Jump to content

Talk:Leclerc tank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Combat experience

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Mass

[edit]

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.

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Leclerc-0090.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
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)[reply]

AMX-56

[edit]

Why is the Leclerc called "AMX-56"? Nobody amongst industrial partners and French military units call it like that. "AMX-50" was its prototype name, but its name on ads from Nexter (ex-GIAT, ex-AMX) and in lists from Armée de Terre is just "Leclerc".

The "56" number must be due to the weight in tons of the second serie, the first serie weighting 54t. No serious-looking website call it AMX-56 http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/ http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_leclerc.html (this one quotes Jane's), only forums, casual blogs, youtube videos and English Wikipedia (on French Wikipedia, the AMX-56 was dismissed after discussions). Aubustou (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The development of the Leclerc started long after the disappearance of Atelier de Construction d'Issy-les-Moulineaux (AMX), the AMX-50 isn't related in any way. Really I don't think the AMX-56 is in any way an official title, nor is "AMX Leclerc" as an article title correct. 114.198.19.39 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Ith[reply]
[edit]

I am requesting a source on the Iraqi armies procurement of the Leclerc MBT, thus far I have not been able to find any sources on the internet.

Google searches omitted: Iraqi Army leclerc, Iraqi Army AMX-56.

Searches did not provide me with any sources which state that the Iraq army intend to purchase this MBT.

Potential discrepancy in the "production series" names

[edit]

The section History mentions 10 production batches distributed in 3 series, the last of which is referred as "third". This could lead some readers (like me) to think that the third series should be the "Series 3", as the previous ones are called "Series 1" & "Series 2". However, in section Variants and upgrades the series listed are "1", "2" & "2.1" (ie, no "3").
Can anyone please clarify this possible discrepancy in the name of the "third series"? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CGI Image of Tank?

[edit]

The main image for this article is obviously of a cgi rendering of the tank, not an actual photo of the tank. Should this be noted in the caption at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D59:E9C0:FD94:FAA:8273:B089 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the picture with the grey-scale background, it is not CGI, merely all but the tank photoshopped to remove the colours and thus make the tank stand out in full detail. BP OMowe (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move (22 December 2018)

[edit]

15:51, 22 December 2018‎ UnitedStatesian (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (16,310 bytes) 0‎ . . (UnitedStatesian moved page Talk:AMX Leclerc to Talk:Char Leclerc: more accurate title) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 January 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Leclerc tank. wbm1058 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Char Leclerc → Leclerc – Char Leclerc is not a correct designation. "Char" is just french for "tank". Correct designation can be found at Nexter Group official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemist (talk • contribs) 12:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). --John Cline (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
oppose : Leclerc is a French general. Char Leclerc is the complete name.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Staggering that the $200 million in commission was not mentioned in the article. Is it mentioned in the GIAT article? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WPs in many other languages disambiguate as AMX-56 Leclerc so I thought that might be better than GIAT. But the end of the first para says "Note that the term AMX-56 was a misconception, it was never made by AMX". This is a bit puzzling because the article doesn't use the term except in that note, and didn't even before the page move from AMX Leclerc on 22 December 2018. The note was added on 23 October 2018. 94.21.253.25 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to ask @121.6.202.213: about it. You could tag that sentence added in October with a {{cn}} -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Le Petit Chat removed the sentence, but I've added a similar one in the same place, this time with a reference. I've tagged the various "AMX" redirects as {{R from incorrect name}}, but since it is called this, we should probably mention it. (same IP editor, new IP) 62.165.227.102 (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notified WP:TANKS 62.165.227.102 (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reliable source?

[edit]

"In last resource, the price tag seemed to be instrumental in the choice of the Leopard." The competition between tanks seems a topic to be careful with. The complete passage about the competetion was copy-pasted from "tanks-encyclopedia.com". The website itself does not give any kind of sources. It is run by "Run Innovation in Bordeaux, France". This seems no reliable source to me. Anyone could have written this on their own. --87.149.197.71 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any official updates on this matter as of 2023?

[edit]

"Of the units in French service, 200 will be upgraded to the Leclerc XLR standard with deliveries expected to begin in 2022." EngineerFox (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leclerc_tank&oldid=1208124100"