Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

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). 

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

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. 

 

Do you have a link to these tests?

Share this post


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...

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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. 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

 

To permit manual reloading. 

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

 

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

 

To permit manual reloading. 

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

Not THAT close, don't forget the recoil! ;)

Share this post


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.

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]
×