Read this, please
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?
Jog on enough man.
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.
Closer to 6.3
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.
The person used magazines and encyclopedias and ignored good secondary sources and manufacturer brochures.
Or didn’t find them.
No, that’s not true. The sequence diagram declares 6 for loading the adjacent projectile.
A single source that comes directly from the manufacturer can overrule 20 sources that are secondary or tertiary.
There’s a reason why Tank Manuals are usually seen as the most authoritative source available on a given vehicle.
You’re wrong. That video doesn’t show many of the operations that occur during continuous shooting.
I’ve already written about this 10 times.
the cyclogram is the single source declaring that, you can time it yourself. no shortage of videos.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1mh3pkp/t64t80_autoloader/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1
Primary sources being considered more “trustworthy” will never cease to be funny when you consider the fact that they can contradict.
For example, i will use a non leclerc related vehicle :
1 year difference, same source (french MoD), different language. What is the max speed : 23 or 25 knots ? Tough decision i suppose
Note though that the one posted first has the most conservative approach to the vehicle speed
To add to this, the defense industry in Europe usually tends to undersell the capabilities of their “products” at first, MBDA Meteor, MICA VL (12km in 2012, 20km bow). I also note that one of the brochures from Ralin, then again, contradicts the other (10 round per seconds is not compatible with “redoublement du feu en en moins de 6 secondes”). For it to be correct you would have to get “Redoublement du feu en 6 secondes” and “10 rounds per minute”
or
“redoublement du feu en moins de 6 secondes” and “>10 rounds per minute”
When it comes to leclerc, the devs already stated that reload is mostly a balancing thing anyway, and even then it would seem Leclerc’s autoloader can be pushed to the 4.5-5.5s area when looking at secondary sources (while one of the primary source given by Ralin does not forbid it)
When it comes to balancing, i don’t think anyone here can argue that Leclerc represents a big balancing issue currently, like Soyuz in naval, Mi28 in helicopters or Rafale in Air RB.
Seriously.
I don’t understand why this guy called Ralin decided to start a crusade against Leclerc all of a sudden(actually I know why but I’m not gonna start another pointless conversation with him).
GIAT;
So the body of evidence is for 6 seconds. 6 out of 7 authoritative materials state 6 second reload rate and one states ‘less than’ 6. The single ‘less than’ does not erase the other 6 materials and doesn’t magically make a bunch of defence news magazines credible with their claims of 5 seconds. That’s not how evidencing works.
Actually 2 states less than 6 seconds , GIAT brochure and Le système Leclerc. Ferrard Stéphane et Gérard Turbe.
My apologies the 2 out of 7. Doesn’t move the needle either but thanks for the correction.
If you actually translated the entire paragraph, you’d see it does not say reloading in 6s but reloading in less than 6s
Same for this one
And then, if we were to believe that what was given to the UK MoD was all very correct, the Leclerc would barely have better armor than the AMX30. Considering how they did not want to share anything to anyone, even during most testings, I would assume that those are at best conservative estimates.
I don’t understand why you and rain keep bringing the same source with just the “6s” highlighted when the sentence literally mentions “under 6s”
On the armour, I’m happy to concede the point, we had a solid discussion there, and DirectSupport resolved the issue by showing an image of the Leclerc at the time of submission with a clearly different armour profile. In that case, the information can be contextualized to better understand what is being presented.
That same contextualization does not apply to the reload time. Unless we are to assume that brochures from roughly 2005-2006 were still referring to a prototype vehicle while simultaneously describing it as “in production,” the comparison simply doesn’t hold.
Because these are not the only materials available. I have seven sources in total, all converging on a 6-second reload. As you noted, two of them use a “less than” qualifier, but the remaining five again, all authoritative explicitly state 6 seconds.
If we take the secondary, yet still authoritative, source Le système Leclerc by Stéphane Ferrard and Gérard Turbé, and note that it makes the same “less than 6 seconds” claim as the Leclerc brochure, it is reasonable to infer that the authors are referencing that same brochure. A secondary source is expected to cite a primary one, and in this case the origin is clear: the Leclerc brochure itself.
This does not suddenly make IDR’s, Jane’s, or the Polish defence magazines correct in claiming a 5-second reload. A reload time of 5.9 seconds would still satisfy the brochure’s wording while functionally remaining a 6-second reload.
Secondary sources do not independently divine technical figures; they must be rooted in a source of truth. Here, that source is clearly GIAT, the same GIAT documentation I have already cited support a 6-second figure.
