Place your bets on how much the frogs will screech until their design is adopted.
It's an artist's impression you morons.
The actual Ascalon turret as seen on the EMBT looks like this, and again that's just a demonstrator, which is set to get fitted with the 140mm semi-telescoped gun.
It looks strange, it's so full of nooks and crannies. The gun mantlet seems to completely break with convention, is it missing a huge amount of armour? Why is there a 'twisted' structure on the barrel?
The Leclerc-style turret layout, with the sights beside the gun instead of on top, is confusing me. If a KEP was fired from the front, at slightly higher elevation, or while the tank was driving down a decline, could it not punch straight through one of the sights, over the crewman's head, and into the autoloader?
[...]
It's an artist's impression you morons.
The actual Ascalon turret as seen on the EMBT looks like this, and again that's just a demonstrator, which is set to get fitted with the 140mm semi-telescoped gun.
Modern prop planes look like shit because of the oversized canopies they have for superior visibility and the anorexic looking turboprops for efficiency
speaking of MGCS, Germany is already thinking of a stopgap solution between the Leopard 2A8 and MGCS, currently some are referring to it as Leopard 2AX
>Starting in the 2030s, a more modern system would then have to be introduced that is adapted to the current threat level in terms of its performance and has additional capabilities compared to the A8. This main battle tank would then serve as a bridge solution until the MGCS is introduced. A service life of around 25 years is apparently planned.
>The exact specification of this type of battle tank will probably not be decided until 2026, when the results of various R&D studies that are currently in preparation are available. It is not publicly known exactly which ones. However, observers assume that several studies will be awarded that will increase the mobility, protection and effectiveness of the main battle tank. These are likely to include a 130mm cannon, a new high-performance power pack, new sensors and protection systems.
>If all R&D studies are successfully completed and the Bundeswehr decides to implement these capabilities in a new main battle tank, observers assume that this system would be fundamentally different from a current Leopard 2.
No, Panther is Rheinmetall producing a tank without KMW.
Which isn't a terrible idea tbh.
apparently Hungary ordered Rheinmetall to fully develop the KF51 into a finished product, although with a 120mm gun instead of the 130mm
if the KF51 is finished in a couple of years I could see Germany ordering it too, since nowadays the focus seems to be on "off the shelf" solutions.
>Armament: 30mm + 2x Stingers
Wow, literally an avenger tier gadget after only 30 years being late. I'm wondering how much they're going to fleece out of this piping heap of shit.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
30mm is a huge jump in terms of engineering problems and capabilities above M3 50cal.
Avenger wouldn't approach that level unless this upgrade package went widespread. Which for some reason it hasn't.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>30mm is a huge jump
assembly
For you. >Avenger wouldn't approach that level unless this upgrade package went widespread. Which for some reason it hasn't.
Yeah, because they're already moving onto a new platform.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Avenger had a .50 cal, not a 30mm autocannon with airburst ammo. Also MBDA has a 9x anti-drone missile launcher under development for the turret.
also Hungary will be getting the turret with 4x Mistral, only Germany will get it with 2x Stinger (+ redundant extra radar) as interim solution, later going for the 9x MBDA missiles in all likelihood
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Avenger had a .50 cal, not a 30mm autocannon with airburst ammo.
Cope. Swapping out M3 to M230LF is easier than mounting stingers on those pseudo VADS larpers. >muh future plans
Who is paying for all of those upgrades on top of the current plans?
Also >using IRST against drones
If you wish to go bankrupt, sure. But for everyone else, guided 70mm rockets are more than enough.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
alright Mr. L3harris shill
I don't really care to engange in this corporate war
the Skyranger is being introduced into several Euro militaries currently, they'll have probably thought about it deeper than some moron on /kay/
small drones aren't the only airborne threat btw
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>just wait and see
Lol I'm sure it worked out so well for Ukraine that it completely relies on US arms supplies.
Btw, Hungary has only agreed on the production of the vehicle but hasn't ordered any yet. I'm guessing krauts are probably feeding the current ruling party pretty well for cucking out to them.
