Well we aremt even talking war thunder specific anytjing rihht now
Yep, I was not comparing to the DM83, only the 53 (and 73 by extension). As I said, the L52 is just less powerful than the L55 in the achievable chamber pressure. Hence why the 140mm for the Leclerc Evo would be an actual upgrade. We could expect anywhere from 800 to more than 1000mm of pen (using the LO formula) (lowball and "hig"ball approximation of the round with speed and length considered with pretty big variability)
That’s what is claimed by the UK mains, and on this point I believe them. They just tend to overhype insensitive ammunition a bit too much (but so have some German mains tbf)
I would wager the Leclerc evolution would be somewhat better than the 2A8 in modern warfare, but probably would arrive to late either way yeah. KNDS claimed that they could upgrade all French tanks by 2035 iirc, when the MGCS is due to arrive in like 2040.
I think it’s going to be the AMX30 situation all over again. France refused the proposed stabiliser upgrades to the AMX30s because the Leclerc was due to arrive 5-10 years later when GIAT originally proposed the AMX30C upgrade iirc.
On the other hand, the ground stuff is not all that bad, they do produce very good wheeled vehicles, the EBRC is a very fine vehicle, just not a breakthrough vehicle…
I don’t think there has been any direct quotes on that. It was kinda assumed from the fact that Nexter has produced multiple turret prototypes (ie, Leclerc EVO, the different EMBTs) - and the Leclerc eco was basically the Leclerc hull but refined (so not new) and all the EMBT proposed leopard derivates chassis. If we were to make a generality on that, we could claim that KMW doesn’t really produces turrets since only the leopard 2ARC (or whatever its name was) actually uses a new turret design instead of the add more armor block"trend seen on the leopard from the 2A4 to the 2A8
However, it is true that France currently doesn’t produce tank class engines anymore, since the company that built the Leclerc engine was sold to Wassila which is I believe a nordic company. Tho tbf their wheeled vehicles engines are also Volvo derivatives produced through Renault Truck as well, so it seems to apply to most of their ground forces and it doesn’t prevent them from building them.
KNDS claim they can be able to retrofit the current Leclerc chassis for the Eco (typo from Evo but I have to say this autocorrect is actually funny so ill keep it that way). The EMBT also uses a proposed leopard deviated hull.
They are not bought because France aims to pay as little as possible until the MGCS comes out. Politics and economics is the main issue as usual.
Wounder how many more years these decade old hulls might be in service. Even with upgrades and alot maintenance… There is probably one point where these just fall apart.
These new Leopards are build from the scratch. Newly made tanks.
France has produced a decent number of vehicles. More than half of them were put out of service and put in long term storage. Currently they are using those out of service vehicles to change parts on in service vehicles when they have to be replaced. Overall, the Leclerc finished production in around 2008, so event the “newer” hull are almost 20 years old. Tho it needs to be mentioned that the armor is highly modular and probably is still being produced and tank armor is being replaced with new components as they age (so the age"would be more about the structure, engine and transmission AFAIK, but not is known if those two, engine and transmission, are still produced in limited numbers). Still won’t beat a brand new hull tho, that is true.
Anyway, I saw that comment got cleaned up, so I’ll stop talking about the Leclerc and let this thread return to what it should be
Leclerc lost thrice to the Leo 2 in the 1990s
- Turkey vs 2A6EX
- Greece vs 2A5
- Sweden vs TVM
It lost Turkey and Greece solely by being inferior, it lost in Sweden as a pre-series(?) to a prototype.
I don’t know the ins and out of the Turkish testing. As for Greece and Sweden, both were pre series tanks that were also refused to enter service in the French army due to substantial issues in three main points :
Engine reliability
Suspension issues
Armor (and more probably the turret because the hull armor doesn’t seem to have improved as far as the albeit unreliable evidences show)
edit : Greek testing also seem to indicate some autoloader issue (US very biased assessment of the trials), but that hasn’t been officially confirmed
All in service Leclerc are S1OP (or later) standard which entered service in 1998, while the greek and Swedish testing were using earlier variants.
It is to note that Greece didn’t have any clue on the armor of the Leclerc because GIAT refused to give any information, which makes it impossible to juge the vehicle fairly. Although it’s most likely that its armor is at best equivalent to the 2A5, the greeks have considered that the Leclerc was armored to the level of the AMX30 because of the lack of infos.
The Swedish trials show the armor scheme of the hull of the Leclerc without any form of protection in a picture, and the turret protection that was leaked showed an overall inferior armor compared to in service Leclerc. This is probably explained by the fact that the S1OP has the same armor layout as the S2, with visibly thicker armor on the front of the turret, although this is not represented in game, because the S2 addition was one of the laziest addition ever
Edit : As for the Turkish trial, while I do not know much about them, seeing as they finally bought 2A4 after the German parliament blocked the 2A6 purchase seem to indicated they were going for more sensible and economical solutions compared to the Leclerc. I have not seen any actual data from the testings tho so that’s my personal speculation
i still find it hilarious that in the greece testing the french were found out to sabotage competitors testing.
I think it was gps something?
plot twist would be if the 2a4 still turned out better then the leclerc, which i doubt, but would be funny
1 Like
Even funnier is that the Americans claimed that GPS jamming was the reason they did worse than the other on static test firing.
Both countries were coping during these testings
NGL this might be the sexiest tank Iver ever saw, I still prefer t64bm2 but this comes close.
IIRC, that was planned for the SEP v4 which ended up being cancelled.
The M1E3 is stated to incorporate features which were initially planned to be added for the SEP v4.
DU armour has been present on M1’s since the late '80s, this isn’t something noteworthy or new for the SEP v3.
Not guaranteed for the SEP v3, the SEP v2 could just as easily be equipped with M829A4.
M1A2 SEP already had an UAAPU, again, not unique to the SEP v3.
You already said that, you’re just repeating yourself here.
Again, not a guarantee and the SEP v2 could just as easily mount Trophy APS.
Mate, you can see it in the very picture you posted:
That’s where the APU is located.
That’s a literal cardboard mock-up.
SEP v3 uses a modified M1 Abrams (1980) hull too, what’s your point?
Several vehicles are carboard mockups in warthunder
Not true, the original hull from the 1980s is entirely different, its more close to the SEP V2 hull with all the internal armor upgrades. Even then SEP V3 isn’t even comparable except for maybe the same gun and engine from before but besides that nothing is the “same”.
as for my comments on the 2A8, i mainly was speculating and wasnt sure on most of the info. If anyone here claims they know anything about this BRAND new vehicle take it with a grain of salt.
Abrams production ceased in the '90s.
Where do you think the hulls of SEP v3’s come from then?
The various upgraded variants of M1’s re-use hulls of previous models. These hulls are modified to the new standard but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re still usually the hulls of very early M1 production runs (M1 1980 - M1A1 1985).
How’s that any different from the Leopard 2A7V/2A8 which has underwent significant interior upgrades as well?
And as far as I’m aware, Leopard 2A8’s are fully new-built from the ground up and do not contain modified/re-used hulls of previous models.
Assuming they fixed the flaws of later leopards, like the ridiculous lower ammo rack. Like i did say though it is nice to see the commander sight get a needed upgrade.
meanwhile in britain with our new tanks…
2 Likes
AI is not a source.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, just provide an actual source in that case.
Real lol.
1 Like
Ignoring how we all used the official sources. But sureeeee
Me, who has spent months and painful amounts of money on finding and digitising actual documents seeing the forum think AI is a source
5 Likes
So they are still being built but for foreign sales, BUT production and refurbishment of the M1A2s are still on going, so yes and no
Sources