Plus not all LeClercs have remote MGs. If we want to look at the latest available version, the Challenger 2 has two MGs that can be controlled from under armour with the addition of the enforcer RWS which can mount an 0.5" MG. The Abrams started out with a remote 0.5" MG, lost it to the CITV and now, with TUSK has a 7.62mm coax, a 0.5" coax mounted on top of the gun like the Israeli Merkava, a remote 0.5" MG at the commander's position and a 7.62 pintel mount with a gun shield. So that's four protected MGs. Soviet tanks have had remote AAMGs since the T55.

Large caliber coaxial mounts aren't the worlds most sensible plan, because you can't carry much ammo for them. Rifle calibre MGs have been used as coaxial mounts in almost all of the successful tanks ever. The Centurion started out with a 20mm coaxial cannon with the capacity to elevate beyond the range of the main gun, but it was ditched in later marks because it didn't offer much utility for the space and logistics it required.

Driving underwater is somewhat overrated in most scenarios, but it is in keeping with the Soviet operational art, which is why Soviet tanks can all do it. Basically, when a Soviet operation hit a river, they would cross it in dribs and drabs in any way they could so as to keep the defender on the back foot. Contrast this with Western operations where river crossings were deliberate operations in their own right. However, snorkeling across a river requires: Flat bottoms, low current, known depths and gently sloping banks. Things which are typically in short supply on most rivers.

Before to go back on the topic , allow me to correct some mistakes :

You correct mistakes? That is a laugh r

Herald , the Leclerc has indeed 2 heavy machine-guns on the front turret : the 12.7mm coax on top of the main (the big fu**er) gun and a 7.62mm (which you take for an optical device (?) lol !)

Look at that , please :
h*tp://img359.imageshack.us/img359/3184/leclercemiratiarmyrecogbv0.jpg



That tube on top of the barrel is a boresighted SENSOR.





See the ONE coax machine gun above the driver's hatch, amateur?

The coax is the tube with the rubber dust sleeve sticking out of the mantlet, above the driver's hatch. The bore sight sensor [a droop sensor, and  a PRIMITIVE one at that] is that box with the knobby bits  that sits on the cannon barrel with the thing that l0ooks like a telescope [which is an OPTICAL sensor measuring device] where you'd expect it to be.

You see the 2 heavy MGs plus the remote controled one on the turret . That is 3 machine-guns controled from the inside when most of the others Tanks have only 1 (some have 2) . As I said , the bastards on the rooftop , they 'll better duck .

The remote station looks like a simple sluw elevate with no camera present that is aligned and bore sighted with the small machine gun. How are you supposed to aim the thing?.

In France , we do like big machine-guns or even a 20mm cannon as a coax (!) . Yes we do .

ROTFLMFAOATPDB. There is no 20 mm cannon on the Lecluck.

Please , look at that AMX-30 from the French 6th Light Armored Division during Desert Storm (GW1)
h*tp://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/AMX-30/AMX-30_00.jpg

I suggest that you actually stop pretending and making stuff up.

Yep , a 20mm cannon as a coax : beat that ...

I just did..

And in case you don 't know , the Leclerc AZUR is our response to urban warfare :
A full page about it there :
h*tp://engins-blindes-francais.wifeo.com/leclerc-azur-.php



I'll have something to say about all that add-on armor in a moment, but for a  brief commen, that sure is a lot of desperate add-on applique to try to match either an American or British TUSK. I wonder WHY? 

""The visible additions of the Leclerc include appliqué side panels and
rear protection slate armor, additional coverage and density of the
GALIX close defense systems, through the additional launchers covering
360 deg. (firing smoke, non-lethal ammunition and grenades). Other
enhancements include the protection of all openings, against burning
liquid, securing all explosive materials and strengthening external
mounts, to minimize damage of vandalism by hostile crowd. The tank is
equipped with jettisoned multi-purpose logistics load racks used to
rearm and support dismounted troops under fire. An FNH Arrows Remotely
Controlled Weapon Station mounting 7.62mm machine gun replaces the
commander's pintle mounted machinegun, featuring day/night sighting and
the ability to engage targets near the tank and at high elevations.""

