NEW Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 MBT - or should we call it Leopard 3?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- This channel is only possible because of the support from viewers like you.
=== Support the Channel ===
Bank transfer (in Europe): IBAN: DE81740512300060352457; BIC: BYLADEM1FRG
Paypal: bit.ly/3RTvVR4
Crypto: mgeschichte.co...
Affiliate: mgeschichte.co...
Amazon Wishlist: amzn.to/3hbBf5d
=== More Channels of mine ===
Telegram: t.me/+n4kN3cuN...
Website: mgeschichte.com/
Hoplophile: / @hoplophilepanama
Twitch: bit.ly/3UrIx3Q
Instagram: bit.ly/3QX4kxn
=== My PC Setup ===
PC: amzn.to/3z40n3T
Monitors: amzn.to/3EYOnVf and amzn.to/3TqmFF9
Microphone: amzn.to/3VMhmSb
Webcam: amzn.to/3PaxBp7
Stream Deck: amzn.to/3SpgxvI
Mouse: amzn.to/3gwHrUX
Keyboard: amzn.to/3z2Gj25
Headphones: amzn.to/3F49UMq
UPS: amzn.to/3TkCL38
Monitor Stand: amzn.to/3skBm0J
Maps used by the channel: bit.ly/3ChvREv
Stock Footage: Storyblocks, Envato
=== Support the Channel ===
Bank transfer (in Europe): IBAN: DE81740512300060352457; BIC: BYLADEM1FRG
Paypal: bit.ly/3RTvVR4
Crypto: mgeschichte.com/krypto-crypto/
Affiliate: mgeschichte.com/affiliate/
Amazon Wishlist: amzn.to/3hbBf5d
How many of those will they build? zero. hahaha
10 years into the war and NATO still wants Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back -- So Sad -- PATHETIC.
Awsome for all the people say the tank is dead I don't think so.
2:45 Also features two front facing USB ports for all your combat charging needs.
USB 3.0, so you can charge across the battlefield much faster.
And cup holders that keep your coffee warm or your soda cool.
Free Wifi?
Free Gold to World Of Tanks?
@Pooneil1984 that's a feature of the Challenger. Makes a grand cup of tea
@@apistodiscus If I remember correct, Challenger has 2 tea brewers.
I am not claiming all unmanned turrets share this design philosophy, but some unmanned turrets are maintaining high-level armor protection because the smaller volume that must be encased allows the turret to maintain the same level of armor protection as a manned turret, but reduces weight simply by being smaller.
Yeah and it makes sense, cause it still allows the turret to take a hit in the turret and not destroy the tank.
Also if the turret has no armour, you need to have thick roof armour in the hull because if not spall will just hit crew in the fucking head
@@teaser6089 Spalling doesn't magically change its trajectory by 90° and then goes down, from a turret hit. But it does need to be taken into consideration.
It's also a wise idea to keep a decent amount of armor between all the turret internals (electronics etc.) and the ammo in the bustle.
That's a good looking tank if they can pull all that off
Well apart from the more potent cannons most other components should already be in service with other vehicles.
It all looks too firmly attached for that...
@@RichelieuUnlimited It can be equipped with the 120mm L55A1 gun that's already in production.
Also the upgrades are backwards compatible with any existing Leopard 2 tank, so anyone who wants to upgrade their Leo 2A4 fleet can chose this version.
It is just a tech demo, not the new tank being developed by Europe.
Regarding destruction by mines, which is a common way of destroying tanks in Ukraine: Having the crew together in one capsule rather than spread around, and having only 3 crew rather than 4, enables using thicker armour for the same weight because it will enclose a smaller volume. A single capsule for 3 crew requires much less weight of armour than protecting one crew in the hull three in the turrent.
😂 T-14 Armata
Thanks, Torsten.
Looks like a much more thought-out design than the KF-51. No unnecessary bling, bit a clear upgrade into a new generation. I agree that the complete change of the layout and the new capabilities more than constitute a new tank rather than an new variant of Leo 2
I think you are right but a 3 man crew is a mistake in my opinion.
The bling of the KF-51 is to demonstrate its modularity. You don't need to equip each and every tank with all the bling.
@@-straenbegleitgrun-6499 The KF51 is fully digital, it can be operated by a crew of two. It can also be operated remotely, it's a big ground drone.
