Question about the Lecleric MBT

Although it is worth pointing out that the French did have some helicopter support, and are in fact credited with the 'invention' (or at least the first proper use) of the Helicopter gunship.
No, not dedicated attack choppers (every schoolboy knows that that was the Heuy Cobra), but Helicopters with guns etc providing Aerial Close Support.

I think the answer to Liang's question is yes, they can fight - it is just that France has suffered a fair amount of High Profile defeats*, which are endlessly paraded. Mostly WW2 & the Maginot Line, to be honest.

*nobody has not, it is just that we go on about the French more!

 

Wrether or not America lost Vietnam is debatable at best.

 

Political loss or military loss, it does not matter.
Britain lost the 100 Years War in part because their Burgundian Allies changed sides and suddenly we did not have enough soldiers to garrison our territory any more. Worse, much of our territory was garrisoned by soldiers willing to side with the French. Was that a military loss, or not?
We won lots of battles (famously), but still lost.

America went in militarily, did fairly well at the whole 'open warfare' bit (like the Tet Offensive), but in the end pulled out.
You can go on about 'Vietnamisation', but America pulled out, and nobody in their right mind would have said that South Vietnam could have been able to stand alone.
Anyway, that is a debate for another topic, not one on the LeClerc tank!
Can anybody say 'Split'?

 

I forgot to mention the corean war, where french unit was among the most famous, winning for example three american presidential citations.

 

]

Continental countries, like France, Germany or Russia are of course more likely to suffer "High profile defeats" than countries like Britain or the US which are protected by the sea.

 

Was that the Foreign Legion Regiment that was sent?

 

No, the foreign legion regiments fought in Indochina at the time.
French troops in Korea were all volunteers.
The french battalion was led by Raoul Vernerey who gave up his 4 star general commanding in France, to led the french contingent as a lieutenant- colonel in Korea.

 

Yes. My point was that the French defeats tend to be more paraded about that anybody else's.
Mind you, even Britain ( ) has had it's share of humiliating defeats - In 1215, for example, the French invaded Britain, laid siege to Dover Castle (never took it though), Norwich castle (this one fell) and lots of others (most of which fell) - and basically rampaged around until fortunately for us our King (John) died, and the French went home (it was one of those complex dynastic wars).
Other examples include the Royal Navy getting stuffed by the Dutch on several occaisions.

But, in an era when invading across a Channel presented huge difficulties (not least the RN), most nations were content to just ignore us!

 

Oh, don't forget, at the time of the French revolution (1789) the French armies defeated all European powers in a single war. Arguably they weren't being good allies, and didn't have the strongest armies anyway, but there was Prussia, Austria, England and Holland as well as the entire Habsburg dynasty (Austria and the Holy Roman Empire) and Spain.

 

For ur info 2nd legion, i do know arabic and ur point on poitiers seems to be out of context. Why would i not praise the french? And just because arabs stopped the crusades does that mean u have to hate them??? And also do u hate all germans because they fought u in a World War?

U have a strange way of thinking.

 

I think there is a misunderstanding here DesertWolf.
I think what 2nd legion meant is that the fact that Europe does not speak arab is a credit of the french army, because Charles Martel stopped the arabs at Poitiers.(Or Roland at Roncevaux for that matter).

Of course you do speak arab, but I don't(like most europeans actually).
So that would be a credit of Charles Martel, as he stopped the muslim invasion.

 

I am not saying that you have to hate Arabs show me the part of the past that said it.

I didn't mean to say you don't speak arabic but most Europeans don't.

If Europe fell to the Arabs Arabic would have become a standard language there.

Castelot interpreted my post the right way, Arabic not being the language of Europe is a legacy that belongs to the French Army.

I am not saying it is a good thing or that Arabic shouldn't be learned, I am just saying how it is.

 

Falklands 1982. Although members of other countries were there as individuals, i.e. anzac exchange. Though the yanks did supply some ammo, and help the argentinians from obataining more air launched exorcets.

 

Damn, it 2nd Legion.Why do i always get u wrong?
Seems like the next time i see u write something, ill ask u to write it again, just to make sure!

 

I thought u were directing ur comments directly to me since i wrote the last post before u

Thats the source of the misunderstanding. If u read it that way, it looks like an entirely different picture

 

Just found this - on an Israeli site!

That, to me, implies that Leclerc is best (at battle management and communication systems), then Abarams, then Merkava IV.
Unusual for a national site to put themselves third, especially they're not looking for exports, so few people would get to confirm or deny.
Oli[/quote]

 

According the most sources the Leo2a6 is the best in the world...
According to other sources the Abrams or the leclerc, merkave, chally2 or even that Chinese tank is the best in the world, and according to some sources the Leo2a6 has the best electronics INSTEAD of the Abrams or the Merkava or the Leclerc...there is NO best tank in the world and there never will be...

I do owant to say that I rather drive in a 65ton Leo2a6 than a 50ton Leclerc

 

Best tank in the world:
Obvious, indisputable, and absolutely unchallenged.
The British Mark 1.
It was the only tank in the world, and therefore the best :lol: :lol:
Oli

 

This ''statement'' doesn't make any sence, is it just another ''America is the best country in the world'' story????? :evil:
I don't see what this has to do with the whole topic!

And as far as I can see Oli is the first one that gets ack on-topic after me... :roll: About that story Oli, I can't see how they know that it is the best...and on what experience did they base this story, in what kind of conditions, clear weather or something???

 

Presumably you mean the story about the Israelis admitting Merkava isn't as good. As a guess, I'd say because generally all "friendly powers" discuss stuff with each other, not on an official level, but at ground floor-level, and the information came from that.
One figure I have seen is that with M1 40% of the purchase price covers the electronics alone, and Israel doesn't have as much money as the US.
I'd also guess Merkava wasn't designed or intended to have the same electronics capabilities as the others - the Israelis have a very different tactical, operational and strategic situation from France or the US.
And the Israelis have shown that they tend adopt solutions that are right for them and them alone - if it fits with someone else's ideas, fine, but not a problem if it doesn't.
Re Liang's remark about pretty, etc. I assumed he meant the Leclerc was a good-looking vehicle (birthday present for me, anyone, hint :lol: ), but how combat-capable is it.
AFAIK the Leclerc is (one of) the first operational MBTs to carry hunter-killer sights, fully integrated with an excellent stabilisation system. AFAIK!
They also claim it's the first MBT to be able to truly fire accurately on the move - that sounds like a good topic for argument, but as I haven't seen what figures they're using to support this, I won't argue it. (On the suject of claims, IIRC Denel(?) claimed that the 20mm gun on Rooivalk guaranteed a single-shot hit on an infantry man. And gave figures to support that claim. A bit of calculation on my part proved it was true - but only if he was less than 10 metres away :kill: )
I like the Leclerc, but then I have a reputation for being Francophile, which nobody at my wargames club understands.
Oli