FORMATOSE

AMX-30 M693 20mm autocannon superelevation (-8° to +40°) :
 

Yes.
The Leclerc MBT barrel is very rearward compared the manualy loaded turret. This way, artillery is naturally balanced. 
 
Yes.
Leclerc MBT was the first tank designed to achieve fire on the move at hight speed. Firing off road at 40km/h to a mobile target is basic.
Maybe Type-10 and K2 are better today. Maybe. 
 
Yes. 
Aluminium tracks can’t last as long as classical steel ones. They were found too much expensive to support for peace time. 
 
You have such a mechanical link. I don’t know the exact purpose. 
 
I was AMX-10RC tank commander. I never served with Leclerc MBT. So, I can’t help for very detailed data. 
In France, you have Leclerc, Darklabor, Totochez, Rescator. They are not bullshiting. 

Few more :
 

Few more :
 

Thank you for taking the time to explain this.  Technical discussions across a language barrier are often difficult, because technical terminology rarely translates well!

It sounds like the fire control system on the Leclerc works very similarly to other, modern MBTs.  In English technical jargon it would be described as having a feed-forwards, two-plane, gun-follows-sight stabilization system, but it sounds like the literal translation of the French terminology would give an English speaker a very misleading idea of what's going on.

Well it's just a certain nuance.
Obviously there is a stabilisation system but it is limited to the stabilisation of the line of sight (within the sights).
The turret itself has no stabilisation system.
A stabilisation system uses a set of gyroscopes located at specific points (hull, turret, armament).
The angular informations gathered by the different gyros is computed by the FCS which gives a set of corrections to the elevation and traverse mechanism (the most early stab systems where the armament remains to the same position no mater how the tank behaves). In addition the FCS adds on top of this another set of corrections related to the ideal LOF (later stab systems that introduces the concept of correction of the position of the tank).

On the Leclerc, the sight being how it is, the number of variables is kept as minimum as possible. You only compute the angular variation between the current LOS and the ideal LOF. The set of values is then dispatched to the "guidance system" (asservissements) which monitors the actual movement of the turret (traverse and elevation) and assess the need to power the electric motors or revert them into generators to brake the movement.
In itself the tank knows on its own the position of the differents elements (hull, turret and armament) with the closed loop elevation and traverse. The sight give the angle of the whole.

Hope it is clear. It's not a whole lot but we make this distinction.

The specs required a highly mobile tank capable to destroy any Warsaw pact (PAVA) tanks at long range with a high hit probability on first shot. This led to the crafting of highly precise system.
To be honnest with you there is no stabilisation on the Leclerc. The gun is slave to the ballistic computer which computes the ideal LOF from the stabilised LOS.
When reloading, the gun goes to the reloading elevation. Meanwhile the LOS is still stabilised to the direction of observation (in the limits of the mirrors amplitude). Unless you release the palm switches, the mirrors go to their mechanical neutral positions.

The gunner sight is mechanically mounted to the main armament. When the gun goes up and down; the sight bows up and down.
Since the both move along with the exact same angle, boresighting can be done automatically with a deviation measurement laser (AMX 10 RC being the first french AFV to be equiped with such device).
Crews do some alignments (what we call "harmonisation" where we keep the parallax in check), but that's not the bullshit stated by Sergei Suvorov where crews were forced to boresight everytime they move their tanks...
 
At the time engineers were open minded on what could replace the classical tank. Once they defined that their platform was still an AFV, they assessed every kind of compromise to take what was the most favorable and compatible to their specs guideline.
 
 
Fun fact regarding the tracks. They spent quite some time to switch to steel tracks. They initially used the same arrangement as the aluminum alloy tracks (the shape of the rubber trackpads were supposed to reduce the stomping effect). Surprise, surprise, the vibrations at high speed were strong enough to be a handicap. This explains why we transition from V2 (alloy) to V5 (steel). Apparently V4 was also a disappointment.

Even with V5 or DST 840 the vibration is quite awkward compared to V2.

Generaly speaking, I never answer to such a question because it’s the start of unrealistic discussions of technology fanboys unknowing real. But, I can say :
- never forget AMX-10RC is a very 80’s light tank. So, any improvement must be cheap provide. 
- the world famous Serge AFV belief is : an AFV chassis push, carry and tow. 
- having a good AFV is good, but without its environment, it’s useless. 
 
FCS, sights, weapons were good.
 
So, I would have :
- modified the seats to have something more confortable and armored. Maybe an harness to sleep ;
- introduced a new TC hatch with an umbrella opening (my priority) ;
- rearrange external storage to increase them ;
- suppress river crossing (both useless and dangerous) to have more storage ;
- add spall liner and mine proof plates under pilot seat and turret floor. 
 
Considering chassis, I would have add :
- 2 rear fuel drop barrels like the Leclerc ones. Fuel drums are compulsory ;
- front tools connector to push mine rollers...
 
Considering it’s environment, I would have :
- add a fourth 10RC per troop (In France, reccon tanks troops are 3 tanks troops. Leclerc : 4 MBT troops) ;
- adopted AMX-10RTT as command post and ARVs instead of VAB and ARV based on trucks.

 
With diminution of 10RC number, I would have transformed some of them in general purpose vehicles able to carry dedicated teams for special tasks such as EW....
When dimounting the barrel and ammo racks, you have plenty of room. 
 

About T-80UE-1 and UA
   Basically same upgrade, but if T-80BV is getting new FCS and some other changes it get T-80UE-1 designation, if T-80U - then T-80UA. But T-80UE-1s can have differences between them...
   Some T-80UE-1, according to photos posted on Otvaga, have "Plissa" thermal imager, but part of T-80UE-1s have PL-1 IR lamp.

