The French made it a beret.
>>64469434It performed pretty well in Yemen. I wish French armor was more appreciated.
It comes with free bread.
>>64469434
A curious development.
>>64469458>It performed pretty well in Yemenqrd?
>>64469501Killed a lot of Yemenis with no total losses, though they did have mission losses. The ammo being isolated did a lot to help. France24 and a few other channels had some good videos about it up on YT for a while, but the UAE gov takes down a lot of combat footage through copyright infringement claims. It's fucking annoying. Also the UAE variants have German V12 engines, not the the French V8. Basically it seems like the UAE forces actually use the mobility to their advantage and do constant shoot and scoot with BMP3 mounted infantry running a lot of rapid dismounting and remounting for support. So basically the opposite of how the Saudis and most other Arab armies use their tanks as mobile bunkers.
>>64469599
>>64469635>Arabs use French tank succesfully>Posting about this means you're Jewish>Here is some AI slopI hate poltards.
Tell me about the Leclerc. Does it have an ammo carousel in the turret or something? Something else the French identified as a problem after watching a thousand Russian tanks getting smoked by tiny mortar drops and FPV drones from above?t. WW2-only tank knower
>>64469725Leclercs have the ammo stored in a bustle with blowout panels like the Abrams, but they also have an autoloader. The turret only has two men in it and they sit largely below the turret ring. Originally there was also ammo stored besides the driver but that was deleted in the 2000s.
>>64469599>The ammo being isolated did a lot to help?
>>64469434oui oui
>>64469764Why doesn't the Abrams have an autoloader like this? Does it have any significant disadvantages?t. retard>>64470164VGH...
>>64470181the abrams is a 70's era design and theres a lot of copium about not having an auto loader
>>64469764So now it only has 22 rounds in the tank and not 40?
>>6447054428 rounds but the new versions will have a roof mounted 30mm autocannon for dealing with lighter targets.
>>644701814th crewman is useful.>why?For repairs, pulling security while more people sleep, spare body if someone gets pulled out for whatever reason.Ironically enough, the 1 crew member you could afford to lose is the Gunner.And next-ironically, the Gunner can also fill in for the TC to some extent.Integrating an autoloader would be a pain in the ass now, and our Armored force generally gets put far, far back on the backburner, after aircraft and missiles.>>64470184>copiumFor 120mm I don't think it's copium. Autoloaders sound like a pain in the ass.Once we go to 130mm or 140mm however, then yes it'll be undeniably necessary to have a machine loader.
>>64471161>>64470181>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D71OAAP6jgAmerican military companies developed a drop-in 34 shell bustle autoloader for the M1 decades ago.
>>64469434Bread Basket.
>>64471161Probably just going to go to an unmanned turret with a three man crew for the sake of having enough eyeballs looking for targets.Then you have put the extra men into a support company with a shitload of drones for surveillance and recovery/engineering vehicles
>>64469458spicy door wedge
>>64471161Meggitt developed a drop in easy to install autoloader system for the Abrams. The Peruvians were interested in the Abrams but wanted a 3 man crew so that was the solution. They ended up with the K2 though.
>>64471200Is that the fucking Mythbusters show narrator?
>>64471161>Autoloaders sound like a pain in the ass.Why? I could see it if you have like 6 different ammo options, but when it's all HEMP-T, you won't even have to think about it.
>>64469635>Nick FuentesAh yea, the mexican white nationalist who fucks fembois in the ass. Retard.
>>64469434hon hon hon le cope cagé
>>64470181The big advantage to an autoloader is you can make your tanks smaller and lighter. The Russians take this to the ultimate level with their tanks only being around 50 tons, but the Leclerc is only around 60 compared to the Abrams which is around 70 tons.But the Abrams already exists, so plopping an autoloader into it doesn't make it smaller or lighter. There's no benefit to it. The point about having a bigger crew is also partially true, partially not. Yes, it's good to have extra people to help out with maintenance, scan, do watch duties, etc. but there's no inherent reason they have to be in the tank. The French get around this by putting the extra people in APCs attached integrally to the tank and rotating out crews. But again, if you already have the space for the extra person on your tank, why bother making it more complicated?
>>64471161Why not have an autoloader, and a drone controller? You could easily put a bunch of drones on a tank, that's a quick high impact integration. And the DC could also control other drones when the tank's supply runs out. The situational awareness benefit alone of having a guy inside every tank monitoring a recon drone's feed would be huge.And then you also get all the quality of life benefits of a 4th crewman. Four is also a psychologically good and stable number it seems. 3 doesn't seem to be enough and 5 is a crowd, but 4 seems like a magic amount of guys to ensure harmonious relations.
>>64472518>a drone fag AND retarded. Listen, I do not care what you people do at home but please leave it there. Nobody wants to hear your retarded opinions in public. You could write some sort of diary if you really want to write them down or tell your case worker about them but please don't post here
>>64470722So 6 rounds somewhere in the chassis? Or do you mean that there are more Leclerc-versions with different turrets?
