Rank the Tank! - Page 20




 
--
 
August 17th, 2005  
ill be damed if i know
 
 
hey francki ive got a question, what is the range of the gun?
August 17th, 2005  
ill be damed if i know
 
 
iam not a tank expert but from what i know this is my rankings
1)M1 abrham
2)challenger 2
3)leopard2
4)merkava2
5)lecreck
August 17th, 2005  
francki
 
 

Topic: leclerc range shooting


well, on the paper they told us that is possible to shoot in stactic position until 4000m, and 3000 when the tank is moving. But in reality it's very difficult for the gunner to shoot a target after 3000M. It ''s more easy to shoot in movement because the stabilization is very efficace. In France it's impossible to use our high velocity munition because ours trainings fields are to short so we used munitions with the same ballistic.
--
August 17th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 

Topic: Re: my little experience


Quote:
Originally Posted by francki
first, sorry for my english
i'm a tank platoon leader in the french army . Our tank is the leclerc so i know a lot of things about it. Its sure that we never use it on a battle field (just in kosovo but without opposition). This tank is very expensive and we just have 350 in the french army. I never use a challenger 2 or a m1a2 but in my career i try leo 2a4, a5 and t72. So if you have questions about the leclerc ask me ?
Hello Francki.

In your opinion, what's the best tank you've personally commanded?
August 18th, 2005  
francki
 
 
The positive points of the leopard 2 are: - it is built by German and thus highly reliable - there has existed for 20 years and does not have youth problems - it is more rustic than the leclerc and thus less dependant electronics - he has a roller moreover what allows a better flexibility in any ground - the lasts versions have a system of rallying allowing him effective Hunter Killer - German are very strong of tactical use.

I have use a little T72 in Bulgaria at the time of a exercise and it is not comparable with a tank of Western design. It was old T72 but who allowed me to see the difference . Its only positive point is its very low . On the other hand the system of loading uses enormous chains which is faster to cut an arm than to load a shell. There is no optronic, there is not very powerful laser, the comfort of the crew is reduct, the system radio operator obsolete on certain versions (command with the flags sometimes). site of the shells under the turret is also a very bad choice. At the time of these exercises, we had a demonstration of shooting of a missile has through the maingun. That seems positive but in reality time to configure the gun before and after the shooting is very significant. We were unable to touch a target in static position at 1500 M . I think sincerely that the Russian machines must use of optronic Western to be powerful.
The leclerc is a tank very recent( 1996 for the first). The architecture of the machine is based on a data-processing BUS. We almost do not have connections mecanic between the various elements of the tank (for example not of cable between the engine and the pedale of acceleration). We are dependant electronics what so we have problems of reliability. On the other hand all is extremely fast. The engine uses a turbine which, contrary has a turbo delivre immediately all the power (it is much more veloce that a leo 2 ). The system of loading is very effective and allows 6 blows minute in does not import the position of the tank (it is impossible for a loader to do the same thing when the tank is in a bad ground) the shooting while rolling functions well in all configurations including turret 6 H and until A 30.40 kmh. On the other hand we have big problems of budget and the leclerc is very dear to maintain. the shielding remains unknown for us but i think only before tank resite has a ammunition has high velocite. in conclusion, i think that the technology of the leclerc is not yet rather reliable and that only a country with lot of money can buy it . The leopard 5 and A6 are very good compromises. It does not remain about it less than it is the quality of the crew which amene more
August 18th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
The problem is that people are inclined to go for what they know and understand. So if you have not worked on any of these tanks that you are voting for, then just how can you personally assess them
August 18th, 2005  
ill be damed if i know
 
 
thanks francki that was interesting
August 18th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by francki
The positive points of the leopard 2 are: - it is built by German and thus highly reliable - there has existed for 20 years and does not have youth problems - it is more rustic than the leclerc and thus less dependant electronics - he has a roller moreover what allows a better flexibility in any ground - the lasts versions have a system of rallying allowing him effective Hunter Killer - German are very strong of tactical use.

I have use a little T72 in Bulgaria at the time of a exercise and it is not comparable with a tank of Western design. It was old T72 but who allowed me to see the difference . Its only positive point is its very low . On the other hand the system of loading uses enormous chains which is faster to cut an arm than to load a shell. There is no optronic, there is not very powerful laser, the comfort of the crew is reduct, the system radio operator obsolete on certain versions (command with the flags sometimes). site of the shells under the turret is also a very bad choice. At the time of these exercises, we had a demonstration of shooting of a missile has through the maingun. That seems positive but in reality time to configure the gun before and after the shooting is very significant. We were unable to touch a target in static position at 1500 M . I think sincerely that the Russian machines must use of optronic Western to be powerful.
The leclerc is a tank very recent( 1996 for the first). The architecture of the machine is based on a data-processing BUS. We almost do not have connections mecanic between the various elements of the tank (for example not of cable between the engine and the pedale of acceleration). We are dependant electronics what so we have problems of reliability. On the other hand all is extremely fast. The engine uses a turbine which, contrary has a turbo delivre immediately all the power (it is much more veloce that a leo 2 ). The system of loading is very effective and allows 6 blows minute in does not import the position of the tank (it is impossible for a loader to do the same thing when the tank is in a bad ground) the shooting while rolling functions well in all configurations including turret 6 H and until A 30.40 kmh. On the other hand we have big problems of budget and the leclerc is very dear to maintain. the shielding remains unknown for us but i think only before tank resite has a ammunition has high velocite. in conclusion, i think that the technology of the leclerc is not yet rather reliable and that only a country with lot of money can buy it . The leopard 5 and A6 are very good compromises. It does not remain about it less than it is the quality of the crew which amene more
Interesting that the German Leo is now seen as 'quite rough and ready' compared to newer tanks like the Leclerc, whose technology sounds like it hasn't fully matured yet. You wouldn't want to have to rely on a tank like that in combat from what you're saying?

