Leclerc
-
Hi guys,
another really cool website about French Leclerc. Enjoy.
http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/leclerc/leclerc1.html
Yet another site about Western MBTs...
Big, Bad Battle Tanks
Four of the world's most formidable tanks -- representing the UK, France, Germany, and the US -- are put to the test.
From Britain, the Challenger 2 tank has a 360-degree turning turret, an L30 gun that can fire eight rounds -- ammunition that includes armor piercing depleted uranium shells -- in 45 seconds. With a price tag of $5.5 million, and its relatively short attack range of 450 kilometers, FFM gives it an overall rating of six (out of 10).
Next up, from France, it's the Leclerc. While it's the only tank with an automatic loader in our test, it's still the slowest, firing at only six rounds per minute. Lighter and faster than the others, the Leclerc has a top speed of 75 kilometers per hour, and has a good attack range of 550 kilometers. The $7 million ticket, however, means an overall FFM rating of three.
The Germans bring us the Leopard 2 battle tank, a relative bargain at $4.5 million. The Leopard 2 is equipped with a long L55 firing gun, and can travel at a top speed of 72 kilometers per hour. It's also built with third-generation composite armor, which should help a crew of four survive a hostile encounter. The Leopard 2 gets an FFM rating of three.
Weighing in at 70 tons from the US, is the M1A2, a next-generation armored tank that helped the US win the Gulf War. At $5 million, it's not overly expensive. However, the parts are the most costly of the four tanks. The M1A2, which can travel at 72 kilometers per hour, is equipped with three machine guns and two smoke grenade launchers to mask it from enemy thermal imaging devices, and its cannons can fire three rounds in 12 seconds for a quick pounding. All in all, it garners a five FFM rating.
http://www.techtv.com/futurefightingmachines/story/0,24330,3383178,00.html[/b] -
speaking of the leclerc, i would like to add that the Malaysian PT-91M are using the Sagem FCS which is used on the Leclerc.
This system enables the PT-91 to fire the cannon at a moving target while the PT-91 inself moving. Moving Pt-91 can fire at moving target...COOL.
This is one reason why our Pt-91s are very advanced.
The Sagem FCS is one of the best in the world -
all modern tanks are fitted with those kinds of systems with the American and British system being the best i believe?Originally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:speaking of the leclerc, i would like to add that the Malaysian PT-91M are using the Sagem FCS which is used on the Leclerc.
This system enables the PT-91 to fire the cannon at a moving target while the PT-91 inself moving. Moving Pt-91 can fire at moving target...COOL.
This is one reason why our Pt-91s are very advanced.
The Sagem FCS is one of the best in the world
But i'm still surprise at the weight of the PT-91M which is i believe 48tons? alittle light for an MBT do you not think?
Though anything else might be too heavy but still hardly a heavy tank -
I know modern tanks are fitted with that kind of system. But i am just saying that the Sagem FCS used by leclerc and pt-91 are one of the most advanced in the world.Originally posted by |-|05|:all modern tanks are fitted with those kinds of systems with the American and British system being the best i believe?
But i'm still surprise at the weight of the PT-91M which is i believe 48tons? alittle light for an MBT do you not think?
Though anything else might be too heavy but still hardly a heavy tank -
alrightOriginally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:I know modern tanks are fitted with that kind of system. But i am just saying that the Sagem FCS used by leclerc and pt-91 are one of the most advanced in the world. -
yeah yeah... MAF iz dee best... PT91 iz dee best... whatever u say is indisputable... its so damn freaking GOOD that the Poles sell it for palm oil instead of use it for themselves...Originally posted by |-|05|:alright
the only way u're gonna convince anyone that the upgraded t-72 tin can is a worthwhile investment and a viable defence platform is if it has really performed admirably under fire in an actual military op...
no, specs on paper don't count. all capabilities on paper are taken with a large pinch of salt (SAF ones... included)
the rate this is going, u're gonna spark off another pissing competition and flame war. -
to moderators:Originally posted by CX:yeah yeah... MAF iz dee best... PT91 iz dee best... whatever u say is indisputable... its so damn freaking GOOD that the Poles sell it for palm oil instead of use it for themselves...
