Alzoc

I guess they are just buying everywhere for political reasons. I mean just compare the size of their army to the number of IFV they just bought. They have roughly 8500 people in the land army and even if every single one of them was an infantry men it would still make one IFV for 17 soldiers. That's just ridiculous, and I'm only counting the upcoming VBCI, not the older IFV and AFV they already have in service (VAB, AMX 10P, AMX VCI) hopefully they'll at least remove the old ones from service. Same for their air force, I'm not even sure they have enough pilots to crew all their aircrafts. I won't complain since it good source of income for our industry, but it's clear they are not thinking about practicality here. That or the recent blocus scared the shit out of them and they want to stockpile weapons ASAP.

I just meant a tandem of an AC in combination with an ATGM, not a twin AC or something like that. May have phrased that one poorly. In general if you want to use a full pressure gun, you better use a tracked vehicle since it will save weight on the suspension, and the vehicle will also be smaller. But at the same time a tracked vehicle will often exceed 20 metric ton anyway. Tracks are more efficient weight-wise but they automatically put the vehicle above a minimal weight. The M8 is an exception since it was designed to be just light enough to be squeezed inside a C-130, and I guess that some serious compromises were made for that. Light tanks can potentially be airlifted by tactical aircrafts but have, generally, a greater logistical trail than wheeled vehicles (higher fuel consumption and no parts commonality with APC and IFVs deployed alongside them) which is also a problem for an expeditionary force. Also their effective range will be smaller. A Centauro II will barely fit in an A400M and for the US army to airlift such a vehicle would require the use of a C-17 (which is not as flexible as a C-130 in term of possible landing zone). The MGS will fit in a C-130 thanks to it's unmanned turret but it's nowhere near the capability of a Centauro II (and most likely of a B1 Centauro as well, especially in the AT department) but it's quite an old design anyway. If it were to be remade nowadays, I think it would end up heavier and larger. In the end I think that there is two school: -The European one which use heavy (25-30 metric ton) IFV-based vehicles in combination with the A400M (which is a sort of heavy tactical aircraft). The vehicles may use either a gun (which is not the best idea for wheeled vehicles) or an AC+ATGM combo -The US that use lighter and less protected wheeled vehicles (Stryker family) and if a bigger vehicle is needed will just use a C-17 and land it on a better airstrip. In the end it mostly comes down to the US having access to a heavy lift strategical aircraft and having vastly superior logistics than European country, while the European will have access to a better tactical aircraft.

So if I rephrase it: -Better volume efficiency than GLATGM -Not really useful for an MBT if the combined arms doctrine is carried out properly, plus it decrease the amount of general purpose rounds carried -Could be useful for AFV acting as a rapid response force or long range recon That raise the question of what will the future expeditionary vehicle look like. Personally I don't think that MBT caliber guns are the way to go (105 - 120 mm) and think that a tandem of 40-30 mm AC plus ATGM is more flexible. And in the later configuration, ATGM are often strapped externally so you can have a bigger warhead. Granted the volume efficiency problem remain, but it is less prominent since AC round takes less space. Still it could be a useful concept for existing gun fire support vehicles (MGS, Centauro and all the others) Also truck based SPG can be quite easily used for expeditionary purpose and they pack just as much firepower as tracked SPG. The French deployment in Mali (Operation Serval) is a testament to that since we were able to quickly airlift 4 Caesar which then chased the enemy in a battlefield roughly the size of metropolitan France. For more details there is a report from RAND: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR770/RAND_RR770.pdf In my eyes the added bonus having those rounds in MBT is that they are generally closer to the lines which mean a shorter reaction time, if a friendly need support: Direct fire support > Mortar > Artillery > Air support (reaction time wise) So with a multi-purpose warhead those rounds could allow MBT to take the same role than self-propelled mortars with the added bonus of being more resilient to enemy fire (since SPM are often APC based) which would free the later for another front or simply increase the volume of fire. However saturation and area attack cannot be used with those kind of round (since an MBT can only embark a limited number of said rounds), so they are limited to punctual and high value targets.

