I like it. Separating your fire support and your troop transport into two separate vehicles feels like a super obvious thing in retrospect. The fire support can focus on killing things and leave unloading infantry to the MRAPs, keeps things responsive and fluid. I believe they're even built on the same chassis.

>>62122845
The video wasn't about the Jaguar and Griffon, but regarding them: the Jaguar is cavalry recon and scout and anti-tank and the Griffon is an armored truck (it has a smaller 4x4 varient too)
They also have the VBCI which is an 8x8 IFV (except for their tank the entire French Army is wheeled because of a doctrine focused on quick deployment and speed)

>>62122822
theres a lot in this video that is going to change, the current reform is more like a first draft but it gives an idea of where they are headed i guess.

>>62123591
What do you think of it?

File: French_infantry_regiments(...).jpg (145 KB, 925x614)

145 KB JPG

120mm automatic mortar assigned to motorized battalions is kino

>>62123674
Nuh-uh, infantry regiments get the basic bitch hand-loaded, towed 120 mortars of old, which are now in the artillery regiments along with the Caesar. Griffon MEPAC is for artillerychads only.
>>62122868
Don't forget the Serval, which is the 4x4 lil guy ATV for the marines, paratroopers and mountain troops. I think some specialist vehicles will be based on the Serval rather than the Griffon, too.

>>62123658
Not him but I don't like it.

Serval, Griffon, Jaguar, would be good in Afghanistan in 2005. Except we're 20 years later. They're also not armored enough and will end up tremendously heavy.
We don't have enough drones. There's not even a drone carrier variant for these vehicles yet.
CTA40 is useless in any possible way and needs a complete redesign to make it semi-telescoped.
120mm MEPAC completely useless, and only 54 ordered.
France needs a tracked chassis to build an IFV, a light tank, an AA platform, a breeching engineer's vehicle, and many other vehicles from.
VBCI was already a mistake in itself, France should have stuck with the VEXTRA.
Not enough Leclerc XLR either. Only 160 in 2030.
Things look grim as fuck.
We need more drones, more SF guys, more ATGM with more range, more artillery firing farther, reintroducing long ranged rockets and medium range ballistic missiles, more ammo, more anti missile, anti aircraft and anti-drone capabilities, more capability to dig in and hide from everything, more ablative and replaceable armor on everything moving or immovable, more reliable networks, and most importantly more reliable soldiers and personnels through reserves training and incitement of relevant people that won't play turncoats the moment war begins, which is what we have now.

Basically we need to overhaul the whole country.
And that's just for the army I haven't touched Air Force and Navy yet.

The future MGCS tank will probably fail too. Ascalon 140mm is good, but Germans will never buy it, and seeing how tank fights happen in Ukraine right now, with only a few percents of tanks being destroyed by other tanks, but most with artillery and FPVs, such a program looks completely ludicrous.

>>62124455
>120mm MEPAC completely useless, and only 54 ordered.
its a 120mm mortar on wheels sharing most of the chassis with vehicles already in inventory, why would it be useless?

>>62122845
>Separating your fire support and your troop transport into two separate vehicles feels like a super obvious thing in retrospect.
you mean like APCs and tanks?

>>62122822
Why are the french always so quirky

>>62122845
Separating them is retarded because now you need two vehicles to achieve the same thing.
If they were the same vehicle for the same logistical footprint you could have almost TWICE the troops and almost TWICE the firepower.

>>62124526
Not enough range, only 8 to 12km. Can't do direct fire either. Top completely open to anything that could fall in, so a drone operator's wet dream.

The French copy no one, and no one copies the French.

>>62124974
>The French copy no one, and no one copies the French.
Lmao this. I had a Renault at one point. Working on that car almost resulted in me being institutionalized.

>>62124974
Except the French are currently copying South African ww2 tactics in North Africa by using recce Vic’s as infantry support while they were transported in other vehicles.

