[insolite] Char Leclerc (france) ou char M1 Abrams (usa)

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

[glitter]

If you have clever combat system, trained and motivated personnel any tank will perform perfectly.

 

the problem with our Leclerc is that the budget for maintenance is hardly enough for anything more but training for a small part of our pool of Leclerc.

 

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

That's for what you should strike, not for pension's age. It's a clear fact that France needs at least 800 Leclercs.

[Invité §nou418ps]

That's for what you should strike, not for pension's age. It's a clear fact that France needs at least 800 Leclercs.

 

 

For what ?

 

Is a Leclercq usefull against tallibans ?

 

In my opinion, schools and hospitals are really more eficient.

 

 

In actual wars, big tanks are as useful as big battleships like Yamato in WW2

[glitter]

That's for what you should strike, not for pension's age. It's a clear fact that France needs at least 800 Leclercs.

 

Since the disapearence of the threat for USSR, obviously, 1400 (the original target) or 800 is way too much.

But obviously, we are already too low right now.

 

Is a Leclercq usefull against tallibans ?

In my opinion, schools and hospitals are really more eficient.

In actual wars, big tanks are as useful as big battleships like Yamato in WW2

 

It's a common argument for the last 3 decades. But as soon as a MBT show up on the fiels, everyone is running away.

We have a clear example with Russia in Gorgia in 2008 with as few as around 40 tanks.

 

French schools have enough money but the results are pathetic, obviously it's not a problem of funding.

[Invité §nou418ps]

Since the disapearence of the threat for USSR, obviously, 1400 (the original target) or 800 is way too much.

But obviously, we are already too low right now.

 

 

 

It's a common argument for the last 3 decades. But as soon as a MBT show up on the fiels, everyone is running away.

We have a clear example with Russia in Gorgia in 2008 with as few as around 40 tanks.

 

French schools have enough money but the results are pathetic, obviously it's not a problem of funding.

 

 

 

The question is always the same, hundreds of "leclerrq" ... Why not ?

But for what.

France don't have the planes to carrry these tanks away.

France d'on't have the aerial suport to use it in any conflict.

 

So why buy this things ?

To help when USA need some Tanks some where

and ask to the air force to carry them and after protect them in combat ?

 

What a glorious task for french army...

[glitter]

France don't have the planes to carrry these tanks away.

 

You don't carry MBT by planes, only for very few.

 

France d'on't have the aerial suport to use it in any conflict.

 

 

So why buy this things ?

To help when USA need some Tanks some where

and ask to the air force to carry them and after protect them in combat ?

 

Tu trolles autant en matière d'armement que de bagnole

 

[Invité §nou418ps]

You don't carry MBT by planes, only for very few.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tu trolles autant en matière d'armement que de bagnole

 

 

 

Aux dernières nouvelles , nous n'avons plus d'ennemis proches pour justifier des centaines blindés lourds en France.

Aux dernières nouvelles , nous n'avons pas de moyen de projection pour des forces qui en seraient équipées (engin de transports lourd)

à tel point que nous louons des avions de transports russes pour le faire a des compagnie privés.... dont celle de Viktor Bunt il y a peut.

 

Aux dernières nouvelles nous avons très peut d'hélicoptères d'attaques capables d'assurer la couverture de blindées en évolution, et très peut hélicoptère de transport pour le soutien.

 

 

Alors expliques moi ce que l'on ferait de centaines de blindés,

si ce n'est les prêter à nos amis américains avec leurs équipages

sur leurs demandes avec leurs soutiens.

[glitter]

Aux dernières nouvelles , nous n'avons plus d'ennemis proches pour justifier des centaines blindés lourds en France.

 

In 1939 we had no ennemies neither.

Oh, wait ..

 

Aux dernières nouvelles , nous n'avons pas de moyen de prohjection pour des forces qui en serait equipée (engin de transports lourd)

à tel point que nous louons des avions de transports russes pour le faire a des compagnie privés.... dont celle de Viktor Bunt il y a peut.

 

We use boats.

 

Aux dernières nouvelles nous avons très peut d'hélicoptères d'attaques capable d'assurer la couverture de blindées en évolution, et tres peut hélicoptère de transport pour le soutien.

 

Aerial support using helicopters ? We use Mirage 2000 or Rafale for that.

 

Alors expliques moi ce que l'on ferait de centaines de blindés,

si ce n'est les prêter à nos amis américains avec leurs équipages sur leurs demandes avec leurs soutiens.

 

Why asking what would we do with hundred of MBT since we HAVE hundreds of MBT.

When did we lend our Leclerc to the US army ?

US army don't need us.

