WHERE?! and do not link me some defence blog/news/media post. Give me a brochure or manufacturer webpage stating as much?
How about you go find that bug report that has led us to 5 second reload and look for the details.
Honestly I don’t understand what you and that funny guy who’s calling himself Ralin trying to accomplish in here but let me tell you, I’m not interested at all.
Also documents from UK MOD about Leclerc( which is questionable whether source itself was displaying full capabilities of Leclerc or not) is not something I’ll take seriously.
I did its all just defence magazines, encyclopaedia’s and authored books, nothing direct from GIAT certainly not a primary source in there at all. All of the primary sourcing claims 6 second reload.
1 Like
If gaijins devs do decide to act upon the recent report and give leclerc a 6 second reload, I fully believe the likes of abrams could lose their 5 second reload as that is completely unbalanced.
Funny how countless videos,secondary sources suddenly becomes irrevelant when it comes proving your point.
I think situation is rather clear.
I have a better idea.
How about we buff Type-10’s reload up to 2.5 seconds and Leclerc’s reload to 4 seconds with emergency mode while giving. 3.2-3.4 second reload to Leopards,Abram’s while keeping Challengers at 5 second despite multiple secondary sources states loader can push much faster than 5 seconds in real life.
I wonder what Gunjob would feel about it :)
Nah man don’t be dramatic with it eh. I’m merely discussin it without malice
I’m just joking man don’t worry :)
Im good with every buff for every tank what I can’t stand is that some people can’t accept the fact that other nations can also produce good capabilities.
There is a whole bug report made by wareta about it if i remember well.
Yes, different types of sources carry different levels of credibility. A direct statement from the manufacturer holds greater authority than secondary or tertiary sources, because the manufacturer is the source of truth regarding the intended specifications and performance of their own product. Once information travels beyond that point through a magazine, wiki, or even a well-intentioned third-party analysis, details can easily be misunderstood, mismeasured, or misrepresented. Every step away from the original source introduces more room for error, bias, or assumptions.
On top of that, how you choose the timing points makes a huge difference. Start or stop at the wrong cues, and you can shave off nearly a full second. Your own standard for when the reload starts/stops is what’s being applied here.
The fact of the matter is that GIAT themselves in their own marketing material and in their official bid to the UK state a 6-second reload time. Those are direct, authoritative sources coming straight from the system’s manufacturer. No amount of secondary or tertiary material can override that, because anything further down the chain is ultimately just repeating, interpreting, or attempting to re-measure what the manufacturer already defined.
If someone wants to challenge the manufacturer’s stated performance, the only way to do so credibly is to provide an equally direct source such as a later revision from the manufacturer, official testing data, or French Military documentation (legally and in keeping with the rules) that supersedes the original claim. Additional layers of interpretation or user measurements don’t change the baseline truth. At best secondary or tertiary materials, can point us to the original source they’re referencing which, ideally, should still lead back to a primary, officially published specification.
5 Likes
Primary source > any number of secondary sources.
Videos in general aren’t evidence for a report, except perhaps as secondary arguments on a forum.
But videos don’t support <6 seconds, and some outright refute them.
There’s nothing wrong with the Leclerc’s 6-second reload time. No one said it’s a bad tank.
However, when you start making up utter nonsense about some emergency mode with a 4-second reload,
it becomes laughable.
Not a single source in the reports about the Leclerc mentions such a mode. That’s pure fantasy. I could also say that the T-series has an emergency firing mode with a 3-second reload time, or that the Type 10 has an emergency mode with a 0.5-second reload time.
Here, the reason why leclerc reload is 5 sec since there seems to be doubt about it Community Bug Reporting System
3 Likes
Am i watching french tax in action :o
Last several patches RU vehicles get buffed and then 2 vehicles are added that completely destroyed a br range from 9.7 to 12.7 and the response is to nerf other western vehicles damn this game is sure making it hard to want to carry on playing it.
1 Like
THis, THIS is the report I was looking for man, thanks for throwing that in there.
Nah the leclercs aren’t nerfed yet at all, like I said above to @Gunjob merely wanting to discuss the possibility of it.
as has been linked there is another report which can debate the fire rate etc.
teh leclerc armour however still is questionable.
1 Like
The report below shows us why it has a 5 second reload. The report is extremely well written and puts into words which are irrefutable, hence why it got accepted.
Theres even a video from GIAT showing as such.
Believe it’s due to type 10 having a combat fire rate of sub 4 seconds or something.
Combat fire rates are different from training fire rates.
All of this then begs to wonder why gaijin now would accept a report 4 months ago about a 6 second reload.
In real life, nothing wrong with it at all:
In game huge nerf for the vehicle putting it from above ariete, merkava mk4, cr2 to below them due to how fragile it is.
Only maybe ariete would be worse but even then 5 second reload with DM53 gives it the edge in firepower, even now
He doesn’t explain. The report is full of journals and encyclopedias. No good sources.
The report doesn’t explain why so many primary sources claim 6 seconds.
Is not
Yeah sure, can you stop polluting the thread honestly ? There are something like 16 sources and the bug report was approved, go ask the devs if you think it was a wrong decision but otherwise you are not the one judging if the source is good or bad.
You are just making everyone loose their time right now with nothing to support what you are saying.
4 Likes
Sorry your beliefs doesn’t mean anything in here.
Instead wanna talk about how T-80BVM should be limited to 15-19 shells when it decides to take 3BM60 only? Or do you wanna talk about how carousel takes almost 19 seconds to rotate and put round into the chamber if next shell isn’t ready?
Or how BMPT’s internal belts somehow considered external?
Or better just stop wasting everybody’s time in here and let it go.
5 Likes