Proposal: LECLERC

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: Proposal: LECLERC

Postby GARGEAN » Tue 31 May 2016 17:48

urho wrote:T1 shouldn't be a prototype, but it had prototype availability only.
If you read my post again, you'll notice i never mentioned 'numbers built', but introduction/test dates instead.

Introduction dates have no connection with avail too. It's price what matters most. So even if tank was build in thousands half of century ago, but was good enough to be 170 points, you will get just couple of them.
Simple, isn't it?

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3696
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Proposal: LECLERC

Postby Bougnas » Tue 31 May 2016 17:51

I think he meant the number of cards.
Image

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Reference for Leclerc Tranches.

Postby Frencho » Wed 1 Jun 2016 02:35

Another Leclerc thread filled with disinformation, you don't even know the differences between the Tranches...

I'm going to expand on a reply I wrote a while back on the Final Changes for French Deck thread

Serie 1:
Tranche 1: was the 4 or 5 prototypes used by GIAT (Nexter)
Tranche 2: served as the trial vehicles (17 Leclercs), then used as instruction vehicles and later converted to MARS (recovery or repair tanks). Never intended for combat.
Tranche 3: was the one intended for combat and deployed by the French Armed Forces.
Tranche 4: received improved sensors for the engine and turbine, plus some RPM tweaks.
Tranche 5: added more composite side armour thanks to the modular plating of the Leclerc, bringing it to Leopard 2A5 side armour level. Plus extra armour for the turret, making the turret sides better armoured than the Leopard 2A5. So 9 to 10 side armour value in game.

Tranches T3, T4 et T5 entered service in a configuration suited for Central Europe.
Series 1 production run: 132 units were produced between 1992 and 1996.

Serie 2:
The Leclerc series 2 (Tranches 6-7-8-9) would be out of time frame. As it is the series configured for OPEX in a post Cold War era and tailored for tropical and desert theatres.

Tranche 6: Visually these models are merely distinguishable by the presence of an air conditioning system on top of the turret, extra ammo boxes over the neck turret and modifying the front of tank by adding a mudguard. Engine and turbine tweaks for tropical and desert climates.
Tranche 7: Integration of a data transmission system to coordinate in real time with command and improved viewfinder for the tank commander.
Tranche 8: Modernisation of vehicle electronics.
Tranche 9: Fire Control & Observation System (FCOS) gunner upgrade. The original Athos thermal camera and gunner viewfinder are replaced by a new second generation IRIS thermal camera & viewfinder for the gunner.

Series 2 production run: 178 units were produced between 1997 and 2003.

Series 3:
Also called XXI, contains significant changes including substantial armour module upgrades and ERA.

Tranche 10: New composite armour modules plus ERA shielding. FCOS tank commander upgrade to replace the older ATHOS. The Tank commander's viewfinder is upgraded with a new gen laser plus IRIS Thermal Viewfinder, also added an IRIS Thermal camera for better commander observation

Tranche 11: Installation of battlefield management system "ICONE".

Series 3 production run: 91 units were produced from 2003 to 2007.

Total production run: 406 units for the French Army.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion.
The Leclerc used by WG: RD must be Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 3 or tranche 4.
Adding a Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5 can fit the time frame.
This would demand a minimum side armour value of 9 and same AP as Leopard 2A5, 180 points.

Wargamer1985 is just a Leclerc hater, every time anyone mentions it he swoops in and derails the thread with unsubstantiated claims.

The Leclerc's 120mm smoothbore cannon was L52 calibers vs L44 calibers on the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2.

To my basic understanding of gunnery, a longer caliber increases pressure, thus muzzle velocity, thus penetration.

As Crotou stated, Germany and France ( OFL 120 F2 and DM53) have equivalent ammo within RD's timeline. So the Leopards 2A5 and the Leclerc should have equal AP.
USA has better ammo thus better AP, the Abrams and Leo2A5 use the very same canon after all.
M1A2 has better front armour.

All arguments saying the Leclerc's smoothbore cannon is bad and could not pen shit are unfounded.

The Leclerc's FCOS and integrated comms systems were only matched about 2 years after its reveal when the the M1A2 entered service in 1993 with a comparably modern FCOS. Yet, both the Leclerc and M1A2 entered service at the same time that USA Military-Industrial complex can spam.
I don't know where you get that bullshit about the in game Leclerc using IRIS FCOS from 1997-2003, but the in-game Leclerc is using the excellent ATHOS FCS it came with when it was unveiled in 1991. Best FCOS at the time thermal, night-vision, laser range-finder up to 14x or 20x, semi-auto trackers for quick target acquisition, you name it.

Then comes the 1993 Swedish trials claims. I have not read them, Orcbuster kindly linked them but if memory serves well they are integrally in Swedish and I can't be bothered to translate them. Seeing the trials happened in 1993, the Leclerc had just been introduced into the French Army and still had strategic value due to being a high-tech and fully indigenous design.

So I would not be surprised if France refused to field the Leclercs for the trials equipped with the confidential French composite armour filling, so the Swedes had to equip the Leclerc (probably a prototype or trial vehicle, not a Serie 1 - tranche III) with their own swedish armour modules developed by IBD and Åkers Krutbruk protection AB.
It's like with Chobham the British only share it with the USA, you need an agreement on technology transfers for that and Swedes are not considered a long-standing and trusting strategic ally.
That's what I guess could have happened for the mixed reviews on the Leclerc during the trials, but I haven't read those reports. Or some idiot MINDEF bureaucrat or Nexter exec fucked something up, happens a lot with French arms deals.

