via National Interest.
The comparative effectiveness of modern tank armor is difficult to calculate, but the Leclerc and the M-1 appear to have similar frontal armor, though some critics argue the Leclerc’s frontal plate has more weak points around its sensors. In place of the M-1’s Chobham composite armor, the Leclerc boasts an unusual mix of composite, traditional and reactive armor that is slightly more effective against kinetic penetrators fired by other tanks.Read this thing. The implication is that the Leclerc is superior to the Abrams as proven by its performance in Yemen. The author clears that up a bit after making the claim but it still hangs there.
The Leclerc’s side armor, however, is clearly superior to the M-1’s. Newer models also feature titanium armor inserts and explosive-reactive armor bricks on the side — belts of explosives that prematurely detonate incoming missiles and shells.
Finally, a Galix grenade launcher in the turret can discharge a variety of munitions including flashbang grenades, high explosives, multi-spectral screening smoke and infrared decoys that can confuse missiles.
But that isn't really what caught my attention. What does make me wonder is the claim that the Leclerc "clearly" has superior side armor. The other thing is the quality of our export model armored vehicles in comparison to other Western nations. Did the French sell top quality tanks while we sold "de-tuned" models? If so then that explains the low sales figures for our vehicles in comparison to the Leopard and Leclerc. Its kinda hard to sell someone second rate gear when they can get better for the same price.
I think this article is more click bait then reality. Surely the Leclerc isn't superior to the Abrams! Right?