In the current gameplay with smaller maps, the Russian tanks almost always have the advantage of the first shot on most lther MBTs that I consider over tiered because their armor means that the enemy will have to specifically aim at weak spots while the Russian tank can just point and click the enemy.
They do lack a decent reverse speed and reload, but they are definitely very strong in 1v1. Played by average/decent players and with full team winning their 1V1 a majority of the time they can often stomp the enemy team, just like the 2A7 and similar Leo 2 derivates
1vs1
Yeah you are talking from a fantasy standpoint. And even then the 2a7 is better.
If you don’t hit the first shot in any t series tank you are dead. You can’t outreload nothing and you also have a subpar shell
I didn’t say that they were better than the 2A7. I do think however that they are objectively better than many other tanks at 12.7
Wait what? xD
Abrams are better than T90M and tied with the 80BVM.
I’d also go as far to say as the T90 Is worse than the likes of the VT4A1 and the WZ1001 as they are substantially more mobile and fire a similar round with reload the same.
I’d rather use my leclerc over the T90M as well.
The biggest issue I’ve noticed when playing the 90M is people will sit and shoot the UFP the one thing it has going for it.
Never aim for the breach, turret ring, LFP or anything like that
1 Like
Not to be negative, but I really hate the term “cope cage”, especially when they do in fact work.
Eh… these are easily bypassable, so the Cope Cage name is pretty apt, for actual effective anti-drone protection you pretty much need to turn the tank into a hedgehog, at which point it’s something else.
Like on the pictured Leclerc the only thing that would protect is from drone dropped grenades, and even then not really.
1 Like
Its just light cage amor. There are different levels of armor for different applications, its just mass media and anti Russian propaganda. Litterly every country now with a tank has dabbled in the light cage armor class.
Wait until you see this
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VXbZ2I3Oaato
Accepted a report for a 6 second reload on the leclerc.
Wild af if that goes through
1 Like
This isn’t going to go through. The OG report that got us to 5s clearly outlined that the 6s reload was the operational reload, while the 5s (and even 4s) can be achieved mechanically. Also, that report had like 15 sources, many being primary.
8 Likes
Oh I am well aware but as I was informed on another thread by @Ralin none of that matters.
So rather than bicker about it on a T series thread I thought I’d bring it here and see what the leclerc users say.
I cannot possibly see it going through as it would absolutely demolish the tanks capabilities.
However, the original report for 5 seconds was 2 years ago and also had at the time a mention of “the only source we will use states 6 seconds”
From a gaijin mod.
So likely they can use this as an excuse to revert it / nerf the leclerc.
The only good secondary source close to the primary one that was in the report was Le système Leclerc. FERRARD Stéphane and Gérard TURBE just stated 6 seconds.
This has never been stated anywhere.
What is this “primary source”? These are just tertiary journals, which are basically poor sources.
Here I have included the manufacturer’s brochure, two books by authoritative authors who are recognized by developers as experts, and a report by the US Army.
It’s not even funny; one of the player’s sources was a Russian magazine about plastic model kits.
That’s not a source.
Neither video in the report shows reloading in 4 or 5 seconds.
First video. Reloading begins at 0:04 (and we are not even sure that this is the very beginning of the cycle, as there is a cut there).
At the same time, the gun is lowered into place at 0:12. That is, the cycle took 7-8 seconds.
Second video. The timer starts not after the shot, but after the gun is lowered, which is fundamentally incorrect, since the gun is lowered during the reloading cycle, usually while the conveyor belt is rotating. And the timer does not end after the gun returns to its initial angle, but immediately as it begins to rise, which is also incorrect, since for the T-80, for example, the cycle diagram includes raising the gun at the end. Otherwise, reloading would be ~0.25 seconds faster.
As a result, 8 seconds pass before the next shot.
Did anyone even look at the sources and videos before making any claims?
Yes we have for years compiling sources and such to make sure leclerc has a correct reload rate. It’s 6 seconds while in training and literally any every source out there states 5 for combat scenarios.
even the book you claim to be properly accurate states it’s sub 6 seocnds when translated.
As proven on the other thread.
THe GIAT brochure you keep harping on about I cannot find anywhere the sources Godvana used I cannot find anywhere, even the books state it can be faster than 6 seconds.
Hell the same books also state it should be 10 seconds on the move to save it from wear and tear, does that mean leclerc gets a 10 second reload?
3 Likes
Primary by whos standards? cause they’re primary by gaijins standards stating 5 seconds BTW.
1 Like
If this is the list of sources;
Then non of these are primary materials.
2 Likes
How is janes not a primary source xD
GIAT in their brochure and submission to the UK MOD for replacement of Chieftain both claim 6 seconds;
GIAT submission to UK MOD;
GIAT marketing;
These are both primary and authoritative materials. And no claim from a magazine is overriding that. You’d need an equally authoritative sources like the French MOD or a newer claim from GIAT.
2 Likes
Janes is extremely low quality and not remotely primary. It is a news publication, primary claims come from operating countries MOD’s and manufacturers. Not news orgs.
1 Like
They’ve accepted it before hand but?
As well as all this, why does leclerc get a 5 second reload then if there are as many primary sources debating that?
So yet another nerf for france incoming? lol
Im aware they’re primary sources.
good read them.
However as another said on teh T80 reload buff thread the sources ralin used said sub 6 second reload.
We don’t accept Janes, you could include it as a tertiary source but mostly pointless if you have other primary materials or accepted secondary materials.
I’d often advise against including tertiary sources at all, as it can just be a reason for rejecting the report for not meeting sourcing guidelines. If you can make your point with Primary or multiple secondary materials do that, tertiary sources are completely unnecessary.
Mistakes happen? But no idea didn’t handle the original report.
The report has been there for a while, not sure why you’d think discussion on the forum would some how increase the expediency of the report being fixed.
I see, well cheers man! , I was tyring to build a report on L15A5 penetration values with primary sources as well as osprey but I had to put ion the back burner.
even the original one from2 years ago states they would keep it at 6 seconds as well though.
I dont think that at all, It’s merey discussing it , on a leclerc thread where it should be discussed? as it’s something which should ideally be talked about before it potentially gets accepted / rejected by devs to know the communities stance on it?
Only 4 months as far as I can see for the latest one :(