the only way u're gonna convince anyone that the upgraded t-72 tin can is a worthwhile investment and a viable defence platform is if it has really performed admirably under fire in an actual military op...
no, specs on paper don't count. all capabilities on paper are taken with a large pinch of salt (SAF ones... included)
the rate this is going, u're gonna spark off another pissing competition and flame war.
did i do anything wrong?
i didnt say anything wrong.
i based my post on facts.
and he flamed me -
now now calm down dude he did nothing wrong just infromed us of what his country hasOriginally posted by CX:yeah yeah... MAF iz dee best... PT91 iz dee best... whatever u say is indisputable... its so damn freaking GOOD that the Poles sell it for palm oil instead of use it for themselves...
the only way u're gonna convince anyone that the upgraded t-72 tin can is a worthwhile investment and a viable defence platform is if it has really performed admirably under fire in an actual military op...
no, specs on paper don't count. all capabilities on paper are taken with a large pinch of salt (SAF ones... included)
the rate this is going, u're gonna spark off another pissing competition and flame war. -
nope dont worry you did nothing wrong this timeOriginally posted by Innocent_Malaysian:to moderators:
did i do anything wrong?
i didnt say anything wrong.
i based my post on facts.
and he flamed me
-
ok, so french weapons not so cock after all
-
Unfortunately a gizmozed T-72 with such an FCS ain't gonna cut it, these tanks have chronically underpowered guns, ammo and turret traverse and gun elevation rates. And that's gonna make the FCS pretty useless because while it can track the target, it can't lay the gun on the target itself as fast as let's say a power loaded Abrams turret. Almost any other modern tank can snap off a shot moving on far rougher terrain then the PT-91 tin can can. The addition of the FCS appears to be a little gizmo upgrade that while does somewhat improve the absymal accuracy of the tank against western tanks, it's actual effect is much less then the MAF would have liked to have seen.
-
Make no mistake.
PT-91s are not advanced, they are virtually third world hand-me-downs.
It's like making a big hoha when Malaysia aquires upgraded F-4 Phantoms and touts them as among the most "advanced" aircraft the the world.
The rest of the world, in the meantime, is getting free palm oil while discarding their unwanted hardware just but putting in a little positive, too positive spin in their technobabble because apparently the MAF planners don't know any better, choosing weapons for their apparent show off effect, rather then real effectiveness... -
Our AMX-13SM1's are even worse when it comes to moving and firing....even after upgrade.....
-
Ah, but there are two factors to consider when comparing the AMX-13SM1 to the PT-91:
1) AMX is a light tank and PT-91 is an MBT. Its like comparing apples to oranges. AMX-13 is mainly for infantry support, PT-91 for killing other tanks.
2) AMX-13's design in its original form dates back to the 40s. T-72 goes back to the late 60s. -
well it still means our "tanks" and armoured spearhead is going to be blanted nowOriginally posted by Typhoon:Ah, but there are two factors to consider when comparing the AMX-13SM1 to the PT-91:
1) AMX is a light tank and PT-91 is an MBT. Its like comparing apples to oranges. AMX-13 is mainly for infantry support, PT-91 for killing other tanks.
2) AMX-13's design in its original form dates back to the 40s. T-72 goes back to the late 60s. Oh well -
Since when did we have an armored spearhead in the conventional sense of the word? Sorry, SAF armor is not going to engage in any slug fests in battle of kursk or golan style fights, and it's probably good that way.
