Sure a 250kg IED is a huge charge but a Leclerc or a Leopard would have survived that , most probably .

As far as the night vision: I figured they were taken at night, the question I posed was WHEN at night.  Just before morning?  Just after sunset?  Middle of the night?  Have those tanks been moving around a lot or idling a while?  Steel will retain heat for hours, that was my point.  What are the context of the photos?  Saying they were taken at night does not present any new information, or provide any context whatsoever.  

Easy (and cheap) for you to say.  Esp as French and German armor won't ever actually fight.  (Likewise that Swedish tank, who are they kidding?  They'll just sell to both sides, why would they need to fight?  They should make it out of cardboard and save money.)  So we have no combat users of French or German tanks to ask.  Gimme some surplus hulls of yours, I'll blow 'em up real good.

It is inescapable that your beasts have no record.  Maybe they're great.  We'll never know.  Like, sewer rat could taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know, because I'll never eat one.  Besides, from that other thread, the French tanks won't fight, with the best will, bravery, elan in the world, because you seem to be having a maintenance/readiness crisis.  I hope you, FS et Cie. pursue this with the same vigor as you display your patriotism here.

BTW I missed it, what is "NERA?"

Not really much to tell, just happened to share a maintenance facility with a few of them briefly.  A very impressive/intimidating piece of gear, but then all MBT's are up close!!!!  I can relate however that the boys from Lord Strathcomes Horese (I think) were absolutely exstatic to have them.  Even though they also spoke very highly of their Leopard 1's.

Really!!!! I guess I imagined those Canadian Leopard II's I saw ;) 

Yes I did know exactly what you meant, neither the Leopard or Leclerc have been involved in what would be considered a traditional MBT action, ie manoeuver warfare agains another heavy armour equipped foe.  But thats not what you said is it?  The Canadian Leopards are most definiteky in a Combat Environment where the potential exists for IED's and RPG varients to have a go at them.  Im pretty sure there are Leclercs in Lebanon so the potential exists for them to take a hit or two next time that area flairs up again aswell.

Yesterday , I was just browsing through some pictures I have . I did let mysef go and went well beyond the topic . I in fact trapped myself .
Now , I need to try to survive the co**-up , lol !

That is unlikely to happen since yoyhu don't even know what you are talking about.

So , I need to go where I need to to try to build a case (lol) , sorry .

I suggest you try to go out into the REAL WORLD.

The dead Abrams is indeed an IED , and an engine fire completed the kill . Some knew it .

Thank you for stating the obvious. The death was caused by the engine fire. See if you can tell me what the telltale was.

What surprised me is the "naked" feel , how vulnerable the Tank looks . It looks like a WW2 wreck : naked hull with a naked turret , and burned . I did not think about the crew first and just said "Sh*t , that 's bad" .

You didn't see  that the fighting compartment is intact and that the bustle didn''t cook off? Don't notice the important stuff  at all do you?

I did not post the pic to take advantage of a dead Abrams but to show what can happen when a Tank is not protected enough .
Sure a 250kg IED is a huge charge but a Leclerc or a Leopard would have survided that , most probably . Then the engine fire is another thing to think of : is a turbine engine more likely to catch fire ?

I answered that crap assertion two posts ago with FACTS. Frankly each time you post the less and less credible you become.

I mean , look at the Abrams 's skirts :

Meaningless. The critical  component is the BELLY  PLATE.  As stated, you don't pay attention to  the criticals.
h*tp://img356.imageshack.us/img356/5408/nmp1010176ay6.jpg

Image of a Lecluck-the repeat of the one I used to show the armor module scheme? Why?
They only did half of the job . The way they are is telling me that :
1) They most probably went inside the tracks during the explosion (1st and 2nd plates from the front) and helped to wreck the track .
2) The explosion occured at 2 third of the lengh of the Tank : so why the fire engine ?
Shock damage obviously if you bothered to LOOK at the Abram's road wheels and suspension. Haven't you ever been around explosives or know how internal combustion engines work after they been dropped? Turbines or diesels they fracture like eggs and the fuel catches fire Just how FOOLISH are you?
A Tank like this one with the Skirts with NERA and a better protected engine would have fared better (maybe) :
link target="_blank">link can 't see that on the Abrams or Challenger II .