If you don't mind the music and like aeronavale stuff there is rather nice channel with video made by pilots on the CDG

First 50 MMP missiles along with 20 firing post delivered to the French army http://www.opex360.com/2017/11/30/les-50-premiers-missiles-moyenne-portee-ont-ete-livres/ The MMP is bound to replace the Milan, HOT, Javelin and a part of the ERYX with the planned delivery of 400 firing post and 1750 missiles by 2025. http://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=force-download-attachment&attachment_id=14294

Wanted the opinion of the forum about guided ammunition for MBTs http://preprod.nexter-group.fr/images/stories/filiales/MUN/char/40055_POLYNEGE_VF.pdf In this case it's a French technology demonstrator (early 2000 I don't have an exact date), but IRC the US have a similar round in development (Plus the M982 Excalibur round that is already in service for artillery). The advantage I see: -Perform the same job than a top attack ATGM while being most likely cheaper (The flight control, electronics and warheads are by all mean the same but it doesn't need a booster) -Added versatility for MBT (Just send the data from the BMS to the FCS, load the round and fire) -Slightly faster than an ATGM (600-700 m/s vs 150-300 m/s for an ATGM), so maybe some APS might have a harder time intercepting it (not sure about that though) Cons would be: -The diameter or the warhead is limited by the gun (but the same apply for gun launched ATGM) -Contrary to an ATGM those rounds have to follow a ballistic arc so in some terrain configuration they might not be able to hit the target. Personnaly I think that the added range and versatility for MBTs is worth it (8km ; fire and forget ; NLOS capability could be a big deal if you have no artillery support available), but perhaps others will see it as a gadget.

I would say that it's fairly balanced between the two here. Our current president is openly liberal (both sociologically and economically) and believe in meritocracy, saying that we must aim not for egalitarism but rather making sure to give a way/chance for everybody to get out of their situation on their own. But egalitarism have always been deeply rooted as an idea in France, we still have amongst the last socialist and communist party in Europe (even if they are slowly dying). And the motto of the country being "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" doesn't help with the common misconception that equality = egalitarism. Although I'm not well versed in this matter, IQ have it's own bias too. We still haven't reached a consensus on the definition of "intelligence" So basing a system on IQ could work, but would also discard a number of valuable people at the same time and would be viewed as a totalitarist regime by the population. And totalitarist regimes never last long. Well private schools are authorized in France but since they have a convention with the state to be able to deliver the same degree than public schools, the program is determined by the state so pedagogy wise private schools have next to no liberty. They do have the liberty to choose who they'll hire however (contrary to public school). Most people who put their kids in private education do it to give them a religious education since it's strictly forbidden in public school (and I'm happy it is). The others chose privates schools in order to avoid their local public schools which happen to have a particularly bad reputation (but you can ask for a derogation to go to another public school anyway). Honestly you can do your whole education in the public sector (like I did) without being penalized, private and public schools are just as good. Here the budgets for schools are allocated by the state and managed by local government representatives: -Primary shcools are managed by the city/village -Collèges (part one of secondary education) are managed by "départements" (sub division of regions) -Lycées (part two of secondary education) are managed by regions -University are managed by an elected president working at the university and report to the ministry of research and higher education -Grandes écoles are managed by a president appointed directly by the tutoring minister (Energy, Industry, Economics etc) Their budgets are allocated by the state and decided by a number of parameters amongst them being the number of student, but the catch is since all of them are public organization they are strictly forbidden to make a profit. The allocated budget must be spent within the year, the excess will simply go back to the state's chest. Budgets coming from industrial partnership are different but how this money is used is strictly controlled (you can't use it for anything else than the original purpose).