Very cool looking machine. Hopefully it won't be obsolete by the time it goes into production for the next conflict.
It's only a technology demonstrator, like the AbramsX.
In the end it's the military that decides on what they need, not the defense companies.
I hope it's obsolete at the time of the next conflict - since it doesn't look like tanks are becoming obsolete anytime soon
Probably will be. But less so than the Leopard 2.
As long as the machine does what it is built for and can be upgraded to the requirements it is not automatically obsolete just because it is not the latest in technology in all aspects. If you apply this term so loosely then almost everything is obsolete by the time it hits the market.
It needs 100% a 7.62mm machinegun in a seperate smaller turret or in the autocannon mount. Sometimes you really, really cannot just spam explosive cannon round no matter how fun it is
30 mm comes with programable ammunition, it gets set at the muzzel of the gun, think proximity fuse on steroids, im sure it will handle drones just fine
No. You don't need 30 Mike for an Infantry fire team or the like.
Bit overkill, you'd run out of ammo PDQ
@@jmjones7897In German doctrine, the tanks will always be closely accompanied by PzGren (on Puma).
It's their job to take care of such minor nuissances.
And in the occasional case that there is no Puma around, well, you still have the 30mm gun.
@@jmjones7897 with programmable ammo it's basically a grenade launcher that can take out a small target with a single shot.
I mean, you have a 30mm with 360° coverage and defensive grenade launchers.
If your new, shiny tank killer is coming this close to infantry, you are already having problems.
But sure, slap an MG3 coax or two on the cannon mount for those Russian meat wave assaults that inexplicably cleared the kilometers of your engagement range without notice from your sensors or your drone. Or the rest of your unit that you should have with you.
This is like the easiest add-on possible and the generals will probably like it.
Thanks.
Thanks again for good information
Thanks
Leopard 3 🚫
Leopard 2a8+ ✅
Pretty. Maybe too pretty.
Good commentary. We tried a variety of autoloaders with various sizes of rounds, and the 3-second reload is indeed possible for the smaller rounds, already being done. However, this is not possible if you have different types of rounds, heat, WP, AP, DS, Frag, or similar if they are stacked in different locations. Either in a box or circle. That requires movement of the carrier assembly or the turret, which is usually much slower. If per your comments, all of the ammo is stored in the turret, then for the 120's on up, the ready round capability will be very small, maybe only 25 or so. Now only 14 on some vehicles. If used as a semi-stationary artillery piece, this may not be adequate, but such useage is unlikely. The value of this platform would be for fast attack modes, and then get out. The gun is similar to those used previously on the HiMag vehicles, and is usually a balanced gun. This allows better fire-on-the-move capabilities. However also, the gun may need to be re-positioned for the auto-loader, which would slow down its actual fire-rate, when on the move. We did this on two vehicles, and the problem was ALWAYS the autoloader, which often malfunctioned under actual usage. Russian systems allow a gunner to manually load, of auto fails.
'Per' 🙄
Thx T great work
IMO it‘s a more interesting and forward thinking concept then Rheinmetall‘s KF51, however if drones are supposed to be controlled from the tank, which would be beneficial for situational awareness, an additional fourth crewman dedicated to drone operation would be sensible.
I suspect that drones will become more autonomous and could be treated as another automatic camera feed or fire and forget missile. Keeping the crew number to three will save a lot of weight and also all three could sit next to each other aiding communication.
As the Chiefatin said, a tank should only do tank things. Anything else is just overcomplicating the tank, it's also added weight that could be better used to improve on the tanking.
Drones should be operated by other specialized vehicles, from one terrain feature behind the tanks, or some guy in an IFV that rides along a tank.
@@scratchy996 I saw the video. And I disagree with him on this. Surveillance drones significantly increase the tank’s situational awareness, which is extremely important to the tanks survivability. And having a dedicated operator allows the commander to focus on his primary task, while the operator checks for ambushes etc.
Having an organic drone operator increases the reliability of communication and makes the whole system more robust against EW countermeasures. Plus a fourth pair of hands comes in handy for maintenance tasks.
What about the KF51 do you consider less forward looking?
You do know that the 4 crew spaces in the KF51 are work stations, from which every function of the tank can be controlled, do you?
Meaning, in theory you could just have 2 people sitting in the hull and have the turret being unmanned.
