This speeds and length is indeed underwhelming when the rh130 penetrator is 1.3m long iirc based on pixel counting of the first tech Demo Video of the kf51 and the speeds are either already achieved with current shells and when the 130mm has roughly the same approximation. Best i found was a range of 1700-1900m/s
and back to the original point, no leclerc dont need a buff:
Among the best winrates and far above the winrates of the major nations
I’m certainly no expert on this topic, but from what I recall the Swedes also proposed armour upgrades for the Leclerc due to the existing armour scheme being deemed unsatisfactory:
There were apparently also plans between Ukraine and France on co-developing an export vehicle, this would adopt a modified Leclerc turret (and mated it with a T-84 chassis) that optimized the armour layout and reduced the frontal weakzones:
(Credit to btvt blog for images)
And how much of that is attributed to the insane CAS lineup that we already have. If you stop considering win rates for a moment, would you play the Leclerc other the Type 10, Leopard 2A7, Str122 ?
Heck, Italy is also doing better than even Germany. Is that logical in any way ? Israel is also visibly dominating, while their Merkavas are in the bottom pool of the 12.0 tanks.
Buffing and nerfing vehicles by there win rates is a completely stupid argumentation. All of the best performing nations are minor nations, which clearly shows there a statistical bias coming from the huge differences in playerbase, and those should not impact the need for vehicles to be buffed or nerfed.
Or I’d argue the EFT doesn’t need any buffs to its radar either, after all the Italian euro fighter is only behind the rafale in win rate, largely dominating any other 14.0
You realize Statshark exists, right? :P
yes and i dont care lol
It’s much more accurate,and still proves your point because the Leclercs are among the highest winrate MBT’s on there too.
if you think a single plane carries and nations winrate, youre delusional. Russia has 2 OP CAS planes and is doing absolutely garbage, germany has the insane EF CAS and is also doin absolut garbage so whats the point.
no i wouldnt, i play every mbt the same and it works or it doesnt
The Ascalon is high risk high reward, as it’s basically a tech Rheinmetall never even fielded.
CTA 40 proved the design could work on a mass produced vehicle, so they decided to go bigger this time
Additionally, a penetration value can not be specified with one parameter. MJ this, MJ that is nice, but thre’s more to it than one number to describe the terminal effect of an ammunition on its target
140 also coincides with the diameter of the MMP missile, and some NLOS ammo have been in the talks for the gun.
Finally, while the Ascalon is a bigger gun than the 130mm, the internal space required by the ammo is basically the same, as the 140 is telescoped, while containing a longer sabot. Both are 1.3m long per public figures.
Now obviously both guns are answers to different doctrines, one chosing to enlarge the CTA 40, more risky but which my prove the right choice in the long run, one cutting costs and going on a proven design that works.
Obviously you could discuss the choices made on each side of the Rhine for hours, but going with the “huh french can’t build good gun so they need to go bigger” or “huh germans can’t innovate and still don’t use Cased Telescoped Ammunitions” seems quite pointless.
And that would be with the remainder taken up by steel…. Have you heard of weight efficiency ahaah? That is not even a remotely practical arrangement.
Dang, the swedes actually managed to make the Leclerc look good?! I didnt think that was possible 0_0
D-tech doesn’t have an efficiency anywhere near 1.0, it’s closer to ~0.8 (AS A WHOLE) based on documents from Krauss Maffei dated to late 1989.
Mulatu has no idea what he’s talking about and using him as a credible source simply gives me a reason to disregard everything you typed out.
I’ve no idea what sort of mental gymanstic he’s trying to use there by saying “base composite” when there isn’t such a thing in the world of MBT-grade armors, there’s layers within the overall armor structure, some of which are more KE oriented and some which are more CE oriented. So that’s just mumbo jumbo to make that argument seem more valid when it’s nonsense lol.
Is this current winrates?
Because if yes then holy shit German mains are fumbling the bag hard.
Russia mains are just as bad.
They’re on negative winrates at EVERY. SINGLE. BR. in the entire game.
Oh yeah it’s the same for mains from all major nations, hell even some of the minor nation mains.
Just think it’s funny that Germany with the 2A7V and SLM (which are both among the best vehicles in their type/class) get outperformed by Israel who has the Merkava Mk.4 which can be inconsistent and the Spyder which is the saddest vehicle I’ve ever played.
Israel has very few players, compared to Germany (probably also compared to other minor nations as well) since it is not a desirable nation to grind (doesn’t offer much aside Merkava Mk.4s), therefore it will be mostly played by CCs (they don’t have to grind), or try-hards (such as me).
Thanks to that, the stats will look better because the player pool is not as wide, since it’s made up mostly by the people I mentioned earlier.
Make no mistake : Leopard 2A7 is completely broken compared the rest of the tanks in game, but it being played by people who can only +W and swing corners without looking, or sit back afk doing nothing, creates those winrates, compared to who plays Merkava or Leclerc, or whatever other “exotic” pick, but while being more knowledgeable.
That said : Leclerc is an above average tank, if this tank “needs” a buff, then Ariete should be prioritised, or even the chinese tanks, those tanks are quite literally garbage compared.
In that case proper threads should be used for those vehicles.
Im tired of seeing people talking about other vehicles and their needs on different threads.
leclerc will continue to overperform until it’s interior that consists of 90% air gets rightfully fixed
Like other tanks.