The fun part is that our system was intended to be a meritocracy by all mean, and still is to some extent. During your primary and secondary education a very important parameter to asses your capacity will be your maths grades since it was believed that it is the subject that is the least affected by your socio-cultural background. The assumption is that, even if you don't have a great general knowledge because your parents didn't took you often to a museum, that they were immigrant and couldn't help with learning French, etc. Anybody who was intelligent enough and hard working could achieve proficiency in maths, thus it is a fair way to asses people capability. Plus they allow to grade objectively and to assess things like reasoning, abstraction capability, conceptualization, etc. It worked rather well when mass education started, when most parents were uneducated or had a low education and couldn't help their kids at home, but the more time passed the more social reproductivity grew. Parents that were good at schools could help their kids to do their homework, since they got a good job, they had enough money to pay for extra lessons for their kids (and maths are particularly sensitive to practising). Same happened with schools where the disparity between them grew bigger over time (more renowned school often mean bigger budget and more graduates in the industry which mean more partnership with said industry). The idea nowadays is to try to correct the bias created by social reproductivity. Limiting the influence of family education level by allocating teacher time to do the homework at school after class and not at home. Allocating more teaching staff to poor area. Allocating scholarship based on financial resources of the parents and ofc the merits of the student. Having a free education was also part of that. All those systems are in place to ensure that a capable and working student can go up in the social ladder even with the odds stacked against him. Where all of this backfire is that with a system seen as meritocratic with mechanism to help with inequalities the society suppose that you will aim as high as possible: an education level as high as possible, the most renowned school possible. And if you didn't go that way for various reason (not interested, not the right kind of mindset for science or maths), in the eyes of the society you are only amounting to as much as your highest/most prestigious degree: "In the end he could only go that far." The core problem is that we value degree as a perfect representation of skills and capability (which they are not, they only certify a minimum of knowledge and skill sets) and that graduating from the most prestigious "Grandes Ecoles" is seen as the pinnacle of climbing in the social ladder. While it is true that they do overlap, there is a confusion with the merits and the "value" of an individual with the value of his degrees. The other problem is that since every parent is certain that their kids are genius, they push them to go as far as they can with their study so that they can obtain a good social standing and what's supposed to be a rewarding life. A lot of people do study (at least in the beginning when they don't have a clear choice of what they want to do) simply to go as far they can in their study, and to do that the easiest way is to have a scientific background (Hence the "classification" being S > ES > L > Pro). Disregarding if the person have the capability to do so or even if it's what they want to do. And the gap being huge between the last year of secondary education and the first year of higher education (both in the level of the class and the way of working/learning), a lot of people that were doing "ok" in secondary get into university automatically (since the university does not have the right to select the candidates) and end up failing badly because the expectation were too high. And they do that because what people tell them is "go through the general path, it won't close any door to you and allow you to chose" instead of "Go through that path if you want to do that kind of job". They go as far as they can get and eventually end up failing at some point and having wasted time. A lot of them fail during their first year in university because it's the hardest step up in our system (a lot less in schools and degree that can select their applicants on their supposed ability to cope with the increased expectations). Finishing your secondary education (getting your bac) used to be the exam allowing you to go in higher education. But now that most people of an age class get it (78% in 2015) it has no value as a selective tool anymore, hence the idea to allow university to select their students as well. But that is seen as a denial of rights by our SJW and is a highly polemical topic. The idea is that if we manage to have selective university, the teachers in the secondary will be able to tell, "you most likely won't be accepted in university, so you better look for a professional formation leading to a job you would like to do" Ofc people would still be free to apply, but the university would also be free to refuse. Hopefully those peoples will be happier learning a job that suit them rather than trying to pursue an unattainable dream and over time the view on professional formation may improve.

Well I pretty much agree with what you said, but so is the society. Without a degree you will have a hard time (or at least a much harder time) finding a job in France. And not only because there is a correlation between being "intelligent" and doing long study, but also because there is a certain mindset (and a bad one) in France which make that skills acquired on the job are worthless without a degree for a job interview. Even at higher education level the degree you get has still a huge impact. Depending on which engineering school you did there will be a huge disparity on wages regardless of the skills. Like I said most people coming from "Grandes Ecoles" know each other, and it makes things smoother in the industry (just call your old prom friend working in another company or in the administration and that will accelerate a deal greatly). The other side of the coin is that it create corporatism, if you're not from the same school or from a school with a lower reputation you will be seen as inferior. It's to the point that PhD holders (8 year of study) were seen as worse than Engineers (5 years of study), BS like "Yeah those guys don't know shit about the real world and all, they can't work in an effective manner". Hopefully this kind of thinking is recessing, but it's still there. It's often said that France in an Engineers Nation, and it is somewhat true. They have one of the highest social standing in the society (much like being a teacher was a most respected position in the past) and are effectively everywhere in key organisations. It allow for big industrial achievement on the scope of the country (like building and putting 58 nuclear reactors in service in the span of 22 years), but also make the population see them as a kind of mafia controlling every important decision regardless of democracy (Don't know if you can find some critics on the "Corps des Mines" or "Les énarques" in english, but it's pretty salty). Regardless of the bias of the society, our industry, much like Norway's is also in dire need of qualified workers but there is not enough of them because the society have a bad view on technical formations.