>>62122822
>WE NEED MORE FUCKING MISSILES RIGHT FUCKING NOW
glaringly obvious

>>62124455
>They're also not armored enough
wikipedia says STANAG level 4, and provision for add-on armour
what's so wrong about that?
>We don't have enough drones
eh nobody does
>CTA40 is useless
what, really? why?
>France needs a tracked chassis
you can't afford it
>Not enough Leclerc XLR either. Only 160 in 2030
no! what happened there?
>We need more
well you can't, so you have to pick and choose
>seeing how tank fights happen in Ukraine right now
Ukraine is not representative of a NATO peer war

>>62124455
Your so bitchy, jfc.
France won't fight a heavy war like USA or Russia.

>>62125728
>heres how sitting on the sidelines helps French geopolitical standings
France's participation in the current war is an unmitigated disaster. Overcoming their unwillingness to help only to get halted by inability, is why U.S. and U.K. will be deeply involved in the continents politics for generations

>>62122822
French sister modernisation projects are très impressionnant.
Probably the most comprehensive overhaul of armed forces currently happening in NATO.

>>62125879
Cool story, Nigel.

File: Screenshot_20240722_12555(...).jpg (579 KB, 1080x1513)

579 KB JPG

>>62125957
>actually, we didn't want a European army anyways

>>62126078
Doesn't France commit enough as is?
And they get fucked by Germoids who want to buy US/Israeli at every opportunity destabilising French industry in the process.

File: Screenshot_20240722_13080(...).jpg (335 KB, 1080x1742)

335 KB JPG

>>62126101
I'd say Germany is even worse off but that doesn't help France at all
>The 2 biggest Economic powers in the EU want to make a European focused defense plan
>reflexively balk when war actually happens
>start sending aid when it's clear the rest of Europe is willing to act without then
Both countries were harping about an independent Euro focused coalition(which I want to see happen), but when given the opportunity of the lifetime to make it a reality, they floundered.

>>62125879
>France's participation in the current war is an unmitigated disaster.
Caesars and SCALPs seem very well received.

>>62126191
Germany was never big on the European military. Italians and Greeks were more interested and would commit more.
As for France in Ukraine, they contributed some well performing equipment such as CAESAR and SCALP-EG, their commitment of their unique satellite fleet is quite possible too.

>>62126255
>Send 50 wheeled howitzers
Doing the minimum is not praiseworthy
>their commitment of their unique satellite fleet is quite possible too
So 2 years behind the US and UK

>>62126415
UK has no equivalent of the French CERES fleet.

>>62126415
>Doing the minimum is not praiseworthy
Ah yes every nation sent artillery and cruise missiles.

Dear heavens, is that a thread praising French military modernisation and equipment?
O-Oh ... my God ... and we even have a seething Nigel for entertainment!
I must say, this is a good thread.

>>62122822
>No tracks
Thats a no from me dawg.

>>62124902
So in other words, good range for a mortar system.

Also
>Can't do direct fire either.
Spotted a closet zigger.

>>62126626
Why do you obsess over the english froganon?

>>62126740
France expects her wars/fights in either developed cunts or the desert.

>>62124864
>If they were the same vehicle for the same logistical footprint you could have almost TWICE the troops and almost TWICE the firepower.
...and also worthless because its so big its no longer air mobile.

>>62126449
>we should be rightful Euro leaders
>at least we sent more than Hungary!
>>62126751
France has a bad case of "magic soil" syndrome, in where they deserve a big boy spot simply by virtue of being France. So when other countries step by them to work with the U.S./U.K. it sends them into a tizzy.

>>62126914
Why did you slip in "U.K." as if we wouldn't notice?

France is the head of the European Union, only other country Europeans go to outside the EU is USA.

>>62126751
>Why do you obsess over the english froganon?
Kek if this post isn't projection I don't know what it is.

File: bronze-medal.jpg (95 KB, 500x567)

95 KB JPG

>>62126951
>3rd largest economy in europe
>3rd largest def budget
>leaders
Lol
Lmao
France is Europes 3rd wheel desperately trying to be noticed.

>>62127000
>>3rd largest economy in europe
Look at the UK's and France's export tree maps and tell me that moving money around at your London stock market is an actual economy comparable to France.
>>3rd largest def budget
Worlds second largest military industrial complex, larger than Germany and UK combined.
>France is Europes 3rd wheel desperately trying to be noticed.
UK never interfered in European business for too long because you would get slapped around for it, like that time your invasion force into mainland France during Napoleonic Wars got sent back into the ruling seas by a garrison.

