# Germany & France to jointly develop Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) - AKA "Leopard 3"



## CougarKing

An article from last May:

DW



> *Germany, France to jointly develop 'Leopard 3' tank
> 
> Germany and France are considering cooperation on developing a successor to the tank "Leopard 2." The current model has been in service since 1979, and aging Bundeswehr equipment is currently in stark focus.*
> 
> The German Defense Ministry announced its plans for the "Leo 3" (as it's likely to be nicknamed in Germany) in a report on Friday to the Bundestag, which was obtained by multiple media outlets.
> 
> "Technologies and concepts will be investigated between 2015 and 2018 in joint studies also involving German industry," Markus Grübel, a deputy minister in the German Defense Ministry told his parliamentary colleagues. He cited the Leopard 2's long years of service as the reason that a new battle tank was required.
> 
> *The Leopard 2's 50-year service life is set to expire in 2030. *The tank, which came into service in 1979, was conceived as part of a plan for Cold War-era land defense. Germany commissioned more than 2,000 of them at the peak of the arms race of the early 1980s. Currently, however, only about 240 are in active service; but last month, citing the security situation in Ukraine, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen annnounced plans to reactivate 100 mothballed Leopard 2 tanks. In November of last year, von der Leyen also announced a move to add more than 100 aditional "Boxer" armored personnel carriers to the Bundeswehr's ranks.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## cavalryman

The Leoclerc?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

They backed out of the MTB 70.  What is to say they don't back out this time as well.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They backed out of the MTB 70.  What is to say they don't back out this time as well.


That ended up spawning the M1 and the Leo 2, no?  And when you think about the development period, etc, the Leo 2 (and M1) are actually products of early 1970s thinking, although both have been significantly improved upon.


----------



## Eland2

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The Leoclerc?  ;D



The French-issue version will have two forward speeds, and 16 reverse.  :nana:


----------



## NavyShooter

Not a bad idea....it gives France a 'valid' means to suck German Euros out into it's economy....


----------



## George Wallace

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That ended up spawning the M1 and the Leo 2, no?  And when you think about the development period, etc, the Leo 2 (and M1) are actually products of early 1970s thinking, although both have been significantly improved upon.



Actually, I believe it was the Leo 1.  Originally, the Brits were looking into it as well, but pulled out leaving it a French/German program until the French pulled out as well.  AMX 30 was their product, and the Leo 1 was the German, with the British L7 gun.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe it was the Leo 1.  Originally, the Brits were looking into it as well, but pulled out leaving it a French/German program until the French pulled out as well.  AMX 30 was their product, and the Leo 1 was the German, with the British L7 gun.


The Leo 1 is a product of the 1950s, put into service in the 1960s.


----------



## a_majoor

From a "practical" and "fiscal" viewpoint, it might be a lot faster and easier for the Germans to create a 120mm robotic turret for the PUMA and put that into service. The concept provides for common logistics and training for a rage part of the fleet, economies of scale and tactically speaking, a fleet of vehicles with a very similar mobility profile. As well, the German army can continue the process using PUMA hulls for engineer vehicles, GBAD platforms and other jobs as well, providing a large and robust mechanized force at a fairly reasonable cost (much of the R&D is already amortized).

As an added bonus, the Germans will have a much more powerful fleet of vehicles for the foreign arms market than the current CV90 series that is dominant right now, and military exports are certainly an area where Germany has long been a big player.


----------



## George Wallace

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The Leo 1 is a product of the 1950s, put into service in the 1960s.



Yes, and I believe that is when the idea of the MTB 70 was originally started......Looking at Wikipedia, I am quite wrong and you are more correct:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70



> The MBT-70 (German: KPz 70) was a 1960s German-U.S. joint project to develop a new main battle tank, which was to be equipped with a number of advanced features. It utilized a newly developed hydropneumatic "kneeling" suspension and housed the entire crew in the large turret. The MBT-70 was armed with a 152mm XM150 gun/launcher, which could use conventional ammunition and the Shillelagh missile for long range combat.[2]
> 
> By 1969 the project was well over budget and Germany withdrew from the effort, developing a new main battle tank on their own instead (the Leopard 2). In the US the development continued for a short time, until in 1971 when Congress cancelled the program. The MBT-70 is the "grandfather" of the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams, the current main battle tanks of both countries.



