SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 03-26-14, 07:13 AM

Leclerc armor discussion: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...hlight=leclerc

Leclerc performance during Greek tank trials: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...hlight=leclerc

I have not heard so far anything especially bad abiout the Leclerc. On the other hand, I also never heard anything outstandingly positive about it. Countries ordering new tanks, usually compare the Leopards, Abrams, Challenegers, maybe some Korean and Japanese models, if they are open for Eastern producers maybe also some T-models, and the Leclerc. The French tank hardly makes it beyond the first round, usually.

Böse Zungen claim that the Leclerc can do today what the first Leopard-2 could do when they appeared on the market so long ago.

What is often criticised in discussions is that the Leclerc is prone for mechanical and technical failures, is not that easy to maintain, and its good acceleration and speed - though not in rugged terrain - comes at the cost of lower weight - and that translates into lower armour protection.

Maybe its better to compare it to the modern Russian line of tanks, who also trade weight and size for agility.

It seems to me that the German tanks are superior over the Leclerc in almost all regards. Some even see the Leclerc as a medium tank.

But I learned something from the controversy about the Challenger-2's early (and inferior) gun. Western tanks should not be compared to how they deal against other Western tanks, but how they deal against Russian/Chinese tanks. And I assume the Leclerc is a very potent opponent to them.

Also one should take into account that Leopards and Abrams and Challengers all have been in action, in the mud, in battle. AFAIK the Leclerk still needs to prove itself in battle action/under war conditions.

Regarding the "best all-around-tank", that is a title that probably is being negotiated between the latest versions of the Abrams and Leopard-2, and it considers armour, firepower and precision, maintenance, agility, ergonomy, fuekl consumption. I tend to rate the German tank as slightly better with the only exception of the latest "super-zooms" in the Abrams' gunner's sights, which can really give the US tank the egde in long range engagements and for IDying purposes. The Challenger-2 also is extremely well armoured and protected, but I have an issue with its eccentric gunning ergonomy, it also is not as agile as the American and German tank, AFAIK.

A lot also depends on the given nation's armour tactics and politics. Some states are more often in forward movement and need tank armour tailored for that, while other armies expect to be more in defensive roles only. Logistical abilities also play a role, when you compare the tremendous difference between the thirsty Abrams and the much more economic Leopards.

The Canadians got Leopards from us for Afghanistan, new models at that time, beefed up further. They love them, and have bought even more, if I'm not mistaken - much to the anger of the Americans. Practcially all Western Euopean nations (except Britain and France) decided for Leopards over Abrams. Globally, the Leopards again signs many more customers than the Abrams. And Saudi Arabia probably also bought Abrams only due to its ties to the US and its history with the US over the Iraq wars, the latter also the reason for why Iraq got Abrams.

And finally, there is crew training and crew quality.

03-26-14, 07:13 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,478 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Leclerc armor discussion: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...hlight=leclerc Leclerc performance during Greek tank trials: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...hlight=leclerc I have not heard so far anything especially bad abiout the Leclerc. On the other hand, I also never heard anything outstandingly positive about it. Countries ordering new tanks, usually compare the Leopards, Abrams, Challenegers, maybe some Korean and Japanese models, if they are open for Eastern producers maybe also some T-models, and the Leclerc. The French tank hardly makes it beyond the first round, usually. Böse Zungen claim that the Leclerc can do today what the first Leopard-2 could do when they appeared on the market so long ago. What is often criticised in discussions is that the Leclerc is prone for mechanical and technical failures, is not that easy to maintain, and its good acceleration and speed - though not in rugged terrain - comes at the cost of lower weight - and that translates into lower armour protection. Maybe its better to compare it to the modern Russian line of tanks, who also trade weight and size for agility. It seems to me that the German tanks are superior over the Leclerc in almost all regards. Some even see the Leclerc as a medium tank. But I learned something from the controversy about the Challenger-2's early (and inferior) gun. Western tanks should not be compared to how they deal against other Western tanks, but how they deal against Russian/Chinese tanks. And I assume the Leclerc is a very potent opponent to them. Also one should take into account that Leopards and Abrams and Challengers all have been in action, in the mud, in battle. AFAIK the Leclerk still needs to prove itself in battle action/under war conditions. Regarding the "best all-around-tank", that is a title that probably is being negotiated between the latest versions of the Abrams and Leopard-2, and it considers armour, firepower and precision, maintenance, agility, ergonomy, fuekl consumption. I tend to rate the German tank as slightly better with the only exception of the latest "super-zooms" in the Abrams' gunner's sights, which can really give the US tank the egde in long range engagements and for IDying purposes. The Challenger-2 also is extremely well armoured and protected, but I have an issue with its eccentric gunning ergonomy, it also is not as agile as the American and German tank, AFAIK. A lot also depends on the given nation's armour tactics and politics. Some states are more often in forward movement and need tank armour tailored for that, while other armies expect to be more in defensive roles only. Logistical abilities also play a role, when you compare the tremendous difference between the thirsty Abrams and the much more economic Leopards. The Canadians got Leopards from us for Afghanistan, new models at that time, beefed up further. They love them, and have bought even more, if I'm not mistaken - much to the anger of the Americans. Practcially all Western Euopean nations (except Britain and France) decided for Leopards over Abrams. Globally, the Leopards again signs many more customers than the Abrams. And Saudi Arabia probably also bought Abrams only due to its ties to the US and its history with the US over the Iraq wars, the latter also the reason for why Iraq got Abrams. And finally, there is crew training and crew quality. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 03-26-14 at 09:12 AM.