I’m not even debating if it has better or worse overall armour than the Leopard because I simply assume we won’t know and I think it’s, indeed, worse armoured. It should have other advantages (for example it should have the best acceleration with immediate response to the gas pedal and it should be the fastest and most maneuvrable MBT, and this are some things that I don’t see when I play the Leclerc) as well as other advantages that don’t fit in-game (one of the best fire control systems, the bigges range, etc).
My point regarding armour is that it shouldn’t be as bad as it is now. Even the additional armour on the gunner side can be penned by most if not all top tier APFSDS and the UFP can be penned even if it’s almost horizontal.
Okay? Have you ever taken into consideration that it’s a design limitation? Leclerc UFP is really non add-on friendly, whereas Leopard 2s is really add-on friendly (seeing as it was redesigned going from 2A4 - > 2A5).
terms of chemical protection while being better at defeating kinetic projectiles
In comparison?
Additionally Leclercs composite is not just a single steel plate with composite material inbetween and another plate at the back
So you’re assuming other composites are not like that?
That gives it additional high hardness material to add to the armor
That’s… not how that works?
Something that isn’t modeled in game nor taken into account on the effective armor.
Congrats, you’re just like every other non-Russian MBT in this regard.
Sorry, this was meant for @Unl3ashed20, dunno why it tagged you Arma.
To Chobham as I’ve said.
Leclercs composite is currently visually and statistically modeled after the NERA inside Leo 2A5s turret both for the turret and hull.
It literally is. Leclerc has boxes with steel around them inside the Armor. They’re welded together. There is more metal and less NERA in there as of now.
Multiple plates on the Armor that show effectiveness can be seen on Challenger 2 FYI
Makes me wonder how Nexter got a design for add-on Armor in 2015 then
2 Likes
Also something else I noticed. Leclerc and Leopard 2 in game are about the same length. Meanwhile IRL Leclerc is 85cm shorter than Leo 2 on the hull. We have some sources on that in another thread. This just further proves Gaijin made the Leclerc model in terms of Armor and dimension wrong from ground up
And nobody uses it anymore, in fact it was no longer in use by 1987 for Germany, and 1989 for the US (and Chobham is just a generic name used to describe the bog standard NERA anyways).
Leclerc has boxes with steel around them inside the Armor.
Explain to me how having multiple different blocks gives it “additional high hardness material” - the only difference is that Leclerc’s design (especially around the gunner sight) is so sub-par that they had to cut an armour block in two to keep protection uniform, there’s nothing about it that adds “additional high hardness material” in comparison to other MBTs.
NERA inside Leo 2A5s turret both for the turret and hull.
BECAUSE GAIJIN MODELS EVERY ARMOUR AS BASIC NERA - do you think they have any idea how any of their armours look like?
And the name they chose for the model itself is goddamn irrelevant. They could switch the name to “Leclerc_nera” and it wouldn’t make a single difference.
Multiple plates on the Armor that show effectiveness can be seen on Challenger 2 FYI
In the game? Don’t think so.
Makes me wonder how Nexter got a design for add-on Armor in 2015 then
Which one? The Leclerc T40 that only exists on paper?
It hurts to see the Leclerc referred to as a product of AMX, as it only had a few FCS systems produced there.
Funnily enough, it isn’t even a NATO vs WP design thing. Soviet / Russian vehicles are FAR from correct, with any 1990+ pattern vehicle having the incorrect composite layout, as well as ERA being finicky due to the volumetric changes.
He’s talking about the detailed modelling of WP vehicles, where each layer is its own thing unlike on NATO vehicles where everything is a gift bundle.
I am aware that their composite isn’t correct (from protection stand point), but the modelling of the layout itself is correct as far as I’m concerned.
T-90M will be interesting to see however, since the opinion on its composite armour is divided - some argue it’s swtiched to a new array, some argue it’s re-using T-90A’s layout.
What design would that be?
Well, yes. WP tanks are some of the most diverse in the world, primarily due to manufacturing practices and the existence of the GRAU catalogue, as well as a list of serial vehicles that goes very in depth.
There’s no European country that I can think of that defines 3 variants of tank, being “original, new variant, original with new variant’s FCS”.
Their composite is correct, for the most part. Even down to the T-64s variable steel turret. The issue is the layout in composite, which wasn’t modeled on the T-72B '89, T-90A, T-72B3, and any other post 89/90 Ural variant I am thinking of. ALL variants of T-72 past that date were made to that year’s standards. Those standards drastically changed the hull composite layout, increasing KE protection even more and decreasing CE protection.
Well, people hypothesize that it uses a new composite layout, as its production lines and order of completion has changed compared to the earlier T-90AM/SMs. It absolutely does have a different hull, but it’s unknown for what.
The T-90A’s layout is still based on the 1990 standard, which is TECHNICALLY the 1989 design. The only reason why it’s considered a “1990” standard is because the primary variant of T-72 that was upgraded was to its 1990 variant, hosting new sights but the same FCS on the 1989 hull.
What.
Those standards drastically changed the hull composite layout, increasing KE protection even more and decreasing CE protection.
Ok, cool. Point is however;
And we’re already steered off the topic, so lets drop this.
Huh.
Point is, it isn’t even modeled in game. All Ural vehicles still use the 1985 armor layout.
That entire post is equating the T-64s armor to the layout of *every Soviet vehicle, as well as wildly oversimplifying ERA effects.
My bad. Only turret addon not hull. Makes me wonder why again… Turkey, Sweden, Nexter… none of them want to upgrade the hull… not even UAE
2 Likes
They each have steel around them. Not just soft material that expends from heat and pressure like NERA does. There are hard metal plates inside the Armor. Not just one in the front and behind it.
Yes in game. Have a look before just saying something about it.
The upper hull slope / roof already features composite, unlike Leopards, Abrams, and so on. There is no need to upgrade the upper hull, and the lower hull itself is hard to implement applique armor as it hinders maneuverability and forward clearance.
The issue I have ATM is that there is no way to really compare two models in WT. Not with the CDK nor really in game. If Leclercs model is really in wrong proportions it’s very possible that the frontal Armor will be increased due to the model being too long in other places. Same with the effectiveness and thickness of the UFP which currently gets penetrated by 280~mm APFSDS aka Rooikat
I’d advise not using the CDK, but block files to compare.
You’re aware NERA is a soft material sandwiched between STEEL, right? Besides that, as I said, other nations also dropped bog standard NERA ages ago.
1 Like
Yeah. You don’t get the point. They’re NERA BLOCKS inside the armor. Multiple layers packed with steel between each other. Stacked to make up the Armor as a whole. Not just plate in front and back with NERA between