I don't think unmanned turrets are as clearly the way forward as everyone always says. Fact is that most tanks still get destroyed by mines, not by frontal direct fire. Meaning, having all your crew sitting in the hull might actually be more dangerous than having some of them sitting in the turret.
@@TrangleC AT mines typically don’t outright destroy tanks, instead they leave the vehicle immobilized, which makes it easy pickings for artillery. As a result of experiences in Afghanistan Western tanks have received upgrades to increase crew survivability in case of a mine hit. Even the stacked Russian mines seem insufficient to overmatch these upgrades. So people in the hull is not a problem.
Thanks for the update 👍
It looks like the russian t 14 armata. But unlike the t 14, this one can have anti-drone defenses (if they do put them in, although it would mean more expense) and it can also install a 130mm cannon and the t 14, I saw that they want to install the 152mm one so yeah its like the t 14. I LIKE IT.
T 14 Armata, Leopard ARC 3.0 and the Abraham X.
Thanks for the update. MUGA!
Just here pointing out bots so people don't get unnecessarily worked up
This new tank looks really good, and absolutely enough of an iteration to call a leopard 3. I'd like to know what systems are supposed to combat drones. The ADS would have some effect against FPVs, and as mentioned the autocannon would be used for this, though I wonder how effective that will be against small and fast drones. But I'd put money on there being a spot somewhere within the tank dedicated to some sort of electronical warfare unit
My thoughts exactly but as this tank does not work alone and so has to work in concert with say a Puma it should also have a Gepard in this picture too.
@@billhanna2148 Forget about Gepard, Skyranger or other systems will take this role. The Bundeswehr also still has the Wiesel family, with the Ozelot (Wiesel2) for example, and its AFF variant. The Wiesel family is supposed to be retired next year, but for the sake of an example it is worth mentioning. I wondered all the time why Germany did not give them to Ukraine. Perhaps they are not available in sufficient numbers and the Bundeswehr cannot give all their used equipment away just like they did with some of the Leopar2A6.
@@madrooky1398 Agreed and it is a debut of the Main tank at the moment and not its supporting systems.
Weight reduced to a whooping.... 60 tons! LMAO
Liked the subtle arnold hommage there ;)
Thanks Torsten.. I'm no expert but it sounds like great improvements and capabilities, but I suppose it needs to be battle-tested to know for sure. Thank you most informative............😊
Possible this thing has a kind of ammo elevator from a sealed magazine in the hull that aligns with a port on the turret for ammo refills into the ready rack.
That's just the kind of over-engineering I expect from my fellow Teutons. And other by-blow of Charlemagne.
So the absence of a basket does not necessitate the absence of internal reloading. It'll just be hard and likely to break if you don't get it 100% right.
Otherwise I'd like to see what they do with that much internal space in the tank.
nice
Thanks Torsten
Might as well make a STUG variant of this. Saves a lot of production cost and even lower profile while being able to pack the same punch.
Very good!
Looks cool!
If I was forced to chose whether to go into battle in this or a motorbike welded into a birdcage I'd chose this.
But then I'm not Russian.
(3.33) I got one in world of tanks and it's pants. Like the new one tho 😁 looks a beast
it's the armata, but actually working. if it's smaller and cheaper, it could be a decent machine. :-)
As someone who likes tanks. It's a tank or panzer in German what's not to like, it's "very nice" 😁 🫶
😂LOL!
It's Leo2X!
And yes much better than the KF 51 in my opinion. Similar to the M1A3(AbramsX), focuses on weight reduction and (I think we'll see a lot of this) an C/UAV M230LF on the roof which can also engage infantry with new NG's PABMs much more efficiently /effectively than an COAX or .50Cal...
Its absolutely better than the KF51 and a way better option for the Bundeswehr.
It's an evolutionary step towards a fully unmaned autonomous tank.
Nice!
Nice!
The KF51 has the same hull as the Leopard 2A4s, so perhaps it can be used as an upgrade of existing Leopard 2A4s. Also it *might* perhaps be available sooner and cheaper than the Leopard 2A-RC. But the Leopard 2A-RC is the way of the future with so many features it will make 4-crew tanks obsolete. IF the KF51 is purchased, I hope in small numbers and that the majority of Germany's tanks will be 2A-RCs.