US army can't maintain our planes, our boats or our tanks.

[Invité §nou418ps]

In 1939 we had no ennemies neither.

Oh, wait ..

 

 

Please, you know very well what i mean.

In 1939 we have a realy potential enemy since 1870 at least.

 

After the WW2 all french army (like others in NATO) was designed to fignt de Russian force an therir allies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aerial support using helicopters ? We use Mirage 2000 or Rafale for that.

 

 

It's not the same job than an Apache .

A Rafale is not usefull to protect soldiers and tannks in Afghanistan for exemple.

An Apache to protect and a Sikorsky to transport material, weapeons and soldiers yes.

 

 

Why asking what would we do with hundred of MBT since we HAVE hundreds of MBT.

When did we lend our Leclerc to the US army ?

US army don't need us.

US army can't maintain our planes, our boats or our tanks.

 

 

 

If we have to use a Leclerc thousands miles from France.... we must have the help of NATO.

Or ask to the enemy to wait several months.

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

Since till today we have our identity as our countries we need "Leclercs". There were, are and always will be national interests and the situation in the World shows. We never know who will be our alies or enemies tomorrow. We do not create them, but they appear time to time. Tank is the most important part of terrain combat system. Wherever it stands - it's your territory. All other methods of land control simply don't work. Leclerc is very important for France and for original french population (not the "crap", came outside for better life). It's a symbol of superior science and technology, culture and traditions. The first modern tank layout has been designed by Renault at the beginning of 20th century, and now it's still the example for others to follow. Military programs are rising the number of working places. To assamble Leclerc you need many things from your national companies. To make the long story short, this leads to GNP growth. Working places - taxes - social programs etc. If you let the "crap" to leave the country, you'll have enough funds to have guaranted pensions at 55.

[Invité §nou418ps]

Since till today we have our identity as our countries we need "Leclercs". There were, are and always will be national interests and the situation in the World shows. We never know who will be our alies or enemies tomorrow. We do not create them, but they appear time to time. Tank is the most important part of terrain combat system. Wherever it stands - it's your territory. All other methods of land control simply don't work. Leclerc is very important for France and for original french population (not the "crap", came outside for better life). It's a symbol of superior science and technology, culture and traditions. The first modern tank layout has been designed by Renault at the beginning of 20th century, and now it's still the example for others to follow. Military programs are rising the number of working places. To assamble Leclerc you need many things from your national companies. To make the long story short, this leads to GNP growth. Working places - taxes - social programs etc. If you let the "crap" to leave the country, you'll have enough funds to have guaranted pensions at 55.

 

 

 

No, the most important part of a terrain combat system is the soldier.

IF you don't understand that, you ll never know why the french légionnaires are the best soldiers in the world.

 

 

But i'm agree with almost everything you say.

An heavy tank is usefull for a lot of things...but not in actual wars.

 

As i say before, it's like the heavy battleships after WW2, powerfull but useless in combat.

FOr exemple , after the war the best thing make with de USS MISSOURI was à movie with Stven Seagal

[Invité §nou418ps]

 

 

This picture is typical of the actual and probably fture conflicts in the world.

 

A millions $ MBT distroyed by a weapon build in a lot of contries

and so cheap than almost evry country could buy thousands....

 

ANd the RPG is not the chepeast weapon againts MBT or the more efficient.

 

An MBT in a city or main roads could be quicly an easy target.

 

And it's not a secret since Stalingrad.

[glitter]

After the WW2 all french army (like others in NATO) was designed to fignt de Russian force an therir allies.

 

So, ok, no more USSR, let's get ride of our heavy gear.

Andthen, let's say around 2025, the geopolitical situation get worst and we have another powerful ennemy, what can we do ?

Either we must rebuild everything from the ground

-> human ressources for R&D on that product

-> industrial ressources

-> training in the army.

Or we ask help to USA.

 

It's not the same job than an Apache .

A Rafale is not usefull to protect soldiers and tannks in Afghanistan for exemple.

 

Then, we have tigers.

 

An Apache to protect and a Sikorsky to transport material, weapeons and soldiers yes.

 

We have tigers to protect and puma to transport soldiers.

 

If we have to use a Leclerc thousands miles from France.... we must have the help of NATO.

 

We use our BOATS like everyone else.

US used C-17 for few M-1 and everyone assumed that it's the typical way of transport for them, but you're wrong on that.

 

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

 

 

No, the most important part of a terrain combat system is the soldier.

IF you don't understand that, you ll never know why the french légionnaires are the best soldiers in the world.

 

 

But i'm agree with almost everything you say.

An heavy tank is usefull for a lot of things...but not in actual wars.

