I'm summoning the Frenchfag!
Please honor me with your presence.
>>28507285
Que veux tu, mon enfant?
>>28507434
Not OP, but I've always wondered about the stabilized mirror in the sights.
- Does the thermal imager share the same mirror with the LRF and gunsight or does it have it's own mirror?
- Then how does the commanders sight share the day sight with the thermal imager?
>>28507434
Je veux la liberté , l'égalité , la fraternité!
Damn, you're fast!
So, i want to ask you something.
Do you happen to know the names or nomenclature of the rounds used in French Leclers? I don't know jack about French tank ammo.
Is Leclerc supposed to be used offensively, or defensively? (for example; Russian tanks are offensive and Leo 2 is more defensive, hull down and such.)
Not him but:
>>28507544
I think the commander has his own turret which is electronically linked with the gunner's station. The commander is supposed to operate independently, selecting targets with his turret, then sending targeting info to the gunner.
>>28507646
The chart is in French, but its very understandable. It's pretty much all APFSDS.
The Leclerc was highly mobile and designed as an all-around tank. The French wanted the Leclerc to engage 3 Russian tanks and win during the cold war.
>>28507694
Thank you for your input.
But about what chart are we talking?
>>28507694
I wasn't talking about the hunter-killer capability. I was talking about the mirrors in the sights that stabilizes the image for the sensors.
And the Leclerc was designed to take on 7-8 t-72's
>>28507746
Oops sorry,
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIAT_CN120-26
>>28507748
It was designed to take on 3 T-80s and 6 T-72s
>>28507748
Op here, guys please slow it down!
Do you have a source on 7-8 T-72s??
>>28507782
Dang it, it doesn't list the penetration for the newest APFSDS round, the 120 F2 OFLE.
>>28507797
No source, just something I read long time ago. Actually it was 1400 leclercs taking on 8000 t-72's
What's the name of that prototype?
>>28507852
Sorry, I don't know but I have a few more prototype pics on the other computer.
Will soon post.
>>28507797
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Leclerc
"Face à la supériorité numérique des blindés du Pacte de Varsovie qui était l'adversaire de référence, un régiment de Leclerc est censé être équivalent à trois régiments de T-80 ou 6 de T-72."
Rough translation: Faced with the numerical superiority of the Warsaw pact, which was the default adversary, a regiment of Leclercs is supposed to be equivalent to 3 regiments of T-80s and 6 regiments of T-72s"
>>28507930
I found this on reverse search: "http://www.ointres.se/projekt_stridsvagn_ny.htm. 1990"
So I guess it's abou some testing in Sweden or somethng like that...
>>28507646
>turrent turns slightly
>driver loses his head
French gave us the same design, thank god we actually went with something else.
Pic related is what they offered us.
>>28508150
>Turkish army
>Driver's head is outside
Not the French's fault if your tactics are retarded.
>>28508166
Outside of combat, during training, parades, why not? It's an unnecessary safety hazard on a machine that really doesn't need one.
>>28507434
Hey Frenchy, have you gotten any new weapons other than the mosin yet?
>>28508150
> you slightly pul out the pin from a hand grenade
> you die in the next 5 seconds
>>28508226
>pull*
>>28508215
>training
retarded
>parades
Elevate the barrel and deactivate turret rotation, retards.
>>28508226
That analogy don't make no sense. Try again.
>>28508260
I've always wanted to do a parade in a vehicule, just to parade in the street and being half naked in my turret.
>>28508260
Fair enough. The only real issue with it I can imagine is the driver getting stuck in a disabled and burning tank. One horrible way to die.
>>28508299
Is it possible for the driver to go out of the tank from the turret ?
>>28508298
I want a tank for myself.
>inb4 people shouldn't have guns any more than they should have tanks and nukes
I WANT A TANK, BITCH!
>>28508299
I believe the driver can access the turret
>>28508298
I took part in a parade once. Don't think the captain'd have appreciated me being half-naked though.
>>28508349
Is that M05 camo?
Jelly
>>28508358
What else would it be?
>>28508349
Clearly you don't know how much i don't give any shit... the same for many of my superiors. I have long learned why there is always an officer to make sure we don't do too many stupid things.