I'm sick of you fucking Nigels shitting up EVERY fucking thread about France due to your sheer inferiority complex towards them and you get away with it because UK has the SECOND LARGEST user base on this fucking site.
Fuck off already.

>>62127068
Basically you cant refute any point and are now utterly seething lmao.
>UK never interfered in European business
>Did brexit, still 2nd largest
Lmao is France even trying...

Look Germany and UK just dumped 10+bn each into Ukraine without batting an eyelid, France is poor.

>>62127084
>Basically you cant refute any point and are now utterly seething lmao.
Learn to put away your nationalism for a moment. A man who can accept facts that he does not like is an intelligent man.

Read the last paragraph of my last post as a response to the rest of your post.

>>62126914
>step by them to work with the U.S./U.K. it sends them into a tizzy
I assume that this is about the sub deal
let's be perfectly honest here, this is the aussies getting solidly on the US side
The UK's part of this is just being the facilitator between the aussies and the US. Asking a meth head to introduce you to his dealer doesn't make the meth head an equal part of setting you up with what ever the dealer is going to sell you.

>>62126751
You were saying?

>>62127110
Its ok bronze isnt too bad, must hurt french national side to still be under zie Germans AND the English lol

>>62126751
>>62127127
I doubt this guy is British, ive never heard them refer to themselves as English in anything other than football competitions. Probs an Aussie stiring the pot.

File: Tampon_Hand_732x549-thumbnail.jpg (13 KB, 732x549)

13 KB JPG

>>62127068
You dropped this

File: 1720634582282489.jpg (112 KB, 609x1024)

112 KB JPG

>>62127132
I guess you are not an intelligent man.
That is okay, I am sure that telling yourself that everything you are and you do is the best will always lead to total success ...

>>62127171
>Germany is the largest economy in Europe, followed by United Kingdom, France, Italy
Least you beat Italy...kek

>>62127167
>you must accept my lunacy!
You sound like those freaks who call everyone "warriortard" and then get upset when you tell them to shut the fuck up.

>>62127236
>half as much inflation as UK and Germany
>brags about spending more
yeah

>>62127238
>freaks who call everyone "warriortard"
Which ironically also includes warriortard when he's on another false flag spree.

>>62127249
>Germany Inflation Rate is at 2.20%, compared to 2.40%
>The UK inflation rate was two percent in June 2024, unchanged from the previous month
>France Inflation Rate is at 2.60%, compared to 2.40% last month
Lol
Lmao
another self own for France.

>>62126101
>they get fucked by Germoids who want to buy US/Israeli at every opportunity destabilising French industry
if the French weren't being such cunts with their industry, yuros would happily buy yuro
French fuckery is in fact the number two contributor to the non-French European MIC, the number one being US CAATSA

>>62125603
That's not what copying mean

>>62126101
>nooooo u HAVE to buy from the French even though its subpar
You buy the best that is available. Thats why when you look at the French military in depth its lacking massively in key areas.

>>62126441
it's called Five Eyes

the only reason CERES is around is that the French are not in the Five

>>62126751
it goes like this:
>frog makes unduly boastful claims on /k/
>everyone else corrects him
>HURR DURR MUST BE SEETHING ROSBIFS GRRR
over and over and over again

>>62127381
You know, I was gonna write that you stop pretending to be retarded, but I won't now.
>>62127386
Give an example of French fuckery?
Them leaving Eurofighter and developing a superior plane doesn't count.
>>62127404
Such as?

>>62127424
>it's called Five Eyes
yeah, US giving access to its satrapy doesn't impart ownership unto it.

Damn this thread sucks there is nothing but a deranged frog and 1 or 2 consanguineous brits seething into the void

>>62127540
I'm not French, tho I find bongs to be annoying beyond belief and will point out their inferiority and weakness to them at every turn.

I am sad this thread got derailed however.

>>62126914
>>at least we sent more than Hungary!
And more than pretty much everyone else excluding the US and maybe Germany (who sent more stuff but no cruise missiles).

>>62127485
>such as
Total lack or lack of:
Rocket artillery
Engineering recovery vehicles
Bridge laying vehicles
Tracked vehicles
Modern ISR
Modern MPA
Strategic Lift aircraft
Heavy lift helicopters
Large fuel tankers
Modern helicopters

Im not shitposting in bad faith either, when you look into detail at the support vehicles and vehicles France use its clear its more of a military aimed at small scale policing operations.