-
The thing is whatever our SM1's can do those PT-91's can do better.Use they were not meant to use it that way but what's stopping them from using them that way instead of in the MBT role considering this reigon does not have MBT'sOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Since when did we have an armored spearhead in the conventional sense of the word? Sorry, SAF armor is not going to engage in any slug fests in battle of kursk or golan style fights, and it's probably good that way. -
can we get back to the leclerc?Originally posted by |-|05|:The thing is whatever our SM1's can do those PT-91's can do better.Use they were not meant to use it that way but what's stopping them from using them that way instead of in the MBT role considering this reigon does not have MBT's
about the leclerc. . . the auto loader probably accounts for the reduced rounds per minute as compared to other main battle tanks, but then u get to operate the leclerc with a crew of only 3 instead of 4 like other tanks -
ya the autoloader is slower......and if i'm not mistaken because of that a round is kept in the gun at all times to reduce load times....and does make for the tank being more likely to explode if hit in the turrentOriginally posted by laser51088:can we get back to the leclerc?
about the leclerc. . . the auto loader probably accounts for the reduced rounds per minute as compared to other main battle tanks, but then u get to operate the leclerc with a crew of only 3 instead of 4 like other tanks -
Have to disagree with autoloader being slower. If you talk about the first 6 to 8 round burst in a minute for a human loader compared to the Leclerc 12 rounds per minute burst. I say, they are about the same. However, Human loader cannot sustain this rate more than a couple of minutes. The autoloader can. US is in the process of developing an autoloader for the M1A2 that can fire up to 12 rounds a minute:Originally posted by |-|05|:ya the autoloader is slower......and if i'm not mistaken because of that a round is kept in the gun at all times to reduce load times....and does make for the tank being more likely to explode if hit in the turrent
"The service has demonstrated an advanced compact ammunition auto loader that could further enhance the combat effectiveness of the Abrams. The autoloader is expected to deliver 12 rounds a minute to the 120mm main gun. "
http://www.global-defence.com/1997/AdvancedTechnologies.html
Autoloader also help to reduce manpower. Partly why SAF still maintains the SM1s. It has got an autoloader
Here is another Tank Assessment Report for the Tank crazy nuts like me - enjoy:
http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf -
and u're usually dead if 8rounds can be fire at youOriginally posted by Joe Black:Have to disagree with autoloader being slower. If you talk about the first 6 to 8 round burst in a minute for a human loader compared to the Leclerc 12 rounds per minute burst. I say, they are about the same. However, Human loader cannot sustain this rate more than a couple of minutes. The autoloader can. US is in the process of developing an autoloader for the M1A2 that can fire up to 12 rounds a minute:
"The service has demonstrated an advanced compact ammunition auto loader that could further enhance the combat effectiveness of the Abrams. The autoloader is expected to deliver 12 rounds a minute to the 120mm main gun. "
http://www.global-defence.com/1997/AdvancedTechnologies.html
Autoloader also help to reduce manpower. Partly why SAF still maintains the SM1s. It has got an autoloader
Here is another Tank Assessment Report for the Tank crazy nuts like me - enjoy:
http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.assessment.best-tanks-and-why.pdf
The human can load faster for the 1st 3-4 rounders that really matter in a tank on tank situation though in the long run the auto loader can sustain it's ROF while the human cannot.But with the extra man you get more options should 1 man get injured in the battle and stuff like over seeing ammo loading and stuff and thus free the the others to check other parts of the tank.As said Singapore however due to man power problems would prefer the auto loader.
Oh a tibit....the autoloader was 1st in service to help reduce the number of people in russian tank turrents which are always very small and cramp.But this small and cramp space means the tank is easier to be taken out
-
The americans did toy around with an autoloader for the M1A2, but they figured that a 19 year old with a strong arm was for the moment, a lot smarter and could help in the maintaining of the tank as well. An autoloader as to be fixed, and it can't scrub the gun barrel.
-
This idea is completely incorrect. Light tanks and MBTs each have their roles in battle. While a light tank will certainly not survive an engagement with an MBT, there are many things that it can do better:Originally posted by |-|05|:The thing is whatever our SM1's can do those PT-91's can do better.Use they were not meant to use it that way but what's stopping them from using them that way instead of in the MBT role considering this reigon does not have MBT's
1. There will be more of them for the same price. This means that they will be available for many more missions which it would be a waste to send MBTs on, such as convoy escorts or infantry support. They can also be everywhere on a battlefield, while MBTs need to be carefully hoarded.