Thing is when you reach the mid 1990s, all Western MBTs are pretty much equivalent.
Only changes are speed, autoloader and doctrine.
Put a M1A2, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5+, K1A1 and Kyu Maru crewed by equally skilled tank crews, against each other on a vacuum. Now rinse and repeat ad infinitum. See the results, none has a decisive advantage over the other to objectively deem one of them superior over all, but they're all good tanks. Doctrine will have a far greater effect than the minuscule western MBT idiosyncrasies.

In these forums, users single out the Leclerc with arbitrary biased arguments and double standards because the Eugen is a French company, that's it. Or they are even dumber and equate international sales to MBT combat performance, so only Abrams, Leopards and T-90s are good... By that logic the KIA2, K2 Panther and Type 10 are pieces of shit :roll:

The Leclerc's contempt has more to do with circumstance than the Tank's actual performance and merits.
The MBT was revealed as the Cold War was ending in 1991 and entered service once it was over for good.
Then came the "dividends of peace", the initial procurement order for the French Army went from 1500 to just 406 Leclercs, and another 388 to the United Arab Emirates. It simply did not get to shine from 1992-1995 when it was arguably the most advanced and sophisticated MBT on Earth. Then the competition launched upgraded variants for their MBTs in in order to match it.
Kosovo was child's play and posturing. And thankfully we did not go fuck up the middle-east with the Leclerc back in 2002. Lebanon in 2006 was like Kosovo.
So yeah it never made it's war reputation.
Yet same could be said about the Leopard 2, but everyone worships it based on it's commercial success :roll:...

Only thing I can agree with him is that Soviet-Korean Alliance, NORAD and Eurocorps should be removed. Coalition rules should be 1 minor + 1 medium or 3 minors together. Not one major and a minor or two mediums together.

Honestly seeing that with the Netherlands we have 95' Line infantry and all their competitive stuff being from 1995. Let's just move the end of the timeline to 1995 already. I mean cmon, the amount of stuff that is OOT with 1991 as the end of the time line is silly. It would certainly help the Dragons too.

This thread got trolled and won't be constructive anyways. So I'll have a few more matches and then post on Foxzz thread how I feel about the current Leclerc performance in game based sorely on gameplay & balance factors without having to bring in realism arguments due to smear campaigns.

Terracos
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu 26 May 2016 09:50
Contact:

Re: Proposal: LECLERC

Postby Terracos » Thu 2 Jun 2016 10:47

As stated in almost every thread, they wont add new Units for the existing Nations. So therefore there are only three options: Leclerc gets buffed and stays at two avail, Leclerc stays where he is now, or Lecleerc goes back to where he came from.

I personally think it should be going back to where it came from. There is no real need for the Leclerc right now, you better pick the Leo2A5.

I dont see myself why you should take a Leclerc in a EC general Deck at all.

1 Card Leo2A5
1 Card 2A4
1 Card Leo2
1 Card Leo1A5
if you want 1 tank in every price range

even this setup seems better in my opinion than every pick you can get with an LECLERC
1 Card Leo2A5
1 Card 2A1
2 Card Leo1A5

1 Card Leo2A5
1 Card 2A4
2 Card Leo1A5

Because as soon as you bring in the LECLERC you will get emediately an ATGM plane as a responce, while no one really will suicide a Mig27 into a Leo 2A4. Also you have enough Units to push. If someone in here can give me a valid explanation why I should bring a LECLERC in a general EC deck i would love to here it.

Also for the French Deck, 4 Leclercs were way better, even if they would push the Leclerc up to a Superheavy. I rather field 4 of them then 2 Superheavies. There are not enough Mig27 to suicide into the Leclercs and you dont have to duel against Red-Superheavies as you have enough Etenards to take them out or dmg them enough to finish with your leclercs or even with the AMX-Lines or ATGMs.

User avatar
urho
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue 29 Apr 2014 12:26

Re: Proposal: LECLERC

Postby urho » Thu 2 Jun 2016 17:02

Frencho: Last time i checked, i came to the conclusion that T5 is ootf. Please provide a source if you think otherwise.
Image

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Reference for Leclerc Tranches.

Postby wargamer1985 » Thu 2 Jun 2016 20:30

Frencho wrote:Another Leclerc thread filled with disinformation, you don't even know the differences between the Tranches...

