http://i50.tinypic.com/2a8ephf.jpg


I saw that picture on the CNN article down below.. what the heck is sticking out of the barrel? It sort of looks like the end of a .50 cal, but it wouldn't make any sense. Is it something used for visually inspecting the bore of the cannon?



http://www.cnn.com/...tary/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

You're a liiiitle too young to be learning about that sort of thing...

looks like a training aid to me. maybe a paintball gun for their war games.

what dibs said. it looks like a 30mm barrel. maybe full of paint rounds.

this is the french military though, so it could just be a fluff ass tank with a barrel to make it look mean.

Not a tank. Looks more like something the Syrian rebels made.

that looks like some sort of sight to me, maybe used to to check the trajectory is correct?


i really have no idea, thats just a complete and utter guess.

Its either for bore sighting like iScode said, or for simulation stuff like others have said or if they are stationed in the desert it could be a plug to keep sand out of the barrel.

The devise you are looking at is the artillery/tank version of the MILEs (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System) AKA the "Simulated Area Weapons Effects". It uses a network or lasers and sensors to register hits during war games.

It's more commonly known as an infantry training aid attachment to the M-4, M-16s and other small arms, but there have also been systems designed for tanks, howitzers, mortars, rocket launchers, and most combat air craft.

It's actually pretty advanced at this stage. It can actually tell you where you would have taken the hit, and if it would have been a catastrophic kill, or just light damage/wounding. Originally, it was just a beep/tone that let you know you got hit and you were just considered KIA. I could go on but, well, here's the Wiki if you want more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...d_Laser_Engagement_System

the MILES system is decades old. doubt i would call it advanced

Thanks for the answer and the info :) I done learnded something today!

The tank is a AMX-56 Leclerc, with the 120mm cannon. Definitely not a Syrian hack job/technical. I've seen a few of those come across my desk over the last few months, and while impressive in their ingenuity, they still haven't quite got to the point they're able to field fabricate a tank of this type mainly due to engine problems. This particular unit has several variations and is considered almost up to par with the Abrams system (the only drawback is a slightly higher/taller profile, more similar to the M-60/T-55s). The challenge for the French, is that this system is really untested to date in an active combat environment, although it looks like it might see some action here in the near future.

The MILES system is just like any other computer system. It goes through improvements over time. It's much changed from the system it started as in the 80s where it was direct fire only/line of sight with extremely heavy computer processor that had to be carried by each individual soldier/marine.

Now, it integrates with radar, radio, sensors and networking computers to calculate possible mass casualties from indirect fire, NBC type attacks, and suicide/VBIEDs. It's become a very effective training aid over the years.

I will say that our version of paintball was a little more fun than using the MILES gear.

Not to mention the miles gear sensors are faulty and their arent nearly enough to cover the entire body. If you get hit with one of those paintball rounds you will know it. The paintball isnt fired out of a paintball gun. its fired out of your M4 or M-16, I cant remember how many times those rounds got jammed in the barrel.. then you gotta rod it out. F'n MOUT training

Well, I look at MILES like this:

Highly sensitive electronic system, that's put into an environment where it's going to get wet, dusty, hit, kicked, dropped and smashed, all built by the lowest bidder. How could it possibly ever fail?

Schilling, is this meant to be your area of expertise? Your comment that you've "seen a few of those come across [your] desk over the last few months" made me assume you were a professional in this field, but you seem to be dead-wrong on some easily verifiable details.

For example:

The Leclerc is only about 3 inches taller than the Abrams... not even close to the height of the M-60, which is over 2.5 feet taller. And the T-55 is actually shorter than any of the others.

Now, I'm definitely no expert. Maybe there's something I'm missing... but that seems like a pretty concrete, easily verifiable, and fairly significant piece of information to do with any tanks. The fact that you seem to have gotten it completely ass backwards makes me doubt your credibility as a whole.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

fear the foog, he will fact check your ass

oooohhhh it's french, makes sense

The comment "Seen a few of these come across my desk..." was about the Syrian weapons comparison I noticed above, not the 56.

You may be right on the dimensions as I'm flying by the seat of my pants from memory of my flash cards. However, I remember the 56 being nearly a full foot taller (or more) than the Abrams and sticking out like a sore thumb in comparison closing the distance on your T-60 theory as well (although I acknowledge the T60 is higher and has a totally different shape).

The T55 is a closer comparison than say the T-72 or the T-80 which I know to have significantly lower heights and design features, particularly on the turrets.

I'd be lying to you if I said I actually knew the dimensions of every tank variation. I didn't get anything ass backwards, merely compared what I knew from field experience in target identification. But, I would say you missed a few things. Cheers.

I'm not sure what you're saying I missed Schilling...

You originally stated that the Leclerc was much taller than the Abrams, and suggested that it was similar in height to the T-55 and M60 tanks.

I don't know much about tanks, but somewhere I picked up the idea that the Russians really liked to build low tanks during WWII. Because of this, it surprised me that the T-55 would be an example of a "tall tank", so I went and looked up the specs.

Here's what I found:

T-55: 2.4m
M1A1/2 Abrams: 2.44m
AMX-56 Leclerc: 2.53m
M-60 Patton: 3.63m

As you can see, the T-55 is actually shorter than the Abrams (not taller, as you implied) and the Leclerc is only marginally taller than the Abrams, certainly far closee to the Abrams' height than to the M60 as you asserted.