Yeah that big honking fuel drum on the back and THIN belly plate would protect it against an RPG or an IED . Once again, how foolish are you?;
***************
A human eye can scan faster than a camera for moving things . That 's true .
Obvious.
When you 're a TC , you need as much infos as you can get right now . A good camera is on thing but when you can have a quick look around from the top turret , it waaay better . That 's also true .
Obvious.
But when the sh*t hits the fan and the TC (and the Loader) has to go down , a computer remote controled Machine-gun is the thing you need . Those 6 bastards on the nearby rooftop with AK-47 and RPG , they 'll better duck .
You've never actually handled a remote rig in you life for real have you?" You are trying to tell ME how to teleoperate or waldo?
ROTFLMFAOATDB.
The tank also have 2 more heavy weapons like the Gunner' s 12.7mm (!) on top of the main gun and the 2nd 7.62mm , both fitted where the Tank is facing :
h*tp://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4064/leclercimg1744vr8.jpg
Once more you produce the Lecluck? Are you confusing the bore sight optical for a machine gun? Or maybe the ranging machine gun? The Lecluck carries a coax with the main gun, and ONE roof mounted machine gun as its standard.

I can 't see that on Abrams and Challenger II .
That is because they are MORE HEAVILY ARMED and you don't know what you are talking about as usual..

Can the Abrams and Chalenger II dive under 4m of water with a 20 minutes preparation ? (The soviets Tanks can)
h*tp://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/images/Leclerc_13.jpg
Too heavy for fording and if you knew anything at all about armor, you would know this is why snorkeling the tanks is NOT an critical operational  requirement. Rapid pontooning is. Can the Lecluck do either? The answer is NO. It takes time to attach those tailpipes. I wouldn't trust the watertight integrity of that turret ring either.

*************
Regarding the heat signature of the Abrams , the pictures were shot at night . Here is another one who shows the distance (as usual , from the Gunner main sight) :
link target="_blank">link can also see that when using the Zoom-2 on the Abrams , the human beings at 1380m are like 200m away .
Wicked Chinchilla has already handled that nonsense. I just add this. STEEL IS STEEL.
The Leclerc has an even better Zoom and I could see if one of the human being has a moustache ;-)
Prove this statement or retract it. I'm a little tired of the prevarication. Remember you confessed you have never been inside a tank besides the obsolete AMX-30. Your claim is therefore spurious unless you have evidence.

******************
I am well of the track (Russian armor) but I had to make up for it , at least a little bit ...
So , could you please forgive me for being too zealous ?
No. Zealous is no substitute for either the truth or just plain competence.
Since I own you , here are some pictures from the sandbox . I salute the ones who are on the Pics as I know some of them :
Mossul , Cav on the watch :
You own NOTHING, BW. You don't even own  the words you type, as I am demonstrating by EVIDENCE here.

h*tp://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5724/p1010836ya6.jpg

1-1C Alpha (with Gary) , Baghdad :
 h*tp://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9010/img3712qe7.jpg

From the TC sight , somewhere around Baghdad :
h*tp://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9679/nmdcp1962tm3.jpg

This is Jim B. , one of the best TC than I know of :
h*tp://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9033/p1020237cn1.jpg

Him again :
h*tp://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2262/p1020236tz6.jpg

Having Track problems :
h*tp://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9728/nmp1010079xc8.jpg

Changing the turbine engine :
h*tp://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6239/nmp1010082lt1.jpg

F***ing sand :
h*tp://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3095/nmp1010092dc3.jpg

Really hard work :
h*tp://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8783/nmp1010106ag9.jpg

The "mascotte" :
h*tp://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4303/nmp1010609ry8.jpg

FIRE !
h*tp://img367.imageshack.us/img367/4919/nmtankshotrg9.jpg
******************
Let 's go back on  tracks , we were talking about Russian armor , aren 't we ?

Pulling pictures out  and posting them proves nothing.  I pull data all the time, but I explain it with verifiable information so that people can check me . Its called peer review. Its important. It keeps people honest.  

As a Parthian shot I want to illustrate something about the Lecluck.



1. It carries fuel to extend its short-ranged self as add on drop off tanks.
2. Its engine pack is  just as vulnerable to  RPG attack and exploitation as any other  BADLY designed tank.
3. Total  surface area on  the Lecluck

Length	9.87 m (6.88 without gun[1])
Width	3.71 m[1]
Height	2.53 m[1]

Now the area of the Abrams:

Length	Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m) Hull length: 26.02 ft (7.93 m)
Width	12 ft (3.66 m)
Height	8 ft (2.44 m)

 
Compute of you can the armor critical area. and determine the ratio.
Lecluck 64.57 @ 80% =51.66
Abrams 70.8 @ 80%=56.65

ratio area number = 91%
Lecluck      54.5 tonnes
Abrams      61.4 tonnes
ratio mass  numbers 88%

Now when you add up the much heavier diesel than the turbine, the much  heavier autoloader compared to a human loader and realize that the Abrams doesn't carry that mass nor  does it waste the volume to that design purpose..............

The conclusion is obvious; ISN'T IT? Compact is a RELATIVE term, that doesn't stand up to some analysis does it.

I would also like some source citation from the "expert" that shows that the Lecluck uses the reflective armor zones [NERA] that I described several posts ago, as part of its armor package.