# Leclerc vs Abrams



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2021)

The article  discussed both tanks with the main difference was less armor for Leclerc, the main reason was that more armor wouldnt make much difference on the battlefield so they felt that the lighter tank might still prevail. Other countries have chosen to augment tank defenses with a counter anti-armor launcher like Trophy.  Not being from the tank world I could use some other opinions, but for my licking give me more armor and a big gun.









						France’s Leclerc Super-Tank: Better than American or Russian Armor?
					

Does Paris have the world's best tank?




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2021)

It depends, a lighter tank can cross more bridges, possibly go further, less damaging to the roads, easier to transport, easier to recover, less fuel. The US Army is well adapted to run the M1 Abrams family of tanks, including the fuel resupply, recovery, transport, etc. Without that infrastructure the M1 will not perform as well. What I do like about the M1 is it is designed with crew survivability in mind, with only the Merkva beating it in that domain. Each country that builds tanks, so so based on their heritage, industry, infrastructure and doctrine. Therefore that tank they build generally is the best tank for them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2021)

A major consideration for a US tank is that it has to be air transportable ,although most US tanks are sent by ship.


----------



## suffolkowner (14 Mar 2021)

The Leclerc has to be considered a pretty decent tank with a lot of features that figure to be the starting point for the next generation tank. 

L52 gun versus L44 (or the now common L55)
reactive armour
hydropneumatic suspension
auto loader
APU
optional Europowerpack

So much so that I wonder what is to be gained by partnering with the Germans other than volume and if that project and FCAS are destined for failure.

The Abrams anti cook off measures for the tank rounds has to be its major advantage.  The depleted urainium provides another advantage although not in use in export versions. The gas turbine I would judge to be a negative due to complexity and fuel consumption


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Mar 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> The Leclerc has to be considered a pretty decent tank with a lot of features that figure to be the starting point for the next generation tank.
> 
> L52 gun versus L44 (or the now common L55)
> reactive armour
> ...



The M1 has a multi-fuel engine, something I did not know:









						M1 Abrams - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Mar 2021)

It can burn used french freedom fries oil. 👍🏼


----------



## FJAG (14 Mar 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> The Leclerc has to be considered a pretty decent tank with a lot of features that figure to be the starting point for the next generation tank.
> 
> L52 gun versus L44 (or the now common L55)
> reactive armour
> ...


Basically a Leopard IIish chassis with a Leclercish turret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Main_Battle_Tank

The 2035 in-service and 2040 FOC dates are just silly considering much of the basic technology is already there and manufacturing lines exist. They must use a Canadian procurement system (or we use theirs). Of course maybe they are expecting the Brits to buy in and then gumming up the works:



> Leveraging British tank expertise for inclusion into the Eurotank project could be a financial boon for London and improve what has been till now a distinctly French and German design.


https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/01/eurotank-the-british-armys-new-main-battle-tank/

Once again missing the rolling on the floor laughing icon.

🍻


----------

