Win rates and player statistics in general should be completely meaningless when it comes to vehicle fixes. All vehicles in the game should be fairly accurately depicted and not artificially buffed or nerfed depending on how well their players perform on them or not.
7 Likes
The leclercs turret armor LOS is equal to or higher than that of the hull tho, which means if the turrets bad, the hull is worse…
Turret
LOS: 640
KE: 600
Glacis
LOS: 570
KE: 560
UFP
LOS: 512 (not counting air/spacing; with those, it’s more like 650+mm LOS)
KE: 250
There’s something seriously wrong with Leclerc’s UFP KE effectiveness.
A simple diagram I’ve made based on the X-Rays;
11 Likes
Might be due to the penetration advantage long rod penetrators have vs angled armor while the UFP’s LOS thickness is almost exclusively from its high angle. Check effectiveness vs older AFPSDS.
What X-Rays?
Leclerc against 3BM22 (T-64A)
HSTVL’s APFSDS
IS-7’s AP as a bonus, cause why not
Yeah, protection vs 3BM22 being higher checks out with what I postulated.
Also get to see that weirdo thing of russian AP shells having long rod APFSDS levels of angle pen 🙄
Love to see my little math thing spreading, now in graphic form.
Thank you, Spanish.
Different types of APFSDS. 3BM22 uses a maraging steel body and a tungsten carbide slug, DM13 uses a longer tungsten allow penetrator more akin to a longrod penetrator. Likely the reason they have varied angled effectiveness. 3BM15 would probs do even worse than 3BM22 in this scenario.
Spoiler
In principle, the main difference between the 3BM15 and the 3BM22 is that the cap of the 15 is made of tungsten carbide, as is the core, while the 22 uses a much larger cap made of tungsten alloy. Therefore, the 3BM22 would have much better penetration at 60°.
Regardless of APFSDS types, I find it comical that Leclerc’s UFP can not withstand practically ANY shell.
France’s present-day MBT’s whole center of mass is somehow weaker than T-64A’s, the first MBT produced with composite armor back in 1970…
How does it make any sense?
2 Likes
Well, we know russian hull armour overperforms so
1 Like
I really don’t understand you guys…
Why would you expect modern armor to stop modern shells ?
It’s not like tanks are made to fight other tanks,
Only the russians and the swedish have these,
As we all know.
I am more impressed by how bad Russia is, i knew the wr for them was bad but i didn’t think it was that bad…
Though i guess in all fairness basically nobody but mains is playing Russia atm so.
So, the prototype Èclair is kinda fun for a 10.7.
1 Like
Meanwhile Leopard2A7V and Strv122 says hello.
1 Like
Yup, compared to the Leo 2a4, the msc is much better.
Leclerc’s design requirements were 420mm KE /40 degree arc and 350mm KE /50 degree arc (this is less arc armor than the Leopard 2A0 had in 1979 for reference). There is a reason why Leclerc’s turret in the Swedish Trials wasn’t even protected against 500mm KE at +/- 20 degrees, bleh, they realised it barely had any against 400mm KE. Also for reference, the Leopard 2A4(C) from 1988 has better protection across the same arcs, and it in fact reached a higher level of protection across a wider arc than the Leclerc :D
Yes, nobody’s saying the UFP should be 250mm KE, but pretending it can be anywhere close to over 500mm is crazy work when the Swedes clearly showed the armor was much worse than that.
I think people should just accept Leclerc’s armor scheme isn’t that good, and it shows when MBTs 15 years older than it had more uniformic and frankly better levels of protection. It’s honestly insane how French mains (not you specifically) believe it should be even better armored when it quite frankly overperforms in terms of protection (with the upper plate underperforming) pretty much anywhere else lol.
This tank shouldn’t have the armor it currently has, and it also shouldn’t be at the same BRs as the actually well protected MBTs, but compression so shrug.