Why would you. You can get 4 mbt instead of 3
Cause I don’t have the crewslots for that.
I think I have 7 or 8. 2 or 3 are aircraft/SPAA.
Which leaves 4 or 5 for tanks. 2 light vehicle slots, and the rest MBTs with maybe a funny tank slot.
It looks like they changed the optics on the Leclerc like they did everything else but will be a nice change depending on what you value more i guess
Idk where to look at it, its heither a buff and a nerf depends on how you look it, i would rather have the changed one tho
that’s what i was thinking idk if this is a buff or a nerf
in cqb it is certanly, imho, do we have info on the sights used?
I like where all of this is going, if we can get some other stuff fixed it would be nice
1 Like
I’m glad they are starting to focus on the more minor features because a few European mbts were using the same optics, as well as the black in the sight is gone for Leclerc.
To answer your question, I think I’ve discovered (I don’t know if this bug has already been reported) a shielding bug (yes, again…).
As you can see from this image, the block is rectangular and in a single block there’s nothing to suggest any fault or reduction in shielding at any point. And yet…
As you can see in this second image, a shell can penetrate 302mm! If anything, this weakness applies to the entire inner surface of the red square. And yet…
As this last image shows, at the same angle of attack, 600mm of armour can penetrate the entire inner surface of the strange red shape.
I can only see a bug in this situation. So, sure, it’s a small area, but,
- It’s a bug, so it must be corrected.
- Imagine if, by some fluke, you got shot right there, wouldn’t that be a real shame?
Or maybe it’s not a bug.
2 Likes
Can you make a bug report about it?
I can do it. However, do you confirm that it is a bug?
That already reported on devserver section.
1 Like
ok I won’t make a duplicate ^^ merci
Looking back at it it’s still very annoying that Gaijin models Leclercs composite to be only a few plates with space inbetween. The spaces are filled with material to all the sources and articles I found.
1 Like
Just took a look at the AZUR in the latest update of the dev server and the only thing that changed so far is that the roof MG is now functional. AZUR armor is still classified as ERA, it still has the same protection, no OFL F2, same reload, no LWS. Honestly, I don’t have high hopes for the AZUR to be any improvment over the Leclercs we already have. At the moment it’s just more of the same, and that’s honestly not enough given the current performance of the Leclercs.
And even if the AZUR does get a LWS:
- It’s not sufficent in and of itself to make the Leclerc competitive
- It doesn’t help the existing Leclercs
Also, Gaijin seems to be completely ignoring my bug report about the angle penetration for some reason <_<
I’m honestly pretty lost as to what to do to get gaijin to make improvments to the Leclerc at this point.
2 Likes
Well, do we have some sources so we can try to make a change on something?
One that might help for the ERA issue
The document states that the armor plating blocks reported are exclusively designed to combat threats such as anti-tank infantry rockets, a protection kit against the penetration of projectiles and flaming liquids (HEAT).
But again states for passive protection modules which means NERA. Plus it’s the concept as it’s a dossier and not a technical document which states 360° against these threats that include the SLAT armor. For increased side armor against kinetic shells there is no mention so far
I’ve found that old report about turret sides: Fwd: May/13/2020 [1.95.0.36] Leclerc incorrect turret side armor - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
It was submitted nearly 4 YEARS AGO, even before the S2 got added and nothing’s been done
1 Like
That’s why it’s only forwarded to the devs for consideration and not “Will be implimented” even though these are some good sources. I have a PDF of one of these books and it says the armor is like early chobham but better suited against kinetic ammo. I’ll have a short look if I can find the page