 

As i say before, it's like the heavy battleships after WW2, powerfull but useless in combat.

FOr exemple , after the war the best thing make with de USS MISSOURI was à movie with Stven Seagal

 

 

Soldiers are important everywhere, especially professional. By tank I meant the technical terrain component. Of course, it will not act without pesonnel. I wrote that Leclercs are important for France and inside the country. Thats a bit different from what we have today with expedition wars. There, we need to knock out the emeny hidden in civillians. Tanks will not help for that - even the best ones. It's a well known fact, for example, that to complete afghan compain, you need to kill all local population, and to replace it with the ones you need (from the US, for example). But who will take responsibility for that action? In the eyes of every afghani child the european look is the look of the enemy. They live ages behind us, and don't understand what's going on.

[glitter]

No, the most important part of a terrain combat system is the soldier.

IF you don't understand that, you ll never know why the french légionnaires are the best soldiers in the world.

thanks god, légionnaires are more modest than you.

The three magical words are

Training

Knowledge (terrain component for instance as Huilo said)

Equipement.

 

 

An heavy tank is usefull for a lot of things...but not in actual wars.

 

Geogia 2008 isn't a modern war ?

 

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

2008 Georgian - Osetian war was different. It was the war on their native territories and to protect their native territories. They were fighting for their own land. Georgians attacted the Osetian territory to get more land for Georgia. They tried to attack Russian peace keeping personnel (which had been placed to Osetia according to the UN mission in Osetia). Georgia used the regular troops (not expedition), and, of course, there were tanks T-72's.

[Invité §nou418ps]

thanks god, légionnaires are more modest than you.

The three magical words are

Training

Knowledge (terrain component for instance as Huilo said)

Equipement.

 

 

No equipment is not essential for a legionaires.

He is trained to survive anf fight with almost nothing.

 

It's the oposite of a US GI with 40 kilos of equipment on his shoulder.

 

 

Geogia 2008 isn't a modern war ?

 

 

Comon one of the most powefull contries in the world against à little one.

 

With leclerq i'm sure you can invade Monaco too...

[Invité §nou418ps]

 

Soldiers are important everywhere, especially professional. By tank I meant the technical terrain component. Of course, it will not act without pesonnel. I wrote that Leclercs are important for France and inside the country. Thats a bit different from what we have today with expedition wars. There, we need to knock out the emeny hidden in civillians. Tanks will not help for that - even the best ones. It's a well known fact, for example, that to complete afghan compain, you need to kill all local population, and to replace it with the ones you need (from the US, for example). But who will take responsibility for that action? In the eyes of every afghani child the european look is the look of the enemy. They live ages behind us, and don't understand what's going on.

 

 

 

I'm not agree with you at all.

They know very well whats going one.

 

After the second one (USSR) they will win against the most powerfull army in the word.

In Afghahistan no foreign army could say to this people what they have to do and what is good for us.

 

ANd like Vietnam or Irak

when you kill civilian people.... you creat "moudjaidin" or "talibans" or what you want to call them.

[glitter]

No equipment is not essential for a legionaires.

He is trained to survive anf fight with almost nothing.

It's the oposite of a US GI with 40 kilos of equipment on his shoulder.

 

We aren't talking of a training in the jungle which is a very specific area, I'm talking about things in general.

 

Comon one of the most powefull contries in the world against à little one.

 

I'm talking about how the supposed rusty russian army manage to pull over the modern gergian army with 40 tanks.

Wihtout the adequat stuff to hold them, they are unstoppable, that's my point.

 

[Invité §nou418ps]

We aren't talking of a training in the jungle which is a very specific area, I'm talking about things in general.

 

 

 

I'm talking about how the supposed rusty russian army manage to pull over the modern gergian army with 40 tanks.

Wihtout the adequat stuff to hold them, they are unstoppable, that's my point.

 

 

 

Are you serious ?

[futurism]

Rusty russian army ?

 

You'd better not stand on the way of this kind of "rusty army" because you'll get blown up in a couple of seconds

 

The power of an army is not in the amount of soap used to wash the planes and the paint on a tank but the spirit of the nation.

Russia is by faf one of the most powerful air&ground army in the world

[Invité §nou418ps]

So, ok, no more USSR, let's get ride of our heavy gear.

Andthen, let's say around 2025, the geopolitical situation get worst and we have another powerful ennemy, what can we do ?

Either we must rebuild everything from the ground

-> human ressources for R&D on that product

-> industrial ressources

-> training in the army.

Or we ask help to USA.

 

 

 

Even now we must ask help to Nato and USA.

 

 

 

Then, we have tigers.