>>28508264
How don't you get it?
If you don't throw the grenade you will die.
Just as if you don't button up when the turret is moving.
But I don't see anyone complaining about the hand grenade design...
>>28508389
That's because the hand grenade is designed to be a thrown explosive. The Leclerc is not designed to be a 21st century guillotine.
>>28508404
Like 99% of tanks are designed that the driver has to be buttoned up when the turret is moving.
T-72 driver even has a lever of some sort to move the turret(gun) in emergency because the gun at 12 o'clock position is blocking him.
>>28507852
Here you are Anon.
And this website has some good illustrations from prototypes on (http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/modern/France/AMX-56_Leclerc.php)
>>28507544
>Does the thermal imager share the same mirror with the LRF and gunsight or does it have it's own mirror?
>Then how does the commanders sight share the day sight with the thermal imager?
Not exactly the Leclerc's but I imagine this will be very similar in scheme.
>>28507646
>Russian tanks are offensive and Leo 2 is more defensive
they are both MBTs. and btw hull down is overrated- if Soviets encountered heavy direct fire from tanks in prepared positions expect those positions to be rocketed with submunitions to hell and back by divisional rocket arty on hairtrigger just for these targets.
>>28507694
>The Leclerc was highly mobile and designed as an all-around tank. The French wanted the Leclerc to engage 3 Russian tanks and win during the cold war.
The Soviets operated a lot of tanks- which of those? also 3-1 is not exactly very favorable odds for a tank that doesn't exhibit massive advantages over the other, which is the case with Leclercs and T-72B/80BV/80UD.
>>28507782
>It was designed to take on 3 T-80s and 6 T-72s
BS. any tanker will tell you that going against such number of foes will get the Leclerc destroyed. Heck the Leclerc didn't even pack the ammo required to bust through the T-80's let alone the T-72B's turret armor, whilst it has no answer against GLATGMs and could still be killed by shots along its sides by flanking tanks and is still very vulnerable to being disabled if it gets hit in any way; weight of fire alone guarantees it.
>>28507930
>Rough translation: Faced with the numerical superiority of the Warsaw pact, which was the default adversary, a regiment of Leclercs is supposed to be equivalent to 3 regiments of T-80s and 6 regiments of T-72s"
obvious BS. for reasons stated above.
>>28508625
Thank you for that marvelous picture!
While I agree with your view, I'm not that sure about the hull down view.
I will upload a sort fictional story from Steven Zaloga about the engagement fo USSR and NATO forces.
It's from a book called Osprey - Elite 026 - Tank War - Central Front - Nato vs. Warzaw Pact.
Picture 1
>>28508761
Picture 2
>>28508761
Picture 3
>>28508761
Picture 5
>>28508625
>Heck the Leclerc didn't even pack the ammo required to bust through the T-80's let alone the T-72B's turret armor
Yeah it did.
OFL 120 G1 penetrates 500mm RHA, T80B had 500mm RHA equivalent resistance against APFSDS for the turret and 450mm for the hull.
T72B turret couldn't be pierced, but all previous versions could. And the Leclerc's ammo was capable of piercing the T72B hull, which is more than enough to defeat a tank.
The Leclerc advantage was mobility and its fire control system, it wasn't designed to survive hit as much as it was designed to avoid being hit.
>>28508761
Picture 7
>>28508761
Picture 8
>>28508761
Picture 9, the end
>>28508865
So it couldn't destroy T-80U?
>>28508865
>it wasn't designed to survive hit as much as it was designed to avoid being hit.
The frontal armor of the Leclerc is able to defeat 120 mm tungsten APFSDS rounds at combat range and large caliber shaped charges such as anti-tank missiles.
>>28508976
>using Steel Beasts values....
>>28508989
>>28508976
>Those values
wew, lad
Also, the side hull would be more interesting, as the Lecerc was supposed to swerve between opposing tanks and hit their sides.
>>28508989
The leclerc design has always been in favor of mobility rather than armor. Extra armor has always been considered an add-on, if needed.
