Thats not correct. The same source (British) that specifies the 420 level of protection for Leclerc also states that Leopard 2 initial model was rated at 350mm KE while the C tech upgrade was 435mm.
1 Like
What is the source of this? Though I can see all kinds of wrong with it.
On the other hand, its statistically likely that Leclerc S2 reaches 550mm KE on the turret and SXXI 700mm.
1 Like
wee wee Russian text alert wee wee
source not acceptable - but Russian vehicles can’t get buffs from NATO sources tho, that is absolutely fair
5 Likes
Who said it wasn´t “acceptable”? Just that people don´t properly cite them. Everyone should cite because thats how you can tell apart a legitimate source from fake fabricated stuff. Over the years we got a plenty of BS trying to pass for legitimate sources.
The developers themselves said that.
When Russian sources on the armor of several tanks like the M1 and Leclerc was used to report buffs for those vehicles, devs suddenly decided that no, those sources would not be accepted. Even when properly cited, coming from the ministry of defense and all that
1 Like
I know they do but why do you make it a response to my comment when I merely asked to know what was that snippet?
And I do not rule out Russian source in principle. Just know that they don´t have first hand access to western tanks armor values, neither as data from manufacturers or governments or by doing actual testing. So, said hypothetical sources (which I haven´t seen BTW) are assesements and estimations at best. However if tomorrow they release actual data from testing done on captured tanks, that should be 100 percent valid.
I wonder if those images were already used in previous bug reports to buff the armor
I think someone should make a second thread - it’s been years since the first post and the Leclerc changed a lot since then (would we still even ask for armor buffs pre SXXI? new ammo?).
2 Likes
Please excuse if this sequence was already posted :
the colonel presenting the armored vehicles basically says “On a un [une protection d’] arc frontal particulièrement efficace sur le char Leclerc, notamment sur toute la plage avant, c’est-à-dire la protection de la caisse”, which you could translate by :
“There is an adequate protection on Leclerc’s entire frontal arc, especially on the upper front plate, which is the hull protection” (last part of the translation sounds weird, but “plage avant” in french does not really indicate that it’s the hull, which is why he specifies it a second time).
He then goes on to specify that it’s a succession of layers (mille-feuille) which is NERA as we all know, nothing special here.
Not a source on itself, but it doesn’t scream “upper front plate = weak point” like it does in game…
Though so far I´ve seen no indication the XLR features different base armor than SXXI.
It does not as far as i know, except for the side ERA (NERA ?) and the slat armor.
It would basically be similar to the Leclerc S2 => AZUR we have in game, except of course the base tank is a SXXI
The additional ERA and the LWS would still bring something to the table at least.
In the above interview the presentel model is a SXXI though
I´m talking real life, not ingame. BTW I estimate SXXI armor to reach 700mm KE protection, at least on the turret front.
Regarding XLR I´ve seen no mention its gotten a different base armor. All public statements talking about increases in protection always refer to the addition of reactive armor at the hull sides.
1 Like
Yeah the whole leclerc S2 and SXXI having no difference is quite comical
Gaijin decided to ignore the complete overhaul of the internal armor composition (looking at you, titanium inserts)
Close up of SHARD
And a quick comparison between the in service OFL 120 F1B compared to SHARD :
Notice the total weight increase by 2.4kg and the slight elongation from 975 to 984mm for the total length of the round
Someone did some pixel counting here Shard APFSDS for Ariete and arrived at the conclusion that it would get 720mm @0m from L/52 gun. (something something, pinch of salt, you know the drill)
A more conservative estimate would be to take the OFL 120 F1 current pen value and apply the “15% increase” marketing pitch by Nexter, which would give us 575*1.15 = 661.25 mm of pen, assuming of course OFL 120 F1 is modelled correctly, and assuming there is no difference between OFL 120 F1 and OFL 120 F1B (Latest Nexter APFSDS)
Weird Eng Dubbing but still pretty hot.
So about equal to M829A2 fired from L/44 according to that claim.
If that’s the case M829A2 is severly lacking in penetration in game.
Not versed enough in US ammo to tell tbh
But to be fair, i would already be happy with 661 mm. 720 mm would straight up be the best APFSDS in game, and i’m not sure it’s really realistic, it’s just pixel counting
You have to remember that NATO testing is against 60 degree RHA plates.
So that’s 720mm against a 60mm plate unless otherwise stated.
1 Like
The guy who came up wiith the 720 value did it on a 0° angle. Is his calculation correct ? Probably not.
Regarding the 661 value, it’s straight from Nexter, who states a “15%” increase over latest APFSDS. Since the last APFSDS they sold is OFL 120 F1 with a 575mm pen at 0m, 0°, a 15% increase would result in a 661mm at 0m, 0°
3 Likes
The latest APFSDS they produced is the OFL 120 F2, but the LO formula basically breaks since it gives a worse penetration compared to the F1. I think it’s fair to say 660mm is the lower estimation
1 Like