 

 

 

Not really effective

 

We have tigers to protect and puma to transport soldiers.

 

 

 

Not enough and not as good as we need.

 

We use our BOATS like everyone else.

US used C-17 for few M-1 and everyone assumed that it's the typical way of transport for them, but you're wrong on that.

 

 

So we must ask to the enemy to wait several months...

We could send the "Charles De Gaulle" by the same way .... it' s so effcicient too

[Invité §nou418ps]

Rusty russian army ?

 

You'd better not stand on the way of this kind of "rusty army" because you'll get blown up in a couple of seconds

 

The power of an army is not in the amount of soap used to wash the planes and the paint on a tank but the spirit of the nation.

Russia is by faf one of the most powerful air&ground army in the world

 

 

Nothing has change since 1941..

[glitter]

Are you serious ?

 

Very serious, nobody except such a change of situation with so few MBT.

I chat with that with several french officers who were still laughing about the famous "tanks are dead".

 

Because on the other hand, Georgia would have 40 leclerc in line, it would have been totally different.

 

Rusty russian army ?

 

I used the word "supposed"

 

The power of an army is not in the amount of soap used to wash the planes and the paint on a tank but the spirit of the nation.

Russia is by faf one of the most powerful air&ground army in the world

 

I hope you're ironic there.

Spirit of the nation ? Are we talking of the Russian army ?

Planes: not enough training for pilots, the only translation is that nobody fear the Russian AF.

Ground: during the golden age of USSR, the logistical chain was weak, I can't imagine now.

 

Even now we must ask help to Nato and USA.

 

Could you point me where we asked help from USA to defend the french territory in the lat 3 decades ? I think I missed that.

 

Not really effective

 

Say who ? Soldiers helped by tigers and its dreadful cannon know to recognize some nice stuff when they see it in action.

 

Not enough and not as good as we need.

 

We ahve enough of that stuff.

 

So we must ask to the enemy to wait several months...

We could send the "Charles De Gaulle" by the same way .... it' s so effcicient too

 

You want to load MBT on a carrier ? Are you crazy ?

Je vais le faire en francais car tu ne comprend pas.

On transporte les tanks par bateaux, on l'a toujours fait et on le feras toujours.

LEs USA ont fait quelques tranports par avion pour mousser le C-17, rien de plus.

[Invité §nou418ps]

Very serious, nobody except such a change of situation with so few MBT.

I chat with that with several french officers who were still laughing about the famous "tanks are dead".

 

Because on the other hand, Georgia would have 40 leclerc in line, it would have been totally different.

 

 

 

Do you realy think that the only way to stop a MBT is another MBT ?

 

ANd please dont say 40 Leclerc could stop russian army

its's just incredible.

 

In actual wars tanks are detroy with amolst anything but tanks.

[Invité §nou418ps]

I hope you're ironic there.

Spirit of the nation ? Are we talking of the Russian army ?

Planes: not enough training for pilots, the only translation is that nobody fear the Russian AF.

Ground: during the golden age of USSR, the logistical chain was weak, I can't imagine now.

 

 

 

La stuation de l'armée russe actuelle ne peut pas etre pire que celle en 1940 avec 2/3 des cadres au goulag ou morts

Et si les alliées n'avaient pas debarquées... ils auraient liberer les highland d'Ecosse..

 

Could you point me where we asked help from USA to defend the french territory in the lat 3 decades ? I think I missed that.

 

 

 

QUand le teritoire francais à été menacé militairement au court des trentes dernieres années ?

Non parcqu'auparavant oui c'est sure on a eu besoi de l'aide des soldat US...;

 

 

Say who ? Soldiers helped by tigers and its dreadful cannon know to recognize some nice stuff when they see it in action.

 

 

 

On en a quasiement pas , sinon les soldats francias mouraient bien moins en afghansitant.

Idem ou pire pour notre helicopter de soutient, trop petit et trop peut.

EN afghanistant les helicoptere de transports français ont du mal à emmener dix homme et leurs equipements de base.

 

 

 

 

You want to load MBT on a carrier ? Are you crazy ?

 

 

Non, je voulais dire de notre PAN solitaire qu'il est comme le Leclerq

Impressionant techniquement, mais juste inutile par ses caracteriques et les moyens qui lui sont aloué.

 

L'efficicacité operationel du Charles de Gaulles seul est evidement bien inferieur à celle de nos deux anciens PA classique.

 

Je vais le faire en francais car tu ne comprend pas.

On transporte les tanks par bateaux, on l'a toujours fait et on le feras toujours.

LEs USA ont fait quelques tranports par avion pour mousser le C-17, rien de plus.