Your recollections of the Leclerc "56 being nearly a full foot taller (or more) than the Abrams" are incorrect. Therefore, that does not have the effect of "closing the distance on [my] T-60(sic) theory".

It is indeed true that "the T-55 is a closer comparison [to the Leclerc] than say the T-72 or the T-80". However, since you used the T-55 as a reference point for indicating how much taller than the Abrams the Leclerc is, and the T-55 is actually shorter I don't think this redeems your credibility. At best, it shows that there were tanks which would have been even worse choices for comparison than the T-55... so, good job. You didn't choose the worst comparison possible.

As for your claim that you "didn't get anything ass backwards". Kusso. You effectively stated "The Leclerc is way taller than the Abrams, just like the T-55". Since the T-55 is actually shorter than the Abrams, it's hard to argue that's not ass backwards.

Back to what I said at the start of this thread though, what are the few things I missed?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the picture above isn't a Leclerc. I just looked at some pictures, and in every picture I can find, the Leclerc's turret seems to extend further to the right (our left, looking from the front) from the barrel than that does. Take a look:

http://www.army-technology.com/...erc/images/leclerc_11.jpg

I think it looks a lot more like an ERC 90 Sagaie. Here's a picture of that:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/..._Sagaie-1RCA-IMG_5582.jpg

If you compare that to Trife's original image, you can see that the 3 lights on each side at the front match. Also, you can see an opening under the barrel in Trife's image where the driver(?) is sitting in mine and the hatch folded down in front of that opening looks the same. There's other similarities too, like that box on the turret to the left of the barrel.

Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, since Schilling's attempt to bullfluff his way past my refutation did irritate me a little. But I think he botched the identification of the tank as well.

I don't know anything about Schilling or his background. But I can't help but think his knowledge of military equipment is cursory at best, and that he decided to tell us all that the vehicle in the picture was a Leclerc because that's the only French tank he's heard of.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I suspect it might be the erc, or a derivative. if you look at the bottom centre, there's what appears to be a wheel rather than a track. the image foog posted of the erc is also wheeled, in addition to the turret similarities.

That's no Leclerc. It's what foog just posted. The oddly shaped glacis plate is a dead giveaway that it's no MBT. And like foog pointed out, the location of the driver hatch matches as do the the two hatch placements on top. The funky rail around the machine gunner's hatch is another dead giveaway. I doubt that is common.

Exactly I thought you were trying to glorify the MILES Gear.. laser quests gear works better than that crap.. my unit in Germany was using the old Miles gear and it was tore up. Would have been nice to get the Newer equipment. But quess you gotta use what you have.

It is either part of the french equivalent of MILES gear or it part of the boresighting device that is used to line everything up after a barrel change. The Vehicle itself looks to be a ERC-90. At first I thought it was an AMX-10RC but the headlights didn't match up at all with that vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC_90_Sagaie

http://upload.wikimedia.org/..._Sagaie-1RCA-IMG_5582.jpg

Possible this is the right ID. The turrets of the TC and TG match up well. I can't really tell if I'm looking at a track or tire. That's what makes the difference here.

I have little time to look on wiki/google.

As I said, I'm running from memory of flash cards. I remember FAR more AVs than just the 56 in terms of the French/Europeans.

By the way, I also know what a vagina feels like.

Once again: Cheers.

The device in the turret is NOT a MILES system. MILES transmitters are in the breach, back inside the turret where they are most stable (and you have a lot shorter power cable). Not in the muzzle where they vibrate/bounce and are therefore not as accurate.

This is a boresight device. Used to align the tank sighting systems with where the barrel is actually pointing.

Tank primary sights do not actually lay on the same line as the barrel. This is not like a rifle where you line up... the sights are higher and to the side. So sights looking straight ahead are not looking exactly where the barrel is, and actually must look down and slightly to the left. This creates parallax, where you must determine where the gun and the sight are looking at the same point.

A crewman inserts the boresight device into the muzzle and looks in the sight on the side. Looking here, the crewman directs the gunner to lay the gun on a certain target at a known distance (usually 1500 meters). When the gun is exactly on that target the gunner can then adjust his sights to the exact same point. Now when the gunner lays his sights on a target the gun is adjusted to point to the same target.

And finally, since you are rightly checking credentials, I spent 28 years in the US Army as an armored cavalryman. I have qualified superior with the M60A3 and M1A1 tanks, as well as the M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (and numerious other small arms systems). No, I have no direct experience with French tanks (other than AFVID where they have a disturbing resemblance to soviet systems...). But I an pretty confident that is a boresight device and absolutely certain it is not a MILES transmitter.

OK, I watched the video now and am certain it is a boresight device.

At first look at the picture I thought the soldier was talking to a reporter or someone. But you can see he is looking into the eyepiece on the side, and you can see the lens in the front. This crewman (with NCO stripes probably the tank commander, and this part is usually the TC job since it is important to be very precise) is talking the gunner onto the boresight target.


And the flag is there so the device will not be accidentally left in the barrel. Hellava thing to explain what happened to the device after you sent it downrange with your first round....

so i was right? yay me!

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!! +100