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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Excuse me?! I cited several primary sources, good secondary sources, and also explained in detail that the video of the reloading doesn’t show any 5 seconds.
Can anyone show me at least one source that specifies an “emergency firing mode” for the Leclerc?
Can anyone show me a source from GIAT that specifies 5 seconds?
So, there are two primary sources from the GIAT with 6 seconds. Two authoritative books about Leclerc with 6 seconds, and documents from the US and British MoD with 6 seconds.
You have beliefs. I have facts.
15 - true
This is absurd. It takes 6 seconds to load the next shell. It takes 18 seconds to rotate the conveyor belt 360 degrees in older MZ like the T-64B and T-80B, but in the game, you never rotate the conveyor belt completely.
I might surprise you, but for the Leclerc, if you want to load a shell that’s not adjacent, the loading time will also increase significantly, since the belt needs to be rotated much further.
Moreover, improved MZs like the T-80UD, U, and others have a two-way rotation, which can be up to 12.5 seconds.
However, as I already said, this doesn’t matter, since you always load the adjacent shell, which is in the adjacent tray (or every other one, if it’s the 3BM60).
I think this is unfair. All similar vehicles should be identical.
Either make the main ammunition belt “external” for everyone, or fix the BMPT.
So ? If you believed only what was advertised meteor would be barely 100km+ missile with how it was at the start, french industrials love to understate the performance of the stuff they make, otherwise i’m not a knowledgeable person for the leclerc and you can always @ the person that made this bug report and ask him how he ended up to the conclusion that 5 seconds for leclerc is real .
Okay im sorry now you are flat out denying video evidence from the manufacturor, if it wasn’t then gaijin would of shot that down immediately.
Okay so the report which is filled to the brim with sources, as far as I seen at a skim some of which are videos from the manufacturor are not primary sources?
Theres a video from GIAT quoted in the source.
Shows faster than 6 second reload rate.
the entire bug report is extremely will written and has indepth explinations as to why it’s 5 seconds.
Ralin is now just denying what is there linked to him.
The video which is linked in there shows them sharing it’s reload rate, and it’s sub 6 seconds closer to 5 if you actually time it.
No one is saying this now?
one primary source? the GIAT brochure is not several.
AS well as this you’ve been shown videos from teh MoD of france which if you do the maths properly works out to be around 5.4 seconds, which is as we can see closer to 5 than 6.
Refusal to see what is in front of you for following your own narative means this discussion will go absolutely no where.
I deny their incompetent interpretation.
The manufacturer doesn’t show a video of a full 5-second charge cycle.
It shows a portion of the charge cycle that lasts 5 seconds.
The video is not the source for this report AT ALL. Moreover, the video doesn’t show a full reload cycle.
In another video, the time between shots is 8 seconds.