I’m no expert at reading that graph, but that is just straight up vile if they also have no idea what they’re looking at and are just telling us we’re wrong.
Good comment, you seem to feel pretty much the same as the rest of us because we’re all saying the same thing differently.
Which is just frustrating to see more because we’re all coming to the same conclusion.
1 Like
I think we need to stop proving that Leclerc has bugs, it will never succeed. It would be necessary to prove that France is in reality Russia and the bugs should be corrected fairly quickly.
4 Likes
At this point, Gaijin just simply asking French mains to give them review bombs. Gaijin is basically saying: Please review bomb me you filthy french mains, your actions won’t hurt me at all. Cuz there are not so many of you maggots.
3 Likes
Leclerc MBTs acceleration & turning rate are too low // Gaijin.net // Issues
Improved and edited report about the mobility, using Swedish and Greek trials as references.
16 Likes
Thanks for the work on the reports, I hope it works out
2 Likes
My understanding is that both the diagram an graph are relevant to the turret rotated 20° to the right. I.e. like this in game:
Spoiler
The coloured diagram on the left is showing the areas of the turret which meet the protection requirement (700 mm KE / 1,200 mm CE).
The Graph on the right is showing the percentage of the exposed turret area which meets each protection level. The vertical axis is labelled “Skyddad yto (%)” which translates to “Protected Surface (%)”, with a note that the total exposed turret area is 1.7m2. The horizontal axis is labelled “Skyddanivo (mm RHA)” which translates to “Protection level (mm RHA)”.
As an example the graph is saying that (when angled at 20°) 60% of the exposed area is protected to at least 400 mm RHA against KE (while 40% of the exposed area has less than 400 mm KE protection).
So as a quick summary:
- 60% of the exposed area is protected to at least 400 mm RHA KE
- 47% of the exposed area is protected to at least 500 mm RHA KE
- 40% of the exposed area is protected to at least 600 mm RHA KE
- 19% of the exposed area is protected to at least 700 mm RHA KE
- 14% of the exposed area is protected to at least 800 mm RHA KE
In terms of whether the armour model in game matches the Swedish trails:
The area of green for KE protection under the gunner’s sight, which you mentioned, can indeed not be penetrated when angled at 20° in game:
Spoiler
And there is a portion of the left turret cheek which meets 1,200 mm of KE protection, as on the diagram:
Spoiler
And without counting all the individual pixels to tell the exact percentage I would say that roughly 40% of the exposed area can be penetrated by a 400 mm pen KE round, as suggested by the graph:
Spoiler
So the in game armour model does seem to match the Swedish trials. You’re welcome to do the maths and work out the exact % of the turret area protected to each level if you want, then use that for a bug report if you think that the armour is underperforming compared to the Swedish trials.
The only other way I can see the Leclerc getting bug reported is to show what improvements were made to the Later models of the Leclerc and then ask for them to be given correspondingly better armour compared to the S1 (I imagine that has be tried before though?).
8 Likes
Thanks a lot for this in-depth breakdown.
Unfortunately there seems to be no armor estimates for the SXXI. So far, our position is to try and prove that the Swedish trials Leclerc =/= finalised Leclerc. We’re putting together some more sources and trying to collect some more information. So far it looks hopeful.
Among other things, it does help when the source of these same graphs also states the Leclerc “was not mature enough”
6 Likes
Fairly certain SHARD, being made to replace OFL 120 F2, would be leaps and bounds better, since it is a 2022 APFSDS.
1 Like
It does. However from what I’ve seen people talk about online wasn’t that primarily about the powertrain, rather than the armour (which people seem to say was fairly finalised)?
I’m no expert on the Leclerc / Swedish trials though, so feel free to correct me.
The Leclerc that was brought for the Swedish trials was NOT the production model. Its armor was unfinished. For this reason, the Swedish trials shouldn’t be used as reference.
5 Likes
We’ve come across an article that stated the project as a whole was not complete and that later testing by the UAE showed the hull could withstand OFL 120 F2 which is generally regarded as being able to penetrate 640mm RHA at 2000m.
Additionally, at the Greek trials the Leclerc performed much better in almost every category compared to at the Swedish trials.
At the end of the day, there is no way of knowing how ‘finished’ the Leclerc was in Sweden, so we should only consider sources that discuss a final product.
10 Likes
Can’t we just make a bug report stating this point? Like saying their sources are unreliable?
1 Like
Without necessarily talking about armour, the ideal would be to increase its firepower. Where 95% of high thirds have shells piercing more than 600mm, the Leclerc tank only pierces 575mm, which is certainly not bad but not enough. I experienced this myself today. I shot at the you of a leopard and it was impossible to penetrate because at least 600mm was needed. The Leclerc could be a good tank but for the moment it’s the one that’s taking all the knocks. And what I find a shame is that the 4 Leclercs are identical. Apart from a tiny bit of armour, there’s nothing to differentiate them. Gajin could put in new shells for the T8s (OFL 120 F1A or OFL 120 F2).
which source is this?
After the leclerc deserves a good buff indeed
4 Likes
And for ammunition, whether Leclerc or AMX10RC or even Tiger, here is the link to the website of the official French armament manufacturer
2 Likes
We already know enough about the OFL 120 F2 and F1B+. It’s just a matter of the devs wanting to implement them.
how much of an improvement would OFL F1b+ be over current F1
No, it’s 1720m/s:
4 Likes