There was an idea floating around that current Leopards and Leclercs could be refitted with the MGCS gun (either a 130mm or 140mm), to reduce costs and help solidify the new standard.
neither the 130 nor the 140 will be adopted, the project will be severely delayed and merged in a larger European project and by that day you'll need 150+ mm
So they would do to the leopard what they're planning with the Abrams.
Which makes sense. In terms of what can be produced in mass you are likely to need interim systems that can be produced asap than rely on the development cycle of an entirely new system.
I sorta think they should have had a plan for this to work to by now. They know they're making leopard 2's. They should have more than enough data on required improvements. Beginning 2025 would be the absolute max deadline. You're going to have to frick with the tooling and shit in prototyping anyway, but general principals like "We're using the same hull" means you can add the interim requirements to current orders
Am I mistaken for thinking we just need more tanks. just a lot more, all this bullshit is just more grifting and moronic inter-european competition.
Sure the intermediate upgrades are cool and stuff, muh R&D and whatnot, but simply more tanks is more better. Nothing the soviets designed can match it and russia is creating expensive technology demonstrators which they are afraid to actually use at the front.
>11 functional prototypes made >2 still exist in ukraine (tho 1 cannibalized for parts >literally paid someone to break into the malyshev factory to take pictures inside of it
I still have the pictures on an old HDD somewhere, I'll look for it and post them if I find it. There's still quite a few photos of 477 online, it was a very real tank.
>K2 Style
Could asiaticshills just stop for one single second to have bad takes?
The K2 is a direct copy of the Leclerc especially its autoloader which dictated the whole turret architecture in the first place.
Meaning the same French company that built the Leclerc, Nexter, Formerly GIAT, now part of a joint venture with Krauss Maffei Wegman called KNDS, are committing the horrible crime, of copying themselves.
These bloody frogs truly have no shame I swear.
>that asiatic shill literally live rent free 24/7 in your head
Damn, I guess the latest export success has broken some europoors... Even Macron mentioned it, putting its mic on par with America's.
Except Leclerc has a completely different turret. K2 is Abrams mixed with Leclerc and japanese design that was sold to Korea. This turret style is actually from that japanese design.
Except Leclerc has a completely different turret. K2 is Abrams mixed with Leclerc and japanese design that was sold to Korea. This turret style is actually from that japanese design.
That's probably true, but the point I was making is, what can a 155 not do at this point that a tank needs to be able to do? They can direct fire, they can be stabilized, and they can be mounted on much lighter vehicles. The power of a 155 is absolutely insane, it would simplify logistics to just have one large bore caliber, and you could have your tanks do actual artillery things in a pinch.
>what can a 155 not do at this point that a tank needs to be able to do?
Ensure 'first shot, first hit, first kill', many times, while having high mobility and range, within cost and weight limits.
You still need to lug the thing around, and its ammo, and point and aim it faster than the other guy. NATO/Rheinmetall studied a 140mm gun in the 90s and concluded it wasn't worthwhile.
Consider the following, what can a Barrett .50 cal not do at this point that a service rifle needs to be able to do? Hugely superior external and terminal ballistics, incredible penetration, and total range overmatch vs 5.56mm/5.45mm/5.8mm rifles.
Yet it'd be exhausting to lug around, slow to bring onto target, and have massive recoil, flash, and blast - and you could only carry a small amount of ammo. >Fighting between the big-round and small-round groups reached a peak in the early 1960s, when test after test showed the .223 Remington (M193 5.56×45mm) cartridge fired from the AR-15 allowed an eight-soldier unit to outgun an 11-soldier unit armed with M14s at ranges closer than 300 meters. U.S. troops were able to carry more than twice as much 5.56×45mm ammunition as 7.62×51mm NATO for the same weight, which allowed them an advantage against a typical NVA unit armed with Type 56-1s.
For tanks, bigger rounds translates to reduced range and endurance, lower power to weight ratio, poorer mobility, slower traverse and elevation, slower loading, slower rate of aimed fire, and a lower number of stowed kills. If you beef up the powerpack and all the actuators, and enlarge the fuel tanks, and magazine, now everything is bigger and heavier, so now you need more armour for the same protection, and even more power to have adequate mobility, and so on, and the cost goes through the roof.