I'm going to expand on a reply I wrote a while back on the Final Changes for French Deck thread

Serie 1:
Tranche 1: was the 4 or 5 prototypes used by GIAT (Nexter)
Yep, these variants were built circa 1990
Tranche 2: served as the trial vehicles (17 Leclercs), then used as instruction vehicles and later converted to MARS (recovery or repair tanks). Never intended for combat.
Right again
Tranche 3: was the one intended for combat and deployed by the French Armed Forces.
And was made circa 1993, making it the most likely variant in game, and thus what we should judge the Leclerc by.
Tranche 4: received improved sensors for the engine and turbine, plus some RPM tweaks.
Essentially there were some minor improvements to engine efficiency and electronic integration, but for combat purposes, mostly the same tank.
Tranche 5: added more composite side armour thanks to the modular plating of the Leclerc, bringing it to Leopard 2A5 side armour level. Plus extra armour for the turret, making the turret sides better armoured than the Leopard 2A5. So 9 to 10 side armour value in game.
The Leclerc T5 added some armor, yes, but not nearly as much as you are inferring. If we are assuming the maximum armor load (considering this is a WWIII scenario after all) then we would see that the Leclerc has roughly 230mm RHAe against KE targets for the side armor (including skirt, wheels, and side chassis armor). Against HEAT it is raised to ~350mm RHAe, which means roughly ~10 side armor (230/30 = 7.67 = ~8.0, 350/30 = 11.67 = ~12.0.). But, the Leopard 2A5 also has similar protection on the side hull (~250mm hull KE, 340mm HEAT) and thus both vehicles would deserve the same side armor (disregarding the side of the turret as it doesn't seem to account for armor ratings in game).
Tranches T3, T4 et T5 entered service in a configuration suited for Central Europe.
Series 1 production run: 132 units were produced between 1992 and 1996.
Correct, but we should be considering the Leclerc T2-3, as those would be the most prevalent in a WWIII scenario (and asking for a T5 or further on up would open the door for even more modern MBTs, which is against the Cold War setting IMHO)
Serie 2:
The Leclerc series 2 (Tranches 6-7-8-9) would be out of time frame. As it is the series configured for OPEX in a post Cold War era and tailored for tropical and desert theatres.
Precisely, which is why we shouldn't consider them or their ammunition (OFL 120 F2/KEW-A2) in game.
Tranche 6: Visually these models are merely distinguishable by the presence of an air conditioning system on top of the turret, extra ammo boxes over the neck turret and modifying the front of tank by adding a mudguard. Engine and turbine tweaks for tropical and desert climates.
Tranche 7: Integration of a data transmission system to coordinate in real time with command and improved viewfinder for the tank commander.
Tranche 8: Modernisation of vehicle electronics.
Tranche 9: Fire Control & Observation System (FCOS) gunner upgrade. The original Athos thermal camera and gunner viewfinder are replaced by a new second generation IRIS thermal camera & viewfinder for the gunner.

Series 2 production run: 178 units were produced between 1997 and 2003.

Series 3:
Also called XXI, contains significant changes including substantial armour module upgrades and ERA.
Correct, but it is waaaay OOTF, and even then its frontal armor would be roughly 21-22 AV (heavily benefited from its strong anti-HEAT countermeasures.). These variants essentially use upgraded ceramics reinforced by a new high-density metal, Tunsten, in this case. Even then, the turret provides less KE effectiveness than that of a T-90 w/ Kontakt-5 (~850mm RHAe). The frontal glacis fares even worse due to the lack of Tungsten here (too thin for effective composite coverage). ERA covers the sides of the Leclerc giving it exceptional anti-HEAT capabilities. All in all it has the frontal glacis effectiveness comparable to the T-72B, the lower hull is comparable to the T-90 and the turret has an effectiveness somewhere between an M1A1HA and a M1A1HC (690mm and 890mm RHAe vs KE effectiveness respectively)
Tranche 10: New composite armour modules plus ERA shielding. FCOS tank commander upgrade to replace the older ATHOS. The Tank commander's viewfinder is upgraded with a new gen laser plus IRIS Thermal Viewfinder, also added an IRIS Thermal camera for better commander observation
Yep, essentially an electronic and systematic upgrade, although far more substantial than previous variants
Tranche 11: Installation of battlefield management system "ICONE".

Series 3 production run: 91 units were produced from 2003 to 2007.

Total production run: 406 units for the French Army.
Introduced around the same time period of the Leopard 2A6, M1A2 SEP and T-90AM, opens up a huge can o' worms. Anyways, you have nothing to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion.
The Leclerc used by WG: RD must be Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 3 or tranche 4.
Adding a Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5 can fit the time frame.
This would demand a minimum side armour value of 9 and same AP as Leopard 2A5, 180 points.

Wargamer1985 is just a Leclerc hater, every time anyone mentions it he swoops in and derails the thread with unsubstantiated claims.

The Leclerc's 120mm smoothbore cannon was L52 calibers vs L44 calibers on the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2.

To my basic understanding of gunnery, a longer caliber increases pressure, thus muzzle velocity, thus penetration.