No mention at all about the Brits or French anywhere on those pages.  Did see one of the prototypes up in Munster.  Impressive.


----------



## Underway

Seems an odd combo.  Mainly because the French crew commander is also the gunner in French tanks IIRC.  I thought that French tank crew management is entirely different than the Germans.


----------



## Infanteer

No, the Leclerc has an autoloader.  So only the Commander and Gunner are in the turret.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The Leoclerc?  ;D



tried to give you milpoints for the chuckle , not working


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the Germans have had enough of the lightly armoured tank, combining the lessons learned with the LeoA6M and the Leclarc and M1 would likely lead to some interesting discussions, the UK will of course demand a BV for the tank.


----------



## my72jeep

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think the Germans have had enough of the lightly armoured tank, combining the lessons learned with the LeoA6M and the Leclarc and M1 would likely lead to some interesting discussions, the UK will of course demand a BV for the tank.


BV?


----------



## jollyjacktar

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The Leoclerc?  ;D



or Leo deCapitulate?


----------



## Grimey

BV = Boiling Vessel.  The ability to boil water for tea takes precedence.


----------



## Underway

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, the Leclerc has an autoloader.  So only the Commander and Gunner are in the turret.



Ack, thanks.

As far as _doctrine_ is concerned it seems like a good fit design wise anyways.  The French and Germans emphasize mobility over firepower and protection in their tanks, so at least that's a match.

British emphasize protection as they always seem too (in ships as well as tanks historically) and you get one guess who emphasizes firepower from the NATO side....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:
			
		

> British emphasize protection as they always seem too (in ships as well as tanks historically) and you get one guess who emphasizes firepower from the NATO side....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From my reading the 4 western MBT's (Chally II, Leclarc, M1 and Leopard II) all share roughly the same protection and have gun which is the same or comparable. The main differences reflect the thinking of the military they were designed for. The Leclarc is starting to see real combat and is up against the occasional ATGM so we will see how it performs in real life. Only the M1 and Chally II have seen tank vs tank combat and even then in limited sense. The Merk 4 also is similar but emphasis crew protection, cross country performance and the ability to interact closely with infantry. 

I don't think we will see another turbine driven tank, although a small turbine type APU might happen. Crew survivability from ATGM's and IED's will be key. Some weight reduction and a certain amount of compatibility will be important.


----------



## Underway

Check out tanknutdave's website.  He does an excellent job breaking down why certain tanks are designed the way they are.  Mainly the Challey but heck, he's British so he knows people....

Essentially the M1 is all about engagement speed and hitting power emphasis, kill the enemy before they kill you.  The British have excellent armour and it has shown in their tank survivability rates in similar conditions to US M1 in Iraq.  The Leo generally has longer range and more efficient fuel consumption.  It has better strategic and tactical mobility than the Challenger or the M1, and are probably the least logistically complicated.  Leclerc is similar to the Leo in that regard.   The French are all about mobility and have a tendency to have heavy guns on lighter armour even in their recce elements.

But unless you put them all into some sort of tank Olympics then it's really just minor variations on a theme.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> Check out tanknutdave's website.  He does an excellent job breaking down why certain tanks are designed the way they are.  Mainly the Challey but heck, he's British so he knows people....
> 
> Essentially the M1 is all about engagement speed and hitting power emphasis, kill the enemy before they kill you.  The British have excellent armour and it has shown in their tank survivability rates in similar conditions to US M1 in Iraq.  The Leo generally has longer range and more efficient fuel consumption.  It has better strategic and tactical mobility than the Challenger or the M1, and are probably the least logistically complicated.  Leclerc is similar to the Leo in that regard.   The French are all about mobility and have a tendency to have heavy guns on lighter armour even in their recce elements.
> 
> But unless you put them all into some sort of tank Olympics then it's really just minor variations on a theme.



And 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough'

“Quantity has a quality all its own.”  Joseph Stalin


----------



## vonGarvin

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

>


So much freedom!  



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Ack, thanks.
> 
> As far as _doctrine_ is concerned it seems like a good fit design wise anyways.  The French and Germans emphasize mobility over firepower and protection in their tanks, so at least that's a match.



At the start of the Second World War, the French had some of the most well-protected tanks on the planet.  The Germans were good with mobility, but their best tank wasn't even theirs: the Pz 38 (t) was probably the most reliable one they had.  But some of the French heavy tanks were damn near unstoppable.  