So there are strong reasons to always use the 'smallest' possible ammo that will be lethal against the expected opposition.
There's just not enough room without a turret redesign. Same problem with the Abrams, the army got content with bolting shit on and now is at the limit. Makes me worried for the XM30 if this is even a thing they're doing but APS is worth looking butt ugly tbh
To be fair, just bolting shit to the armor is orders of magnitude cheaper than redesigning it from the ground up.
It also makes the turret MODULAR(tm).
The tank of the future is a Toyota Corolla with MODULES attached MODULARLY all over it until it looks like
https://i.imgur.com/pk0ZLDt.jpeg
.
Fully customisable, highly versatile, supremely lethal, and superbly superior at rattling itself apart rolling down a highway at 10 mph.
No known or projected vehicle can match this GLOBAL MODERN MODULAR PLATFORM SYSTEM at superlative bullshittery. No compromise.
If it works, it's not stupid.
The french design is absolutely disgusting.
It's an artist's impression you morons.
The actual Ascalon turret as seen on the EMBT looks like this, and again that's just a demonstrator, which is set to get fitted with the 140mm semi-telescoped gun.
It looks strange, it's so full of nooks and crannies. The gun mantlet seems to completely break with convention, is it missing a huge amount of armour? Why is there a 'twisted' structure on the barrel?
The Leclerc-style turret layout, with the sights beside the gun instead of on top, is confusing me. If a KEP was fired from the front, at slightly higher elevation, or while the tank was driving down a decline, could it not punch straight through one of the sights, over the crewman's head, and into the autoloader?
Pic is Leclerc.
For comparison here's a render of this tank.
The EMBT demonstrator wasn't fitted with Ascalon. That's a regular 120mm gun.
Yes, which is why I wrote
>which is set to get fitted with the 140mm semi-telescoped gun.
Implying it wasn't yet.
Frick off frog
Mange ma baguette.
>just let us how our coping thread OKAY
That is untrue, it can in fact be both
Are you sure this is going to help us sell tanks?
>sell tanks?
Modern prop planes look like shit because of the oversized canopies they have for superior visibility and the anorexic looking turboprops for efficiency
>me on the left
Place your bets on how much the frogs will screech until their design is adopted.
useless without shells
speaking of MGCS, Germany is already thinking of a stopgap solution between the Leopard 2A8 and MGCS, currently some are referring to it as Leopard 2AX
>Starting in the 2030s, a more modern system would then have to be introduced that is adapted to the current threat level in terms of its performance and has additional capabilities compared to the A8. This main battle tank would then serve as a bridge solution until the MGCS is introduced. A service life of around 25 years is apparently planned.
>The exact specification of this type of battle tank will probably not be decided until 2026, when the results of various R&D studies that are currently in preparation are available. It is not publicly known exactly which ones. However, observers assume that several studies will be awarded that will increase the mobility, protection and effectiveness of the main battle tank. These are likely to include a 130mm cannon, a new high-performance power pack, new sensors and protection systems.
>If all R&D studies are successfully completed and the Bundeswehr decides to implement these capabilities in a new main battle tank, observers assume that this system would be fundamentally different from a current Leopard 2.
Will it have Force Shields?
So the Panther?
>Re-using cat names
Why not call it something like Serval or Smilodon?
No, Panther is Rheinmetall producing a tank without KMW.
Which isn't a terrible idea tbh.
Panther is just a turret. RHM won't provide the chassis.
apparently Hungary ordered Rheinmetall to fully develop the KF51 into a finished product, although with a 120mm gun instead of the 130mm
if the KF51 is finished in a couple of years I could see Germany ordering it too, since nowadays the focus seems to be on "off the shelf" solutions.
don't forget, they also ordered the research on a Skyranger variant.
Tracked SPAAG bros we are so back
that's not really research. Skyranger 30 is already finished, as is the Lynx. They just have to be put together.
>Armament: 30mm + 2x Stingers
Wow, literally an avenger tier gadget after only 30 years being late. I'm wondering how much they're going to fleece out of this piping heap of shit.