 
 

 
GurKhan explains:
   So T-80UE-1 Sp1 is variant with PL-1 IR laser projector, Sp2 - with Plissa thermal imager. T-80UA also have similar 2 variants (with PL-1 and second one with Plissa), although no designations that i know.
 
   Also:
 
   And if tank have RCWS - it may be either UD or UE-1, if not - them U or UA. Cyprus got special variant T-80, similar to UA but without Ainet and with older mechanical loader. And one more moment - PL-1 is not a give away of model of T-80, as IR lamps on normal T-80Us could have been swaped for PL-1 during repairs (without any modernisations or changes inside).
 
   One notorious thing in UE-1 - some ammunition is located in the turret. I guess fuck everybody inside was MoD moto.

 
   To summarize:
   T-80UE-1 is T-80BV with T-80UD turret, new FCS and sights, with 1250HP gas turbine installed and Kontakt-5 build in ERA package on both hull and turret. T-80UE-1 Sp1 have PL-1 IR laser projector, while T-80UE-1 Sp2 received Plissa thermal imager. And both Sp1 and Sp2 have ammunition fucking stuffed everywhere in turret.

I was talking about the frontal hull section, which was more or less neglected other than the driver's section.
The Merkava 2 'Tafnookim' was not as extensive as the Mark 2D was. It only had the turret armor of it, as well as the Mark 3's driver section UFP module, which is thinner than the larger armor module eventually fitted on the Mark 2D, and only a portion of the eventual side armor. Also, the turret roof armor on the Tafnookim remained the same as the Mark 2C, while Mark 2D got a new one. Mark 2D was definitely more comprehensive if it was merely an armor upgrade.
 

You can have thickness to have vacuum for air intake to cool the plate avoiding problems with the thermal sight and improving thermal signature. 

AMX 30 (Spynel-C camera):
 
 
AMX 10 RC and VBL (Spynel-X camera):
 
 

It's been in progress for a long time. This will definitely add some depth to it, but I still need info on the Mark 1 and 2 tanks. 
 
 
@Molotav_DIGITANK
Is there anything on the physical thickness of the armor, rather than just protection values?
 
Also, there's a photo of the up-armored Mark 3 there, in a configuration that didnt enter service. Does it say anything special about it? Purpose and such. Thanks.

No. This is the contrary. It’s easier to train because tasks are easier. 
Did you train tank crew ? I did. 
This is why Merkava is a 4 men crew in an outnumbered country ?
It make me laugh to read such a thing when talking about Russian AFV. 
Russian tanks are 3 men crew and... are zippo too. With a big ammo rack in the middle of the crew compartment. 
So, your analyses are funny. When a Txx is hit, it’s « earth, wind and fire ». 
 
BMPT have no big ammos in the crew compartment. It’s far safer than any other Russian AFV today. 
So, survivability of its crew is better, far better. 
 
Decreasing the crew increases tiring. 
Did you fight in urban area ? I was trained to and I trained too. Your logic is an internet one. 
BMPT was designed for this purpose and, considering Russian standards, it works. 
No. 
BMPTs are complementary to tanks. They are no supposed to replace them. 
How Shilkas performed in Grozny ?
Just a question. 
This is is not the question here. 
Because BMPTs with tanks can manœuvre with infantry too. 
 
BMPTs are the only AFV to watch in 5 directions and to fire at 3 of them. 
 

@Mighty_Zuk
 
Well, with all these information, you should write an article on the Mk. 3 armor right now.

105 mm Israeli APFSDS
 
?????     = M111 Hetz-6 = DM23 = Pfeil Pat 78 Lsp = 33 mm Slpprj m/80 = DTW1-105 = FS Mk. 1
CL260   = M413 Hetz-7 = DM33 = PPTFS M/85 = FS Mk. 2
CL3108 = M429 = FS Mk. 2 Improved
??????? = M426 Hetz-10 = DM63 = Slpprj m/90C and Slpprj m/90S = FS Mk. 3 (unconfirmed)

His specific argument is that a tank's actual power to weight ratio is not the gross horsepower of the motor divided by the weight of the tank, but rather the sprocket horsepower divided by the weight of the tank.  Sprocket horsepower is the gross horsepower of the engine minus losses from the cooling system and the transmission.  Since the Merkava mk III is supposed to have a particularly efficient transmission, its actual power to weight ratio isn't as bad as the more simplistic numbers would suggest, and in fact the merk has no worse of a power to weight ratio than tanks that have more powerful engines, but less efficient transmissions.
 
I don't buy it.  Here is the full quote from Technology of Tanks concerning the difference between gross horsepower and horsepower available at the sprocket:

 
 
So the Merkava has a transmission that never dips below 71% (he claims), and it's up against transmissions that are only doing 61% efficiency.  That's a 16% improvement in power actually delivered to the sprocket.  But so what?  A 1500 horsepower engine has 25% more gross horsepower than a 1200 horsepower engine, so a 1500 horsepower engine through a shitty Allison transmission is still going to be putting more ponies into the drive sprocket than a 1200 horsepower engine going through a magical Israeli transmission.  The numbers don't add up.  It's horseshit.

On top of that, in the particular instance of the Abrams vs the Merkava, the Abrams has a higher percentage of gross engine horsepower available as net engine horsepower because turbines are (nearly) self-cooling, and don't loose significant power to radiators or fans.

Here :
 
 

Here :
 
 

Here :
 
 

Here :
 
 

Could it be possible to have a more mature debate, please ?

Could it be possible to have a more mature debate, please ?

Could it be possible to have a more mature debate, please ?

everyone can make a mistake )