As Crotou stated, Germany and France ( OFL 120 F2 and DM53) have equivalent ammo within RD's timeline. So the Leopards 2A5 and the Leclerc should have equal AP.
Even if we are using the OFL 120 F2, it would have ~1 AP less, since the OFL 120 F2 defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km, while the DM53 (when fired from the L44) defeats 720mm RHAe.
USA has better ammo thus better AP, the Abrams and Leo2A5 use the very same canon after all.
M1A2 has better front armour.
The Leclerc would have 2 AV less than the Leopard 2A5 (on the frontal arc) and 1 less AP, but it would have superior accuracy, stabilizer and ROF.
All arguments saying the Leclerc's smoothbore cannon is bad and could not pen shit are unfounded.
I have never seen any argument about that. Ever. The L52 120mm cannon is a good one, albeit with its own disadvantages but overall it serves its purpose.
The Leclerc's FCOS and integrated comms systems were only matched about 2 years after its reveal when the the M1A2 entered service in 1993 with a comparably modern FCOS. Yet, both the Leclerc and M1A2 entered service at the same time that USA Military-Industrial complex can spam.
I don't know where you get that bullshit about the in game Leclerc using IRIS FCOS from 1997-2003, but the in-game Leclerc is using the excellent ATHOS FCS it came with when it was unveiled in 1991. Best FCOS at the time thermal, night-vision, laser range-finder up to 14x or 20x, semi-auto trackers for quick target acquisition, you name it.
Who are you directing this argument to? Seeing as above you insult me I would assume it is me, but I make no claim about the IRIS system being inferior to anything AT ALL.
Then comes the 1993 Swedish trials claims. I have not read them, Orcbuster kindly linked them but if memory serves well they are integrally in Swedish and I can't be bothered to translate them. Seeing the trials happened in 1993, the Leclerc had just been introduced into the French Army and still had strategic value due to being a high-tech and fully indigenous design.
It still does have strategic value due to its low weight for an MBT of its class.
So I would not be surprised if France refused to field the Leclercs for the trials equipped with the confidential French composite armour filling, so the Swedes had to equip the Leclerc (probably a prototype or trial vehicle, not a Serie 1 - tranche III) with their own swedish armour modules developed by IBD and Åkers Krutbruk protection AB.
It's like with Chobham the British only share it with the USA, you need an agreement on technology transfers for that and Swedes are not considered a long-standing and trusting strategic ally.
What's interesting though is that the Leclerc placed quite poorly when it came to target practice, at least compared to the M1, Challenger 2, and Leopard 2. I am pretty sure it was also a production model that was tested, not one of the prototypes (that wouldn't make much sense after all).
That's what I guess could have happened for the mixed reviews on the Leclerc during the trials, but I haven't read those reports. Or some idiot MINDEF bureaucrat or Nexter exec fucked something up, happens a lot with French arms deals.
At this point every nation has experienced a dozen or so export screw ups
Thing is when you reach the mid 1990s, all Western MBTs are pretty much equivalent.
Only changes are speed, autoloader and doctrine.
Put a M1A2, Leclerc, Leopard 2A5+, K1A1 and Kyu Maru crewed by equally skilled tank crews, against each other on a vacuum. Now rinse and repeat ad infinitum. See the results, none has a decisive advantage over the other to objectively deem one of them superior over all, but they're all good tanks. Doctrine will have a far greater effect than the minuscule western MBT idiosyncrasies.

In these forums, users single out the Leclerc with arbitrary biased arguments and double standards because the Eugen is a French company, that's it. Or they are even dumber and equate international sales to MBT combat performance, so only Abrams, Leopards and T-90s are good... By that logic the KIA2, K2 Panther and Type 10 are pieces of shit :roll:
I do not think anyone here on these forums are saying the Leclerc is crap, overmodelled for the timeframe variant? Maybe, but even then it is still a good tank.

The Leclerc's contempt has more to do with circumstance than the Tank's actual performance and merits.
The MBT was revealed as the Cold War was ending in 1991 and entered service once it was over for good.
Then came the "dividends of peace", the initial procurement order for the French Army went from 1500 to just 406 Leclercs, and another 388 to the United Arab Emirates. It simply did not get to shine from 1992-1995 when it was arguably the most advanced and sophisticated MBT on Earth. Then the competition launched upgraded variants for their MBTs in in order to match it.
No nations launched upgrade programs on their MBTs to specifically counter the Leclerc, they were upgraded to keep them modern in light of newer technologies.
Kosovo was child's play and posturing. And thankfully we did not go fuck up the middle-east with the Leclerc back in 2002. Lebanon in 2006 was like Kosovo.
So yeah it never made it's war reputation.
Yet same could be said about the Leopard 2, but everyone worships it based on it's commercial success :roll:...
Commercial success does say things about the tank in question, primarily its appeal and versatility around the world, that doesn't mean it is the best MBT ever, but it does warrant some applause.

Only thing I can agree with him is that Soviet-Korean Alliance, NORAD and Eurocorps should be removed. Coalition rules should be 1 minor + 1 medium or 3 minors together. Not one major and a minor or two mediums together.

Honestly seeing that with the Netherlands we have 95' Line infantry and all their competitive stuff being from 1995. Let's just move the end of the timeline to 1995 already. I mean cmon, the amount of stuff that is OOT with 1991 as the end of the time line is silly. It would certainly help the Dragons too.
I disagree entirely, the more we move to the modern setting the Cold War setting has less influence, which is something I think would harm this game. 1984 is the perfect time period IMHO and I think we should move the setting back instead of forward.

This thread got trolled and won't be constructive anyways. So I'll have a few more matches and then post on Foxzz thread how I feel about the current Leclerc performance in game based sorely on gameplay & balance factors without having to bring in realism arguments due to smear campaigns.
Pretty sure that the general consensus is that the Leclerc deserves another card, is that not constructive enough for you?

I still think giving an extra card of sub-super-heavies would benefit everyone the most, as it would give minors and specializations access to more heavy armor.
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: Reference for Leclerc Tranches.

Postby Frencho » Fri 3 Jun 2016 01:50

You need to reply quote by quote it's hell to distinguish your lines from mine, this took me longer than usual to write due to that.