I always thought the T-72 mechanically was a very good design, autoloader aside - just never had the electronics or armour to compare to the leading western tanks.

Yes, the quality of the crew is a big factor IMO. Are you saying that the Bundeswehr demonstrates greater tactical awareness than the French Army?
August 18th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by francki
The positive points of the leopard 2 are: - it is built by German and thus highly reliable - there has existed for 20 years and does not have youth problems - it is more rustic than the leclerc and thus less dependant electronics - he has a roller moreover what allows a better flexibility in any ground - the lasts versions have a system of rallying allowing him effective Hunter Killer - German are very strong of tactical use.

I have use a little T72 in Bulgaria at the time of a exercise and it is not comparable with a tank of Western design. It was old T72 but who allowed me to see the difference . Its only positive point is its very low . On the other hand the system of loading uses enormous chains which is faster to cut an arm than to load a shell. There is no optronic, there is not very powerful laser, the comfort of the crew is reduct, the system radio operator obsolete on certain versions (command with the flags sometimes). site of the shells under the turret is also a very bad choice. At the time of these exercises, we had a demonstration of shooting of a missile has through the maingun. That seems positive but in reality time to configure the gun before and after the shooting is very significant. We were unable to touch a target in static position at 1500 M . I think sincerely that the Russian machines must use of optronic Western to be powerful.
The leclerc is a tank very recent( 1996 for the first). The architecture of the machine is based on a data-processing BUS. We almost do not have connections mecanic between the various elements of the tank (for example not of cable between the engine and the pedale of acceleration). We are dependant electronics what so we have problems of reliability. On the other hand all is extremely fast. The engine uses a turbine which, contrary has a turbo delivre immediately all the power (it is much more veloce that a leo 2 ). The system of loading is very effective and allows 6 blows minute in does not import the position of the tank (it is impossible for a loader to do the same thing when the tank is in a bad ground) the shooting while rolling functions well in all configurations including turret 6 H and until A 30.40 kmh. On the other hand we have big problems of budget and the leclerc is very dear to maintain. the shielding remains unknown for us but i think only before tank resite has a ammunition has high velocite. in conclusion, i think that the technology of the leclerc is not yet rather reliable and that only a country with lot of money can buy it . The leopard 5 and A6 are very good compromises. It does not remain about it less than it is the quality of the crew which amene more

Interesting, have you ever been on the U.S. or British armor platforms?
August 18th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman
Quote:
Originally Posted by francki
The positive points of the leopard 2 are: - it is built by German and thus highly reliable - there has existed for 20 years and does not have youth problems - it is more rustic than the leclerc and thus less dependant electronics - he has a roller moreover what allows a better flexibility in any ground - the lasts versions have a system of rallying allowing him effective Hunter Killer - German are very strong of tactical use.

I have use a little T72 in Bulgaria at the time of a exercise and it is not comparable with a tank of Western design. It was old T72 but who allowed me to see the difference . Its only positive point is its very low . On the other hand the system of loading uses enormous chains which is faster to cut an arm than to load a shell. There is no optronic, there is not very powerful laser, the comfort of the crew is reduct, the system radio operator obsolete on certain versions (command with the flags sometimes). site of the shells under the turret is also a very bad choice. At the time of these exercises, we had a demonstration of shooting of a missile has through the maingun. That seems positive but in reality time to configure the gun before and after the shooting is very significant. We were unable to touch a target in static position at 1500 M . I think sincerely that the Russian machines must use of optronic Western to be powerful.
The leclerc is a tank very recent( 1996 for the first). The architecture of the machine is based on a data-processing BUS. We almost do not have connections mecanic between the various elements of the tank (for example not of cable between the engine and the pedale of acceleration). We are dependant electronics what so we have problems of reliability. On the other hand all is extremely fast. The engine uses a turbine which, contrary has a turbo delivre immediately all the power (it is much more veloce that a leo 2 ). The system of loading is very effective and allows 6 blows minute in does not import the position of the tank (it is impossible for a loader to do the same thing when the tank is in a bad ground) the shooting while rolling functions well in all configurations including turret 6 H and until A 30.40 kmh. On the other hand we have big problems of budget and the leclerc is very dear to maintain. the shielding remains unknown for us but i think only before tank resite has a ammunition has high velocite. in conclusion, i think that the technology of the leclerc is not yet rather reliable and that only a country with lot of money can buy it . The leopard 5 and A6 are very good compromises. It does not remain about it less than it is the quality of the crew which amene more

Interesting, have you ever been on the U.S. or British armor platforms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by francki
I never use a challenger 2 or a m1a2 but in my career i try leo 2a4, a5 and t72. So if you have questions about the leclerc ask me ?