I apologise for this bluntness. But I find it very egregious of you to claim that you are more knowledgeable about the specificities of a tank than qualified experts and engineers, some of whom whose job it was to assess the capabilities of foreign tanks for the Russian government.
At the end of the day, you have no certain way of knowing whether what the Swedish tested was used in the final product.
It is the developer’s decision not to use Russian sources for NATO vehicles, if you want to change it, please find a non-Russian source
What of the Polish source that I have included in my previous reply?
Also, are NATO sources not used for Russian tanks?
So the Russian source that says that it’s integrated into the modular armor, is considered not good enough? Because we’re back to the fact that the MoD won’t allow statements that come out and give the specifics.
We already have a possible composition of the splinter lining that isn’t in Russia. So you’re just gatekeeping the report because we can’t give a non-Russian source for that specific part of the report…
That test mentioned in the magazine doesn’t explain under what conditions the rounds were protected, which is a similar situation in Japan, where there are differences in interpretation between developers and users as to what conditions were tested.
Only used if NATO countries have actually evaluated Russian vehicles. Not used if it is an estimate.
How are they integrated? What is the size of the lining? What is the shape? If we don’t know any of this and just forward a report that says the lining exists, developers will reject report.
If it’s integrated common sense dictates that it has at least the same coverage as the composite.
Because we’re back to the fact that the requirements are so strict for something that’s classified. We can only give details that can best reflect what it actually is.
weren’t link provided which said 35% improved protection
Is it possible to get a response from the developers on the validity of the sources and their concerns with it?
You still have not responded to this:
As you’ve said, and I’ll say. The way this is being handled means we have to speak very bluntly about how we feel.
If the 650-700mm KE protection report gets “not a bug” it will be by all regards completely asinine and moderation completely lacking in competency.
Too often they are not the same, the Leopard 2 series also has the composite armor with integrated liner, but the liner is look is quite different.
I looked at this and the UK docs at the same time, the hulls don’t have good KE protection either
Could you please confirm the date of these documents as I am unaware?
My understanding is that these are from around 1991-1992 which would also make these documents irrelevant considering the Leclerc was not a finished product at that point in time. The first 4 Leclercs were not finished until 1992, were not handed over until 1993 and were not combat ready until 1998. That’s 5 years after the Swedish trials.
“Танкомастер” Issue 2-3, 1998 states that they consulted GIAT and the estimates they received were 650-700 KE. “Боевые машины Уралоагонзавода. Танк Т-72” is an unrelated official government source and corroborates this. Both these sources discuss a finalised product.
@_David_Bowie on another note, do you have news on the rotation and elevation speed of the Leclerc : Community Bug Reporting System
I swear there are not just Russian sources in this. I hope you can consider this valid ? Because I’m not going to steal a Leclerc just to prove you this…
I again state that since splinter coverage is likely a HIGHLY classified topic along with the specifics of armor composition, the best we can do is give a bunch of small details that can lead to a guesstimate.
Will we possibly eventually find something that specifies the specific placement of the splinter lining? It’s a small possibility that will likely take far to long.
But as it currently stands your saying that because we can’t give the specifics, we’re expected to live with one of the most survivable vehicles on the modern battlefield to be the equivalent of a early light tank.
Report is still open
I cannot forward reports to developers that do not meet the standards.
Report on the liner requires at least some information about the liner’s placement, shape.
When will a French vehicle report not be open for months ? next year, end of the century ? I know French vehicles are clearly not Gaijin’s priority in general, but this is getting ridiculous. On one side, you refuse primary source because “Russian no good for NATO”, and on the other side, when we provide reliable sources for very simple fixes (its not like elevation and rotation speed is anything more than 2 lines of code), it still takes ages for anything to happen. I swear I will have Grand kids before anything on the Leclerc is fixed, and I am still a virgin
This is why I didn’t work on that report. There is a lot of evidence that contradicts each other, and this creates problems.
Since i was the one who made the report, could you tell me what’s wrong with it so i can add more sources if needed?
