Bradley vs T-72

[CerberusIV]

It really comes down to whether the opposition can shoot straight. With improvements in fire control and the spread of laser guided missiles in the last two decades the French logic seems rather optimistic.

To be fair there is a lot more cover on the battlefield in northern europe than in the ME but I still doubt the rationale behind the LeClerc. As SpencerH says, the Merkava is the only current MBT heavily influenced by actual combat experience from its inception. You have to go with experience and the protection levels of the Challenger 2 and Abrams have been improved since the early versions fought in GW1.

[TheStinger]

I suppose you could sum up the argument with a tiger v sherman comparison

[CerberusIV]

I found some material about the LeClerc on Google. This was the most informative.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/

Funny how it doesn't say anything about the armour

[Ned]

MTG: I believe the Captain described the battle in terms of formation as well.

IIRC, the Iraqi's had prepared an ambush on the South side of the road, dug in at 800 and 1800 meters. Only the turrets of the enemy tanks were exposed.

The Americans were in echellon. I do not recall his statement about the location of the Bradleys.

What I understand is that we returned fire and destroyed many if not most of the Iraqi targets and then pulled back, out of range. The Capt. then called in air support and artillery.

I doubt if the Capt. sent his Bradleys to the Iraqi rear. I think they wanted to engage and get the hell out as fast as possible to allow the airforce to kill the tanks.

I remember him describing the Bradleys as shooting at the exposed turrets. The Bradley round simply killed the tanks troops and did not cause any major fires. The M1 round, in contrast, usually caused major damage, fires, etc.