Unless you had one of these:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Unstoppable and almost unfightable as well. The French command was just not prepared for a fluid war, even through they had the forces to do so. apparently the British in their original positions were well prepared to defend against a Panzer led attack with supporting aircraft, but never had the chance to establish themselves after they moved.


----------



## McG

The German tank advantages did not relate to the traditional firepower, mobility and survivability triad of tank design.  The German tank advantage was in radios (they had them while the vast majority of French tanks did not) and doctrine.

... But, I don't think a modern EuroTank is being designed to refight the last Franco-Prussian battles.


----------



## Underway

Why are we rehashing 60+ Year old tactics and doctrine like it has any bearing on today's military?  It really doesn't at all. MCG has an excellent point.  The Leo 3 will likely be designed to deal with new Russian tank designs.

So to advance the topic what are the big changes in the way Russians are using tanks and armour?  From what I can see dealing with active countermeasures will be a thing, also it looks like the new Russian APC/IFV will be very heavy relative to their previous doctrine.  More on a Puma or CV90 level if not more armoured.

It's going to be interesting how doctrine and design evolve to deal with that.  Perhaps a larger gun calibre, as that has been rumoured by the Germans before.  Or the addition of their own active defence system.  Certain,it a more integrated C2 system and targeting system based upon the newest technology.


----------



## vonGarvin

Do you really think that tactics, etc have changed that much in 60 years? In 60 decades? Newsflash: they haven't.

Schwarzkopf's operations in Iraq in 1991 differed little from Hannibal Barca's at Cannae.  The difference was mainly scale.


----------



## Lumber

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Do you really think that tactics, etc have changed that much in 60 years? In 60 decades? Newsflash: they haven't.
> 
> Schwarzkopf's operations in Iraq in 1991 differed little from Hannibal Barca's at Cannae.  The difference was mainly scale.



Tactics haven't changed much in 60 years because we haven't had any wars between major powers in that time. We haven't seen how useful an MBT would be in a large scale, open conflict between two first world armies. 

On the one hand, MBTs would be an easy target for a/c and attack helicopters. On the other hand, both sides would be quick to try and eliminate the enemy's a/c and helos. It takes a lot longer to train pilots and build modern a/c, and their are lot more tanks. Maybe MBTs are more vulnerable today, but maybe our airforces are too expensive and complicated. Perhaps after the first few air-air engagements, there wouldn't be much air cover left, and the MBT would reign supreme again?


----------



## Underway

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Do you really think that tactics, etc have changed that much in 60 years? In 60 decades? Newsflash: they haven't.
> 
> Schwarzkopf's operations in Iraq in 1991 differed little from Hannibal Barca's at Cannae.  The difference was mainly scale.


Newsflash...they are completely different and those who fail to adapt to new tactics and new technology are destined for the trash heap of history.


Air power has changed things significantly since WW2, guided munitions, night fighting and modern communications.  Hell, there was no such thing as a Main Battle Tank in the Second World War.  APCs were brand new, and not even specific builds.  Special forces were barely in their infancy.  Even artillery tactics have changed.  I'll give you the pro words may have been the same but how you fix an opponent with air power is not the same tactic as fixing an opponent with swordsman.


----------



## blacktriangle

Just wait until space is weaponized. Once tanks can be taken out from orbit, I think I'd be spending on ASAT capabilities and PGM countermeasures vice a new generation of tanks... 

(not to mention EW, Cyber and all that good stuff)


----------



## Infanteer

Underway said:
			
		

> Newsflash...they are completely different and those who fail to adapt to new tactics and new technology are destined for the trash heap of history.
> 
> 
> Air power has changed things significantly since WW2, guided munitions, night fighting and modern communications.  Hell, there was no such thing as a Main Battle Tank in the Second World War.  APCs were brand new, and not even specific builds.  Special forces were barely in their infancy.  Even artillery tactics have changed.  I'll give you the pro words may have been the same but how you fix an opponent with air power is not the same tactic as fixing an opponent with swordsman.



Newsflash...not really.  Most of what we do today comes from 1944 (fireplanning, combat team/battlegroup, air-land integration).  All those things you mentioned existed to some extent in the Second World War - while scale and scope may change, the principles remain the same.  The key point is that the general system of tactical employment, one built on a paradigm of firepower and manoeuvre that came out of the latter parts of the First World War, is still essentially the same - see Stephen Biddle's _Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle_.


----------



## McG

Fall Gelb still saw tanks designed and organized along concepts of light/cavalry with high velocity cannons for fighting other tanks or of medium/infantry with large low velocity cannons for supporting the assault.  Sponson guns were not uncommon, radios were uncommon, penny packeting was accepted, air support was unproven, and the employment of tanks did not generate the sort of tank battles that would offer insightful lessons today.  The lessons of those battles were at an extreme a fundamental level and we would be better served looking at historical examples that did build on these lessons (unless we are considering tanks without radios or penny-packet doctrine, and then we could look back to see the problems)

If we really want to look at the Second World War as an exercise for developing a modern MBT, then lets at least look at Barbarossa and after  At least by the time the Germans and Russians started to battle it out, the technology and tactics were developing to abandon bad practices seen in France and to reflect many of the fundamentals we still view as characteristic of armour and armoured warfare.

But be careful here too.  Designing a tank to win or re-win at Kursk may not result in a war winner today.   

Shaped-charge cluster munitions in masses rocket artillery strikes can deliver a beating to an armoured unit that would have been unimaginable in 1944.  Top attack missiles can launch EFPs to kill jockeying tanks in full defilade ... and a few "smart" artillery rounds are suggested to be capable of the same.  So, is the historical emphasis on armour over the frontal arc and above a 1 m line still relevant?

Do advances in UAVs, thermal optics, ground moving target radar, and night vision have implications for tank design and doctrine?


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> Sponson guns were not uncommon, radios were uncommon, penny packeting was accepted, air support was unproven, and the employment of tanks did not generate the sort of tank battles that would offer insightful lessons today.  The lessons of those battles were at an extreme a fundamental level and we would be better served looking at historical examples that did build on these lessons (unless we are considering tanks without radios or penny-packet doctrine, and then we could look back to see the problems)



The Germans didn't have tanks with sponson guns, their tanks were generally equipped with radios, they didn't penny-packet tanks as a matter of course, and their air support system was proven by this time, so your comments are not accurate.  The fact that the Germans employed this.  You are right in saying that the "lessons learned" are fundamental (mass armour) and not specific (how to avoid a hellfire), but that is the point I was trying to make - the fundamentals are still all there, and comments stating that 1940 offers no lessons are simply not true.

The real kicker is that the Battle for France was largely decided by an infantry battle that took place at the Meuse Crossing.  It was this fight that enabled the large scale manoeuvre of formations to take place.



> Shaped-charge cluster munitions in masses rocket artillery strikes can deliver a beating to an armoured unit that would have been unimaginable in 1944.  Top attack missiles can launch EFPs to kill jockeying tanks in full defilade ... and a few "smart" artillery rounds are suggested to be capable of the same.  So, is the historical emphasis on armour over the frontal arc and above a 1 m line still relevant?
> 
> Do advances in UAVs, thermal optics, ground moving target radar, and night vision have implications for tank design and doctrine?



Depends on what sort of doctrine we are talking about - individual/small unit employment or larger scale combined arms employment.  Mass supporting fire, whether delivered from a rocket launcher or an airplane, was a danger that existed in 1944.  Look at the trouble and attrition rates the Germans experienced in trying to mass armoured forces in Normandy.  For every UAV, thermal, radar, night vision, or shape-charge measure that was going to render tanks obsolete, technology has been quite good at producing a counter-measures.  Thus the offensive/defensive balance is largely maintained and the fundamental principles discussed in Biddle's book remain the same.  This is why his OA of both France 1944 and Iraq 1991 produce similiar outcomes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also the role of SOF forces in the opening phases are often forgotten.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Germans didn't have tanks with sponson guns, their tanks were generally equipped with radios, they didn't penny-packet tanks as a matter of course, and their air support system was proven by this time, so your comments are not accurate.


The French did have these faults in their tanks, both countries did follow the Infantry vs Cavalry tank design models, and air support value was not mutually accepted.  The end state is that the invasion of France is too immature to be the preferred model to analyze  and deduce the design evolutions that should go into a next generation tank today.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Depends on what sort of doctrine we are talking about - individual/small unit employment or larger scale combined arms employment.


Both of these need to be considered in defining the requirements of a next generation battle tank.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Mass supporting fire, whether delivered from a rocket launcher or an airplane, was a danger that existed in 1944.  Look at the trouble and attrition rates the Germans experienced in trying to mass armoured forces in Normandy.


Just imagine how much more those losses would have been under the effects of DPICM where the direct strike of unitary warheads is no longer required for a total kill.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> For every UAV, thermal, radar, night vision, or shape-charge measure that was going to render tanks obsolete, technology has been quite good at producing a counter-measures.


Nobody is saying tanks will become obsolete any time soon.  But, if we are discussing the next generation of battle tank, then the lessons will be found in more modern combat where tanks have competed with these threats.  If we are going to look to the Second World War for examples, then let's look to the Eastern front where tanks fought on both sides having taken aboard the lessons of the French collapse (where only one side used tanks and air support effectievely).


----------



## jollyjacktar

And so, ergo, the more things change the more they stay the same.  I do wonder, however, if we will really see a modern day Kursk engagement between two first nation or peer opponents one day?  Who really has the numbers for a really big ding dong nowadays?


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> The end state is that the invasion of France is too immature to be the preferred model to analyze  and deduce the design evolutions that should go into a next generation tank today....But, if we are discussing the next generation of battle tank, then the lessons will be found in more modern combat where tanks have competed with these threats.



We're talking past each other.  The conversation was on the Maginot line, operational deployments of formations and general armoured employment.  None of this really matters on modern tank design features, which probably means that the discussion following TechnoViking's tangent is worthy of a split.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe it was the Leo 1.  Originally, the Brits were looking into it as well, but pulled out leaving it a French/German program until the French pulled out as well.  AMX 30 was their product, and the Leo 1 was the German, with the British L7 gun.


George,
It looks like you were thinking of the Europa-Panzer; it was an effort by France and Germany to run a competition between manufactures and select the best tank for both countries.   I understand the competition started with a French and three German companies, but later Porsche entered from Italy.  Porsche won, and both countries built their own tanks.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> George,
> It looks like you were thinking of the Europa-Panzer; it was an effort by France and Germany to run a competition between manufactures and select the best tank for both countries.   I understand the competition started with a French and three German companies, but later Porsche entered from Italy.  Porsche won, and both countries built their own tanks.



Could be.  The number of times some of these nations and/or companies start joint ventures and then dissolve is some times confusing after time has passed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could be.  The number of times some of these nations and/or companies start joint ventures and then dissolve is some times confusing after time has passed.



It's a European tradition to mess up joint projects like this, viz:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon


----------



## a_majoor

It would be interesting to contemplate the various new threats to tanks, ranging from distributed sensor systems to various forms of top attack munitions, as well as the ever increasing potency of "conventional" weapons, and work out what a new tank design would need based on the ability to counter these threats while still being able to deliver a punch on the modern battlefield.

I'm starting to think that developments in self seeking, long range munitions might convert the tank to a form of better protected self propelled artillery (rounds like LAHAT or the Korean KSTAM allow tanks to attack targets from 13 and 8km away respectively), and advanced communications and networking will also work in favour of the tanks, especially if the tank troop and squadron (platoon and company) can collaberate with dispersed sensors and tanks that are normally out of the fight due to terrain or distance can add fire with their NLOS munitions.

This is a consideration since "more of the same"  is increasingly costly (A Korean K-2 tank is supposed to cost $8.8 million dollars a unit). Making tanks more versatile and more deadly might be the key to making them relevant farther in the future.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to contemplate the various new threats to tanks, ranging from distributed sensor systems to various forms of top attack munitions, as well as the ever increasing potency of "conventional" weapons, and work out what a new tank design would need based on the ability to counter these threats while still being able to deliver a punch on the modern battlefield.
> 
> I'm starting to think that developments in self seeking, long range munitions might convert the tank to a form of better protected self propelled artillery (rounds like LAHAT or the Korean KSTAM allow tanks to attack targets from 13 and 8km away respectively), and advanced communications and networking will also work in favour of the tanks, especially if the tank troop and squadron (platoon and company) can collaberate with dispersed sensors and tanks that are normally out of the fight due to terrain or distance can add fire with their NLOS munitions.
> 
> This is a consideration since "more of the same"  is increasingly costly (A Korean K-2 tank is supposed to cost $8.8 million dollars a unit). Making tanks more versatile and more deadly might be the key to making them relevant farther in the future.



How about 2000 armed drones at a cost of about $50,000 each instead?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Collaboration on what works and what didn't is great. A frank assessment of the political and industrial landscape is required. Is the UK ever going to build another MBT? Can it accept politically that if not, then it must buy from the Germans, French or the US? Without a realistic domestic assessment, then anything beyond lessons learned will fail.


----------



## a_majoor

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How about 2000 armed drones at a cost of about $50,000 each instead?



For _this_ generation that is actually artillery rather than a substitute for tanks, but increasing powers of computer algorithms, technical advances in the art of building drones and increases in their capabilities (and adding in other related technological factors and changes in doctrine, TTP's etc.) might make that the replacement for tanks in the next generation. Or something even more "out of the box" might come along.


----------



## tomahawk6

Its a nice looking design.But in the interim the Leo will be upgraded in stages.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-russia-european-power-has-plans-lethal-new-tank-15251

The first step will be to upgrade the Leopard 2 with a new digital turret core system, new situational awareness system and an Active Defense System (ADS).

The tank will also need a new high-pressure 120mm cannon and new ammunition. Papperger expects that the new gun and ammunition will yield twenty percent better performance than the current L55 120mm cannon. However, it’s not clear how much further the weapon can be extended. There are significant drawbacks to a longer cannon—which is one of the reasons the U.S. Army retains the shorter L44 120mm cannon for its Abrams. It’s possible that Rheinmetall is using new materials to increase the pressure within the cannon without increasing the cannon’s length.


----------



## CougarKing

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to the mods for the thread merge!


----------



## tomahawk6

The trick for the Europeans is to be able to build enough tanks for a decent price.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US can muddy the waters by offering a Euroized Abrams, with MTU engine, BV, different comms system and generally mimic Euro traits which require minimal changes, change the name to something more acceptable to the Euro's


----------



## tomahawk6

The next generation MBT needs to offer the same if not better features than the Armada MBT.Maybe a tank that floats on an air cushion?


----------



## McG

I know a guy with experience on that.


----------



## MilEME09

hopefully it get's designed with ATGM capabilities off the bat, the question also is 120mm main gun or with a new generation of Russian, and Chinese MBT's will the Europeans use this as a an arms race and perhaps up gun to a 140mm that they experimented with on the Leopard 2.


----------



## tomahawk6

What about a gun/launcher ? The Armata is said to have such a gun.The last time the US tried the gun/launcher was on the Sheridan airborne tank.It had a 152mm gun/launcher but had problems with the 152mm combustible case ammunition.


----------



## NavyShooter

I think the key aspect that's to be on the Armata that's not on allied force AFV's is the active protection system.  I believe the Merkava has something, but I suspect that adding something like the ASPRO-A as an integral fit, rather than an aftermarket fit would be a necessary piece of the puzzle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)

(Forgive the wikipedia....)

NS


----------



## GR66

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I think the key aspect that's to be on the Armata that's not on allied force AFV's is the active protection system.  I believe the Merkava has something, but I suspect that adding something like the ASPRO-A as an integral fit, rather than an aftermarket fit would be a necessary piece of the puzzle.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)
> 
> (Forgive the wikipedia....)
> 
> NS



Couldn't firing something like a flechette round which creates multiple incoming targets overwhelm the active protection system (and possibly set off the reactive armour) on a tank so that a follow on anti-armour round can make it through?


----------



## NavyShooter

Yes, probably, but then you've fired two shots for one hit, and the defending tank would know where the second shot is coming from.

Having the two combined into one shot wouldn't work because the penetrator would end up being much faster than the flechettes.  (Not to mention the dispersion of the flechettes at any normal tank-battle range.)

NS


----------



## McG

Has there ever been a duplex round built for a cannon?  I assume there would be significant engineering problems to build it with good accuracy, but it would produce a double tap effect like described above.


----------



## Old Sweat

As a horribly out of date gunner I can think of several challenges, not the least being that gravity hauls objects in flight down at the same rate regardless of their horizontal velocity.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Has there ever been a duplex round built for a cannon?  I assume there would be significant engineering problems to build it with good accuracy, but it would produce a double tap effect like described above.



