Talk:AMX-56 Leclerc

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force

Combat experience

being deployed somewhere or being part of a peace-keeping mission doesn't sound like combat experience to me, unless there has been a battle somewhere that I haven't heard of?

Combat experience is when people shoot at you, is it not ? Rama 21:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you have to shoot back somewhere in the direction of those who shot at you in order to call it combat. This often happens in peacekeeping operations, even if it is not supposed to.--AlainV 00:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the Leclerc was used in Kosovo in urban environment as a deterrent (a dangerous environment for a heavy battle tank). So on one hand, I have yet to hear of a Leclerc destroying anoher tank in real combat; on the other, the Leclerc has been used in real combat environment. Rama 06:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If no fighting occurs, there is no combat, and without combat there can't be any combat experience. The point was to say that unlike many other modern mbts, the Leclerc hasn't done any fighting, taken fire or fired in anger. But the current phrasing works well, I think. -Mikris-

The Leclerc saw action in former Yugoslavia. It was not much, since as soon as it started to shoot, magically all opposition disappeared. --WhiteEcho 05:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

well, that is the case of most of modern main battle tanks, for what I know. The exception would rather be the Abrams and the Challenger which, because thay are older and because of certain political circumstances, have been engaged in war zones -- though never against comparable opponents either. I still have to hear about a Japanese or German battle tank engaging in such activities- Rama 08:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It all depends on how you count tank types and series. Swedish tanks, German Tanks, Japanese tanks and the tanks of many other industrial nations have never been engaged in any kind of tank warfare for the last 55 years, but on the other hand all Israeli tanks, all US MBTs, all UK MBTs and all MBTs of the soviet Union have been engaged in some form of warfare in the same period. --AlainV 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about in Afghanistan? French forces have been there for some time and maybe it was some other type of vehicle but I thought I heard about a Leclerc providing fire support for some French infantry in a fire fight with some Taliban types. This would probably constitute combat experience since Taliban types often are capable of taking out tanks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In the part of Afghanistan where French forces operate the Leclerc would be totally inadequate, as it is highly mountainous. Bear in mind that this was a machine developed during the cold war to confront Eastern European tanks in the plains of Europe. Its role in Lebanon is more dissuasive, in any case the coaxial guns is more likely to be used than its canon, as it is unlikely to confront other tanks in this peace keeping operation, in that regard I agree this not really combat operation. For the sake of being controversial, I don't think that any other modern tanks, including Merkava, M1A1 and Challenger 2 have really been in combat operation either, as they never have been confronted to equivalent machines. Destroying old soviet era Iraqi tanks with poorly trained crews or the odd building or pick-up truck in the Gaza Bank doesn't really make a real combat experience either, let say they have shot real targets, but these were no real match in the first place, this is just marketing for weapon industry. Blastwizard (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rama, the combat experience you talk of is the least interesting one when it comes to the machine. They know what happens when the gun is fired, they know what happens when the warhead hits. How the machine is used and deployed is a question of training and doctrins of the crew (here "real" combat experience or rather lessons learnt matters). But the technical issues of the tank is very well tested on f.ex a low intensity peace keeping mission. Above all such missions displays how hard it is to maintain the tank, to keep it operational in an hostile enviroment, how often it breaks down etc. F.ex the danish tactical experiences with using a MBT (LEOIIa5) in COIN warfare in Afghanistan applies to all alike MBTs (Leos, Leclercs, M1s, Chals etc). On the other hand, the performance of the machine (the tank) and how well it coped with the climate, how many spare parts were needed, how much fuel, how tired the crew got etc. applies only to the model, in this case,the LEOII. These things could also have been learned in a low intensity conflict as well, but they couldn't have been learned back home in the army base (where the machine shop got all the necessary tools and spare parts and the best technicians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass

Can someone clarify the weight of this vehicle? What does "tons" mean? Are we talking about US short tons or tonnes?Blaise July 5, 2005 22:26 (UTC)

Standard, metric tonnes, obviously (the Leclerc is purely an European product, no non-standard units are used in its construction ;) ). Good point. Rama 6 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

Other Pictures.

Is it posibble to change the pics ? The ones posted look old and you can't really take a good look at the tank.

The problem is that often the good quality pictures are copyrighted. But I am certain that GIAT would provide free photos if asked kindly. Or rather the SIRPA (the French military PR agency). Let me try to get something from them! --WhiteEcho 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of free photos on Commons, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leclerc

I won't speak for the ones for which I am personally guilty, but I do not regard these

• 
• 

as particularly bad photographs, for instance. Rama 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The current picture doesn't really match the caption. That is clearly NOT a photograph of a Leclerc in Paris.

~50 tanks turned into tractors/ARVs?

Just a question for those in the know, but I was told that 50 or so of the first tanks that were built for the french army have had their turrets removed and been re-made into artillery tractors or ARVs (meaning only ~350 remain as MBTs). Does anyone know if this is true? Daft, 14:06, 4 March 2008

allright, so apparently it is true, the modified tanks are called MARS (Moyen Adapté de Remorquage Spécifique); They're modified series 1 tanks http://i23.servimg.com/u/f23/11/34/13/70/211.jpg they shouldn't be confused with the DCL (Dépanneur Char Leclerc), the purpose built ARV. there are in fact 355 Leclerc MBTs in use, of which 82 are series 1 tanks, and apparently they may be sold off. http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2008/04/vente-de-lecler.html

One to watch... Daft, 17:17, 29 April 2008

Unit cost error

During 90's USD and FF ratio was 1:7. Then it should translate around 4 million euroes rather than 15 million euros. I guess someone messed up the currency ratio. I am fixing the cost into closer round number. Orgio89 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Leclerc-0090.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Leclerc-0090.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)