I listed the entirety of the Leclerc Series and Tranches as future reference for everyone out there, seeing most can't tell a tranche apart from another.

wargamer1985 wrote:Tranche 3: was the one intended for combat and deployed by the French Armed Forces.
And was made circa 1993, making it the most likely variant in game, and thus what we should judge the Leclerc by.


Actually I said that the Leclerc currently in-game must be the Serie 1 - Tranche 3 on my post. Production run for Tranche 3 started in 1992.

I also clearly stated stated that in order to fit the current timeline, the latest Leclerc tranche that could be added is the Serie 1 - Tranche 5.

wargamer1985 wrote:The Leclerc T5 added some armor, yes, but not nearly as much as you are inferring. If we are assuming the maximum armor load (considering this is a WWIII scenario after all) then we would see that the Leclerc has roughly 230mm RHAe against KE targets for the side armor (including skirt, wheels, and side chassis armor). Against HEAT it is raised to ~350mm RHAe, which means roughly ~10 side armor (230/30 = 7.67 = ~8.0, 350/30 = 11.67 = ~12.0.). But, the Leopard 2A5 also has similar protection on the side hull (~250mm hull KE, 340mm HEAT) and thus both vehicles would deserve the same side armor (disregarding the side of the turret as it doesn't seem to account for armor ratings in game).


So you agree with me Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5: 24 AP (+2 AP ( OFL 120 F2) & 9 (+2) side armour for 180 points. I would explain the reasoning behind the extra 2 AP shortly.

Then I continued listing Series 2 and 3 for further reference. Not as a suggestion for these variants to be added to Wargame: Red Dragon. Again I was clear on that don't know why you tough otherwise.

wargamer1985 wrote:Even if we are using the OFL 120 F2, it would have ~1 AP less, since the OFL 120 F2 defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km, while the DM53 (when fired from the L44) defeats 720mm RHAe.


My bad I meant DM43, that's on me I made a typo and wrote DM53. The DM53 is way OOTF with a 2000 introduction date. hence no MBT should use it in Wargame: Red Dragon.

OFL120 F1 (also know as LKE1 DM43) : introduced in 1994. Defeats 600mm mm RHAe @ 2km.
This would be the ammo used by the current Leclerc Tranche 3. Same ammo used by Leopard 2A5.

OFL 120 F2 (Depleted Uranium): introduced in 1996. Defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km
This would be the ammo used by the Serie 1 - Tranche 5, hence the extra 2 AP.

Consequently the Leclerc's ammo is equivalent to the Leopard 2A5 ammo, and neither of these rounds are OOTF for prototypes.
Add to that the fact the Leclerc's cannon has more muzzle energy due to being longer (52 calibers), so there's no way I'm going to believe anyone saying the Leclerc should have worse AP than the Leopard 2A5.
Hell if we're talking OFL 120 F2, it should have higher AP than the Leopard 2A5, but that's not the ammo the Leclerc Tranche 3 would be using but a Leclerc Tranche 5.

wargamer1985 wrote:The Leclerc would have 2 AV less than the Leopard 2A5 (on the frontal arc) and 1 less AP, but it would have superior accuracy, stabilizer and ROF.

Again, Leclerc should never have less AP than Leo2A5.
How can the Leclerc have the superior accuracy and stabilizers it rightfully deserves in-game with all this goddamn accuracy creep 160+ points Blufor MBTs benefit from?!
Isn't it like 60% to 70% acc MBTs getting 95% first hit chance at elite vet?
Only way to implement this would be by nerfing every other MBT stabs and accuracy by 5%, with the exception of the M1A2 and the 1998 :roll: Challenger 2.

About the armour I've read opinions that the Leopard 2A5 "seems" to have slightly better frontal armour, but never saw any concrete proof backed by certified yet public data. This is more speculation than fact. The Tranche 3 was quite less armoured than the Leopard 2 especially at the sides and top, that's for granted but not the front.
A Leclerc Tranche 3 with 19 front AV?! No, 1 less AV than the Leopard 2A5 is about right.

Me Frencho "I don't know where you get that bullshit about the in game Leclerc using IRIS FCOS from 1997-2003, but the in-game Leclerc is using the excellent ATHOS FCS it came with when it was unveiled in 1991. Best FCOS at the time thermal, night-vision, laser range-finder up to 14x or 20x, semi-auto trackers for quick target acquisition, you name it."
Your reply Wargamer 85 Who are you directing this argument to? Seeing as above you insult me I would assume it is me, but I make no claim about the IRIS system being inferior to anything AT ALL.

What you (wrongly) said earlier in this thread about the Athos FCOS being OOT and 21st century, or either suggesting the Leclerc in-game is using OOTF Iris FCOS:

wargamer1985 wrote:[...]currently its ammunition is over modelled, because it is using OOTF ammunition to achieve 22AP.

