Oooops, one more sentence there. I'm under non-disclosure on certain topics, so I don't post the knowledge I have that is not publicly available.

please note that the leclerc was actually a design that predated the challenger, it was only the problems the design had that delayed its adoption. so that kinda blows a big hole in your arguement. if the design is older it must be inferior using your logic. I argee with Mike on the armour issue however all we can do is make guesses based on what info is availible I just find it hard to beleave that a company with no history in ceramic armour can on its first attempt produce a lighter stronger armour that a compnay that has lead the field for 30 years

>>My assumption, which I think is a better one, is that French, German, British and American armor all performs at the same level and that the only real difference is the sloping and how thick it is. I think, given that none of us know anything more than what is publicly available on the internet, that we can't use any other basis for this discussion.>> That's a fairly good statement. There's apparently more of less differences between the density etc. of different stuctures, but as these are largely based on non-official, or non-trialled information, and as the overall difference wouldn't be significantly high anyway, it's not a major issue which country produces the best composites at the moment. The real point is, that the overall protection is of course very much, almost purely, dependant on the thickness of the armour plate, of a given type. Different armour types require different thicknesses to achieve same results of RHE, and may not perform significantly better in certain (thin) thicknesses than laminate/steel for example, yet providing many times better protection with some other thickness range. There's no "generic values" here. While speaking of overall armour protection, people seem to mix together the capabilities of the armour and the amount actually used in certain vehicles, and certain areas. A better protected tank can still be achieved by laminate/steel surface for example, if you just have enough of it (however, it's weight will be eventually become a problem). While first introduced, M1 was a well protected tank with it's composite armour, but upgraded nearly WWII vintage T10's, or british Chieftains could still reach nearly equal levels of protection with purely steel armour levels of traditional heavy tank. With no one questioning which one was greatly superior if two similiar sized plates were studied, composite plate or steel plate. The appereance of composites was quite a chance, but didn't chance the fact that designers still do the very same kind of optimizing and compromizing than 50 years ago, just with more and better options.

oldbutnotwise with my logic, like you aid, you forgot to mention that we took many years to perform the Leclerc because we took in account all the progress. And my point is, i dont see why the Leclerc armor would be weaker than the chobbam that is 30 years old.

The new engine is a retrofit on the existing M1 fleet. I have not heard any official discussion of funding for (or set specifications) for an M1A3. History Channel may have been showing the Armor Center and Schools wish list (or General Dynamics wishlist) for an upgraded tank.

Where did you get that info? Chabham may have been around for that long but dorchester chobham has not.

DId i said dorchester ?? NO!! i said Chobbam as the chobbam 1.

Well the Challenger uses Chobham 2 dorchestor armour if I'm not mistaken. If you were talking about the M1 then I'm not sure what that uses.

The M1 started as chobham. The main changes in the three main variants of the M1A1 was the armor. There was another change in armor on the M1A2. The US and UK both started at the original chobham. They share proving ground and laboratory data with each other. They both are continuously developing their armor. I would assume that the M1A2 and C2 are both at dorchester or equivalent in terms of armor capability.

Couac, I have no doubt that GIAT was able to develop armor on par with, or somewhat better than, the original chobham used by the UK and the US. So what? Do you think that their armor programs have stood still since then? Most of us, when we say chobham (I usually say composite to be more accurate) really mean current generation composite armor as used on the M1A2 and C2, not the original chobham armor. So, if the LeClerc is somewhat better than the original chobham armor I say big deal. So was the M1IP's armor and you don't see me shouting about it having the world's best armor, do you?