Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 307
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*Damian on suicide watch*

https://ir.rheinmetall.com/download/companies/rheinmetall/Presentations/191120_CMD_2019_Unterluess_CEO_online.pdf

Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :   The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.  

Watch it be a Leopard 2 hull with a Leclerc T4 turret :P 

 

 

On a side note, it will be interesting to see what happens with the project, if it will end up like the Leopard 1 (Germany and France made their own things) or MBT/Kpz-70 (it all fails). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serge said:

This is a Leclerc turret on a Leopard -2. 

Trials on the firing range were good. 

 

The French 140mm is very different but is said to be proposed for the MGCS. 

I actually thought it would be a better idea to take the Leclerc's hull and put a Leopard's turret on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I actually thought it would be a better idea to take the Leclerc's hull and put a Leopard's turret on it. 

 

Seeing the scores from the last two SETCs and the Greek tests, it would certainly be better. Leclerc turret on Leopard 2 hull would not really offer any advantages (shorter gun, lower armor protection, less accuracy...).

 

Re: topic title... it has yet to be decided how the MGCS will look. Concept phase hasn't really finished. Four proposals were made, the best one has yet to be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Why can't the Leopard fire on the move?

 

@Alzoc translated some marketing blurbs from back when Nexter was still trying to sell Leclercs.  One of their claims is that the trunnions of the Leclerc sit much closer to the center of balance of the gun, which means that the moments on the gun as the tank negotiates terrain at speed are lower.  This, in turn, means that the gun stabilization works at high speed and in rougher terrain than competing Western tanks.  According to them, Leo 2 and Abrams can fire on the move, but not at high speeds on rough terrain, while the Leclerc's stabilization works to considerably higher speeds on rougher terrain.

Who knows if it's true, but the physical reasoning behind their claim at least makes some sense.  That said, from what I've heard from tank crews, the ability to operate a tank while moving over rough terrain is a much a function of the suspension performance as the gun stabilization.  The fire control system might maintain the gun in perfect alignment with a fire control solution, but that's useless if the crew is being shaken so badly that they can't function.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

@Alzoc translated some marketing blurbs from back when Nexter was still trying to sell Leclercs.  One of their claims is that the trunnions of the Leclerc sit much closer to the center of balance of the gun, which means that the moments on the gun as the tank negotiates terrain at speed are lower.  This, in turn, means that the gun stabilization works at high speed and in rougher terrain than competing Western tanks.  According to them, Leo 2 and Abrams can fire on the move, but not at high speeds on rough terrain, while the Leclerc's stabilization works to considerably higher speeds on rougher terrain.
 

Could it be the barrel length adding more weight at the front?

Because I swear I've seen demonstrations in Israel of some Merkava tanks driving at about top speed (50-ish km/h it was) on dirt and still doing some really fine shooting, and the MG253 gun only really has a difference in its recoil system. In terms of weight distribution it should be about the same as the Rheinmetall L/44.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

@Alzoc translated some marketing blurbs from back when Nexter was still trying to sell Leclercs.  One of their claims is that the trunnions of the Leclerc sit much closer to the center of balance of the gun, which means that the moments on the gun as the tank negotiates terrain at speed are lower.  This, in turn, means that the gun stabilization works at high speed and in rougher terrain than competing Western tanks.  According to them, Leo 2 and Abrams can fire on the move, but not at high speeds on rough terrain, while the Leclerc's stabilization works to considerably higher speeds on rougher terrain.

Who knows if it's true, but the physical reasoning behind their claim at least makes some sense.  That said, from what I've heard from tank crews, the ability to operate a tank while moving over rough terrain is a much a function of the suspension performance as the gun stabilization.  The fire control system might maintain the gun in perfect alignment with a fire control solution, but that's useless if the crew is being shaken so badly that they can't function.

Leclerc was designed to achieve fire on the move at hight speed, whatever the target is doing. 

 

The « who knows » is nonsense. This has been  proved everyday for more than 20 years. Both Leopard-2 and Abrams can’t fire like a Leclerc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Could it be the barrel length adding more weight at the front?

