A1 already is rated with 15MJ ;D
And RH130 with +50% over l55
Its even better because that source used to be classified and the protection levels of Leclerc were informed to the Brits by GIAT itself. Further, when the Swedes performed ballistic testings by 1994, their results corroborate the figures shared by GIAT previously. So yes, unless some day another similar source surfaces contradicting all of this, 420mm KE for Leclerc S1 it is.
2 Likes
This in game would equate to 660mm of pen, still above the DM53 (edit - In game obviously). There is also mentions of different possible variants of the shard
As of now, the 15% range improvement is stated for a Shard with a stated velocity which is equal or a bit lower than the OFL 120 F1. The ammunition that would bring 20% more velocity also claims a higher MV. This was probably not implemented as to limit barrel wear as this is one of the main selling point of the currently marketed shard
Sources I have currently found claim 20MJ for the 130mm
Which is even more then 50% then. It was forst stated with 18MJ which was equal to 50%
4mm, with a shell that came 15yrs later, kinda pathetic (ing wise)
From l55, 50% would give 22.5MJ according to your own words.
Also, going back on the Ascalon, it’s going to fire 1m “short rods” with a speed of 1750m/s, definitely underwhelming…
very rough assumptions would give a penetration of well over 800mm, up to more than 900mm with the LO formula, considering the 2024 140mm APFSDS showcase and assumptions on the semi-telescopic nature of the round
Also the claim of 15% could also be comparing to the OFL 120 F2, which while in game doesn’t matter, would actually make a significant difference IRL