For penetration the devs use weight, penetrator type, materials and dimensions. So bear that in mind when you work on that report. Penetration values like “500mm @ 2km” aren’t accepted.
No idea then.
Forum discussion ahead of a report being forwarded isn’t a prerequisite to it being forwarded. Does it meet the sourcing guidelines? Is it something that “can” be reported (eg not a datamined value)? Then it gets forwarded. There is no requirement to check in with a relevant thread on the forum.
Yeah plenty of older reports than that haha. Just the way it is unfortunately.
Nah I know, however I believe what I am looking for is quite difficult to find, as L15A3 was replaced by A5 though they use the same design, as well as similar materials if not the same just a different combination / quantity in the alloy.
It’s been a long daunting search TBH D:
No I don’t mean it’s a pre-requisite for it to be forwarded, I am merely drawing attention to it as so folks don’t S*** the bed if it ever goes through if you know what I mean, perhaps my wording wasn’t great as I’ve been alt tabbing from games to comment.
I mean I am bringing this here, purely because I mentioned leclercs reload and was corrected / debated with Ralin about it on the thread for reload rates on the autoloading soviet style and chinese tanks, and decided it was best to bring it here, a discussion on Leclercs oppose to there. Thats all :)
Oh yeah I’m painfully aware xD I mean there are so many vehicles in game can imagine it’s difficult to get through em all, never mind actual bugs with in game mechanics and such.
Do note that half of your sources say reloading in less than 6s. Also, the Giat Mobile brochure says “redoublement du feu en moins de 6s”, which in turn counts the entire firing sequence from the moment the first shell was fired to the moment the second shell was fired, including the time required to move the breach in position, all happening in less than 6s.
Furthermore, the documentary on the MSC prototype, which uses the same loading mechanism, does state that the mechanism is capable of reloading in 4s
Most of your sources may not state that the reloading is 5s, but they do state that the reloading speed is at lest less than 6s, if you actually quote the entire sentence
Pm gunjob specifically, If they haven’t responded then there’s likely a reason for that.
Don’t tell me to read again something vague which you have written.
This source actually mentions 3 seconds rather than 4.
Keeping in mind that 1- most sources regarding Leclerc implement FCS processing time (which is not a thing in War Thunder) and 2- that Gaijin doesn’t model barrel movement during the reload sequence, Leclerc highest cyclic reload rate is 4 seconds. However, to avoid excessive bear on the autoloader, the reload sequence’s speed was reduced to 5 seconds so it’s currently ok, but one could even make a point to raise it to 4 seconds.
We should also keep in mind that Gaijin does not communicate on all the sources they have. Some come from bug reports. Some other sources coming from their own consultant are hidden from both us and Technical moderators.
The Devs took a long time and many bug reports to implement Leclerc’s 5 seconds reload. Their argument at the time was “while we acknowledge Leclerc reload is historically 5 seconds, reload is a balance decision”.
So Gaijin being aware that the reload rate is currently accurate, I can’t possibly imagine the outrage if the reload of one of top tier’s worst MBT was now reduced because some dubious source such as Marc Chassillan states otherwise … According to their own words, reload is a balancing decision after all.
Maybe if the hull armour was fixed this discussion would be warranted, but Leclerc currently having less armor than an HSTVL (no hull armor and close to no turret armor), the worst or second worst pen and only slightly above average mobility … I can’t see how a reload nerf would make sense, particularly since its reload rate was proven to be less than 6 seconds.
I remember checking this a bit ago and it is the second worse. Which would not even be as bad if it had anything other that it was good at but it just does not. As you say mediocre mobility and bad armour with the second worse shell in top tier and all 4 leclercs sit at the same BR with the same bad shell
That’s why you can’t provide a single argument, and all primary and good secondary sources say 6?
And yet, not a word about any combat or standard reload.
In the book, I gave “less than 6” as 5. Otherwise, you’d agree that based on Soviet documents on the T-64/72/80 turret traverse speed, which state “at least 20 or 24,” it’s worth giving them a value of 100? That wouldn’t be inconsistent, would it?
Based on the documents, the Leclerc’s reload time is slightly less than 6 seconds at BEST. Something like 5.8-5.9.
However, even for the T-80, the developers didn’t take the best time, because the best time is achieved when the gun is immediately at the loading angle. This eliminates the need for the last step of the cyclogram, which takes approximately 0.25 seconds.
The video I linked above shows a reload time of between 7 and 8 seconds.
This conversation is simply not serious, as you can’t provide any evidence to contradict the authoritative documents.
As stated above I can make that at home extremely easily.
However I’ve already conceded the point to @Gunjob earlier as you can quite clearly read above.
Rather thanr reply to response from before hand please read what I’ve said then respond
Historically correct isn’t what gaijin does and we all know it.
No he stated that janes usually isn’t however there is more than just janes in there.
not at all again you’ve ignored what I’ve stated a few times now.
Which can be clearly seen.
Also your “manufactureres” source as I have stated I could conjur that up exactly saying 5 seconds.
On top of all of that, as far as I’ve searched the auto loaders fire rate is largely ambigious due to classifications.
6 seconds seems to be the standard firing for trials etc as far as i have read.
Now Rather than try throw shade at me, go relax somewhere.