File: france-accelerates-joint-(...).jpg (88 KB, 1024x684)

88 KB JPG

>>62122822
Maybe they are wrong, not that it is for us to say so, but I quite like the French military going fully in on technology advantage while keeping the equipment simple and light.

>>62127508
>satrapy
this is why people hate French cunts
>doesn't impart ownership
nobody said it does, people are just pointing out that it's a capability the UK doesn't need to have national control over
that's what alliances are for

for example, remember that time when the French borrowed strategic lift jets from everybody? yeah

>>62127540
I'm not Brit, tho I find frogs to be annoying beyond belief and will point out their inferiority and weakness to them at every turn.

I am sad this thread got derailed however.

>>62127579
Catagorically wrong, Frances contributions have been behind almost every European nation.
However the utter embarrassment they made of themselves at the start is unmatched by any nation.

>>62127595
They are a light expeditionary military and everything they have is for this purpose.
Why would they invest into strategic lifters or heavy tankers when everything they have can fit into an A400M or fly on its own fuel?
>modern ISR
lol
>modern helicopters
update your script

>>62127623
>You do thing because you are weak and pathetic
>We do thing because we DIDN'T NEED TO MMKAY
least deluded frog

>>62127639
DeGaulle revoked Algerian mainland status because he didn't want to have millions of shitskins in his country.
I guess I already know your next post but I am sure you will not be capable of restraint, you don't seem like an intelligent person.
>>62127650
>nobody said it does, people are just pointing out that it's a capability the UK doesn't need to have national control over
that's what alliances are for
Yeah.

>>62127615
>have been behind almost every European nation.
What other European nations sent artillery + cruise missiles + long-range air defence + APCs in quantity?

>>62127639
Now that's some toddler tiers shitposting

>>62127694
don't look at me, ask Mr Sour Algerian Grapes over there

>>62127676
>You do thing because you are weak and pathetic
>DeGaulle revoked Algerian mainland status because he WANTED TO MMKAY
damn >>62127650 was spot on

>>62122822
Right looks like it came out of a RTS vidya

>>62127680
Britain in a much larger quantity of everything listed.
Germany, Poland, Czech etc etc in a much larger quantity of everything listed - Cruise missiles

>>62127731
>Britain in a much larger quantity of everything listed.
Didn't send long-range AA. Also didn't send a lot of IFV/APCs but they sent a few tanks, so I wouldn't include that as I guess they kinda of balance out.
>n a much larger quantity of everything listed - Cruise missiles
But cruise missiles are almost more important than everything else on my list other than air defence. I would put the Storm Shadow/SCALPs up there with the HIMARS/ATACMs in overall effectiveness.
Czechia mostly sent old soviet stock, which is fair, it's what they have, but pales in comparison to modern Western stuff.

>>62127623
>Light exp military
So basically what i said, a police force that isnt a serious military?
>Why would they invest into strategic lifters or heavy tankers when everything they have can fit into an A400M or fly on its own fuel?
So you dont have to beg the UK, USA, Germany, Denmark, Canada and everyone else who has C17s to loan them to you.
>Modern ISR
They use E3C Awac, the US used E3G. Chile has a more modern awac than France, let that sink in.
>Helicopters
Cougar, Puma, Gazelle are old due to be replaced. NH90s are trash just like the Tiger.
>script
Heh, its valid criticism deal with it.

>>62127785
>>62127731
Oh and how to forget, they are also sending 50 PGMs per month while no other European nation is sending guided bombs.

>>62127785
>long range aa
UK sent Asraam launchers 25km range
France sent 1 SAMPT 50km range
So France takes that.
>Also didn't send a lot of IFV/APCs
France sent:
38 amx10
260 vab

UK sent:
14 cr2
23 fv107
125 cvrt varients
100 fv432
80 wolfhound
A further 162 AFVs are due to be delivered.

Its not even close.

>Cruise missiles
Not bashing France but look how many SCALP they bought 500 compared to the UKs 1000. The amount given to Ukraine from France will be tiny and only to save face.