Now, I would support the Leclerc getting an extra card, but I cannot support it getting a further buff to its stats, as of now it is using OOTF ammunition, FCS, and armor, and sure that's fine for the sake of balance but suggesting buffs for it and using reality as your evidence is quite ironic considering how unrealistic the tank is currently portrayed, if we were going off of realism it would have 19 FAV and 20 AP, but with 13 RPM. It would essentially be a faster ROF, more accurate, and better stabilized version of the Leopard 2A4, and thus could also go down to 145 points. If we are going to give the Leclerc special consideration we must also give other MBT the same luxury.

wargamer1985 wrote:I am talking T-72Bs, which would also be four times cheaper than a Leclerc and would be using the 3BM-42 "Mango" (19 AP) or 3BM-32 "Vants" (20 AP), and the Leclerc would have 19 AV and 20 AP, do you really want to go full realism? Gameplay comes before realism in Wargame, Eugen tries to address as much of the balance concerns while striving to be realistic but some choices must be made for the game, like giving North Korea the T-90S. Fact is, Eugen also bended the rules for the Leclerc, by giving it ammunition from the 21st century and a FCS from the same time period. You should be thankful for that, because if Eugen didn't France would lack any contender with most "super" MBTs.


Eugen bended no rules for the Leclerc, the French devs actually gimped it for the better part of the last year and a half, when comparing it to the reality. So much for French Bias :roll:
Both the ammo, armour modules and FCOS it's using in RD are well within the timeline for prototypes.
Yet we have MBTs from 1996-1998 for a select few and no one is up in arms calling them over-modelled hmm...

wargamer1985 wrote:It still does have strategic value due to its low weight for an MBT of its class.

At 50 tons, maybe 40-45 tons if naked, the Leclerc still can't be airlifted by the Atlas A400M.
That program had so many cost overruns and the current European fleet is notorious for reliability issues due to assembly flaws, see Seville crash, Spain, the UK and Germany grounded their A400M fleet last year for extensive inspection.
France has the largest fleet 12 or 14, currently deployed and the FrAF never had the occasion to ground them because we were engaged in 4 different Operations. So I would not load anything heavy and expensive like a Caesars or VCBIs inside of an Airbus A400M until the French heavy lift fleet gets a break and is thoroughly inspected for assembly faults.

If we're talking ships, for the same travel tonnage (freight) you might be able to load an extra Leclerc or two compared to M1A2s or Challenger 2s.

wargamer1985 wrote:I do not think anyone here on these forums are saying the Leclerc is crap, overmodelled for the timeframe variant? Maybe, but even then it is still a good tank.


I've seen such claims on a few older Leclerc or French deck threads since the last year and a half I've been active on the forums, mostly fanboys, bigots or trolls.
But then your suggestions to have the Leclerc under-modelled with 19 AV & 20 AP is basically a veiled attempt at calling it a crap tank. All in complete disconnect to it's real life performance.
The Leclerc is in the same caliber as the Leopard 2A5, the Kyu Maru and the T90s not any less.

Therefore I strongly disagree, the Leclerc is not over-modelled at all.

wargamer1985 wrote:I disagree entirely, the more we move to the modern setting the Cold War setting has less influence, which is something I think would harm this game. 1984 is the perfect time period IMHO and I think we should move the setting back instead of forward.

I'm talking about the current Wargame: Red Dragon RTT we actually play right now. And the majority of competitive units are post 1989.
So instead of pretending this is still a historically strict Cold War era game, lets embrace the alternate 1995 timeline.
Just like you I'm 100% on board for the next Wargame being strictly 1985-1989, but that's not the timeline Red Dragon was designed for when it comes to multiplayer.
Dragons and East Germany need even more OOTF stuff and over-modelling the be competitive.

TL;DR
Bottom line; my proposal for a realistic Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 3 would be as follows:
updated
Front AV: 21
Side AV: 7
Back AV: 3
Top AV: 3
AP : 23 (+1)
Price: 170 (+5)
Availability: 3 (+1) so we can field one more as National French Deck. Is it possible or does the code refuse it?

Let's look at the competition: You get 1 card of 4 Challengers 2, 1 card of 2 Leopards 2A5 (NLs & WGer), 2 cards of 3 Kyu Maru for a total of 6, 2 cards of 4 STRV 121 for a total of 8, 1 card of 4 T-72M2 Moderna, 2 cards of T-90 (USSR & DPRK). This would even it out nicely.

Otherwise 2 cards of 2, for a total of 4 Leclerc Tranche 3.
But 4 total might be a bit too much when you compare to how few MBTs of the same caliber REDFOR can field besides the Eastern Block coalition, SOVKOR and USSR.

This is just for the lulz, I'm not advocating at all for it's inclusion. As I'd rather have the core French units buffed than get more unicorns to rely on, but
Spoiler : :
I think that what a Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5 would look like stat-wise in-game:
Front AV: 21
Side AV: 9
Back AV: 3
Top AV: 3
AP : 24
Price:180
Availability: 1 Hardened
Last edited by Frencho on Sat 4 Jun 2016 20:50, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: Proposal: LECLERC

Postby Frencho » Fri 3 Jun 2016 02:48

urho wrote:Frencho: Last time i checked, i came to the conclusion that T5 is ootf. Please provide a source if you think otherwise.


What's the end of the time-frame for prototypes, the one officially stated by the devs (recently if possible)?
I guess it's 1996 due to K9 Thunder, AMOS, BTR-T, Grippen and Challenger 2.
And I still consider Rafale OOTF and the EF Typhoon even more so.

I provided proof in my post that the Tranche 5 production run ended in 1995 at earliest 1996 at the latest.
As for the sources, it's 2 books on the Leclerc which I have physical copies of, therefore I can't share a link. This one by Marc chassillan, previously shared by Foxxz and his encyclopedias on modern MBTs
Vintage French documentaries.