30mm is a huge jump in terms of engineering problems and capabilities above M3 50cal.
Avenger wouldn't approach that level unless this upgrade package went widespread. Which for some reason it hasn't.
>30mm is a huge jump
assembly
For you.
>Avenger wouldn't approach that level unless this upgrade package went widespread. Which for some reason it hasn't.
Yeah, because they're already moving onto a new platform.
Avenger had a .50 cal, not a 30mm autocannon with airburst ammo. Also MBDA has a 9x anti-drone missile launcher under development for the turret.
also Hungary will be getting the turret with 4x Mistral, only Germany will get it with 2x Stinger (+ redundant extra radar) as interim solution, later going for the 9x MBDA missiles in all likelihood
>Avenger had a .50 cal, not a 30mm autocannon with airburst ammo.
Cope. Swapping out M3 to M230LF is easier than mounting stingers on those pseudo VADS larpers.
>muh future plans
Who is paying for all of those upgrades on top of the current plans?
Also
>using IRST against drones
If you wish to go bankrupt, sure. But for everyone else, guided 70mm rockets are more than enough.
alright Mr. L3harris shill
I don't really care to engange in this corporate war
the Skyranger is being introduced into several Euro militaries currently, they'll have probably thought about it deeper than some moron on /kay/
small drones aren't the only airborne threat btw
>just wait and see
Lol I'm sure it worked out so well for Ukraine that it completely relies on US arms supplies.
Btw, Hungary has only agreed on the production of the vehicle but hasn't ordered any yet. I'm guessing krauts are probably feeding the current ruling party pretty well for cucking out to them.
I know
but if it's a fully developed system it makes orders much more likely
>production
assembly
>120mm gun
why
There was an idea floating around that current Leopards and Leclercs could be refitted with the MGCS gun (either a 130mm or 140mm), to reduce costs and help solidify the new standard.
neither the 130 nor the 140 will be adopted, the project will be severely delayed and merged in a larger European project and by that day you'll need 150+ mm
So they would do to the leopard what they're planning with the Abrams.
Which makes sense. In terms of what can be produced in mass you are likely to need interim systems that can be produced asap than rely on the development cycle of an entirely new system.
I sorta think they should have had a plan for this to work to by now. They know they're making leopard 2's. They should have more than enough data on required improvements. Beginning 2025 would be the absolute max deadline. You're going to have to frick with the tooling and shit in prototyping anyway, but general principals like "We're using the same hull" means you can add the interim requirements to current orders
Am I mistaken for thinking we just need more tanks. just a lot more, all this bullshit is just more grifting and moronic inter-european competition.
Sure the intermediate upgrades are cool and stuff, muh R&D and whatnot, but simply more tanks is more better. Nothing the soviets designed can match it and russia is creating expensive technology demonstrators which they are afraid to actually use at the front.
>nothing the soviets designed can match it
Why does everyone pretend that this didn't exist
Because it didn't.
>11 functional prototypes made
>2 still exist in ukraine (tho 1 cannibalized for parts
>literally paid someone to break into the malyshev factory to take pictures inside of it
I still have the pictures on an old HDD somewhere, I'll look for it and post them if I find it. There's still quite a few photos of 477 online, it was a very real tank.
It isn't a service vehicle.
>literal RTS unit designs
Do we know anything more about the various turret types ?
The one with the rocket launcher pod looks goofy as frick.
It will be a "system", with plans for a tank, a tank/command vehicle, a heavy IFV/drone carrier, and a ATGM vehicle.
>a heavy IFV
I doubt the Germans need a IFV
So K2 style turret with gun being slightly higher? I guess this layout really saves weight on turret armor.
>K2 Style
Could asiaticshills just stop for one single second to have bad takes?
The K2 is a direct copy of the Leclerc especially its autoloader which dictated the whole turret architecture in the first place.
Meaning the same French company that built the Leclerc, Nexter, Formerly GIAT, now part of a joint venture with Krauss Maffei Wegman called KNDS, are committing the horrible crime, of copying themselves.
These bloody frogs truly have no shame I swear.