The 2A-RC 3.0 upgrade is also compatible with any 2A4 hull. Any country that operated old leopards can chose this upgrade pack.
i would imagine unmanned turret would be better for crew survivability in topdown attacks also if there is no hatches and you can pack a thick armor on top. FPV's, ATGM's, smart ammunition like bonus shell
All tanks and IFVs should have kinetic anti-drone capability. The 30 mm cannon is a good start, but it may also need radar if electro-optical and IR detection and tracking are not sufficient.
We might see some mixed armoured groups with MBT's and AFV's as now, but joined by heavily armoured drone carriers with only small self defense guns. Something similar to navy carrier groups
this feels more like a stopgap until the militaries figure out what kind of sucessor they want for the leopard 2. Or is a complement to already existing MBTs, is not completely better or worse, it just has different uses, like you could pair them with normal MBTs to mainly try to target enemy drones or use it as a infantry support tank that accompanies mechanized infantry that dismount from APCs/IFVs
not having a coax helps decrease internal volume which means less material needed for armor over a bigger turret
the lack of crew inside of turret can be a problem for situational awareness if the cameras are all taken out, but it can drastically improve survivability since according to WW2 statistics, the turret is the most hit spot.
God fights on the side with the best artillery
Napoleon Bonaparte
I never understood this obsession of building the absolute high tech tank. Like this tank and even the T14 for that sake. I mean they look cool and are obvious better! But it seems to me the Ukraine war has shown that it des´nt matter if it´s an abrams or Leopard or a t-72. Everything can and will be killed. And Leopards and Abrams have allready proven that their crew survivability is very good. What should matter more than building a better tank than those two perhaps should be about having a replacement tank that crew can use after the first is disabled. We saw that almost no European country had spare tanks stored they could donate. Perhaps focus should be reducing the production costs of MBT´s so that having a number stored and ready wont be so costly and the fighting capability of an army stays intact longer. If the crew survives but cannot go into another tank , then what use are they really after they loose their tank?
since they wont build any, it doesnt really matter
As you say, the tanks in Ukraine WILL be destroyed. I think what is happening now, is a scramble to analyse what their current threats are and how to negate them. Masses of tanks demands a place to store them and in case of a total war such places will be hard to protect. Then there will be the logistics of transporting said vehicles to where they are needed. Also, a total war involving NATO and near-peers probably wont be a drawn out slog-fest like Ukraine currently is.
What I think the west is going for is active protection against MPATS, jammers and autocannons with programmable airburst munitions against drones and large power-packs to future-proof as out current tanks lacks the electrical output for the systems we want.
I'd argue that actually the war in Ukraine has shown how better tanks easily dominate an engagement. The problem for the Leopard 2 there is the combination of minefields and drones, with the former disabling the vehicle so it can be more easily struck by the latter instead of being recovered for repair. This new A-RC includes not just one but two defensive measures against drones, which should significantly increase survivability in the field. In a way, you're even countering your own argument by pointing out how Leopard and Abrams are much better at protecting their crew even if the vehicle gets knocked out -- the soldiers' ability to continue the fight another day a stark contrast to the fate of T-72 tankers.
Throwing thousands of cheap mass production tanks into a grinder might work for countries like Russia or China, where the combination of authoritarianism and a massive pool of potential recruits make losses less of an issue. But for e.g. Europe where most countries are already struggling to fill the ranks of their armed forces as citizens just aren't as interested in signing up, a high-tech platform that (a) needs less crew and (b) is better at making them survive just feels like the more sensible choice. Manpower, not money, is Europe's scarcest resource.
I'm just worried as to whether this new high-tech A-RC model will be as easy/quick to maintain and repair as the current Leopard 2, or whether it'll be like the Abrams that somehow doesn't appear like it was meant to fight in an actual peer-level conflict where you might not be able to drive it into a logistics hub every day. After all, more complex machinery is usually more prone to breakdowns, and regular maintenance can be tricky in all-out war.
1. The lack of donation is more about will, not capability. Poland still have shit tons of t72s variant for example.
2. I don't see anyone phasing out infantry anytime soon. Something being killable does not render it obsolete.
3. A vehicular mounted direct los big gun is still a valuable and versatile weapon system. They can quickly bring to bear a lot of firepower, that has decent range, while being able to cover a decent amount of distance relatively quickly.
4. Current Western service mbt is a logistical nightmare. Some of them are looking to blow pass 90t. This new generation of mbt is looking to make just as cabaple vehicle in a more manageable 50t format.