Official French army/Ministry of Defence reports alongside ministry of finances, Senate and Parliamentary commissions etc... There's several of those, but to answer to your question here's the most complete internet source I've found on the internet based on said official sources. This document was compiled in 2005 and It's preceded by a 2009 court file guaranteeing it's veracity (seems he had a legal defamation/libel/copyright dispute but proved them wrong and won).

It details the refitting and upgrading of the Leclerc, firstly the older tranches 3 and 4 to T5 standards and later on all the older tranches to T9 standards (IRIS FCOS).

Source: 2005 compilation of official reports
But again it's all in French. They do mention the production years but you'll have to dig trough it.

Web Page summarizing the previous report. Useful to get a quick clear view on Leclerc's production timeline.
Includes listing of units serial number and name at the very end, past the pictures. Apparently only a few are missing.

Edits: Fixed link and youtube embeds
Last edited by Frencho on Sun 5 Jun 2016 00:45, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
urho
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue 29 Apr 2014 12:26

Re: Reference for Leclerc Tranches.

Postby urho » Fri 3 Jun 2016 03:50

Frencho wrote:You need to reply quote by quote it's hell to distinguish your lines from mine, this took me longer than usual to write due to that.

I listed the entirety of the Leclerc Series and Tranches as future reference for everyone out there, seeing most can't tell a tranche apart from another.

Actually I said that the Leclerc currently in-game must be the Serie 1 - Tranche 3/4 on the original post from "Final Changes for French Deck" Thread, but I must have accidentally deleted it while expanding the post for this thread.

I also clearly stated stated that in order to fit the current timeline, the latest Leclerc tranche that could be added is the Serie 1 - Tranche 5.

wargamer1985 wrote:The Leclerc T5 added some armor, yes, but not nearly as much as you are inferring. If we are assuming the maximum armor load (considering this is a WWIII scenario after all) then we would see that the Leclerc has roughly 230mm RHAe against KE targets for the side armor (including skirt, wheels, and side chassis armor). Against HEAT it is raised to ~350mm RHAe, which means roughly ~10 side armor (230/30 = 7.67 = ~8.0, 350/30 = 11.67 = ~12.0.). But, the Leopard 2A5 also has similar protection on the side hull (~250mm hull KE, 340mm HEAT) and thus both vehicles would deserve the same side armor (disregarding the side of the turret as it doesn't seem to account for armor ratings in game).


So you agree with me Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5: 24 AP (+2 AP ( OFL 120 F2) & 9 (+2) side armour for 180 points. I would explain the reasoning behind the extra 2 AP shortly.

Then I continued listing Series 2 and 3 for further reference. Not as a suggestion for these variants to be added to Wargame: Red Dragon. Again I was clear on that don't know why you tough otherwise.

wargamer1985 wrote:Even if we are using the OFL 120 F2, it would have ~1 AP less, since the OFL 120 F2 defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km, while the DM53 (when fired from the L44) defeats 720mm RHAe.


My bad I meant DM43, that's on me I made a typo and wrote DM53. The DM53 is way OOTF with a 2000 introduction date. hence no MBT should use it in Wargame: Red Dragon.
MICA IR was introduced in 2003. Both are in game as prototypes, because they were tested before 1996.

OFL120 F1 (also know as LKE1 DM43) : 1994. Defeats 600mm mm RHAe @ 2km. This would be the ammo used by the current Leclerc Tranche 3. Same ammo used by Leopard 2A5.

OFL 120 F2 (Depleted Uranium): 1996. Defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km
This would be the ammo used by the Serie 1 - Tranche 5, hence the extra 2 AP.

Consequently the Leclerc's ammo is equivalent to the Leopard 2A5 ammo, and neither of these rounds are OOTF for prototypes.
Add to that the fact the Leclerc's cannon has more muzzle energy due to being longer (52 calibers), so there's no way I'm going to believe anyone saying the Leclerc should have worse AP than the Leopard 2A5.
Hell if we're talking OFL 120 F2, it should have higher AP than the Leopard 2A5, but that's not the ammo the Leclerc Tranche 3 would be using but a Leclerc Tranche 5.

wargamer1985 wrote:The Leclerc would have 2 AV less than the Leopard 2A5 (on the frontal arc) and 1 less AP, but it would have superior accuracy, stabilizer and ROF.

Again, Leclerc should never have less AP than Leo2A5.

How can the Leclerc have the superior accuracy and stabilizers it rightfully deserves in-game with all this goddamn accuracy creep 160+ points Blufor MBTs benefit from?!
Isn't it like 60% to 70% acc MBTs getting 95% first hit chance at elite vet?
Only way to implement this would be by nerfing every other MBT stabs and accuracy by 5%, with the exception of the M1A2 and the 1998 :roll: Challenger 2.

About the armour I've read opinions that the Leopard 2A5 "seems" to have slightly better frontal armour, but never saw any concrete proof backed by certified yet public data. This is more speculation than fact. The Tranche 3 was quite less armoured than the Leopard 2 especially at the sides and top, that's for granted but not the front.
A Leclerc Tranche 3 with 19 front AV?! No, 1 less AV than the Leopard 2A5 is about right.

