DarkLabor

Well, I have a spotty collection, so don't expect anything comprehensive.
In that case, I discovered that I did not have the Saumur AMX 30 B hull leaflet (figures)...

Hope this will be helpful :


 

Just look at the next vehicle they quote, you can fairly piece it together.

Well, I never heard of it.
This doesn't mean that it never happenned. It could have happenned in punctual manner to validate or gather additionnal data...
There is A LOT of things that the constructor (or the DGA!) experimented that has not been revealed to the public.
 

While there is no radar on this photography, the MSC used to carry a ballistic radar to collect data.



Never heard or seen anything like this on the prototypes or the first batches...

 

https://imgur.com/a/rvwc31g

Well the history of the AMX 10 program is quite complicated (at least for the AMX 10 RC).
At first (1960) it was planned to have an all tracked family with the ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie Chenillé == Tracked Amphibious Reconnaissance Vehicle) as a recce vehicle with a 90mm gun fitted in an oscillating turret. Studies were pushed towards a 105mm gun system with an ongoing competition between the APX and the EFAB engineers teams for the ammunition. The ERAC was dropped when the specifications were more demanding and other weapon systems were considered. The ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie == Amphibious Fighting Vehicle) did not last long (mid 60s) but was considered with a wide range of weapon systems ranging from conventional 105mm gun to conventional anti-tank missile with the tube launched ACRA missile system inbetween.
In the end, the development of the AMX 10 P seems to be uneventful compared to the AMX 10 RC which ended up being based on the AMX 10 P in order to reduce possession cost and ease of maintenance.

https://imgur.com/a/rvwc31g

Well the history of the AMX 10 program is quite complicated (at least for the AMX 10 RC).
At first (1960) it was planned to have an all tracked family with the ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie Chenillé == Tracked Amphibious Reconnaissance Vehicle) as a recce vehicle with a 90mm gun fitted in an oscillating turret. Studies were pushed towards a 105mm gun system with an ongoing competition between the APX and the EFAB engineers teams for the ammunition. The ERAC was dropped when the specifications were more demanding and other weapon systems were considered. The ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie == Amphibious Fighting Vehicle) did not last long (mid 60s) but was considered with a wide range of weapon systems ranging from conventional 105mm gun to conventional anti-tank missile with the tube launched ACRA missile system inbetween.
In the end, the development of the AMX 10 P seems to be uneventful compared to the AMX 10 RC which ended up being based on the AMX 10 P in order to reduce possession cost and ease of maintenance.

https://imgur.com/a/rvwc31g

Well the history of the AMX 10 program is quite complicated (at least for the AMX 10 RC).
At first (1960) it was planned to have an all tracked family with the ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie Chenillé == Tracked Amphibious Reconnaissance Vehicle) as a recce vehicle with a 90mm gun fitted in an oscillating turret. Studies were pushed towards a 105mm gun system with an ongoing competition between the APX and the EFAB engineers teams for the ammunition. The ERAC was dropped when the specifications were more demanding and other weapon systems were considered. The ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie == Amphibious Fighting Vehicle) did not last long (mid 60s) but was considered with a wide range of weapon systems ranging from conventional 105mm gun to conventional anti-tank missile with the tube launched ACRA missile system inbetween.
In the end, the development of the AMX 10 P seems to be uneventful compared to the AMX 10 RC which ended up being based on the AMX 10 P in order to reduce possession cost and ease of maintenance.

Thank you. 
I didn’t know about the ERAC. 

https://imgur.com/a/rvwc31g

Well the history of the AMX 10 program is quite complicated (at least for the AMX 10 RC).
At first (1960) it was planned to have an all tracked family with the ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie Chenillé == Tracked Amphibious Reconnaissance Vehicle) as a recce vehicle with a 90mm gun fitted in an oscillating turret. Studies were pushed towards a 105mm gun system with an ongoing competition between the APX and the EFAB engineers teams for the ammunition. The ERAC was dropped when the specifications were more demanding and other weapon systems were considered. The ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie == Amphibious Fighting Vehicle) did not last long (mid 60s) but was considered with a wide range of weapon systems ranging from conventional 105mm gun to conventional anti-tank missile with the tube launched ACRA missile system inbetween.
In the end, the development of the AMX 10 P seems to be uneventful compared to the AMX 10 RC which ended up being based on the AMX 10 P in order to reduce possession cost and ease of maintenance.

At the start of the production of the UAE tanks, the armor packages volumes were similar to the french série 1 :


But at the end, they all ended up with the same armor packages volumes as our série 2 tanks :


Even old ones were retrofitted (as you can see with the apparent gap between the storage boxes) :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLeT2-6VAAAgSPh.jpg:large

More simply : every battle day life. 
You can work efficiently during a short period of time with a tinny crew, but you work better over long period with a 4 men crew.
 
In France, we are lucky because of our specific troop organization. But, it’s simply crazy to think it’s possible to work with a 2 men crew tank, whatever the technology considered. I can’t imagine a 8 or 6 men troop (cost effective BTW).
If doctrine makers are only considering borders patrol duty, it’s ok. But, this is not the real life. 

