Thanks a lot. I have updated the bug report.
well they better give SHARD to Leclerc to keep up now if they gonna move those to Rank VIII
3 Likes
America/Germany need to get M829A3/DM73 for that to happen.
Suggestions for new rounds were accepted a while ago.
As a tangent, VBCI spall liner from MJCPIA : Community Bug Reporting System
If anyone has anything else for other vehicles
6 Likes
@_David_Bowie, could you please look at these reports? It would be really great if we could get these through before the new update.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/R0WAU20QgIes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uNATBmoQ1yDj
-
Need a picture of the spall liner
-
Russian sources about NATO tanks are unreliable
2 Likes
1: The spall liner is integrated into the modular armour. It would be impossible for a picture of the spall liner unless we had our hands on an actual armour module to crack open.
2: Which sources specifically?
5 Likes
Can you take a look at the three sources I have in this thread?
Based on what we know as well, what Bossman saying that we won’t be able to see it is likely true.
1 Like
Other reports have provided information about how the spall liners are placed, information about where they are located is essential.
All sources written wtih Russian
I stated in the bug report: “All variants of the Leclerc have a rear lining to its composite armour”. The mentioned composite armour refers to the modular armour package that is retrofitted to Leclercs.
This bug report, Community Bug Reporting System was acknowleged and used the same Russian source (“Боевые машины Уралоагонзавода. Танк Т-72”) that is used in the bug report for the Leclerc’s hull armour. This source is essentially an extension of the Russian MoD since almost every defense enteprises is state-owned and under the control of the Russian government.
This source: Baryatinsky, M., 2007. «Леклерк» и другие французские основные боевые танки. In: Moscow: Моделист-конструктор, p. 25… Mikhail Baryatinsky is an established military journalist.
This source: Charov, Y., 1995. Зарубежное военное обозрение Issue 2, 1995. In: Moscow: Russian Ministry of Defense, p. 27… Is literally the mouthpiece of the Russian MoD.
This source: Berezkin, V. & Zheltov, I., 1998. Танкомастер Issue 2-3, 1998. In: Moscow: Техника - молодежи, Танкомастер, p. 30… One of the authors, Igor Zheltov is the Deputy Director for Scientific Work of Museum “History of the T-34 Tank”.
All of the sources used in the creation of these bug reports are highly credible. Furthermore, the closest thing we will ever get to actual numbers outside of the classified documents themselves is assessment by a foreign power - this has been provided. To call into question (especially) the validity of “Боевые машины Уралоагонзавода. Танк Т-72” is to call into question the abilities of the Russian government to assess the capabilities of other countries.
4 Likes
Only mentioning is not enough, developers need to know what it looks like and where it is located so they can implement it.
Only sources 2-5 in that report are actually meaningful, source 1 is meaningless, and developers do not prefer Russian documentation for NATO tanks, they used Swedish test documentation
It is located in the modular armour package. We can’t know anymore than this without physical access to one of those armour modules.
So will official government data be ignored?
Do you know of Swedish test results that are better than Russian data? There was even an actual ballistic test.
Spoiler
Developers based on this material when implementing NATO tanks.
Turrets use the same composite armor as hulls, there is no reason they have better factors, This was the same for the UK evaluation.
1 Like
The Swedish trials used an early prototype of the Leclerc and an M1A2 Abrams without DU armour. All sources give an estimation of 650-700 KE. So even though the Swedish trials used an early prototype, these figures would still confirm the estimations we have presented.
I misspoke. A Leclerc in which its development had not matured would be more accurate than an ‘early prototype’. Nevertheless, what was used in the Swedish trials was not a final product.
6 Likes
All but the US in that test used the same composite armor as the domestic version, and the UK evaluations highlighted a significant lack of KE protection.
Also, there is no early composite, the configuration is the same all the way up to SXXI. Even the SXXI has the same configuration except for the titanium plates.
All sources give an estimation of 650-700 KE. These figures would still confirm the estimations we have presented. There is even a spot of green on the turret in the graphs. The hull armour is not even presented in the Swedish trials’ data and it would probably be closer to 700 KE given its more uniform shape.
Additionally, we must consider this source:
This is from a reputable Polish magazine which states that the Leclerc in the Swedish trials was plagued with issues and when the Leclerc’s armour was tested by the UAE (a nation which used a final product) it was able to withstand an APFSDS round otherwise capable of penetrating 640mm of RHA at 2000m. This would fall in line with the 650-700mm KE. I can add this source to the bug report if you would like.
11 Likes
“All but the US”
I didn’t read it properly, my bad:)
Last I knew the Swedish conducted the trial with an early version of the Leclerc that was considered a preproduction.
3 Likes