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°
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
isn’t F2 uranium though ?
if that is the case the latest produced variant would likely be F1B, but once again, nobody really knows what the difference between F1B and F1 is
In any case, 660 is already very good, even for a low estimate, and if we need more pen, there’s Ascalon and leclerc T4
F2 is indeed uranium. But the shard isn’t advertising 15% more than tungsten, just, 15% more than previous gen. F2 does stand in that category
As for F1B, I’ve been told the differences are minimal, so it’s probably equivalent to the F1 in penetration
Yeah that’s where i’m not too sure, as from my understanding F1B is actually more recent than F2
Could be wrong though
Measurement of the round in flight yields penetration dimensions of 680x24mm and L-O penetration in the order of 750mm. Still, big improvement over F1.
what would that give us for a plate at 0° ?
640mm
not too far from the 660mm resulting from Nexter’s claim then
Quick question, they discussed the Leclerc and showed some interesting documents, but did anyone send this to the dev?
for wt purposes surely…is the acceleration that important irl tho? more than crew comfort and survivability? id rather be in a chally irl with a nice tea brewing device inside than having to cross an open field in a very unmaneuvarable tank with bad visibity from inside and also have absolutely no reverse gear so if stuff hits the fan (inevitably because my superiors had the awesome idea that me and the other 2 dudes in my tank should attack by crossing an open, mine infested field) my plan is to pop smoke and wait because turning around is a no-no and reversing takes 30 min
im having a real hard time imagining an irl combat scenario where everyone just yolos through a town trying to get to the best position 2 sec faster than the other team in complete disregard for safety. its just call of duty/counter strike for tanks…
I think acceleration is more important for retreating or relocating a bit.
Other than that, not really a groundbreaking advantage. Being a bit more snappy and responsive on a battlefield is always nice i suppose, but acceleration isn’t the whole equation
Let’s keep the challenger discussion outside of the Leclerc thread.
As for cramped vehicles, the Leclerc is notoriously cramped, as the auto loader prevents any passage between turret crew position, and the commander has to do some weird contorsionniste stuff to reach the driver (only 2 escape hatches are present, so the commander has to escape through the driver escape hatch)
still enjoying the MSC more or less. I only really dislike that the Thermals are incredibly bad and it that its reload is 6 seconds because of “balance”. Also this could just be me but the mobility on it seems really wonky and sluggish.