Not the workers themselves since anybody who has worked as a white collar in the industry (and isn't a total ass) will recon that the skills of qualified workers are an absolute necessity and that it itsn't the kind of skills that can be acquired quickly but require extensive practice. But most parents push their kids to do long study because it make them feel better about their kid future. A degree is, factually, still a huge help to get a job (2016 data): Unemployment rate after 1 to 4 year after the end of the degree or stopping school: No degree (dropping school at 16) : 52 % Baccalauréat (Finishing secondary education but no higher education): 25,5 % Any higher education degree (age 20 and above): 11% Those are overall stats, number will vary depending on the field and and various socio-cultural factors So it's easy to understand why parent want their kids to go on higher education And indeed a lot of people get a degree of higher education (data 2012, people between 25 and 29 yo) Long study : 26% total (Licence/Bachelor 10% ; Master 14% ; PhD 1% number rounded up) Short study (DUT, BTS 2 year study): 15% total (DUT 2% ; Paramedical formation 3% ; BTS 11%) Secondary degree (Bac of any kind) : total 41% No degree: 18% Like I said most people go on higher education, doesn't mean everybody manage to get a degree. Back to the topic, since parent don't want their kids to be unemployed, they push them to study as much as possible, and since taking the professional path doesn't allow you to continue your study for long they tend to push their kids on the section that give you the widest array of opportunity : general scientific section. But some kids don't like science or simply don't have the right mindset for it so they often come to dislike school, lose self confidence and sometimes behave like shit at school. By default they are sent to a random professional formation (since they can't study in the mind of educators) and the professional section get filled with kid with trash behaviour and who think that everybody look down upon them (and they aren't totally wrong about it) and that the society is their enemy. All of that create a feedback loop that degrade the society's image of professional formation more and more. But they are sector where the industry can't find any new qualified workers while the old ones are retiring (The average wages of a welder became huge to attract the few available on the job market, companies are fighting over a good welder). On the other hand we train more psychologist each year than the needs of the country. So some people with a master degree won't get a job in their sector because they are too many graduates, while some specialization in the industry are in dire need of qualified workers. That's why the government want to increase the number of people going through part time training, it give a break from school to those who don't like it, show them the purpose of what they learn and allow them to make some money for starting in life while the industry can have qualified workers that already have some experience.

