Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

SH_MM

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    1,397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by SH_MM

  1. I don't believe any official data on KMW's offer (if there already is a definitive offer) have been revealed yet. The website Leopard2A7.no was made by the Norwegian officer's club and is likely not correct. However the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7 NO definetly won't be identical, simply because Project 5050 - i.e. the Leopard 2 upgrade program which lead to the requirement for new built tanks - demanded a laser rangefinder for the independent commander's sight.
  2. Yes, you can read more about that here:https://below-the-turret-ring.com/armored-vehicles/bundeswehr-introduces-leopard-2a7v-into-service/
  3. That is not a MIV Boxer in the photo, but FFG's recovery module. So at least four Boxers will be displayed.
  4. I doubt that. There is no reason to assume the Trophy integration will be influenced by the possiblity to mount a 130 mm gun that the UK has no official plans to adopt. IMO it is more likely that the British Army wants the option to mount add-on armor on the turret sides without having large weakspots thanks to Trophy.
  5. That is a Leopard 2A4 tank used for internal tests by KMW. The EDR coverage on the Leopard 2 from a few pages earlier mentions it. KMW has done quite some work after that; i.e. they developed their own blast/fragmentation shield (that apparently can be folded up and down without leaving the tank), and integrated two of their smoke grenade launchers (physically at least, not sure about software) into the Trophy module. As far as I can tell, the Trophy system still is a modular appliqué solution on the Leopard 2A7A1; the turrets of the Leopard 2A6A3 are re-used (with minor modifications); the power delivery is a bigger issue (as the Leopard 2A6A3 has no APU) and hence new hulls are produced. There is little reason to assume that the Leopard 2A7(V) could not be fitted with Trophy if desired.
  6. Not much, there are only minor improvements, many of which were part of the Leopard 2A5 already 25 years earlier: the FCS can now read multiple echoes of the LRF, which is required to engage aerial targets the commander can press a button to automatically turn the turret to face the front (0° rotation) or the back (180° rotation) a fire extinguishing system was installed/connected to the APU the ability for cold starting the engine without restarting the electronics was added cooling systems for the electronics were improved batteries were improved "fitted for but not with" an IFF system
  7. The Trophy is fake, btw. This is an Abrams tank borrowed from an US Army unit, the Trophy APS is a plastic mock-up, hence its odd mounting (attached to the storage racks) and the lack of a counter-weight at the turret front. The same tank a few hours before the photo with "Trophy" was taken:
  8. https://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnioa-selected-as-ammunition-supplier-for-australias-land-400-phase-ii-programme-5804837/
  9. It is not. It is an engineering office with no own production capacity. IIRC they even managed to get some small scale production contract for a RWS or one-man turret a few years back. Quite some work done by that one guy in his garage
  10. Some footage from tests conducted in Germany (at least it seems like that) before shipping the Lynx prototype to Australia: Coverage is a lot better than SolarSigmaShield on AS21. The Flintstones look is quite effective
  11. There was a competition during the 1980s to upgun the Marder while keeping the existing turret. Rheinmetall developed the Rh 205 gun for this competition, while Mauser developed the MK 25 (also known as Mauser Model E). Both of these guns were chambered in the 25 x 137 mm caliber. In the end it was decided that the funds would be of more use in the Marder 2 IFV development/Kampfwagen 90 project.
  12. Local production of Leopard 2 was/is being offered to Poland, but they decided to buy the M1A2 SEP v3 instead. KMW even offered license-production of the Leopard 2A6 to Turkey (they chose Hyundai's offer to help them create the Altay instead...), which is a lot less liked than Poland by all German politicians. Poland however insisted on a 60 tonnes weight limit and trying to develop their own tank (Gepard, Wilk, etc.) before the current government decided to ignore all of that and opt for the Abrams instead.
  13. X-ray high-speed image of an APFSDS round after being engaged by AMAP-ADS (from a test conducted some time prior November 2013).
  14. If you feel that way, then I apologize. Sorry for that. Ban me if you like, its your forum. I am still not sure how a photo of German WW2 tanks is the correct response to the previous question, but you probably had further thoughts that weren't fully expressed - or fully understood by me - when posting/seeing just that photo. It is explicitly stated in Paul-Werner Krapke's 1986 book. He was former "project manager" (leitender Baudirektor) of the Leopard 2 program. The only common part/dimension (out of 13 or 14 submitted for standardization) that the USA and the FRG agreed upon was the width of the tracks.
  15. Strawman. Tanks alone are useless on the modern battlefield with combined arms doctrine. Tanks alone were already useless in WW2. Abrams' roadwheels have a diameter of 25 inches (635 mm); Leopard 2's roadwheels have a diameter of 700 mm.
  16. I don't think anybody complains that the M1A2 SEP v3 would be a bad tank. The real questions are: Does Poland need 800 tanks (12 tank bataillons + ca. 100 tanks for training etc.)? Does Poland need these tanks instantly? Poland's current government does have very different answers to these question than their previous (and from what I've read, also a lot of Polish journalists & soldiers). That is not the case. The road wheels have different diameters and are made from different materials. While Diehl offered tracks based on the Leopard 2's Type 570 tracks (with altered length) to the US Army in the 1980s, these were no selected; the Abrams uses American-made T158 tracks (or a newer version of them). The USMC's old Abrams tanks had more in common with the Leopard 2 (Wegmann-designed smoke grenade dischargers, Zeiss-made laser rangefinder & Rheinmetall's programmable HE ammunition).
  17. Seems like he is getting a lot of attention now: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/classified-challenger-tank-specs-leaked-online-for-videogame/
  18. Interesting article on the Leopard 2's future published by the European Defence Review (EDR) magazine: Source: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/krauss-maffei-wegmann-the-ever-lasting-leopard-2 (Underlined text = emphasis added by me)
  19. At that price, nobody would complain. But its "up to 250 Abrams" according to Polish government. I don't think that the M1A2 SEP v3 will become really operational with the Polish Army within less than five years. Polish MoD expects first batch by the end of 2022, but this is very optimistic and likely limited to at most a dozen tanks (which then will be used for training). The argument "Poland needs Abrams now, because Russia has the T-14" is also odd. I've seen speculations in my Twitter feed regarding PiS's right-wing policies being a potential threat to the M1A2 SEP v3 (and the F-35) procurement. People there made analogies to Turkey's F-35 deal, basically stating "if PiS makes another stupid law, then Biden might cancel the deal". There were rumors (no idea how accurate these are), that the deal was already delayed because of some PiS-made law.
×
×
  • Create New...