>>28508150
>turrent
>>28509034
>The links look like scared faces
kek
>>28508865
>OFL 120 G1 penetrates 500mm RHA, T80B had 500mm RHA equivalent resistance against APFSDS for the turret and 450mm for the hull.
point taken, but I dont really trust RHAe estimates- these things are not so clear cut as we would like them to be. esp. if they just add some arbitrary value to armors that exhibit variable performance like modern arrays composed of ERA, and NERA outer and inner layers.
>The Leclerc advantage was mobility and its fire control system, it wasn't designed to survive hit as much as it was designed to avoid being hit.
On top of my head I recall most engagements in Europe occurs under 2km between the belligerents 80% of the time- Soviet FCS were good enough for this envelope and with GLATGMs they dominate the rest.
>>28508849
nice wank but I'm irritated with the gushing over drones- it reeks of Clancy. Also arty guns were instructed to prepare fortified positions before the assault- they were cheap enough and they had enough guns for those but then again nobody wants to spoil the wank early on. Also hilarious that they fire sabots at around 3km, if only they knew those rounds would have low chances of hitting let alone penetrating oh and that the Soviets very well outrange them with GLATGMs of theirs.
>>28509002
i am not him
not sure why people using that pic alot
this website have more accurate information
Front turret 54..74cm vs APFSDS; 80..132cm vs HEAT
Glacis 78±2cm vs APFSDS; 108±4cm HEAT
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
>>28509034
Pure coitus.
>>28509015
any information about the ERA?
look like they have the same design as the Kontakt-5 with ERA block is contained in thick steel box
this reduce fragmentation and increasing armor effectiveness
>>28509068
>I dont really trust RHAe estimates
Even those from the ammo manufacturers ?
>>28509068
Yes, but ATGMs were very scarce in the Red army and you have to bring your tank to a complete halt when launching it.
And you see only the turret of the tank, nevermind the smoke and other obstructions in FOV.
>>28509025
>The leclerc design has always been in favor of mobility rather than armor. Extra armor has always been considered an add-on, if needed.
It doesn't have the same doctrine of use as the AMX-30.
There is a reason why it has large composite armor cavities.
>>28509130
No, unfortunately not.
>>28509068
>I dont really trust RHAe estimates- these things are not so clear cut as we would like them to be
That's fine, but don't just burst out that the Leclerc was incapable of penetrating 72s and 80s. If anything, it's "uncertain".
>Soviet FCS were good enough
But French FCS was better, which is a significant advantage, and T72 and T80s had a much lower power/weight ratio.
>>28509189
Weren't those added later, and not part of the original design/philosophy?
>>28508935
>>28508953
AHAHAHAHA. Holy Shit man you got anymore of this? seriously I can't stop laughing, its like as if you transplanted Iraqis and their tanks in there. Oh well, I suppose just about anything is possible with the good Doc's time machine smuggling an entire platoon of tanks from the year 1992.
>>28508989
>The frontal armor of the Leclerc is able to defeat 120 mm tungsten APFSDS rounds at combat range and large caliber shaped charges such as anti-tank missiles.
I dont get it with people who advocate outright destruction when a getting a hit- disabling major systems is enough. If you get hit with a large calibre HEAT warhead from the front there is a very high risk they just damaged your optics, or worse the gun itself. A tank that can't fire is a dead tank eventually and for purposes of combat counts as a kill since they can't participate any further.
>>28509231
We are TANK. We destroy all who threaten the Mother Land. If track is destroyed, We are artillery. If turret is destroyed, we are pill box. When out of ammo hold a grenade and wait for bastards to open hatch. We Are TANK!!!
Joking aside, I don't have other "stories" just these 9 screenshots.
Apparently Russians regarded Leclerc as a quite a high threat.
>>28509139
>Even those from the ammo manufacturers ?
do you trust everything your car dealership salesrep promised?
>>28509224
>That's fine, but don't just burst out that the Leclerc was incapable of penetrating 72s and 80s. If anything, it's "uncertain".
agreed.