Me Frencho "I don't know where you get that bullshit about the in game Leclerc using IRIS FCOS from 1997-2003, but the in-game Leclerc is using the excellent ATHOS FCS it came with when it was unveiled in 1991. Best FCOS at the time thermal, night-vision, laser range-finder up to 14x or 20x, semi-auto trackers for quick target acquisition, you name it."
Your reply Wargamer 85 Who are you directing this argument to? Seeing as above you insult me I would assume it is me, but I make no claim about the IRIS system being inferior to anything AT ALL.

What you (wrongly) said earlier in this thread about the Athos FCOS being OOT and 21st century, or either suggesting the Leclerc in-game is using OOTF Iris FCOS:
wargamer1985 wrote:I am talking T-72Bs, which would also be four times cheaper than a Leclerc and would be using the 3BM-42 "Mango" (19 AP) or 3BM-32 "Vants" (20 AP), and the Leclerc would have 19 AV and 20 AP, do you really want to go full realism? Gameplay comes before realism in Wargame, Eugen tries to address as much of the balance concerns while striving to be realistic but some choices must be made for the game, like giving North Korea the T-90S. Fact is, Eugen also bended the rules for the Leclerc, by giving it ammunition from the 21st century and a FCS from the same time period. You should be thankful for that, because if Eugen didn't France would lack any contender with most "super" MBTs.


Eugen bended no rules for the Leclerc, the French devs actually gimped it for the better part of the last year and a half, when comparing it to the reality. So much for French Bias :roll:
Both the ammo, armour modules and FCOS it's using in RD are well within the timeline for prototypes.
Yet we have MBTs from 1996-1998 for a select few and no one is up in arms calling them over-modelled hmm...

wargamer1985 wrote:It still does have strategic value due to its low weight for an MBT of its class.

At 50 tons, maybe 40-45 tons if naked, the Leclerc still can't be airlifted by the Atlas A400M.
That program had so many cost overruns and the current European fleet is notorious for reliability issues due to assembly flaws, see Seville crash, Spain, the UK and Germany grounded their A400M fleet last year for extensive inspection.
France has the largest fleet 12 or 14, currently deployed and the FrAF never had the occasion to ground them because we were engaged in 4 different Operations. So I would not load anything heavy and expensive like a Caesars or VCBIs inside of an Airbus A400M until the French heavy lift fleet gets a break and is thoroughly inspected for assembly faults.

If we're talking ships, for the same travel tonnage (freight) you might be able to load an extra Leclerc or two compared to M1A2s or Challenger 2s.

wargamer1985 wrote:I do not think anyone here on these forums are saying the Leclerc is crap, overmodelled for the timeframe variant? Maybe, but even then it is still a good tank.


I've seen such claims on a few older Leclerc or French deck threads since the last year and a half I've been active on the forums, mostly fanboys, bigots or trolls.
But then your suggestions to have the Leclerc under-modelled with 19 AV & 20 AP is basically a veiled attempt at calling it a crap tank. All in complete disconnect to it's real life performance.
The Leclerc is in the same caliber as the Leopard 2A5, the Kyu Maru and the T90s not any less.

Therefore I strongly disagree, the Leclerc is not over-modelled at all.

wargamer1985 wrote:I disagree entirely, the more we move to the modern setting the Cold War setting has less influence, which is something I think would harm this game. 1984 is the perfect time period IMHO and I think we should move the setting back instead of forward.

I'm talking about the current Wargame: Red Dragon RTT we actually play right now. And the majority of competitive units are post 1989.
So instead of pretending this is still a historically strict Cold War era game, lets embrace the alternate 1995 timeline.
Just like you I'm 100% on board for the next Wargame being strictly 1985-1989, but that's not the timeline Red Dragon was designed for when it comes to multiplayer.
Dragons and East Germany need even more OOTF stuff and over-modelling the be competitive.

TL;DR
Bottom line; my proposal for a realistic Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 3 would be as follows:
Front AV: 21
Side AV: 7
Back AV: 3
Top AV: 3
AP : 23 (+1)
Price:165 (same)
Availability: 3 (+1) so we can field one more as National French Deck. Is it possible or does the code refuse it?

Let's look at the competition: You get 1 card of 4 Challengers 2, 1 card of 2 Leopards 2A5 (NLs & WGer), 2 cards of 3 Kyu Maru for a total of 6, 2 cards of 4 STRV 121 for a total of 8, 1 card of 4 T-72M2 Moderna, 2 cards of T-90 (USSR & DPRK). This would even it out nicely.

Otherwise 2 cards of 2 for a total of 4.
But it might be a bit too much when you compare to how little same caliber MBTs REDFOR can field besides the NSWP coalition, SOVKOR and USSR.

This is just for the lulz, I'm not advocating at all for it's inclusion. As I'd rather have the core French units buffed than get more unicorns to rely on, but
Spoiler : :
I think that what a Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5 would look like stat-wise in-game:
Front AV: 21
Side AV: 9
Back AV: 3
Top AV: 3
AP : 24
Price:180
Availability: 1 Hardened

Image
Image

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: Reference for Leclerc Tranches.

Postby Frencho » Fri 3 Jun 2016 04:05

urho wrote:Snip


Maybe it's because it's 4 AM here, I'm very tired but can't sleep. But I don't get the graph :|
What are the coloured diagrams meant to represent, Armour?
What about the multi-coloured bars for some MBTs?
Care to explain it?

Also how is it reliable because I see a lot of ??? in it... What's the source?

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron