Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) and Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT)

[Mighty_Zuk]

28 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

you can call whatever you want

 

and about so called "credibility", when someone thinks that some tank are 100% better than others, and doesn't  think that all tanks are equally shitty, well, that's where your "credibility died"

 

how many claims about superb Leo2 armour was made before Turkish Leo2 get in Syria, and swedish report ? and where all this "credible sources and claims" now ?:) 

 

 

What design solutions would you propose instead of what the teams working on the Leopard 2 and Leclerc did?

 

That is, considering you just made some really irrelevant points "against" the Leo 2 not based on its structure or capabilities at all.

[Serge]

I would propose to start from the Leopard -2 chassis. 

1- considering the turret 22 rounds, I would segregate hull ammo rack from the rest of the crew. 

2- I would try to have a flatter engine deck. 

3- I would lowered the turret on the hull chassis. 

This is a good start. 

 

Of course, I would add Leclerc like fuel barrels. But after...

[Xoon]

22 minutes ago, Serge said:

I would propose to start from the Leopard -2 chassis. 

1- considering the turret 22 rounds, I would segregate hull ammo rack from the rest of the crew. 

2- I would try to have a flatter engine deck. 

3- I would lowered the turret on the hull chassis. 

This is a good start. 

 

Of course, I would add Leclerc like fuel barrels. But after...

New engine basically and suspension? MTU 890 V12 and hydropneumatic suspension?

[Collimatrix]

Guys, @Wiedzmin is being a bit provocative in how he said that and I know he insulted your waifu favorite tank, but let's be honest here; sticking a Leclerc turret on a Leopard 2 chassis isn't exactly going to flip the world upside-down.

There's a reason we have a facetious Contemporary Western Tank Rumble thread.  Western tanks are more similar than they are distinct.  Except for the Merkava they all have the same track design.  Except for the Chally 2 they all use the same gun.  Except for the Abrams they all use or can use very similar MTU diesels.

 

Western tank design has clearly been in a rut for the past several decades, and I don't think it's unreasonable to point this fact out.

[barbaria]

Come on guys, this LEOCLERC^tm is obviously just to show the world that Germans and French can indeed cooperate on tank design, how small and lack of innovation of this LEOCLERC^tm is. Let us see what they have in store in a couple years, granted that the cooperation lasts...

[DrunkenMaster]

3 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

Guys, @Wiedzmin is being a bit provocative in how he said that and I know he insulted your waifu favorite tank, but let's be honest here; sticking a Leclerc turret on a Leopard 2 chassis isn't exactly going to flip the world upside-down.

 

But he didn't "insult our tank waifu" - I honestly couldn't care less about the Leoclerc -, he shat on it because of the notion it is made by France and Germany, nations which can't build tanks according to him, thats what I was getting at. If I were to bash russian tanks on sturgeonshouse just because they are russian, I think my account would be locked in no time. I hope it never comes to that on sturgeonshouse, since this is one of the last forums on the net without such trolls...

[Serge]

8 hours ago, Xoon said:

New engine basically and suspension? MTU 890 V12 and hydropneumatic suspension?

Whatever you want. 

But something sturdy. 

 

The priority is is to lower the turret position. This is under way. 

[Collimatrix]

18 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Interesting.  I was previously under the impression that the majority of Western tanks had the trunnions quite some distance outside the turret ring.

[Bronezhilet]

I don't think you should take distance measurements from patents. As long as the idea stays/works the same the measurements on a patent don't really matter. ( @Toxn correct me if I'm wrong on this)

[skylancer-3441]

another photo from twitter

[Toxn]

2 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

I don't think you should take distance measurements from patents. As long as the idea stays/works the same the measurements on a patent don't really matter. ( @Toxn correct me if I'm wrong on this)

Pretty much.

 

If the invention needs a certain measurement to work it will usually be claimed. If not, then you usually try not to give away the ideal/optimal embodiment in the patent itself so long as sufficiency of disclosure is sorted.

 

Do people want me to look at patents or something? 

[SH_MM]

13 hours ago, Bronezhilet said:

I don't think you should take distance measurements from patents. As long as the idea stays/works the same the measurements on a patent don't really matter

 

Patents are not a good source for accurately scaled drawings, but if you look at scale drawings from other sources, interior photos of the tank or photos from the upgrade process, you'll see that the location of the gun trunnion is essentially the same as in the patent drawing. This is the result of wanting a thick mantlet armor block recessed into the turret armor (the gun shield is optimized for frontal impacts only, hitting it from the side would result in lower protection, I suppose due to the arrangement of the NERA sandwich plates).

 

 

 

There is a German documentary which includes footage from a KMW factory from the Leopard 2A5 upgrade. The trunnion seems to sit slightly in front of the turret ring and to overlap it at the center section.

[skylancer-3441]

from this article https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article177428848/Euro-MBT-Panzer-Krauss-Maffei-und-Nexter-praesentieren-ersten-Demonstrator.html 
photos:
cropped 3300 pix wide:

non-cropped 2560 pix wide:



btw, this site has bigger non-cropped pictures at least 3840 pix wide, but i was not able to figure out what number/letter/word to put into image's link to get one of those.

[Serge]

I deeply believe there is a place (a need) for a good quality basic tank in the world tank market. We can’t wait 2040 and an hypothetical MGCS.

 

This demonstrator is a good start. The next will be better. 

Just to solve the problem of how the pilot hatch is close to the turret. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

21 minutes ago, Serge said:

I deeply believe there is a place (a need) for a good quality basic tank in the world tank market. We can’t wait 2040 and an hypothetical MGCS.

 

This demonstrator is a good start. The next will be better. 

Just to solve the problem of how the pilot hatch is close to the turret. 

The ready Leopard 2A6+ and Leclerc SXXI+ are good 'basic' tanks already without this hybrid. I don't see any merit to this hybrid in any way, other than it just being an interesting thing to look at.

 

I have a feeling though that in the mid-2020's onwards, we'll see some pretty saturated global market for all weight classes of AFVs, including MBTs. 

 

[Serge]

The Leclerc production facilities are closed and, it can take 3 years long to reactivate. This is why we’ve just failed new contracts last year. 

Leclerc chassis is complex and expensive. Leopard 2 is reliable and can be improved. 

The Euro-MBT is 6 tons lighter with 7 more rounds and 3 men crew. 

 

By 2035, today’s tanks will be out dated. So, an interim solution for countries wich don’t want to spend to much now is needed. 

 

As a French man, I’m not very found to see we have good technological bricks and are, in the meantime, unable to provide a tank to a friendly country.  

[Mighty_Zuk]

If the production facilities are closed, how will they make Leclerc turrets?

[Serge]

It’s easier to restart the turret production. 

Nexter losted some capabilities concerning mobility. 

 

[Alzoc]

20 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If the production facilities are closed, how will they make Leclerc turrets? 

 

Most likely by using turrets from Leclerc that won't be upgraded during the scorpion program (only about 200 upgraded out of ~400) and possibly later re-opening the lines to produce some new turrets to replace the ones used for export (or not if we are close enough to 2040 and the MGCS is about to enter production).

 

That seem to be a common practice nowadays, for example the Egyptian FREMM was originally intended for the French navy (Normandie), the state simply asked to the navy to wait a bit longer to get their new ship to satisfy the immediate demand on export.

Use the turret lying around to satisfy the immediate demand and in the meantime relaunch the production line to refill the stock.

[SH_MM]

42 minutes ago, Serge said:

The Euro-MBT is 6 tons lighter with 7 more rounds and 3 men crew. 

 

It is not 6 tons lighter. It has 6 metric tons growth potential (to the qualified weight of 68 metric tons). The combat weight of the EMBT is 62 metric tons, the empty weight is 60 metric tons as reported by different media outlets.

 

Quote

The EMBT weighs just less than 60 tonnes and has a combat weight of 62 tonnes, with a growth potential of six tonnes or around 10% for future developments

- http://www.janes.com/article/80889/eurosatory-2018-knds-presents-joint-franco-german-tank-demonstrator

 

Compare this to the Leopard 2A7 (the EMBT is clearly based on a Leopard 2A7 hull, although the sign in front of it said Leopard 2A6 hull) at 64 metric tons combat weight for the German version (which lacks the hull applique armor, which probably adds 1 to 1.5 metric tons of weight). The EMBT saves just 2 to 3,5 metric tons over the Leopard 2A7...

 

 

The thing is that weight reduction options for the Leopard 2 have been designed and some also have been tested. The Leopard 2A6 EX from 1999 already had the EuroPowerPack from MTU for a major weight reduction (880 kg). Larger ammunition storage can be implement with the new engine if desired. A powerpack using a hypothetical " MT 893" would result in even lower weight (the engine itself has only have the weight of the MT 883 used in the EuroPowerPack).

[Laser Shark]

If they are serious about offering the LeoClerk to customers, I suppose it might show up in the “upcoming” Norwegian tank trials in a few years. As a Leo 2 based vehicle and another European alternative, it’s probably also got a better chance against the Leo 2A7 (the Army's favorite) than the other likely contenders.

[SH_MM]

They are not serious, they don't plan to offer it on the market.

 

Also a KMW employee told the German press (which has been copying his words in most news articles), that the company (behind closed doors) considers the Leopard 2 a much better tank than the EMBT, so they have no reason to push for any production. Just think about it from KMW's perspective: why should they create their own competition and agree to take only 50% of the revenue?

 

KNDS is not a single company. Its a cooperation of two companies, who try to split up the market (by not competing against each other) and help each other (by making joint projects). 

[Laser Shark]

18 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Just think about it from KMW's perspective: why should they create their own competition and agree to take only 50% of the revenue?

 

Sometimes ideology trumps reason.

[Jägerlein]

On 6/13/2018 at 11:52 PM, SH_MM said:

KNDS is not a single company. Its a cooperation of two companies, who try to split up the market (by not competing against each other) and help each other (by making joint projects). 

And where to start if you want to bring the NEXTER and KMW parts closer together? Give them something to tinker around and work together without a greater risk when things doesn't work out. And then the LeoClerc was born.
This cooperation is imho nothing which will last for too long, they'll grow together and will get rid of redundant parts.

[Serge]

 

On 6/13/2018 at 11:52 PM, SH_MM said:

Just think about it from KMW's perspective: why should they create their own competition and agree to take only 50% of the revenue?

Like both Australian and Czech Army competitions ? SPz-Puma on the one hand, SPz-Lynx on the other one.

 

The problem is not an internal competition but how close are both solutions. Chassis are the same.

We have to keep in mind, the decision is made by the customer. 

So, saving 2t can be good for it. Having 7 more rounds ready to be fired into a 2 men crew turret can be good for it.

 

The very drawbacks of the E-MBT is the balistic hole between turret and chassis. Once solved, we will be able to compared the quality of E-MBT and A7...