>>62127814
>Sending guide bombs to a war where no side has air superiority
What a USELESS donation lmao.

File: 1702840520000518.webm (533 KB, 480x640)

533 KB WEBM

>>62127911
>Its not even close.
It's around 300 for both, it's pretty close.
It's not like France can send tanks anyway, it's more efficient for them to just finance Leopards or whatever through the EU.
>The amount given to Ukraine from France will be tiny and only to save face.
We don't know how many were sent by either. France bought more than 500 btw, around 700 iirc. I don't think we know how many the UK bought.
>>62127918
>What a USELESS donation lmao.
Ok so you're just trolling here. Long-range guided bombs are extremely important especially if you don't have air superiority because you can reduce the risk for your airframes. Even more considering Hammer bombs are rocket-assisted so they can be released at lower altitudes.
By now Ukraine will have received more or less 250 of these bombs, I'm sure they are happy with them.

>>62127957
>around 700 iirc. I don't think we know how many the UK bought.
Not him but at least 1000
Both countries are currently buying more

>>62127794
>They use E3C Awac
In the interest of accuracy, they're buying E2Ds
>Heh, its valid criticism deal with it.
He can't
The one about Algeria really rustled his jimmies though lol

>>62126951
Poland, Cezchia, Finland, and Denmark all markedly cooperate with UK over France.
At least you get Belgium

>>62127957
>300
250 tracked afvs 80 mraps vs 260 4 wheeled mraps tho.
Plus the 160 tracked afvs to come with another 160 wheeled mrap to arrive from the UK solidly puts them way ahead imo.
>700
The figure available online is 500, for the UK it is 1000.

There is also stuff like artillery, rocket artillery, radars, engineering vehicles etc that has been given by the UK and Germany. France has more to give i just dont get why they dont? Its a good opertunity to clear out the cold war closet.

That webm makes me wonder if they are running those jets on red (agricultural) diesel with all that smoke lol.

File: French modernisation.jpg (57 KB, 680x510)

57 KB JPG

>>62122822
I think they've done well to modernize and streamline their vehicles types and numbers.
I can't disagree with any of their choices. I wish we had the Griffin and Jaguar, but I would never buy French (hostage, no support, expensive, low priority)

>>62128054
>The figure available online is 500, for the UK it is 1000.
From Wikipedia I'm reading:
>France
>500 SCALP missiles ordered for the French Air and Space Force in 1998. 50 MdCNs ordered in 2006 and a further 150 ordered in 2009 for the French Navy.
>United Kingdom
>The Independent estimated the order for the Royal Air Force to be between 700 and 1,000.
So you're taking the lowest possible estimate for France and the highest for the UK? Both are still in production anyway, they are probably receiving a mix of new and old stock.

>That webm makes me wonder if they are running those jets on red (agricultural) diesel with all that smoke lol.
I assume they are pushing their existing airframes to their very limit.

>all those deletions
so it was

>>62130309
>you're taking the lowest possible estimate for France and the highest for the UK?
NTA but the figures are quite well established, because news leaks mentioned a minimum of 700 French and 900 UK
anon is also correct in separating MdCN from SCALP-EG because it is slightly different. modified for naval launch, probably with a booster. Ukraine isn't getting any MdCNs

>>62122822
Largest problems I see with their is lack of the drone and guided weapons defenses. They promise "to add APS latter" but we all know how it would go...
Drone and ATGM defenses must have absolute top priority in AFV design today.

>>62126101
>And they get fucked by Germoids who want to buy US/Israeli at every opportunity destabilising French industry in the process.
Such as? Only thing that comes to mind are Spikes but those wer available way before MMP

>>62122822
Will be great for messing around in Africa and doing literally nothing about the security in Europe

File: 1693779187715096.jpg (136 KB, 750x744)

136 KB JPG

the problem with treads about the French is that even when people don't intend to cause them they always end in giant shit shows.
The brits and other anglos believe that the french are pushovers and not worth anything. They are wrong.
The French think they alone hold up the sky.
They are wrong.
put the two together and you get a massive shit show.
the anglos for the love of them can't ever admit that the frogs have some cool stuff and the frogs would rather gobble Bismarcks Prussian meatballs than admit the brits have it one up on them in any regard.