5. Cost is relative to the production level. During peace time (just after soviet collapse), there is no need to maintain a large land based armor force. Thus production line either get shut off or turn to a more labor intensive but lower capital production method, and unit cost starts to balloon out of control.
What I see and many thinker see is changing how armor unit are being configured and mass introduction of dedicated aa vehicle.
@@ddshiranui Perhaps you are right. But as you said to start with . " The problem for the Leopard 2 there is the combination of minefields and drones, with the former disabling the vehicle so it can be more easily struck by the latter instead of being recovered for repair. "
If this is the future of warfare , because we cannot expect Russia or China for that matter to simply just accept that a war with Nato are going to be mobile and fast. Because that is what the west is set up to fight. Then I dont see what a new expensive tank are going to add to this. I get that it has improvements that "potentially" can take down drones but even that can be countered. We are only seing the first steps of drone usage as a tactic like in Ukraine . Everything has a counter. And let´s be honest, the west really cannot claim too many overall victories with it´s tactics either.
And im not saying we should build cheap mass produced tanks who kills it´s crews when hit! Im saying that if for example a Leopard 2a7 costs 10 million Euros to produce now. Aim to make it cost les so that there is 5 tanks in reserve for every 10 deployed in combat to replace the losses and continue the fight. Without increasing the overall costs. The 2a7 is more than adequate as a mbt for atleast the next 20 years. Why continue to develop tanks we cannot afford to loose?
Focus on building tanks we can replace instead. A well trained tanker without a tank is as useless as a fighterpilot ace without a plane.
italy cancled the leopard deals about approx. 200 tanks but more and more rumors come up that they (leonardo) want to cooperate with rheinmetall. if thats true, it would booost the panther development and im super curious what thel will come up with. i head leonardo is top notch in terms of electronics which is a big part in sich a new digital tank design
Looks quite alot like the early mockup of the planned replacement of STRV 103C the STRV 2000.
Sadly STRV2000 never came any longer than the Mockup.
The STRV2000 had a 140mm main gun and a 40mm Bofors as secondary armament with the possibility to hit both land and air targets.
Ph and it was ofc a 3 man crew with autoloaders and the fire rate would be about the same as the STRV103C 1 shot every 2 seconds (Teoretically).
I said at the beginning of this war that i believed we would see a Heavy MBT and light MBT instead of one size fits all MBT with the heavy MBT taking after the STRV2000 and the light MBT taking after the STRV103C.
So far i seem to have been somewhat right.
Best regards.
i like it :)
Looks solid. I guess it needs a better system for drone swarm defense. The single 30 mm isn't going to cut it if the attack comes from low angles and multiple sides simultaneously.
give it a weapon stations on side. Sponson has returned!
You can always add some RHM ADS / Strikeshield modules to the sides.
Could they be accompanied by an anti-drone autonomous vehicle, like mini robot Gepards? Just a thought.
It's got an APS too.
Based on the dimensions of both the 130mm round under development by Rheinmetall and the KNDS ASCALON, there should be no difference in the number of rounds stored inside the autoloader if a bustle autoloader is used.
👍
That's one sexy tank!
the tank should keep secret untill the enemy is dead when they see it the first time.
I want to see more protection around the motor in the rear.
Also I assume the same doctrine is followed? Panzer formation etc..?
I like it
This tank could easily be "mission killed" by drones and then it probably would be abandoned by its crew, as we have seen many times in Ukraine happening to western tanks so far (Russian tanks usually just blow up very dramatically and kill the crew). Having said that, against Russians the armour is not a problem at all but the vulnerability of tank's sensors on drone attacks. Self protection system against drone attacks is still questionable and its applicability should be demonstrated. It has to be extraordinary complex (optoelectronics, millimeter wave radar, proximity sensor, actuators etc. ) and would probably cost a million dollars for each vehicle...
Thanks for the information, nowadays many different tanks are popping in EU. Can anyone explain what are differences and the best tank overall between the Leopard 2A8, KF-51, EMBT, and this Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0.
