May be it was abandoned, not sure. Fire control is different, supposedly improved, horizontal ammunition system as opposed to earlier vertical one. Effective main gun range is vastly improved for both night and day fighting. Lets just say T-80 is differs from T-72 in more than just armor.

Oh yeah, I know the T-80 is better then the T-72, but not vastly so.

Rubicon, note I said "if all performs as advertised". Basically the issue here is that we haven't seen the T80 or the LeClerc in combat. We don't know how either tank will perform in combat. Based on published specs they are probably about equivalent to each other.

I agree.. I still have my doubts. Russian made armor have proven itself over and over again over the course of the ast century. Something, which I can't exactly claim about the French made one. Ah, I would love to see Discovery channel make a field test 1 vs the other program>:) Unfortunately that is not likely to happen.

Russian armor was superior until 1980 when the M1 and Leo 2 came out, since then the Russians have failed to keep up with Western Tanks. Why doesn't someone hold a competition where we get a M1A2SEP, a Leclerc, a T-90, a Leo 2, and a Chally 2 and shoot stuff at it and see which one is the most protected once and for all

Well t-90 is not exactly that much more superior, from what I understand Russians have the "Black Eagle", whatever T, they dub it with in production. No one argues about M1A2 and Leo having current superiority in heavies department. The issue was where LeClerk fits in. And it would fit in perfectly as far as infantry support, but not too well as far as pure tank duels. Oh yeah, and don't forget about enemy choppers. But here, we are getting into the air superiority issues. Which is a completely different topic.

Rubicon wrote: "The issue was where LeClerk fits in." Actually, in pure manuever warfare the LeClerc and Russian T series tanks are not for infantry support. They are medium tanks and should be used for the reserve manuever element on the defense or for the exploitation/pursuit element during the breakthrough. Those are the primary roles for medium cavalry. In the defense the infantry lines are stiffened with heavy cavarly, not medium. If your tanks are not manuevering then you need the heaviest armor possible. In the attack, if you could build an ideal army with light, medium and heavy cavalry, the heavies would be with the heavy infantry and force the breakthrough, which would then be exploited by the medium cavalry while the the light cavalry screens the flanks and provides deep recon.

To Mike_golf’s message and others related; >>Did you miss what I said? EVEN IF we assume that GIAT's armor is as capable as what the UK, US or Germany produce (And Merkava and Ariete don't use Chobham type armor, so we won't discuss them) the LeClerc cannot carry as much thickness as the M1, Leo or Chally. That's not debateable. The LeClerc is not as big or heavy so it simply cannot have as thick of armor. So, even if the armor is as capable, it isn't as thick, thus can be defeated by weapons that could not defeat an M1, Leo or Chally. I understand exactly what you are writing, but you are missing a key point. >> I must disagree with this. You can’t draw direct conclusions that smaller dimensions or smaller overall weight corresponds directly to armour protection. It’s their relation which does most, actually. I think that you are moreover missing the major point. The actual surfaces that Leclerc has to cover with armour plating are some 1/7th or 1/8th of the area of M1, for example. Now, if we assume that the automotive etc. parts weight about the same in both tanks (which they necessarily won’t, but that’s really beyond my patience and capabilites to accurately study now) we can notice – knowing the approximate weight left for armour protection – that, surprise surprise, Leclerc has some 0,85 x armour weight of M1. Which, when put to tank of 1/7-8th of size of M1, corresponds as equal armour protection, weight per square m. The amount of armour and protection incorporated is dependant first and foremost of the relation of dimensions and weight (ideally, designers always like to build as small tanks as possible and effective without sacrificing from points considered vital). Should the Leclerc be considerably lighter, or considerably bigger in dimensions, relative armour would be inferior. Now it’s not, at least as significantly as generally suggested (differences are pretty marginal). Probably at this point our French friends are opening their Champagne bottles! Well, don’t, I completely agree with others though, that there’s no real reason for such an overwhelming praising of Leclerc (being in no way really superior). On the other hand, my opinion is that it is a scaled down MBT in size, but not necessarily in performance. It really plays in same cathegory as other modern western MBT’s, in all intents of armament, protection, mobility, intended use and so on. What I’ve got at hand now, is that Leclerc has very good turret front armour, on par with other latest western tank models, and very slightly, 10-15% weaker front hull and side profile protection. By the amount of armour mass used on Leclerc, it’s armour should be however considerably lighter structure than that of contemporary designs, to provide it any edge or even theoretical superiority over contestors, as has been also suggested…and that seems extremely unlikely. What comes to modular design of vehicles, it’s very true that it’s not a unique feature of Leclerc. It’s been taken as such somewhat however, like many associate DU ammo with purely US. Before Leclerc, some vehicles have incorporated modular design, also in armour, and “after” it many more. Merkava, for example, incorporates significant amount of ”modularism” (invented a new word!). Major structure modules to aid assembly and maintenance are very commonly used in other than armour protection area too. Advantages of this are obvious, also in protection, and though quoted that from the start structural armour can be also replaced later on, it proves to be both difficult and costly, if anything more than applique-style armour is to be added. Moreover, it is a big virtue in battlefield work situation.

>>We can assume that the T-80 is not that much better then the T-72, while the FCS and armor are upgraded it still retains the same basic design >> It’s pretty common mistake to consider T80 to be successor of T72, or that these vehicles are directly related to each other. Apart from their similiar layout and profile, they are two completely different vehicles however. T64, which the T80 was built to be successor for, had extremely few interchangeable parts with T72. T80 have had somewhat more, towards the more recent times of these tanks lives, but if we break them down and see what they have eaten, it’s clear that similarities end pretty quickly.

Mike your theory about the utilisation of Medium/heavy tanks was right during the WWII but nowadays we khave just 2-3 kinds of tanks. The light ones, used by small corps for exploratin or used against a poor ennemy because of its easy to carry. The medium, like the M60 now that replace the MBT when you cant use/bring them to the theatre. And the MBT ( with a good protection, firepower .. ) that doesnt depend of their weight but how they perform. About the Leclerc, its stupid to say that the Leclerc/T-series are medium tanks, or to say that the Chall II/M1A2 are heavy ones. We dont use anymore heavy tanks like has concieved the French/English leaders than the german one during the WWII, to support infantry and to take heavy damage. You are a tanker so you must know it. If i remember well the Leo2A6's weight is around 57T, the Leclerc 56T; is the Leo2A6 a medium tank because of its weight?