>>62124392
>(it has a smaller 4x4 varient too)
it's right there
and yes they are developing a SHORAD/anti-drone vehicle for the Serval
>>62124455
>Serval, Griffon, Jaguar, would be good in Afghanistan in 2005. Except we're 20 years later.
They're an evolution of the VAB-ERC/AMX combo.
That did very well in Operation Serval in Mali.
You are right about their weight, AMX is 18t vs Jaguar is 25t, that is an unfortunate mission creep that happens to everyone - but isn't that because of more armor?
>France needs a tracked chassis to build an IFV, a light tank, an AA platform, a breeching engineer's vehicle, and many other vehicles from.
The French military clearly feels that being able to rapidly deploy and move quickly on the field is better, and again Operation Serval showed the validity of that doctrine.
>We don't have enough drones. There's not even a drone carrier variant for these vehicles yet.
>more ATGM with more range
This is addressed in the video and they're clearly trying to get more ATGM with all the extras being addedM
>more artillery firing farther
Motorised 120mmM
>and anti-drone capabilities
There is a SHORAD and anti-drone Serval coming out.
>>62124689
They still do combined arms at the company and platoon level, an armor platoon subdivides into an armor section and investigation section which has 3 VBL armored cars
>>62124864
They do different things.
One is a battle taxi, one is cavalry/recon/scout/fire support.
They're built on a common chasis that have a lot of common parts sharing logistics.
They way they might work is a company of Griffons is accompanied by a platoon of Jaguars, or a company of Jaguars with a platoon of Griffons.
>>62124902
What mortar does direct fire?
>>62124974
Their combined arms doctrine is basically a hold over of American WWII armor, the Free France forces modelled their armor on the US and they've stuck with it ever since while the US abandoned it in the 1960s

>>62130502
>What mortar does direct fire?
The Finnish PAtria NEMO/AMOS do.

>>62127794
They have E3-F
What threats do you believe they face that requires a heavier force and larger logistical lift capacity?
Except for America everyone shares logistical transport.
>>62130365
ATGM is addressed in the video, there is a SHORAD/anti-drone Serval coming
>>62130482
>preventing fundamentalists and dictatorships developing in West Africa has zero impact

If you want to see how the French military doctrine works look at Operation Serval:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT5U-JQ8Puw
>hurr durr they had to borrow logistics
What non-US country wouldn't have?

here comes the frog copium again

>>62130517
there where also several people involved posting here
a frog in an armored formation talking about his time in transport by sea, a guy in the FFL and I believe a guy in the arty.

>>62124455
>France needs a tracked chassis
no you don't, you want one because you think wheels are lame despite the being the better option in almost every metric

>>62130514
>E3F
Is an E3C
>>62130517
The UK
>>62130822
Nta but wheels arent lame theyre just not as usefull as tracks in certain environments a mix of both is ideal.

>>62133217
A mix of both could be ideal, but France does not have the economic base or man power to do that.
Look at how well the all-wheel force worked in Operation Serval.
Germany has largely stuck to a largely tracked force so they can fill that function in a European army.

File: Eurosatory-2022-lambition(...).jpg (103 KB, 800x563)

103 KB JPG

Here is the SHORAD Serval
Appears to be duel mistrals and a light mg?
I found a picture earlier of the anti-drone Serval but didn't save it and now cant find it sorry, it had what looked like either an M2 or light autocannon in a RWS and a whole lot of electronics on top of the hull
Is it a mistake to make these seperate vehicles? Cant 1 do both jobs? Will they pair them up?

>>62135080
>France does not have the economic base or man power to do that.
true
>Serval
not a good example of wheeled vehicle doctrine in a near-peer conflict

>>62133217
>E3C
E-3D
>everyone shares logistical transport.
if you make this argument, then don't bitch about others sharing stuff as well.

File: FsjrD0uWAAQYh4e.jpg (241 KB, 2048x1297)

241 KB JPG

>>62135107
here's a mock up of it :\

>>62135112
>not a good example of wheeled vehicle doctrine in a near-peer conflict
Serval is the lighter version of Griffon, it is equipping their mountain and airborne infantry + filling rear echelon roles
>if you make this argument, then don't bitch about others sharing stuff as well.
I haven't :3

>>62135125
Serval as in OPERATION SERVAL

>>62135129
How does its success not demonstrate the success of their wheeled rapid deployment philosophy?