Marc was busy at EuroSatory. 😩

So what are the proofs?
Some CAD made by the swedes disclosed without any sort of nuclear response between french army or Nexter and the FMW or the guy that disclosed those slides?
That's a joke at best...
 
Dunno where he got the AMX 30 thingy. But clearly an engineer of Giat Industries disclosed the fact that the design bureau didn't sent the quotes in time to the Greek authorities. As a consequence the protection offered by the Leclerc was considered/judged lower compared to the other western MBTs due to their lower volumes.
We may like our tank, but we keep in mind its achilles heel. We do not claim that its protection is the absolute best in the world. But we are sure it offers an adequate protection (reinforced by what has been learnt in Yemen).
 
You test the armor packages when you've selected a short list of contenders.
What the swedes asked were quotes and some armor cavities to test the protection with their indigenous solutions... (what you have in the photo).
No ballistic tests have been conducted on an actual tank in France for sure. The only two were one for the french army to validate their choices and one for Giat Industries to validate their softwares in the case of repeated impacts on armor packages and structures.
Another one underwent tests in UAE to validate the choices of the UAE land forces.
No trace of a potential swedish delegation to assess the armor packages with rigorous tests on ballistic modules...
That's about it.
 
So you just need some random CAD drawings to say "hey that's the original armor package!".
How did they assessed the armor package in the US?
How did they made their CAD to take into account the protection offered depending on the angle of the modules?
How do they know how the packages are oriented within the turret modules?

You are the kind of guy to swallow hook, line and sinker...

Here the full armor layout of the Le Klurk for you :

 
The swedes asked to be able to put their own armor on the vehicle. Hence the design bureau at Satory proposed a new layout for them to have more room for their solution.
It is anything but an add-on armor  on top of the legacy package modules...
The above drawing is the CAD proposed by Giat Industries to the swedish authorities (all modules are extended not the legacy ones with add-on on top...).
 
The engineers were not taking into account the other western MBTs when designing the Leclerc. They comply with the established specifications that took into account the latest warnings in the WarPact threats.
Weight is not evidence of efficiency.
The bigger the crew compartment, the bigger the structure (the weight of...), the bigger the modules to line the structure with...
The french approach was to design the smallest crew compartment possible while shaping the modules in such a way that you didn't have to stack armor up to the level that the roof had to be not to collide with the breech at lowest elevation while firing. All those surfaces and volumes savings made some weight reductions; all of wich were reinjected into the density of the armor. Hence the two-man-turret concept illustrated by the Leclerc.


Now think what you want.
Call me a liar if it pleases you.
But your logic is broken.

Swedish first and foremost.

You just don't give CAD and armor composition to potential customers... Otherwise, you would lose the intel warfare and give away your Achilles heel.
At best you give them quotes with protection levels but thats about it (rough estimates or minimal protection offered under certain angles).

So these drawings are what the swedish army thought the armor protection was with their best indigenous layouts.
This hasn't been made by Giat Industries for sure, the silhouette of the crew compartment should be a smaller with such angle. There is a dead space that hasn't been taken into account by the swedes.

The design of the Leclerc allows a more convenient gun balance (on or very close to the trunnions axis).
This allows the minimize momentums.
The turret is balanced as well to control any momentum to achieve the same controls over momentums.
Turret traverse and gun elevation have high acceleration rate (~45°/s²) dispite the 30°/s max speed.
The autoloader allows a constant rate of fire whatever the tank is doing.
I'll stop here, I'll skip FCS and suspension because, they have proven their values.

The thing is none of the persons here can judge the value of any tanks because the hardware hasn't been shown into their worst conditions. Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Léopard 2 and others have just fired at worst on bumpy dirt roads with the crews doing all the SOP requirements to ensure a steady speed and minimise the vibrations.
No matter what the competitions or tests have shown, people always forget that there is a huge piece of meatware that seats between the seat and the handelbar that can f**k things up...
 
I won't hide that I consider the human loader as a risk at high speed high bumpiness. But in real combat, the pace of engagement is much slower than we think.

Some Leclerc crews having fun in Lithuania and setting positions in the woods :

E-MBT is just two parts of two MBTs duck taped together to please investors.
The REAL work is within the tank to make it work as one.
Armor is out of the windows as long as there is no confirmed customer.
If there are no customers, this vehicle may become a test bed for futur development for MGCS.

Not stacked with technical documentations on the AMX 10 RC but maybe that one will help you :

E-MBT is just two parts of two MBTs duck taped together to please investors.
The REAL work is within the tank to make it work as one.
Armor is out of the windows as long as there is no confirmed customer.
If there are no customers, this vehicle may become a test bed for futur development for MGCS.

Not stacked with technical documentations on the AMX 10 RC but maybe that one will help you :

It was a joke. 

E-MBT is just two parts of two MBTs duck taped together to please investors.
The REAL work is within the tank to make it work as one.
Armor is out of the windows as long as there is no confirmed customer.
If there are no customers, this vehicle may become a test bed for futur development for MGCS.

Not stacked with technical documentations on the AMX 10 RC but maybe that one will help you :

Thanks a lot! 
It appears to be a triple-differential steering system.