As for France education is mandatory and free from age 6 to 16 but practically everybody (at least for my generation born in the 90s) start at 3 and goes at least to the Baccalauréat (referred as Bac from now on) which you get at 18: Secondary education is divided in two: "Collège" in green and "Lycée" in red. There is an exam between the two but nowadays it's a joke since most people get enough point simply by attending the class and not being really bad at school (and I mean really extreme case). It has the advantage to give a first experience of what an exam is at the age of 14. When you start the "Lycée" at age 15 you have several choices: -Géneral study (top middle), divided in three sections: Literature (L), Economics ans Sociology (ES) and Science (S) Choosing science you can potentially access any kind of higher education, ES will restrict your choice a bit and L is a trash section unless you really really want to get a PhD in the field: basically zero job opportunity at the end of the line (which most 14 yo kids don't have a clue about). All sections will get the same subject, but the hourly ratio and the level of the lesson will change greatly: Subjects being: English + a secondary language French History-Geography Physics-Chemistry Biology-Geology-Mineralogy Maths Philosophy (1 year only) Economics and Sociology Various electives for your personal interest -Then you have the Technologic Bac (top right). It drop all of the Biology-Geology-Mineralogy as well as economics and sociology, chemistry and philosophy. It is a bac which focus solely on engineering, teaching you stuff that the more general scientist will learn only during higher education. -Finally there is the Professional Bac (top left) which is here to teach you a job. It is in general highly frowned upon and regarded as the trash of the trash by the society which is a bad thing since not everybody is good at studying and some are better off learning a job( and it will be more enjoyable for them too). In the end even getting your Bac won't get you a job which require even the smallest qualifications ever (not even talking about people dropping school at 16), even for the professional Bac. So most people go on with higher education: This chart start right after you get your Bac (18 yo). From then you have to choose between short study or long study. Unless specified all those formations are free since they are managed by the state (you only pay the campus fee which is between 300 and 1000 € a year) Nowadays most of those formations can be done in part-time training, and if not they at least include mandatory internship of various duration. For the short study: -BTS (2 yr) which is what you do after a professional bac and want to work ASAP (Baker, Qualified industrial worker, salesman/woman, etc) -DUT (2 yr) which is what you do when you come from the general bac (either ES or S) and want to work as technician in a lab, an informatician, etc : Basically a salaryman -Licence pro (3yr) can be done after a DUT (sometimes a BTS but most of them will fail) for those who want's to be salaryman+ (small bump in your wages) You can on with long study after a DUT or a licence pro if you want and have the level. For the long study: University, nothing particular Licence then Master degree. A particularity that makes for strong controversy is that in France access to higher education is considered to be a basic right if you managed to get your Bac (no matter which section). Which mean that a literary person can go into a science major and vice-versa, someone coming from a professional formation can go to science major etc, and the university cannot refuse it. Obviously most people doing that fail which lead to a failure rate of 46% for the first year in university, and that's a problem (plus the cost of the formation assumed by the state is just wasted on those person). CPGE which are 2 yr of prep school in order to pass a competitive exam for "Les grand écoles" (Great school literally). The higher your ranking the better your chance to access a renowned school. Some of those school have their own prep shcool and recruit people directly after their bac if they are promising. Now those "Grande écoles" are made up of famous engineering school, business or management school, architecture, high level administration, veterinary, etc. Business and management school are the only one that aren't free (most of the time). They educate up to the level of master and those engineering school are the only one allowed to deliver an engineer degree (if you come from a master in university you only have the same level but a vastly inferior wage in comparison). Basically when coming out of those school you are supposed to be part of the "Elite of the Nation": Most of our politician comes from 2 administration school, and most top manager in the industry comes from a few, top ranking, engineering school (don't even try to get to a high position in the industry coming from a mere management school). Most of those people know each other since they went to the same school and so the population see them as the "Establishment". On one hand the assumption that the education in those school is better is true since they can select their students while the university cannot. On the other hand you can be as smart as those guys and go through university successfully, but still be discriminated because you didn't go through prestigious school. Finally we have the PhD or "Doctorat" which can be done after a master degree or a "Grande école" And then we have all the medical profession (on the right of the chart). You start with one year of general education (in the medical field of course) which end with a competitive exam to choose your specialty (general and specialized medicine, odontology, or pharmacy). Only 10% of the student manage to pass the exam on the first year and about 20 to 40% (depending of where you are taking the exam) will get it on the second try (there is no third try). Those who fail on their second try can always go to a nurse (or other paramedical professions) school After that you get into your selected specialty (assuming that you rank high enough on the exam to get a spot before it's full) and study another 5 year followed by an internship of various length and reach at least the level of a PhD if you want to be called a "Doctor" Unconventional path like mine (see below) are still quite rare. Most people go through university for their whole study or through CPGE then renowned schools. -Scientific bac (the one which keep biology and chemistry on top of physics) (year 0) -DUT in applied physics and measurement process (year 2) -Engineering school in nuclear engineering done in part time training (year 5) -Master degree at the university in materials for nuclear applications (year 6) -PhD on the tribo-corrosion of stainless-steel AISI 316L under irradiation (starting this year and for the next 3 year)

In general I'm under the impression that they are frequent maintenance issue in the German army (be it the Heer or the Luftwaffe) and that each time a defect or maintenance issue is detected they tend to immediately forbid the whole fleet to operate without taking the time to assess if the defect is generic or not, which lead to problematic availability rate (it's a good thing to be prudent, but it pose other problems). They tend to do their maintenance a little too much "by the book" without taking in account capability (a defect may prevent a vehicle to do some task but it not always render it completely unfit for service).

Guess the different anime game (good old randomness)

The ALAT wants to have a word^^

Sadly no, This conflict doesn't have a lot of media coverage, and generally speaking, I think it's even worse in France (our media already have a tendency to report very little on ongoing wars). So almost no public information on that, other than Le Monde saying that "Hey guys, this war is pretty much forgotten here but the casualty count is pretty high, especially for civilian". http://www.lemonde.fr/yemen/

Yep but in this case, the system seem to also be connected, just without the sight (for the least), we can see the cable making the link between the weapon and the soldier gear on the picture loooser posted. As long as you have the computer and the weapon (there are command buttons on the forward grip), you have the base of the system, then the rest is just add on module depending on how much weight you want to carry and the needs for the mission. Not much use having that huge night sight, if you have googles or if it's a day mission.