File: 2a474679f8cad81a96048882f(...).jpg (343 KB, 1600x1200)

343 KB JPG

>>62135116
hey I found a real version, seems to be missing all the electronics

>>62135179
because it was a success only against a very weakly-armed insurgent enemy and thus is not proof of success against a near-peer enemy

File: OIP.rtQg6LKHWdH9y0IOhXsDpAAAAA.jpg (44 KB, 474x456)

44 KB JPG

>>62135116
>>62135190
> gets high-centered in grocery store parking lot

>>62135201
>because it was a success only against a very weakly-armed insurgent enemy
and they got in quickly and covered huge amounts of terrain quickly

>>62135216
however, not proof of success against a near-peer enemy

>>62135232
you think ancient T-62s wearing turtle shells and operated by poorly trained conscripts constitutes near-peer?
this shit would HON HON all over them

>>62135866
no, but at the same time the Russians do have a huge army, I think it's almost possible that the French would really run out of ammo before killing them all
>this shit would HON HON all over them
alright fuck you I laughed

>>62135965
>I think it's almost possible that the French would really run out of ammo before killing them all
the FFL do a lot of hand to hand training

>>62135116
imagine having the job of making these models for expos and demonstrations to the top brass

>>62136686
They usually get hobby modeller shop people to do it, at least in my cunt
It doesn't really pay the bills

>>62128456
These numbers are misleading.
France doesn't have 200 Leclercs in service, far from it. 30 working ones at most. The rest is used as donors for spares.

>>62128456
The Jaguar replaces the ERC-90 and AMX-10RC for the armored recon role as well as the anti-tank VAB
The Griffon is replacing the VAB

File: 1713866130806649.png (32 KB, 900x904)

32 KB PNG

>>62133217
>Is an E3C
they've been upgraded to the G standard by Boeing though

>>62128456
I've seen the VBCI and the Griffon up close in my bumfuck nowhere town during an exercise of the Légion, these things are kino.

>>62136896
Nah you can't be telling me France has a little more then 2 companies worth of tanks?

Is it because they are all in favour of their go cart wheeled gun thingies?

>>62136896
>it came to me in a vodka haze

>>62135112
>>62137094
I made this >>62127595 post and appologise I was incorrect about the E3F it is indeed an E3G.

>>62138752
I derped as well, I confused the E-3 with the E-2D, which they also operate

>>62138778
When i was looking into the block 40/45 upgrade i noticed they are considering the SAAB global eye and wondered why not the E7 Wedgetail.

>>62138792
Saab is essentially selling it at near cost just to keep their aerospace industry treading water
I do not blame the French one bit for juggling costs like this, it's a reality of budgeting

File: a137e0_42f82ad531d94d9dab(...).png (1.96 MB, 2507x3382)

1.96 MB PNG

>>62137400
having light armor gives them the option of assessing a deployment and deciding the level of threat it presents
In Afghanistan and Operation Serval in Mali it was a low threat environment so they could deploy AMX-10/ERC-90
In the Balkans and peacekeeping in Lebanon it was deemed high threat and so Leclercs could be deployed
What's more a French armor platoon has an additional 4 light armored cars for scouting
And the combined arms style of French deployments, the SGTIA at the company level, might see an armor company being sent with two armor platoons

File: a137e0_944c1be410864d3ba4(...).png (2.67 MB, 2618x3217)

2.67 MB PNG

>>62140548
They've just always liked combined arms
A 1960s EBR company had an infantry platoon and 3 EBR platoons - which again subdivided into an EBR group and a 'protection group' of jeeps equipped with M2s

File: 1280px-Panhard_EBR_150808_01.jpg (330 KB, 1280x914)

330 KB JPG

>>62140567
soul

>>62140548
>having light armor gives them the option of assessing a deployment and deciding the level of threat
>deemed high threat and so Leclercs could be deployed
the problem is that you cannot keep a motor pool of unused vehicles and only take the right one out when you feel like it

it costs money to have an extra battalion set of vehicles lying around, but this isn't even the real problem
you are limited to 3 armour battalions
if you decide you want a small low-threat capability, then you have to make 1 of them an AMX/ERC battalion
now you only have 2 battalions of Leclercs, when you could have 3
because both the doctrine and the vehicle capability is very different, you cannot train a battalion to operate both and you cannot switch vehicles quickly according to geopolitical developments, it takes a year or two to re-train a battalion
>just have more armour battalions
no you cannot, you don't have the manpower

>>62135965
>no, but at the same time the Russians do have a huge army, I think it's almost possible that the French would really run out of ammo before killing them all
The cope is reaching Zapp Brannigan level's of strategic thinking.