2. They are smaller and can go more places than the MBTs (especially in closed terrain). Some are even parachute-droppable or helimobile. The first rule of a gunfight is to have a gun. If your huge MBT cannot get to the battleground, who cares how powerful it is?
3. They can perform the majority of armor missions as well as an MBT. The only armor mission they are worse at is antitank combat. They can support the infantry, exploit breakthroughs, perform assaults, raids and economy of force missions just as well or better than MBTs.
4. They are logistically easier to support. This means they can keep up a higher tempo of operations all else being equal. Again, this leads to more missions completed, and more tanks on the ground.
This leads to light tanks and MBTs having totally different jobs in war. MBTs cannot do everything a light tank can, and vice versa. Do not forget how the Germans used tanks. The light tanks were used when they were in the Blitzkrieg years, while the heavy Tigers only came out when they were defending against the final Allied push.
Due to their great power but small numbers and high logistical cost, MBTs need to be marshalled to centres of gravity, either striking en masse at the opponent's, or defending one's own. Given the local terrain, using MBTs on the attack is very difficult, so the latter role is more likely. Light tanks should instead roam the battlefield in packs, attacking flanks and targets of opportunity, only occasionally gathering to exploit breakthroughs or strike vital targets. Light tanks will probably be on the attack in the local terrain.
Of course, the other part about this region not having MBTs is also wrong. One country has had them for 30 years: Singapore. -
Thailand also has MBTs (albeit very old). However, they have Stingrays light tanks with 105mm gun.Originally posted by dkhoo:Of course, the other part about this region not having MBTs is also wrong. One country has had them for 30 years: Singapore.
Bottom line is, SAF still needs MBT, albeit in small number and very defined roles. These MBTs will not replace SM1s. SM1 should be replaced 1 on 1 with a local designed or modified light tank.
I favour a replacement of the Centurions and so far the only MBTs that I think will really be good for SAF are:
1. French Leclerc (thus far my favourite)
2. Japanese Type 90 (don't know if they are allowed to sell them).
Note that these 2 tanks also employ autoloaders and thus, the very core 3 man crew per tank in SAF orbat will continue to be maintained.
Ok, given we all currently only investigated the tank protection (speed, armour), weight, and firepower, I think SAF should start looking at getting new MBTs and Light tanks with battlefield Management systems. So far, the American has installed one on M1A2, the French have theirs in their Leclerc, the Israeli have theirs in ther Mekarva 4. Singapore should incorporate this to transform the SAF into a digitised force. This is something the army is relatively behind the RSAF and RSN. Its about time SAF incorporate something that makes SAF doctrine more of a punch and a slap. Every SAF assets should be cordinated centrally, digitally and efficiently - just like RSAF -
Agree with your points - but the Japs are not allowed to export their military hardware. I think the Type 90 MBT was based on the German Leopard 2 design with an auto-loader. Even their IFV are pretty interesting.Originally posted by Joe Black:Thailand also has MBTs (albeit very old). However, they have Stingrays light tanks with 105mm gun.
Bottom line is, SAF still needs MBT, albeit in small number and very defined roles. These MBTs will not replace SM1s. SM1 should be replaced 1 on 1 with a local designed or modified light tank.
I favour a replacement of the Centurions and so far the only MBTs that I think will really be good for SAF are:
1. French Leclerc (thus far my favourite)
2. Japanese Type 90 (don't know if they are allowed to sell them).
Note that these 2 tanks also employ autoloaders and thus, the very core 3 man crew per tank in SAF orbat will continue to be maintained.
Ok, given we all currently only investigated the tank protection (speed, armour), weight, and firepower, I think SAF should start looking at getting new MBTs and Light tanks with battlefield Management systems. So far, the American has installed one on M1A2, the French have theirs in their Leclerc, the Israeli have theirs in ther Mekarva 4. Singapore should incorporate this to transform the SAF into a digitised force. This is something the army is relatively behind the RSAF and RSN. Its about time SAF incorporate something that makes SAF doctrine more of a punch and a slap. Every SAF assets should be cordinated centrally, digitally and efficiently - just like RSAF