That's the FAMAS FELIN (Stands for Infantry man with integrated equipement and datalink). A kit for soldier to share intel in real time, some vehicles are equiped with it http://www.armyrecognition.com/france_french_army_military_equipment_uk/felin_sagem_future_soldier_infantry_equipment_soldier_gear_technical_data_sheet_specifications_uk.html The HK416F has started to replace the FAMAS in our army and will also be equipped with the FELIN system. The FAMAS should dissapear from infantry regiment by 2021 and completely phased out by 2028 The FELIN system also equip the 5,56 minimi LMG and the FR F2 7,62 mm DMR

Hello there, Quickly browsed through the 31 pages of this topic and didn't saw much infos regarding the use of the Leclerc by the UAE. So I'll repost a little translation I made for the AW forum a while ago, I don't think I saw it mentioned here: Original thread: https://aw.my.com/en/forum/showthread.php?95058-Leclerc-lesson-learned-from-the-Yemen-conflict Copy pasta from AW: Hello, just happened to find a recent report by the security department of the IFRI (French Insititute for International Relations), which should be a rather reliable source. I tried to translate it as good as possible. The report itself is quite interesting since it is quite objective and not overly eulogic. Here is the original source: http://ultimaratio-blog.org/archives/8148 And here is my translation (I tried to keep the web links in the original text): By the adjudant (OR-8 NATO) Guillaume Paris, Specialist instructor at L’école de cavalerie (Saumur) Ongoing since 2015, the civil war in Yemen haven’t been covered a lot by national (France) media. However the combats have seen a large deployment of armored vehicles. In order to support the local government, a powerful coalition lead by the Saoudian took part in this conflict. Backed up by France, the USA and the UK, the coalition line up occidental vehicle and, most importantly use doctrine issued from the occidental “way” of urban combat. Those doctrines seems to have been poorly applied by the coalition with weapon systems that were not always adapted. The engagement of the coalition in urban area didn’t had the proper preparation for armored raid and, once under fire, the units panicked and retreated in poor order. The battles of Ma’rib or Aden are the perfect examples. The rebels don’t seek to capture the abandoned vehicles. They use them as propaganda tools then destroy them. This in order not to increase their logistic footprint but also to make sure that those vehicles do not return to the coalition. Those loss explain probably the recent contracts for ground armament between the USA and the Saoudian for about 1,15 billion dollars. For the operation « Return hope » of the Arabic coalition in Yemen against the Houthis rebels, the UAE deployed between 70 and 80 Leclerc tanks since spring 2015. This represent the first engagement in combat of the French MBT by a foreign army. This operation deserve to learn lessons from it, be it at the operational and logistical preparation or at the tactical use of those tanks in operation and their resilience to enemy fire. This example shall also remember us not to be blinded by our technological and doctrinal superiority against a determined foe. An adequate operational preparation The operational preparation of deployed unit was well anticipated. The units intended to go to Yemen were able to train regularly on simulator or in live training before being sent to combat. The crew could familiarize themselves with the AZUR kits, even if all tank were not equipped with it. Numerous shooting campaign also allowed them to perfect their skills and master the use of HE shells OE F1, recently obtained. At the tactical level, the units participated to training at the Hamra and Thouban camps to acquire the basics of urban, desert and even mountain combats, this to fit the reality of the Yemenite terrain. Various tactical use The Leclercs units have been employed to fulfill various missions in various context. The tanks have been distributed between two mechanized battalions inside of an armored brigade which included a mechanized battalion of BMP-3 and a battery of artillery equipped with G6. Engaged first together for the battle of Al anab, the two armored battalions were separated for the rest of the operations, one staying in Aden and the other one going forward in the interior of the country. Those units were first employed in urban or peri-urban area, in offensive action as soon as the beginning of the battle of Aden (March-July 2015) then on the seizing of the air base of Al-Anad. Shortly after conquering this base, the first armored battalion found itself in a defensive position and lead counter-attacks in urban and mountain area, most likely in the form of armored raids, to drive away the enemy troops that posed a threat to the base from the nearby height. After that, the Emirati forces used the Leclerc of the second armored battalion in offensive actions in mountain area around Ma’rib or in urban area in Sabr but with mitigated results. The tanks were also used in secondary roles like for example fire support for the infantry or in static position for the protection of command post. The logistical support during the operation The deployment of Leclerc MBT in Yemen beneficed of a remarkable logistic support. The