 

 

Les conflits a venir ne seront pas des conflits ou l'adversaire attendra tranquilement que nous amenions des chars au frontierre.

A l'avenir il faut s'attendre à des attaques de drones plus ou moins evolué (bien plus accessible techniquement que des missiles classique)

A des attaques terroristes massives , a des attaques des infrastructures vitales de nos pays modernes (transport/energies /communications)

 

Pour contrer ca c'est pas des tanques lourd qu'il faut, mais du personnele ultra qualifié qui se deplace tres vite là ou est la menace.

Et si on a les hommes, on a certainement pas les moyens de deploiement, voir d'action.

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

1. It's not necessary to transport Leclercs by CdG carrier, any sea ferry could be used under military escort. The first 2 Leclercs have been delivered to UAE by Antonov-124 (ex rusty USSR:)). French-Russian connections today are pretty good to use the same facility.

2. Today, Russian army is one of the most skilled for local conflics. Soon it will be among the best world's armies: modern and prof. Times are changing.

3. Georgian tanks T-72 SIM1 (modified by Ukraine, used some Israeli components) were stopped by RPG-7's. 65 units, in good condition, have been captured by Russian peace-keepers.

4. Scout car "Scorpio" (Turkey) has been knocked out by one shot of the sniper (12,7 mm sniper-rifle). 2 crew members were killed by one bullet penetrated through the armour.

Georgian troops, armed with the latest american and european ammumition had abandoned everything and were running like hares. Been captured, they told all secret information wich was very useful. Russian forces were using "rusty" stuff aka. T-62's, BMP - 1's, 122mm Akatsya's, because they didn't see the real enemy in front.

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

[L_inconnu]

Je vote dacia sandero.

[Invité §GOL476Od]

Merkava 4....

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

Not all Leclercs have guns:). Because, they are more advanced than others and the don't need them at all.

[Invité §Hui086Uf]

 

The David and the Goliath.

[glitter]

Do you realy think that the only way to stop a MBT is another MBT ?

 

If you don't have the correct ammunition for your planes or helicopters, it's the best to have.

 

ANd please dont say 40 Leclerc could stop russian army

 

Could you get some information about what happened in Georgia before talking about it ? Thank.

 

In actual wars tanks are detroy with amolst anything but tanks.

 

I suppose you are talking of Iraqui tanks which has to face a very important dissemetric force, way superior, specialy the air force.

I will make it simple so that even you can understand it. USA is on his own league. What happened with USA cannot happen with any other conventionnal forces, France, UK, Germany or China.

Tell me, with what did Georgie destroyed russian MBT ? They got their asses kicked but 47 tanks ? Ouch.

 

La stuation de l'armée russe actuelle ne peut pas etre pire que celle en 1940 avec 2/3 des cadres au goulag ou morts

Et si les alliées n'avaient pas debarquées... ils auraient liberer les highland d'Ecosse..

 

N'importe quoi.

 

QUand le teritoire francais à été menacé militairement au court des trentes dernieres années ?

Non parcqu'auparavant oui c'est sure on a eu besoi de l'aide des soldat US...;

Pourrais tu écrire en Francais ?

 

On en a quasiement pas , sinon les soldats francias mouraient bien moins en afghansitant.

 

En fait, les dix morts de Kapissa, il y aurais eu un tigre, un SEUL et ca aurait été différent.

 

Idem ou pire pour notre helicopter de soutient, trop petit et trop peut.

EN afghanistant les helicoptere de transports français ont du mal à emmener dix homme et leurs equipements de base.

Il faut dire que les pumas ne sont pas des hélicoptères lourds, donc, tu souhaite quoi ?

 

L'efficicacité operationel du Charles de Gaulles seul est evidement bien inferieur à celle de nos deux anciens PA classique.

 

Le CdG, avec ses 20-30 Rafales explose les 2 PA avec Etendard à tout point de de vue, ce n'est même pas la peine d'en discuter.

 

Les conflits a venir ne seront pas des conflits ou l'adversaire attendra tranquilement que nous amenions des chars au frontierre.

A l'avenir il faut s'attendre à des attaques de drones plus ou moins evolué (bien plus accessible techniquement que des missiles classique)

A des attaques terroristes massives , a des attaques des infrastructures vitales de nos pays modernes (transport/energies /communications)

 

Pour contrer ca c'est pas des tanques lourd qu'il faut, mais du personnele ultra qualifié qui se deplace tres vite là ou est la menace.

Et si on a les hommes, on a certainement pas les moyens de deploiement, voir d'action.

 

Hypothèse purement de travail, une parmis tant d'autres.