Its pretty simple to me, am I going to believe someone who has been a master gunner on a proven platform across multiple environments, or do I believe another version by someone who has worked in a factory and quotes data from the internet. It would pay to remember that the Identification Bible of choice (Janes) has on and off been provided with incorrect information for various national security reasons. you wouldn't stop using Janes, not until you actually get the platform under question can you confirm your own assumptions. But, I'll give you a tip, I'll believe the operator before I believe the tech. I have been involved in too many projects where the perfect spec'd specimen didn't perform as projected. The first day of combat can change the confidence parameters completely. personally I am content to listen to what everyone believes in the capability of a national product, but its the gus who use them that I will actually pay more serious attention to. Ipso facto, any platform that has been battle tested, finessed, demonstrably improved and has substantial empirical data to support its capability takes the prize. The rest are untested usurpers until battle/field proven otherwise.

http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/us/pdf/us_esp_leclerc_01.pdf In english but it is a commercial. However it shows the main feature and the purpose of this tank.I can not give true data. Electric stabilisation which is a major step to improve stabilisation have been added to most previous generation tank while in the Leclerc it has been an original feature.US have program to improve accuracy by the same factor see again suspension is also an improvement to limit movement on the hull in cross country. For general view http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/leclerc/leclerc1.html

If I can give you legal document about this I will the adresses on this site.However I have personnally no doubt. According to your experience with tanks what do you think about autoloader.Do you think that the loader (in tank with manual loaders) can sustain a high rate of fire in hard cross country?

http://www.armada.ch/97-6/page6-97_30.htm to see what the US army expect in improving stabilisation

The data I have seen against M1A1: in fact better accuracy on the move at 4000 m againts moving targets yhan M1A1 at 1200 m.I don't know for M1A2

The data I have seen are against M1A1: in fact better accuracy on the move at 4000 m against moving targets than M1A1 at 1200 m.I don't know for M1A2

gf0012-aus is absolutely correct in his assertion that someone who has commanded from a cupola and levelled a gun at a target and yelled 'on the way!' is in a better position as far as credibility when it come to the effectiveness of various tanks. To all those Francophiles: NO ONE IS SAYING THE LECLERC IS BAD TANK. All people are saying is, that yes it is a good tank, but at the end of the day, until battle proven, it can't be compared with the M1(various upgrades) and Challenger Series in real terms. As for the Leo2, it has been around for 20+ years and has shown itself to be upgradable, versatile and at the forefront in a lot of innovation and ideas. So, people of the Tricolour, relax and take a deep breath in the knowledge that you can produce some excellent stuf accross the board, but until proven in combat, your claims of making 'the best' won't be taken seriously by most others..

Think you for recognizing a little about some French hardware but it is not the point. M1A1/A2 Challenger has proved efficiency in Irak against third rank old tank even T72.And the crew were far superior to irakis .No people also doubt they rank among the best tanks in the world (especially for M1A2).So battle proven against Iraqis is not a big issue.A French bataillon of old AMX30B2 (compare to Leopard1A6) destroyed entire bataillons of iraqis tanks without a single lost in 92 and did as good as M1 (which doesn't mean they equal M1). A Russian top expert I met in Novossibirk said me privately that the Russian never gave their best harware (at least until 1991 meeting time) on export. The people who speaks here should at least carefully check datasheet of other contenders. I think that a lot of people in this forum have not even carefully examine the Leclerc tank above simple datasheet of weight or power or don't even understand engineering.

The Leclerc has brought of innovation; what I would like to speak here is what former tank crews here think about autoloader, separate cell crew, or latest FCS innovations (the M1A2 have some of the Leclerc) or weight reduction (in crossing bridge for example).

In regards to the Leclerc's weight, being ten tons lighter than the Abrams is really no big deal, especially when it comes to bridges. Dodgy Bridges are usually not suitable even for AMXs and Bradleys, let alone heavy aromour. That's what engineer companies are for. As I said before, battle tested is the standard by which tanks should be judged. Yes the Traqi T's weren't much chop, but it was still battle..