Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Why can't the Leopard fire on the move?

Maybe just because it lacks of auto target tracker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

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.

 

DarkLabor's explanation of the theory behind the Leclerc's gun installation design is very good.  But you also have to keep in mind how modern stabilization systems work.

The gun is simply too heavy for the stabilization system to keep it on target all the time.  It weighs several tons and has a lot of inertia, and a practical-size gun elevation and turret traverse mechanism simply cannot keep up.

Modern gun stabilization systems work better than old ones because they don't even try to keep the gun exactly on target all the time.  Instead, they wait for the precise instant when the gun is on target and in alignment with the independently stabilized sight, and only then do they fire.

In theory, it would be possible to traverse rough enough terrain that the torque on the gun barrel is too high, and the tube is flopping around too much for the stabilizer to achieve even a transient fire control solution.  The design of the Leclerc minimizes this problem.  By placing the trunnions as close to the center of gravity as possible, the torque on the gun tube is minimized (at the expense of usable volume in the center of the turret, which matters much less because it is a two-man turret).  The theory is very straightforward and sound.  I just have not seen any comparative testing of how well this actually works in practice.


Now, what I don't understand is why they can't just hang a big lump of tungsten on the gun breech so that the center of gravity sits exactly at the trunnions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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. 

 

Wait... so I was right?! I just eyeballed it and though “hmm, that looks like a Leopard chassis and a Leclerc gun/turret profile”. 

 

And they’re sticking with the 140? I thought Rhm was gonna use their new shiny 130. I guess they couldn’t shove it in the Leclerc turret in time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Now, what I don't understand is why they can't just hang a big lump of tungsten on the gun breech so that the center of gravity sits exactly at the trunnions.

Waste of weight and space. Unless you find some equipment to strap to the gun to add weight (such as elevation mechanism, air compressor for the bore evacuator and stud deflector, coax, etc.) to counter balance the gun.

 

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

 

Wait... so I was right?! I just eyeballed it and though “hmm, that looks like a Leopard chassis and a Leclerc gun/turret profile”. 

 

And they’re sticking with the 140? I thought Rhm was gonna use their new shiny 130. I guess they couldn’t shove it in the Leclerc turret in time. 

Nope you're wrong.

The 130 & 140 are on the table not on the demonstrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VPZ said:

Maybe just because it lacks of auto target tracker?

Fire on the move is a little bit more complex than one or two points. It’s a whole of things to be considered. 

 

For instance, this is why GIAT Industries introduced the T21 turret. 

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2014/39/1411842484-t72-t21.jpg

It’s a Leclerc scaled down turret to upgrade older tanks. 

It was founded impossible to fairly upgrade a T72 like tank just adding a new gun, a new FCS... This is costly and the result is poor. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they reworked the armor packages a bit and so far it's really nothing more than a Leclerc turret on a Leopard 2 hull.

The turret sitting so high on the hull looks funny^^

 

I guess it's only a test bed but I really hope that they'll be a bit more inventive on a clean sheet design.

However it may indicate that they have chosen how they'll split the job: A French turret with a German gun (I see no reason not to use the new 130mm) on a German hull.

 

Plus if they base the design on a modified/redesigned Leo 2 hull it's possible that a new turret might be offered as an upgrade for country operating Leopard 2, which would be a big marketing argument.

Not saying that they shouldn't design a new hull, but if it's close enough to the Leo 2's to offer retro-compatibility it could be a plus.

 

Edit: But keeping an architecture similar to a classis Leo 2 hull would probably forbid installing a proper crew capsule and a proper unmanned turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/eurosatory-2018-franco-german-industry-unveils-new/

 

Quote

Eurosatory 2018: Franco-German industry unveils new Euro tank

11th June 2018 - 08:32 GMT | by Grant Turnbull in Paris

RSS

French and German industry have unexpectedly unveiled a new Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT) concept at Eurosatory, their first attempt at combining national technologies to develop a next-generation pan-European tank.

The EMBT has been developed by KNDS – a joint company between German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and French company Nexter – and combines a Leopard 2 chassis with a Leclerc 120mm turret.

Officials from KNDS told Shephard that the development effort has been ongoing since January 2017, with the prototype platform conducting live fire trials only a month ago.

‘This is the first step in having a common product from Nexter and KMW,’ said Sebastian Bent, project manager for EMBT for KMW. ‘This is a demonstrator but the next step will be to have a prototype or pre-series production.’

A joint Nexter-KMW team has now been established that will go into more detailed analysis of integrating French-German technologies.

‘It is a way of showing that we are now working together,’ said Francois Groshany, Nexter’s head of tracked armoured programmes.

He added that because the Leclerc features a lighter autoloading turret, compared with the manually loaded Leopard 2, the EMBT is lighter and has a growth potential of around 6t (10% of the EMBT's 60t GVW).

This effort has been funded by KNDS and is not a German or French government programme. Work done on the demonstrator is expected to inform technology and cooperation requirements for a future MBT that will enter service in the 2030s.

The German and French governments are currently studying a new joint MBT under a programme known as the Mobile Ground Combat System (MGCS).

‘We can develop and qualify this in the time between MGCS,’ said Groshany, who called the EMBT an ‘opportunity product’ to gauge operational interest as well as strategic interest in a pan-European project.