Because I swear I've seen demonstrations in Israel of some Merkava tanks driving at about top speed (50-ish km/h it was) on dirt and still doing some really fine shooting, and the MG253 gun only really has a difference in its recoil system. In terms of weight distribution it should be about the same as the Rheinmetall L/44.

 

Here's the discussion:
 

I don't think it's because there is more mass in front of the trunnions, I think it's because the gun actually sits much further back in the Leclerc.

Look at this top-down view of a Leclerc turret:

BJDZr7s.jpg

Or look at any picture of a Leclerc with its gun elevated.  The trunnions sit just outside the turret ring, nearly as far back as they do in Soviet tanks.  Now compare that to a Leo 2 or Abrams; those tanks have the gun breech and gun trunnions as far forwards as possible, very far outside of the turret ring, probably to make more room inside the three-man turret.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Leclerc ended up with lower shooting scores in all trials and competitions, I seriously doubt that there are issues with firing on the move. At the maximum speed that the Leopard 2 realistically reaches off-road, it can accurately hit its targets. Driving along flat roads with higher speeds shouldn't negatively affect its accuracy.

 

I guess you are mixing something up with the Leopard 1, which could not accurately fire on the move at speeds higher than 20-25 km/h...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Now compare that to a Leo 2 or Abrams; those tanks have the gun breech and gun trunnions as far forwards as possible, probably to make more room inside the three-man turret.

To permit manual reloading. 

With autoloader, the breach must be very close to the loading door. Like with the Type-90. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Given that the Leclerc ended up with lower shooting scores in all trials and competitions, I seriously doubt that there are issues with firing on the move. At the maximum speed that the Leopard 2 realistically reaches off-road, it can accurately hit its targets. Driving along flat roads with higher speeds shouldn't negatively affect its accuracy.

 

I guess you are mixing something up with the Leopard 1, which could not accurately fire on the move at speeds higher than 20-25 km/h...

Made my day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Because I swear I've seen demonstrations in Israel of some Merkava tanks driving at about top speed (50-ish km/h it was) on dirt and still doing some really fine shooting, and the MG253 gun only really has a difference in its recoil system. In terms of weight distribution it should be about the same as the Rheinmetall L/44.

 

 

Any tank could drive nearly arbitrarily quickly on a smooth-ish road and have no trouble hitting targets.  You only get problems when the tank is actually pitching around from the bumps and throwing the sights and gun off target.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

 

 

Any tank could drive nearly arbitrarily quickly on a smooth-ish road and have no trouble hitting targets.  You only get problems when the tank is actually pitching around from the bumps and throwing the sights and gun off target.

Good point. I understand the Leclerc's gun is farther back inside the turret. But seeing how well stabilizers work these days, I doubt such inherent physical advantages are anywhere nearly as meaningful today as they were in the 80's, unless we're talking about countries who hadn't updated their fleets in a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The design of the Leclerc allows a more convenient gun balance (on or very close to the trunnions axis).
This allows the minimize momentums.
The turret is balanced as well to control any momentum to achieve the same controls over momentums.

Turret traverse and gun elevation have high acceleration rate (~45°/s²) dispite the 30°/s max speed.
The autoloader allows a constant rate of fire whatever the tank is doing.
I'll stop here, I'll skip FCS and suspension because, they have proven their values.

The thing is none of the persons here can judge the value of any tanks because the hardware hasn't been shown into their worst conditions. Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Léopard 2 and others have just fired at worst on bumpy dirt roads with the crews doing all the SOP requirements to ensure a steady speed and minimise the vibrations.
No matter what the competitions or tests have shown, people always forget that there is a huge piece of meatware that seats between the seat and the handelbar that can f**k things up...
 
I won't hide that I consider the human loader as a risk at high speed high bumpiness. But in real combat, the pace of engagement is much slower than we think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Not really.  It's entirely possible to have a folding spanning tray, e.g. in many naval gun autoloaders.

Yes. Of course, it depends on the design of the autoloader. 

The CCVL/M8 is a good exemple. 

 

On purpose is to achieve compactness so naval design are not the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
    • By Walter_Sobchak
      Bundeswehr Weasel and British Light tank Mark IV
       

    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/52476/german-army-receives-first-production-standard-puma-aifv
       
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
       

×
×
  • Create New...