A long road

[Gloo]

It seems to me that the Leclerc as a very fair representation in SPMBT: the figure 50/5 or 55/6 (Fire Control/Stabilizer) are not very diff�rent...

That's correct and I agree (even though 50 against 55, that makes a sensible difference but that's not the point)... as long as we're not talking about firing/reloading on the move! I, as a french can do with the way the game fails to reflect this crucial fact; that's not a problem, really. On the other hand, the side effect of using this fact as a motivation to modify and enhance the way the game system deals with moving and firing vehicles, seems to me a really interesting point. It's also a problem when it comes to find a unit to use as a template in order to make modifications in the OoBs. Regarding the "national pride" Palsmakrab was talking about, I find it funny to see some french units really weak and hard to play with (actually it's challenging to play French against any "major" nation -even against REDs too- between 1946 and 2020 :OD). As long as it's historically or technologically accurate, where's the problem? It's just a game! A strong army doesn't necessarily make a great player but a great player can take the best out of a really poor army.

...knowing they are 'in game' after... 2008... so you will NEVER find sources about it because the M1A2 SEP described simply isn't in service

I'm not sure to understand precisely what you wanted to say but if you're talking about what will be the future of MBTs, I agree. I remember while playing SP3 a few years ago (still play it now and many others should do the same... that's very edifying to compare how this game plays compared to WinMBT or WaW) . I used to play with pairs of Leclerc MBTs and Tigre HAP/HAD. I spent some time to create these helos from scratch, using the data I had at hand. It was almost sci-fi at times but, except for the dates, I can see now it was pretty close to reality. No matter what each player decides to play with when it comes to hypothetical conflicts, or toys he uses, since the pleasure to play is present. However, here we're talking about existing materials and about how their specifications could be better reflected by the game system. Moreover I really think the movement points, and how this feature is used by the system, could be refined. After all, WinMBT has a very rich implementation of terrain natures and elevations; compared to that, the rather simple way it is treated in terms of movement points (all/half/nothing) is a bit "outdated". Don't you think?

Concerting the Leclerc in itself you have certainly seen that is size is 4 (...) you will be surprised by the advantage given by the size.

Yes, and so what? Any MBT has a big gun and therefore a HUGE advantage against a VBL. That's another fact of life. Do you suggest I should alter some characteristics of my VBL, in order to compensate this disadvantage, only because "that's unfair" ? Is this what you wanted to say? I don't get the point.

which was the first requisite in leclercs paln and not any aiming system), I' would be interested in an explanation of 'How can a tank 1,5 time larger have worst caracteristics on every point than the leclerc?'

Do you suffer from the "national pride syndrome" previously mentioned in any way? What are those "worst characteristics" you're talking about and who ever said the M1 "have worst characteristics on every point than the leclerc" ? Don't make me say what I've never said, please, or quote it clearly from my previous messages. Anyway, examples where "bigger's not better" can be found in every army of the world (remember Alexander and his elephants against Scipio's footmen... ), in every era of humanity. During the years preceding WW2, the french industry produced some of the best armored vehicles worldwide, in terms of size and armor thickness. In May of 1940, the week german panzers defeated those monsters. US Shermans did the same to Panthers and Pz V; "honeys" did the same with Pz III, and so on. Have you ever seen a B1 Bis tank next to a Pz III/IV and compared their characteristics? Can you provide any info about the superiority of the M1 Abrams over the Leclerc regarding their respective capabilities of firing while moving? Can you provide info on the superiority of its manual loading system over the automatic one used by the Leclerc, specially when moving? Can you show any example of a M1 Abrams able to drive cross-country at 40km/h, fire at a 60km/h moving target, hitting it then reloading and doing the same thing again? If so, I'll be happy to change my point of view. You see, I know Belgium is a very small country. Despite of that, they always produced the best machine guns, the best precision rifles and, additionally, the best chocolate and some of the best comics. I don't feel annoyed about such facts, nor am I annoyed knowing for certain that the Hughes AH-64 is a better attack helo than the Gazelle, or even the Eurocopter Tigre, but what annoys me is when I read that X is better than Y, while I know for certain that this is not true. I won't compare the Leclerc to the M1 regarding armor or munitions because I don't have enough data -and knowledge- about those points. I won't say french tankers are more experienced than US ones because I know that's not true. What I know from what I read at reliable sources is that a M1 loader can't do his job when his vehicle his riding at 36km/h cross country, while the auto-loader of the Leclerc has not the slightest problem in such case. Same thing, at the same speed, when it comes to fire accurately at a 60km/h moving target. Prove me I'm wrong here and I'll be happy to apologize.

Try to understand that the moderator are frequently asked to change anybody's caract�ristics. If you don't have any precise source yourself how can you think they will accept your remarks?

I'm informed about that but hey man, where in hell did you get I wanted anyone of the Camo crew to change anything in the OoBs?! I've never asked for such things! What I asked for (and that's the very first sentence of my very first message (thought you'd read this one, at least... !)) was on how to handle the M1 values as a guideline to make my own modifications. I just find it hard to do that because the M1 values used for movement seemed wrong to me. So I wanted to know if the data I have at hand, saying a M1 can't fire accurately at moving targets and reload while moving at more than 15km/h off road, are wrong or correct. If that's correct, then maybe something should be done to modify the system used to represent movement speed against firing capabilities (if the data are correct, that means almost ALL the MBTs values are completely wrong too!). Additionally I asked for a bit of info about how the numbers were chosen and some references to learn from. How can you change any number if you don't have any idea about how they interact with each others? One can make tests but that's a pure waste of time.

If you manage to fully justify yourself without getting angry...

Getting angry? I've been polite and asked a rather simple question. The answer I got was disappointing and harsh, as Don treated me -at first sight- as if I was just coming here to criticize.

It seems we didn't get the same game, the early M1 you discribe as a 35/4 rating.

M1A2 SEP Abrams (I compared this one with the Leclerc serie 2), Obat 12, unit n� 316 = FC: 55 Stab: 6.
The 35/4 you're talking about are the M1 Abrams values but I never mentioned it should compare to the Leclerc serie 2.