Thanks guys
I was going to say this is JUST basically the same thing as Turkish M60 new turret, Turret+ upgrade kit for ever Leopard 2 Hull tank,
more I dig into this, This is Rheinmetall they are 75% of Leclerc and 51% in BEA aka Challenger and Leopard 2, now all have a
upgrade program on Challenger 3 upgrade, Leclerc XLR and this is most likely upcoming Leopard 2A9
The Next Gen MBT of Germany, UK and France will be Rheinmetall MBT 2035-40 give or tank.
without crew in the turret could you maybe put more armor in the turret without the issue of taking up a lot of space?
I wonder how they protect against mines. That seemed like a big issue.
I thing german need to build version of T14 Armata but only Leopard next class design
Torsten, [1] does the auto loader run the same risk as Russian auto-loaders with jack-in-the-box effect should turret be penetrated? [2] Are the 3 crew in an armoured enclosure forward of the turret and behind the normally thick frontal tank armour?
The problem has been that, at least in the US, there has been refusal to seriously invest in the M1. There have been incremental upgrades, but real reluctance to make serious changes. For example, the LV100-5 would have saved weight, paid for itself in fuel savings and repairs and freed up space in the engine compartment. Removing the hydraulics and replacing the main hyd pump with a generator would save tons, replacing the steel tracks with titanium would increase life and save tons. The Army wasted at least 5 years screwing around with Raytheon's quick kill instead of installing Trophy on the SEP V2s. And the APU story is appallingly stupid.
T-14 armata = parade queen...KNDS hold my beer, Leopard 3 soon to be in the hundreds...
And wine. KNDS is joint French and German.
@@wifi_soldier5076 Seeing that KMW, the german part of KNDS are the ones that made the leopard 2 its highly likely that they also made this version too, possibly with french help.
basically a copy of the armata concept.
i personally find the kf51 much more sexy and capable
But i can imagine this frankogerman is more budget friendly.
King tiger was sexy, but in the end the shermans could be produced cheaper in higher numbers...
---
The french have a lot of experience with autoloaders, so i am guessing it was them pushing for this - and maybe that is not such a bad idea. Though i think a manual loader is faster switching ammotypes on the fly.
The concept behind the Armata existed since the 80s..
I think 25 ton two man tanks with automatic turrets which could be modular so easily swapped out depending on the mission as with AI the need for a separate gunner is no longer needed, just give the tank a 50 or 60mm auto cannon and and long range AT missiles
What about electronic counter measures against drones? Is this something that should be added?
It is German made that is a quality hard to beat!
I don´t know if KNDS is only behind KF-51 (Rheinmetall) when it comes to design. But the 2 variants I´ve seen so far from KNDS doesn´t look to me, as if there is a concept behind.
To me, it looks like the KF-51 turret is based on the stealth tank design form the Bundeswehr research centre. So, I would like to see the KF-51 prioritized in the further development process.
The Variants from KNDS are both looking like they based on an additive concept - meaning gabbing parts, throwing them together and calling it EMBT or Leo 2RC 3.0...
Even showing less protected areas clearly visible to the enemy isn´t a very smart idea while Javelins (or other anti tank missiles) and drones are on the battlefield.
Nice weapon for the next war but probably not ready for this one. But then again, this one may drag out for years, like Vietnam.
This is better then the T14😂
Reloading the turret not possible?
Maybe I think too simple... and of course this would be a weak point in the protection of the hull - but if there is ammo-storage in the hull... I could imagine bulkheads in the hull and turret. Align the turret in a defined position, open the bulkheads and with some lift you could transport additional shells from the hull into the turret?
On the other hand... how often would that be usefull in a realistic scenario. When you shot all your maybe 20 shells in the turret and your environment still is not safe enough to get a break and refill ammo... you probably have other problems.
Way the F better than a T-14! 🤘
I wonder if such prototypes have anything to do with the failed agreement for the development of an Italian version of the Leopard 2 A8.
The emphasis on defending against drones, rather than launching them, seems correct: future tanks should have effective protection against drones and AT weapons.
While the tanks need to be integrated in the picture to which drones contribute, they are not necessarily the best platform to launch and orchestrate drones.
Another thing that needs to be explored, though, is remotization/dronization of tanks.
The tanks should become frontline effectors, respect to their main armament, but it is perhaps by bringing a consistent anti drone capacity that they can reestablish their role as enablers of mobile warfare.
To think, only a little while ago people were saying that tanks were obsolete...