For the EMBT, one of the main challenges has been to integrate the electronic and mechanical interfaces between the turret and chassis. ‘It was not easy…there was a lot of engineering effort on the chassis side,’ said Bent, speaking to Shephard at Eurosatory.

The chassis is based on the latest A7 variant of the Leopard 2, with mobility trials also complete with the Leclerc turret integrated.

He added that this was, for the time being, the limit as to how much technology can be shared between the two countries, owing to German legislation. ‘This is the limit that we can go …due to German law we cannot exchange technologies.’

KMW and Nexter merged to form a joint company in 2015.

 

Share this post


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

 

So it have (almost) nothing to do with MGCS.

Just a project to start working together on an MBT and to do some PR.

Possibly they could market it as an upgrade for the Leopard 2 (smaller turret mean that you could potentially cram more armor on it than on a 3 man turret) but I'm not sure that it would be worth the cost of ditching the existing turrets instead of upgrading them.

Perhaps around 2040 when the French army will start to retire it's Leclerc and that second hand turret would become available for cheap.

Share this post


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

What is this? 

 

Side view of Europanzer, a failed Franco-German tank project, predecessor to the Leopard 1 and AMX-30.

 

Same tank that Zuk posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monochromelody said:

That's an AMX 30 prototype(1961)

175142srhbzk4rv14r014k.png

My bad, but wasn't it one of the prototypes also for the Europanzer? 

 

This image is commonly used for the Europanzer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Well they reworked the armor packages a bit...

Whuuuut?
There is no rework regarding the armor.
It's just the turret of a tropicalised Leclerc on a Léopard 2A7 hull with an adaptator and a rework of how the two communicate together...


 

 

38 minutes ago, Xoon said:

My bad, but wasn't it one of the prototypes also for the Europanzer? 

 

This image is commonly used for the Europanzer. 

The later prototype was labelled as "standard european tank - french version" dunno about that one...

34984265_10156347688053187_4722358851674

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

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. 

 

But it doesn't sit closer to the turret ring...

 

EMES-15_09_Leopard-2A1_Turret.jpgUS4324169-1.png

 

The trunnion actually sits closer to the turret ring than on the Leclerc, if the top-view drawing of the Leclerc's turret is correct.

 

So it all comes down to Serge saying the Leclerc is more accurate without a source. Or the lower weight in front of the trunnion affects the gun stabilization (however using more powerful stabilizers would solve that).

 

14 hours ago, DarkLabor said:

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. 

 

"A more convenient gun balance" compared to which tank?

 

There are too many unknown factors, but assuming that the Leclerc is superior without any prove is silly. Maybe the Leclercs just had bad crews in all competitions and trials, maybe they did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DarkLabor said:

Whuuuut?
There is no rework regarding the armor.
It's just the turret of a tropicalised Leclerc on a Léopard 2A7 hull with an adaptator and a rework of how the two communicate together...


 

On the left side of the turret, the frontal armor block normally has a small cut in it gun side (AFAIK it's for the driver head).

Spoiler

https://www.humanite.fr/sites/default/files/images/36706.HR.jpg

 

Since with the adaptator, the turret is raised I guess they didn't need that anymore and replaced it by a full composite block

 

Spoiler

35076695_421243888342629_917009268408005

 

But that's a pretty minor modification.

Share this post


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

"A more convenient gun balance" compared to which tank?

 

There are too many unknown factors, but assuming that the Leclerc is superior without any prove is silly. Maybe the Leclercs just had bad crews in all competitions and trials, maybe they did not.

That's the specs of the engineers that worked on it.
Every modification from serie 1 to the third (SXXI) always took the balance of both gun tube and turret into consideration.
End of the story.
Sure there is no 100% percent proof but we know the mindset and means of the one who made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

36 minutes ago, DarkLabor said:

The later prototype was labelled as "standard european tank - french version" dunno about that one...

34984265_10156347688053187_4722358851674

What !!! Diffusion Restreinte

 

The GOA is knocking to your wall in 3, 2, 1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

 

On the left side of the turret, the frontal armor block normally has a small cut in it gun side (AFAIK it's for the driver head).

  Hide contents

https://www.humanite.fr/sites/default/files/images/36706.HR.jpg

 

Since with the adaptator, the turret is raised I guess they didn't need that anymore and replaced it by a full composite block

 

  Hide contents

35076695_421243888342629_917009268408005

 

But that's a pretty minor modification.

Yeah a storage box has been changed, you deduce the armor protection is completely changed...
What a tremendous change... ... ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • 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.
       
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Welcome to Mighty Zuk's place of mental rest and peace of mind. This is my realm. 
      I've decided it would be best to ditch the old Merkava thread for 2 reasons:
      1)It does not feature any bunched up information in its main post, and valuable information is scattered across different posts on different pages. 
      2)Many AFVs that are not related to the Merkava, or related but are not it, appear in that thread with improper representation. There are other AFVs than the Merkava, and it would be better to refer to them in a general way.
       
      As time will go by, I will arrange this thread into a sort of information center. 
       
      I will take up a few first comment spaces to make sure proper amount of information can be stacked up on the front page and for easier access for everyone.
       
      [Reserved for future posts - Merkava]
×