[2021] Leclerc SXXI

The increased protection comes on the thicker turret corners, not on the frontal arc:

XXI

S.2

Based on available data, the profile is in general now final.

They show the location of where the protection is increased. The protection is based of the available sources we have.

If you believe it is incorrect, then please submit your sources asap here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/2153-dev-server-bug-reports/

That is why we have based the protection of the tank on the best available public sources. The fact some of the tank composition is different does not tell us anything about by how much or what values they are. Thus the values can only be based on any and all creditable source material that provides a defined value range.

If you have credible source material that provides a value, then the matter can be forwarded. However currently, no such information is present for us to forward.

We will of course forward any documentation and source material on that is properly reported to us. We cannot however simply go to them with nothing at all except claims that it is wrong, with 0 supporting material.

So please submit them as a historical report and we can pass them for consideration. At this current moment in time, this is not progressing the matter.

We have explained why the UFP report was not accepted and have also started our own investigations into that matter. However the claims being made today so far have not been supported by any documentation. Therefor there is nothing of substance we can actually pass onto the developers at this stage.

I would ask that we keep this topic constructive and not descend into a "you dont care". I am here, trying to forward concerns on. However right now, there is nothing of which to pass on.

The turret rotation report was closed:

The shell is not a bug, but a balance decision as with all tanks.

The only mobility related report is this one:

Which is based entirely on video material, not written sources / documentation and thus significantly harder to validate and prove.

Indeed. I was simply explaining that because a report was submitted with some material, does not mean it's sufficient or authorative enough to make a change. That's not because of any "neglect" from the developers. Simply that the material is not conclusive.

For the UFP, as we already said, we are launching our own investigations to try and find better material. But unfortunately the information submitted is not enough to change anything.

Similarly with the other reports. It doesn't supercede what's already in use and for the mobility, no values are possible to extract. So there is nothing to really go by. Videos only as a report to change mobility very rarely can be actioned without further materials.

We had similar sources presented for the Challenger and Challenger 2 tanks that were not accepted. No values or ranges are given. Sources that simply state "improved", "planned to have" or "will be better than X". These types of sources can be used as supportive sources to back up clearly defined values presented from sources. But they themselves cannot be used to make any changes. As there is no range or value of improvement.

This is the information I was passed by the developers when the question was asked. If they found additional materials or a report was made, then things can still change by the time it reaches the live server.

Multiple reports of this exact nature on multiple top MBTs of the Challenger, Abrams and T series have been closed for the same reason. If the sources are not authorative or do not contain enough material, a change cannot be made.

It has nothing to do with any one nation. The same sourcing standards for reports are applied across the board.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. There is no policy to "enforce a change". The policy of two secondary sources is the bare minimum required to
forward a report on for consideration
to the developers. There has never been a policy, that just because this baseline criteria is met that a change will occur for certain as a result of that. Neither of these sources are guaranteed to generate any changes.

Once again, as I mentioned previously:

None of the sources provide any kind of substantial values, ranges or even estimates (%) of the protection. This is the exact same situation we had with the Challenger 1 and 2, where sources that claimed there was "improved protection" over a previous model or package, but yet provided no tangible metric by which they could be changed.

I would also draw your attention here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

The developers are still working on the XXI and additional changes may still come before release.

A physical increase in size does not automatically equate to an increase in protection, depending on the different composites or composition within the armour. Titanium in armour it is worse in durability than armour steel of the same thickness. It is most commonly used to reduce the weight of armour, not increase protection. But again, providing proper source material can be located or provided that shows a distinct level of increased protection, we can forward this for consideration.

This is a general investigation into Titanium alloys in armour. Nothing specific or related directly to the Leclerc XXI that can be used at all.

The developers will not "assume" the armour of the XXI is better without credible evidence to do so or any actual metric or value of which to increase it. This study does not show that, but makes an entirely general point about certain test packages.

If credible material is located or found, then changes can take place.

The same standards are applied to all tanks. The most reliably known and supported values are the ones taken into consideration using all forms of what is available in the public domain. Which is explained here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

The same reporting standards were already explained when similar situations of the Challenger 1 and 2 series were reported simply with sources stating "improved" armour / protection, but no viable means of which to indicate a change in terms of value, percentage or range. Thus that too, was also not accepted.

The initial explanation was that an increase in the size of the armour scheme does not automatically therefor mean an automatic increase in protection. There are other considerations to be made as to why titanium is used within armour, such as weight, which is in general worse in standard protection than other composite arrays. The only application applied to the Leclerc armour is the values that are known and available to use in consideration. Not a generic study.

Whataboutism is not going to convince the developers to bring about any changes here, as is a back and forth personal opinionated debate about what titanium armour arrays do in a "general" manor or not. Credible source material is. Not a random and very generic study into titanium armour and mentions of "improved protection" from some sources. These are the explanations we have been given by the developers.

The model in game has improved protection currently on the areas where the are values to be taken into consideration from available source material.

As has already been explained, a similar approach to reporting on the Challenger series was followed and was not accepted by the developers. The Leclerc XXI has not yet been released and an investigation into its armour array is still ongoing to check for any further credible material that may result in changes to its scheme.

As this has now been explained multiple times and no new source material has been raised, there is nothing further to add or reconsider here until such a time where new material is presented or something is changed based on our own internal investigations.

This is not how armour profiles are created for modern vehicles: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

The XXI's armour has been created with a combination of material relating specifically to that vehicle and the values/estimates that are available within the public domain.

Again, if there is a claim the XXIs scheme is incorrect, then a report with the necessary supporting material can be submitted for consideration. Generic studies do not have any application or relevance here. Leclerc specific material does. We cannot publish all material and sources used in the creation of tank armour profiles for every machine every time a challenge without the relevant credible material to counter it is even submitted. That simply is not viable. Similar challenges have been made on most top tank series without the credble materials and were also not accepted. The Leclerc is not an exception to this.

This is a known bug with the displayed armour values appearing identical in the protection analysis. It will be rectified in an upcoming update.

VVV

We said several times that the values were still being worked on and have been. The only bug now is in the protection analysis showing identical overall values when they are not.