The remote machine gun is astonishingly similar  to the 7.62 remote mount mounted on the MARDER, which the Germans added as an AFTERTHOUGHT!

Also , French Tanks have been snorkeling under 4m of water since ... well I can 't remember :
h*tp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Amx30_064_valmy.jpg



Where is the snorkel, amateur? That is fording not snorkeling or don't you even know the difference?

Who cares about that prevaricating nonsense? The French are constrained by terrain as much as anyone else-in fact more so since you haven't conducted a major division sized river crossing with tanks sans bridge in forty years. They have to pre-psurvey river bottoms, check depths and obstacles, or suffer bottom bogging in MUD.  The British sure crossed rivers in 1993 under fore and I sure as hell know the Americans have crossed the Danube in the Balkans during the floods moving down to the Kosovo to help you bunglers out of the mess you created, and also crossed both the Tigris and Eurphrates during the Iraqi War. Did it  by fording [that was for your benefit, Ehran] and by motorized PONTOON, they crossed: which is the way you float tanks across a river, until you build or TAKE that damned bridge and DRIVE across. I think that the people who actually know how to do it IN FORCE need no assertions or claims from a want-to-be commentator.     

Herald , the fuel tanks are for ferry range . Everybody 's doing it and it is perfectly safe .

American and British armor usually DOESN'T. We sensibly refuel from bowsers.

I also think I just said that the French use add onj fuel dru,ms to extend their short ranged tanks. WHY? Its either because they aren't rich enough or logistically secure enough to ensure that they will have fuel on the march. Only a poor or logistically INCOMPETENT army adopts the expedient of add on fuel drums  either due to a shortage of pumper fuel trucks or lack of logistics tail. The National Assembly provided insufficient logistics support equipment; so the French Army naturally sometimes has to use the SECOND best solution.

So thanks again for your  USELESS readback. What I said, and what youy cannot deny is that the KLecluck engine pack was a shoot me here feature-especially wioth that huge rear grear and obvious exhaust port to the  driver's  right which are erxploits in a BADLY designed tank. Not even protected! Astonishing.

Now , your pseudo maths (?) are bogus . You don 't know the different density and weight of the materials employed !

Actually I do,l as i am about to show you, AS YOU WILL SEE BELOW..
I can show you how it works and how it' s done but not on this thread . Just ask .
Don't bother. You don't have the knowledge or SKILL.  Without someone else's programs and ACTUAL WORK in front of you, you ARE HELPLESS-or don't you remember your self-confession a year ago when you said you didn't have the math skills to match me in BALLISTICS when I defeated you in the discussion about the crap MICA missile and its actual performance envelop?
*******************
Nichevo , I did not get a word of what you said ??? Were you drunk when you typed it ? Am I the only one not to understand ? (about that post :6/9/2008 4:14:10 AM)

He said politely that you didn't know what you are talking about. He might have referred to the fact that the Russians found historically, that a tank with an external fuel drum mounted on it, was historically an open invitation to a German with phosphor grenade or some kind of incendiary to set it on fire once the oil drum was punctured and the fuel draining thus set alight.
*******************
Chinchilla , the heat signature of the Abrams is indeed enormous even when idling . Unless they switch to a diesel hyper-bar engine , the turbine will run hot at all time (it 's a bloody turbine !) .

Prove this.  As I'm demonsatrating here you are totally ignorant about tanks in general.
The Leos and Leclerc have a quiter engine about infra-reds and they have a better exhaust system , much better in fact .
On the Leclerc , the exhaust pipe can be orientated and ventilated , depends on what the BP (Battle Position) is .
*******************

The tailpipe has to manually turned. Way to go!
Whatever we may debate , the Western Tanks don 't have an active protection system like the Russian have with Arena .
This is why they might have an edge on the ballefield .

They don't. I know why. [I just said why as a hint.] Do you?