>But French FCS was better, which is a significant advantage, and T72 and T80s had a much lower power/weight ratio.
only marginally- T-80 series could fire on the move just as well as Western tanks; which is why they used its FCS for the T-90 in pimping up the T-72B. T-72Bs had to make do with short stops when firing but when they close in to knife fighting range of a few hundred meters(pretty easy to do with rocket and arty shells pumping obscurants in between) they don't need to. Also power to weight ratio isn't that important; tanks can't dodge each other's fire anyways a la Neo.
>>28509355
>Also power to weight ratio isn't that important; tanks can't dodge each other's fire anyways a la Neo.
You sure? How high is turret traverse speed and reactivity for these tanks? A Leclerc could keep dead-on target while doing all kinds of S shaped maneuvers (its power to weight is almost double). I'm not entirely sure the Russians could do that.
I'm certain, however the Leclerc turret could keep up with a tank that tried these maneuvers.The mechanical sensors on these turrets are very good.
>>28509224
>Weren't those added later, and not part of the original design/philosophy?
At the beginning of the development program, it was decided to use efficient composite armor in what would be the successor of the AMX-30.
>>28509231
>I dont get it with people who advocate outright destruction when a getting a hit- disabling major systems is enough. If you get hit with a large calibre HEAT warhead from the front there is a very high risk they just damaged your optics, or worse the gun itself. A tank that can't fire is a dead tank eventually and for purposes of combat counts as a kill since they can't participate any further.
Replacing a dead crews is more difficult to replace than damaged optics on the long run.
>>28509428
Based GALIX
>>28509355
One word: THERMALS!
Soviet tanks didn't have thermals and the allowed allowed tolerances are higher in Russian manufacturing.
Also the TC in T-80/72/64 hasn't got a stabilised sight in both planes or a 360° sight.
Look at it at it in this way; T-80 could fire on the move, the Leclerc exceled at firing on the move.
>>28507797
What if a round goes right through that huge gunner's sight window. I'm sure there is no armor behind it. It will penetrate right through and kill the kill.
Where is the armor plate on the Leclerc. It's covered in a bunch of shit but none of it is heavy armor.
>>28509355
No way was any of the T-80s even close to the sophistication of the French sensors and FCS. When the Leclerc came out, it was probably the most advanced tank of its time.
Only the commander version of the T-80U had a thermal viewer and it was a terrible monochromatic screen with bad resolution. Nowhere near the integrated and seamless Sagem gunner and TC sights.
>>28509749
It's a periscope...
>>28509776
Not the guy you replied to, but he my be right.
>>28509895
Albeit my picture shows the gun manlet, sorry.
>>28509895
Then there is the not very ideal placement of the gunner's primary optics. It's somewhat similar to the Leopard 2 (pre-2A5), but the French designer's didn't follow the stepwise armor arrangement for the armor below and behind the gunner's sight. Thus the armor of the Leclerc is thinner behind and below the gunner's sight, than it is on the left turret site where the commander is located. This problem has been partially solved by bolting additional armor blocks to the Leclerc (there are at least two different types, the newer one is thicker)
>>28509953
(late Leclerc with thicker armor block bolted below the main sight).
>>28509953
However this armor block does not completely cover the weakened area below the sight.
Also the LFP is not completely covered by special armor, but the UFP might be a bit better than on other tanks.
The Swedish government tested the Leopard 2A5 (still prototype), M1A2 and the Leclerc (both tanks already in production). The Leclerc had the weakest armor of all the tanks and fitting the Leclerc with additional German add-on armor (at the hull, according to Swedish drawings maybe also at the turret) doubled the armor protection in certain areas. The same add-on armor is used on many versions of the Leopard 2, mostly on the hull (Strv 122, Leopard 2A5DK, Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2HEL, etc).
>>28509953
>>28509963
>>28509971
Looks like a copy / paste from Armored Warfare's forum.
>>28510361
Kudos.
>>28507930
>équivalent à trois régiments de T-80 ou 6 de T-72."
>equivalent to 3 regiments of T-80s OR 6 regiments of T-72s"
Fixed. AND/OR: Learn the fucking difference.
>>28512487
Lol, cet autisme..
>>28508516
>>28508490
Those early prototypes were seriously Leopard 2ish.