>that asiatic shill literally live rent free 24/7 in your head
Damn, I guess the latest export success has broken some europoors... Even Macron mentioned it, putting its mic on par with America's.
die
...zeit Europas ist vorbei.
Yeah, no.
lol
>importing Black folk is good
KEK. Ask me how do I know you're brown.
Go home VANK, you're drunk.
Anybody with eyes can see you're lying.
?t=22
He's right though. The basis of K2 is K1 which is based on one of the prototypes of XM1.
Except Leclerc has a completely different turret. K2 is Abrams mixed with Leclerc and japanese design that was sold to Korea. This turret style is actually from that japanese design.
>massive turret with just 6 missiles
Literally why.
I wonder how they will counter the drone spam.
Drones
>There are stabilized fire-on-the-move 155mm SPGs now
Why isn't there one on a tank?
>stabilized
It's a gimmick. It's far safer and accurate to fire in a stationary position.
That's probably true, but the point I was making is, what can a 155 not do at this point that a tank needs to be able to do? They can direct fire, they can be stabilized, and they can be mounted on much lighter vehicles. The power of a 155 is absolutely insane, it would simplify logistics to just have one large bore caliber, and you could have your tanks do actual artillery things in a pinch.
Sheridan had a 152mm gun. See what happened afterwards.
>what can a 155 not do at this point that a tank needs to be able to do?
Ensure 'first shot, first hit, first kill', many times, while having high mobility and range, within cost and weight limits.
You still need to lug the thing around, and its ammo, and point and aim it faster than the other guy. NATO/Rheinmetall studied a 140mm gun in the 90s and concluded it wasn't worthwhile.
Consider the following, what can a Barrett .50 cal not do at this point that a service rifle needs to be able to do? Hugely superior external and terminal ballistics, incredible penetration, and total range overmatch vs 5.56mm/5.45mm/5.8mm rifles.
Yet it'd be exhausting to lug around, slow to bring onto target, and have massive recoil, flash, and blast - and you could only carry a small amount of ammo.
>Fighting between the big-round and small-round groups reached a peak in the early 1960s, when test after test showed the .223 Remington (M193 5.56×45mm) cartridge fired from the AR-15 allowed an eight-soldier unit to outgun an 11-soldier unit armed with M14s at ranges closer than 300 meters. U.S. troops were able to carry more than twice as much 5.56×45mm ammunition as 7.62×51mm NATO for the same weight, which allowed them an advantage against a typical NVA unit armed with Type 56-1s.
For tanks, bigger rounds translates to reduced range and endurance, lower power to weight ratio, poorer mobility, slower traverse and elevation, slower loading, slower rate of aimed fire, and a lower number of stowed kills. If you beef up the powerpack and all the actuators, and enlarge the fuel tanks, and magazine, now everything is bigger and heavier, so now you need more armour for the same protection, and even more power to have adequate mobility, and so on, and the cost goes through the roof.
So there are strong reasons to always use the 'smallest' possible ammo that will be lethal against the expected opposition.
>Bros... the Ascalon turret looks too goofy.
just wait until you see the new M2A4E1 Bradley
80% of that shit should be integrated into the turret armor, what were they thinking?
There's just not enough room without a turret redesign. Same problem with the Abrams, the army got content with bolting shit on and now is at the limit. Makes me worried for the XM30 if this is even a thing they're doing but APS is worth looking butt ugly tbh
To be fair, just bolting shit to the armor is orders of magnitude cheaper than redesigning it from the ground up.
It also makes the turret MODULAR(tm).
The tank of the future is a Toyota Corolla with MODULES attached MODULARLY all over it until it looks like
.
Fully customisable, highly versatile, supremely lethal, and superbly superior at rattling itself apart rolling down a highway at 10 mph.
No known or projected vehicle can match this GLOBAL MODERN MODULAR PLATFORM SYSTEM at superlative bullshittery. No compromise.
what is the tank in the back supposed to be? LOSAT clone? Anti-air? AT carrier?
I believe the initial images in this thread are purely a naive artist's conception. They make no sense.
ATGM carrier.
Are these those networked drone tanks?