supply chain on spare parts or in equipment have been assured by air or see (the port of Aden served as a resupply port after taking Al anab) then by ground to the troops on the front line. The Emirati logistical units opened ways of repair and resupply all the way down to the lowest echelon, which is obviously capital for the operational availability of the machines and their tactical capacity. For 3 months of combats, a battalion of tank could consume in average 200 shells of 120mm of three different kind. The evacuation of wounded, sometimes numerous like during the combats of Ma’rib, was not neglected and participated at the good shape of the troops. Here too, aerial and ground ways of medical support were created to evacuate the wounded as fast as possible. The Leclerc in combat The Leclerc were exposed to difficult combat conditions and to an accurate enemy fire. The machine suffered from the sand and the rocks of their zone of operation. The dust raised by the machine, but most importantly the sand reduced the performance of the armements. HMG of 12,7mm and 7,62mm suffered frequent missfire due to unexpected jamming. The nature of the terrain also caused a recrudescence of failure of electro-fans supposed to keep the dust away from the engine due to an accumulation of sand and dust around the rear portion of the tank during it’s movements. Finnaly the pads on the tracks suffered a rapid degradation due to the rocky terrain of the Yemen height, forcing some vehicles to roll directly on the track which also lead to a prematury wear and the degradation of some elements of the rolling train like barbotins. The enemy fire was applied on Leclerc pragmatically. Optics of the commander and gunner have been systematically the target of collective weapons or precision rifles. The roof armament has also been targeted in order to make it unusable (Cable of ignition cut or perforation of the weapon itself). Some tanks suffered fire from heavy collective weapons on the rear section in order to destroy the engine but without success. The Leclerc have also been the victims of anti-tank mines and IED which put a hard stress on the rollers of three tanks. All damaged tanks were repaired with success. However one Leclerc had been definitively neutralized by a direct fire of an ATGM. The hollow charge went through the frontal section of the tank on the section of the driver compartment killing him and wounding the commander on the legs. The type of missile isn’t know but looking at the photography and following the video posted by the rebels on combats around Ma’rib we can reasonably think that it wasn’t a Kornet but rather an AT5 or AT5N Konkurs/Konkurs M. The tank could have been repaired because not technical element necessary to the weapon system was damaged. It also remind us that no tank is indestructible. The Saoudians lost at least 9 M1A2 to anti-tank fire Studying the use of an aditionnal protection comparable to the LEDS system or reactive armor like the Russian system Relikt could be used to mitigate the lack of protection on some parts of the tank. Finally the Houthis rebels used an intense electronical warfare against the communication system. Radio of French origin in the tanks were affected by jamming, intrusion or interception. Conclusion The Leclerc had a more than satisfying availability thanks to a good Emirati logistical chain. The vehicles handled the enemy fire well and no loss was definitive. But the only tank hit, frontally, by an anti-tank weapon was perforated and neutralized. Thus the results of the Leclerc in Yemen is paradoxical, they fully satisfied the Emirati army on the operational level but in the same time showed defects in the protection of the crew. Following the combats on this theater of operation will allow us to better know the capacity of the Leclerc when engaged. On all the current zone of conflict, the urban area cannot be avoided. Armored vehicles showed themselves a critical asset in inter arms combat, the only one capable to size the victory in this kind of environment. But those AFV will have to evolve to better face the threats of urban areas. This is what was done with the valorization program of the Leclerc which should remedy to a good part of the identified weakness. Following the Yemen experiences we can gather some direction of amelioration for our tanks: For the structural armor (hull), the use of nano-cristallized material would be a good idea, like it is on the Japanese Type 10. Since this technology is prohibitively expensive, it would better to integrate them in the new armor package on the Leclerc. As for soft kill protection, the Kit Balistique de Contre Mesure was relevant for the Leclerc. It blended both Laser alert warning and wide spectrum jammer. The optical detector (DOP) JD3 present on the Chinese ZTZ 99 is an interesting idea, even more since we know that this is a French technology which was originally used in the sniper alley in Sarajevo. As a reminder, this system detect enemy laser in various directions and send them back a more powerfull pulse “frying” the laser receptor. As for hard kill, the delay accumulated by our army is important. On shelve purchase could be a good idea, like the US army with the Israeli Iron fist. Germany developed the AMAP-ADS (Known as Shark in France) which should enter service in Singapore.