The DM 43 makes a hole about about 20-25 mm diameter in entry once you measure past the crater.shoulder which is is usually just about twice that  diameter. After factoring the crater and adjusting for perspective I can estimate the depth of the laminated module as about 300-350 mm MAXIMUM.
 There is no kinectic reflector zone designed into that brick as you see no deformation track indicating pitch or yaw from the sabot strike that went STRAIGHT THROUGH.

The backer plate failed. Notice the scintering where heat  bleeding discolored it along the burst seam? Notice the heat bleed  about a fifth of the way to the backer plate?

The type of ammunition used claimed is the DM-43-the standard used at the time of the test that was the best possible is the DM 43 a1 which strikes at about 6 megajoules at the muzzle and about 5 megajoules at 2000 meters at the strike. At zero degrees incidence it cannot defeat more than 600 mm RHA at 2000 meters.  This gives a value for the Lecluck module, as measured, of about 1.6 to 2.0 resistance to the RHA steel FAIL equivalent. This is considerably inferior to British Dorchester which routinely shrugs off six megajoule strikes without deformation of the backplate at all. [Basra incident when one Challneger accidentally shot another with no apparent effect is battlefield PROOF]

I don't know the performance of Burlington. I have seen no credible combat reports of types of ammunition used aside from hearsay that US tanks have accidentally shot each other and failed to pierce each others' frontal armor with six megajoule ammunition from Desert Storm . That is not good evidence to me.

Incidentally, a burst module is always a test FAIL, and that burst module is a burst module as it failed to maintain unit integrity.

Since it was overburdened at an estimated six megajoules MAXIMUM possible strike and failed , I suggest that standard current US or British 8+ megajoule strike ammunition would have a field day with a Lecluck.

No wonder you need all that clumsy add-on applique' for the Azur!

Have a nice day.

Herald

The British do use those additional tanks, but apparently not in combat. Since there's a great deal more footage of Challenger 2 in combat situations, it's only natural that the CR2 is more commonly seen without the drums. Apart from anything else they get in the way of fitting the rear bar armour.

The concept of a 20mm coax isn't new. IIRC, the early LeClerc was intended to mount a 20mm cannon, but that was eschewed in favour of a 12.7mm gun, presumably in order to get more ammo ready to go. If you look at coaxial weapons usage, then it's almost always used for "Brassing up" targets, basically suppressive fire, so number of rounds and sustained rate of fire is more important than range (coax mounts are usually as good as a SF mount, so that's good for a mile)

Addendum for direct effect. Did your automotive engineers ever fix the engine idle overheating problem on poor manufacturing quality on these Leclucks?

Herald,

FJV , that 's a good post .

""Maybe
for armor something similar to the Japanese sword would be beneficial,
a hard , brittle outer layer, backed up with a though resiliant inner
core.""

There are 2 shools :
- be strong first then swallow the remainings
- weaken and slowdown first then deal with it

Is my english good enough for you to understand what I mean ?
If it is , good :-)

Both methods works if you know what you 're doing . There is no winner , no "better" way , both works equally .
To archive the best method or the best compromise , one has to think real hard . You also have to take into consideration the weight , the size , the cost , the feasibility , the maintenance and the will to deploy such expensive material (it has to be).
All of this to say that in my opinion , the French and the German did get it right . When you take a closer look at the Leclerc T-10 and the Leopard 2A5 (as they are now) , they are almost impervious to enemy tank fire , whoever they are .
You can 't penetrate it from the front (or on the side turret for the Leclerc) and the tank can fire back at you twice faster than you can while making 50km/h over terrain . I 'm not bragging here , just telling as is it known already .

The T-90 as it is now (the most exiting possible foe !) is capable to face the European tanks because the bugger is not someone to lecture . It has a very good mobility and a FCS to go with , an excellent protection and active systems and some very good ammo .

Cheers .