>>62140889
well this is why they're replacing the AMX/ERC with a single vehicle
clearly they do have seperate heavy and light battalions, although yes the actual quantity of their vehicles is questionable
but also their deployment doctrine seems to be on 1-2 platoons in a combined arms company or 1 company in a combined arms battalion

>>62141062
>this is why they're replacing the AMX/ERC with a single vehicle
you misunderstand, the choice was between Leclerc and the light vehicle, whatever it is
i.e. do you field more Leclerc battalions, or more AMX/ERC battalions.
having more Leclerc battalions means you can deal with heavy threats better
having more AMX/ERC battalions means you can deal with light threats better
no, you cannot have both

>>62141247
evidently feel they dont see there being many heavy threats and so they can keep them in reserve for that rare occassion and use the lighter force, that is easier to deploy and faster in the field, for lighter threats

>>62141268
>they can keep them in reserve
it costs good money to do that
something in the region of 20% of the operating cost of using them, supposedly
>for that rare occassion
the occasion will have to be accurately foreseen at least 2 years in advance, which is how long it takes to refurbish a battalion set of tanks and retrain a unit to use them

>>62141362
they dont deploy whole battalions

>>62141381
whatever the unit size, company or brigade, the principle is the same

>>62141460
look at this combined arms armor company taskforce >>62140548 - it has two tank platoons, a mech infantry platoon in VBCIs, a recon/at platoon in VBLs
a battalion sized armor taskforce could consist of 2 or 3 companies like this - that would be 18 to 27 leclercs, or then again might combine all the tanks into a single company, it would also have the new Jaguars which have a 40mm autocannon and atgm

>>62141560
>a battalion sized armor taskforce could consist of 2 or 3 companies like this - that would be 18 to 27 leclercs
okay
let's say I want to deploy seven of these
how now?

>>62141663
7 companies or battalions?

>>62141867
seven of these
>battalion sized armor taskforce
which
>consist of 2 or 3 companies like this - that would be 18 to 27 leclercs

sum up the numbers and tell me how many Leclercs are needed

>>62142075
That is a good question
I dont have an answer unfortunately
The question is why do you believe it is so pressing, what do you know that the French high command doesn't?

File: kurkkumopo.jpg (56 KB, 1024x576)

56 KB JPG

>>62122822
>it was kurkkumopo
Can't unsee

>>62141362
>something in the region of 20% of the operating cost of using them, supposedly
And it's exponentially more expensive to spin up more in a short time frame in a short time(i.e. a major war)

>>62142793
nothing that they haven't already said themselves, which is that regardless of how you distribute the tanks, however many units, and however many tanks per unit; the number of tanks in the overall fleet is what's important
which leads you back to here: >>62140889
>you are limited to (e.g.) 300 vehicles
>if you decide you want a small low-threat capability, then you have to make 100 of them AMXs/ERCs
>now you only have 200 Leclercs, when you could have 300
>because both the doctrine and the vehicle capability is very different, you cannot train troops to operate both and you cannot switch vehicles quickly according to geopolitical developments, it takes a year or two to re-train crews
>inb4 just have more armour battalions
>no you cannot, you don't have the manpower

File: drill.jpg (34 KB, 500x363)

34 KB JPG

>>62145170
>we should deploy Leclercs to Afghanistan and the Sahal

File: file.png (117 KB, 600x600)

117 KB PNG

>>62147063
>keeping light vehicles around to deploy to Afghanistan and the Sahel instead of Leclerc tanks will not affect the deployable army composition at all

File: orangutan face.png (757 KB, 541x750)

757 KB PNG

>>62147413
>have both