More resonable than KF51 for sure
Leonardo suddenly dropped off from the KNDF deal just a few days ago, relinquishing the almost 300 already financed leopard 2A8 that had been pledged and the coodevelopment for the huge AI2CS program. Leonardo was very interested in this MBT trying to enter a shared development and dropped off just before this unveiling.
They must have known something before bailing out of the deal. I'd wait a couple of months and see Leonardo's moves in the next month before making any judgment of this Leo3 concept
It will still take years before this concept is production ready, it's supposed to bridge the gap between the 2A8 and the MGCS. What Leonardo decides is their problem, but in the end it's the Italian government that decides what the military buys, not Leonardo.
Leonardo wanted too much IP, KNDS doesen't want that. Try with the Koreans, they sell out their tech.
Where does the crew get in and out?
Looks like they took a lot from the T14 Armata. Is this a good thing?
Why not keep and add to turret armour?
The turret is in effect armour
I don't think the 30mm will be enough to deal with drones. I mean, the 30mm is enough at the moment and will be enough for a while but he next big step in kamikaze drone tactics are simultaneous multi directional AI driven swarm attacks and you can thrown an awful lot of $1000 kamikaze drones at a tank before it becomes un-economical to do so.
When tanks are able to employ a system which totally nullifies the threat from cheap drones then tanks will be very expensive components which could be replaced with much cheaper lightweight systems which if lost isn’t such an expensive system to have to replace, so every tank being designed must have such systems built in
So would a paint bomb effectively disable it??
If you can hit it with paint then you can hit it with explosive, but I hear what you're saying.
I have a feeling they will add back in the Coax. The gunner needs another way to prosecute targets that don't need the main gun or a 30mm.
The gunner is already busy so i would see an optional small RWS with an MG3 that can be fitted as an option on the roof, using sound and sensors to locate the target and fire in auto mode. But as said above, if you have infantry that close you're in trouble... Anyway, no russky would be foolish enough to attempt a molotov coktail launch...
No coaxial seems like a big mistake
But the main question is: how many thousands of those are you able to produce per year?
The 140mm cannons are so much near to artillery caliber, I'd like to see if it were possible for the unmanned turret to give it huge elevation.
Very hot Tank‼️
No-no-no, it has airconditioning!
An enemy will find a way in time to successfully attack the tank and pundits will say the designers should have guessed the future. If it goes into the field today it will have advantages but it could be obsolete by the time Kanzler Scholz turns it loose.
How long before we see tanks without crew?
If it's going to be taken out by a drone or guided missile, what's the point of a (line of sight) big heavy gun in the European theatre?
KF 51 Panther looks far more sexy, but sexy doesn't win fights...
Interesting concept, I wonder why Rheinmetall introduced also the KF51 in parallel? Maybe the KF51 is a 130mm version of the current Leopard, while this new turret offers an alternative option?
Judging from the high losses of the autoloader turrets of Russian tanks in Ukraine, I suspect that Rheinmetall will have a hard time persuading the armies about this new design...
Rheinmetall and KNDS are different companies that compete with each other. In fact, both companies are currently working on a total of four different MBT projects at the same time (Leopard 2A-RC and E-MBT at KNDS, KF51 at Rheinmetall and MGCS both together, but under the leadership of KNDS).
@@SoerenS96 thanks, I was confused and I thought that all these projects were done by a single company
Ukraine lost a handful of Western tanks to KA-52 choppers. If the rocket launcher on this new version can launch a missile capable to striking aerial threats at a range similar to that of the KA-52s weapons, that would be _extremely_ useful.
Bonuspoints if the loadout for the rocket launcher can be swapped out, to either favor targets on the ground or in the air... it'd be pretty wild if the launcher carried both types and could actually switch missiles while in the field.
Ukraine did not have the proper means to deal with helicopters e.g. modern air force. All the western equipment is failing, because any equipment will fail without the air cower.
France and Germany see Russians T-14 Armata and say, hold my beer / wine 😂
🍻🥂
Except the concept behind the Armata exists since the 80s and Germany and the US already had various programs involving it.
They should have called it the Leopard 14 Armata lolol
RC- remote control?
Is this the MGCS now ? I am confused
No, this is a separate project with no direct connection to MGCS and is probably intended more as a competitor to Rheinmetall's KF51.
Looks like a huge weakspot below the barrel. And again, 120 mm will not suffice on the modern day battlefield.
🤗🥰🦄