You are right about Leclerc's and Leo's ability to withstand APFSDS rounds. Based on what I have heard (and I cannot guarantee any information I post here is 100% accurate because I'm not some high-ranking NATO official nor do I work for GIAT or Krauss-Maffei), the Leo 2A1 performed better against APFSDS than the M1. M1 armour was equally better against HEAT. This goes together from what I've heard from tankers and AT missile crews. They say that the side/rear armour of a Leopard 2A4 is much more vulnerable to any shaped charges than the M1. They also told me that a T-80 or T-90 covered in ERA is the worst AT-crew nightmare.

 

The experiences in Gulf war and operation Iraqi freedom don't contradict this. I don't think the Iraqis were firing the latest APFSDS at the M1s. They have performed outstandingly against various AT-missiles and HEAT rounds. Everyone knows that these weren't the latest nor the most powerful weapons and they were wielded by very inexperienced and poorly trained crews. But the sheer number of M1s deployed in Iraq compared to those who have been destroyed in combat speaks for itself.

 

 But back to the topic. I think the current Russian development is the most cost-effective in the world if the trends in warfare don't change. They aren't even trying to maintain evrything what's left of their huge cold war tank fleet. T90s and 80s are relatively few in numbers and it has been estimated that about a third of the rest of the tanks are kept in service. Reactive armour is relatively cheap and probably the most effective means after ARENA of  ATGM protection. And ARENA costs much less than a Hellfire missile and a slab of ERA costs much less than a portable ATGM.

 

It's most likely that the future Russian combat scenarios are in environments like Chechnya or Georgia => urban, mountains, hills=not good tank terrain. In such environments a T-72 with the most modern ERA modules on it is just as effective as a T-90 with the same ERA. You don't need all the most sophisticated fire-on-the-move-systems or the latest APFSDS rounds to take out a building or a guy with an RPG-7. If you watched the news footage from Georgia, I'm sure you noticed that the tanks on both sides were old as Lenin.

 

As Bluewings12 said, modular armour FTW! If an ATGM or RPG-29 or similar makes nasty hole/crack in the armour of Challenger2, Leo2, or M1, the whole turret/hull has to be replaced=> very expen$ive! In the same situation the crew of the Russian tank, which is covered in era and other various Gizmos so that it looks like it has been mostly glued together, takes it easy and drives to the ERA-shop, buys a new piece for 3 rubles, takes a sip from the vodka bottle, replaces the ERA piece, pours the rest of the vodka in the fuel tank and goes back to fight.

Were you talking about the Soviet Union? The only country in the world today that can quickly deploy thousands of modern MBTs for offense is the United States of America.

 

And a large-scale assault scenario where Russian tanks would be used against NATO tanks isn't even relevant. 20 years ago there was nothing between West Germany and Soviet troops. Now there are the Baltic countries or alternatively Belarus or Ukraine and Poland standing between Russia and Germany. None of these countries have a good relationship with Russia.

 

And NATO attacking Russia...That would be just retarded.

A modest suggestion - could the Russians work on modular appliques (passive or active) because they are not confident in their quality control?  Easier to swap out a bad Arena or Kaktus (sp?) than an entire tank hull with one gaping fault in the front plate.  And I think it is no stereotype to say the Russians are not over their manufacturing problems. 

If you can't produce quality plate and chain, crank out lots of scale or ring mail and hope for the best.

The build quality of Russian tanks is definitely not on par with the NATO tanks. However, they don't have gaping faults in their tanks. Come on, it's a cast turret and a simple hull. You'd need tons of epic failure to end up with a non-homogenous result. And if a part is of bad quality, it's not used to build a tank.

 

The main reason why modular armour is so good is that tanks tend to get shot once in a while. And when sandblasting/new paint is usually good for anything below 20mm, it's hard to repair a solid turret/hull that has had suffered extensive damage. I'm not privy to secrets of how they repair Challengers and M1s coming from Iraq but I can imagine it's very hard work.

 

I don't know if it's even possible to replace single ceramic tiles of Chobham armour. My picture is that they bake the silicon carbide ceramic tiles in an oven with epoxy and then they reinforce the whole thing with metal alloys and kevlar to form larger tiles before they even put them in place and apply the outermost layers of armour.