Yes.  There are anti-tank rounds that have an initiating charge and a secondary (Tandem-charge).  

The RPG 7 can fire the PG-7VR Tandem HEAT warhead.   
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR



Some Links on Tank and other ammo:

http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=62837

http://aollc.biz/tank.htm

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/weapons_and_ammunition/direct_fire/large_calibre/index.php

http://www.gd-otscanada.com/product/120mm-tank-ammunition/

http://www.chemring.co.uk/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V2/PDFs/sector-brochure-munitions-web-300512


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.  There are anti-tank rounds that have an initiating charge and a secondary (Tandem-charge).


It is not quite the same thing.  Tandem is one projectile.  It works against reactive armour, but not so much against active defence systems.
Duplex ammunition puts two projectiles in the air with one shot.


----------



## quadrapiper

MCG said:
			
		

> It is not quite the same thing.  Tandem is one projectile.  It works against reactive armour, but not so much against active defence systems.
> Duplex ammunition puts two projectiles in the air with one shot.


Are the active defences' associated sensors something that radiates or otherwise behaves in a way that allows targeting ( perhaps with something that's not the main gun) or EW spoofing, whether jamming or triggering the defence?


----------



## McG

That, or more commonly something that destroys the incoming explosive projectile before it reaches its target.  The T-90 has both.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_(countermeasure)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora


----------



## Ostrozac

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What about a gun/launcher ? The Armata is said to have such a gun.The last time the US tried the gun/launcher was on the Sheridan airborne tank.It had a 152mm gun/launcher but had problems with the 152mm combustible case ammunition.



Those are already available as a drop-in for existing tanks -- the Israeli LAHAT is available in 105mm and 120mm versions, and is in service with two NATO armies (Germany and Croatia). It's a good piece of kit for what it is -- but most armies want to keep their tanks moving and instead fight the long-range missile battle with things like TOW and Javelin.

The Canadian Army, on the other hand, seems to be in denial that anti-armour weapons are even needed, and seems to think that the 84mm recoilless rifle represents the peak of armor defeating technology. Which isn't quite the same lesson that the Ukrainians have picked up.


----------



## GR66

MCG said:
			
		

> Has there ever been a duplex round built for a cannon?  I assume there would be significant engineering problems to build it with good accuracy, but it would produce a double tap effect like described above.



I was more thinking along the lines of a coax launcher of some sort that releases multiple "targets" for the active defense system to try and deal with just ahead of the main gun round...but I'm guessing the problem would be having a smaller caliber round being able to have a higher velocity than the main gun round.  Maybe something rocket assisted?


----------



## NavyShooter

Co-axial 25mm?  Fire a burst of 10 rds at the target and as they are in mid-air fire the main gun so that the rounds arrive at approximately the same time?  

NS


----------



## George Wallace

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Co-axial 25mm?  Fire a burst of 10 rds at the target and as they are in mid-air fire the main gun so that the rounds arrive at approximately the same time?
> 
> NS



Questions then arise as to the velocities and trajectories of the Co-ax and the Main Gun, time to switch sights from Co-ax graticle to Main Gun graticle/computer computations and dispersion of rounds on target.


----------



## Ostrozac

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Questions then arise as to the velocities and trajectories of the Co-ax and the Main Gun, time to switch sights from Co-ax graticle to Main Gun graticle/computer computations and dispersion of rounds on target.



It all seems like a bit of a pointless exercise to me -- active defence systems like Afghanit and Trophy are optimised for use against ATGM, not tank main gun rounds. Sabot rounds are fast and small enough to punch right through any currently fielded active defence system.


----------



## MilEME09

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Those are already available as a drop-in for existing tanks -- the Israeli LAHAT is available in 105mm and 120mm versions, and is in service with two NATO armies (Germany and Croatia). It's a good piece of kit for what it is -- but most armies want to keep their tanks moving and instead fight the long-range missile battle with things like TOW and Javelin.
> 
> The Canadian Army, on the other hand, seems to be in denial that anti-armour weapons are even needed, and seems to think that the 84mm recoilless rifle represents the peak of armor defeating technology. Which isn't quite the same lesson that the Ukrainians have picked up.



Well if we upgraded to the M4 Carl G(brand new), and it's newest ammo line, we would at least be effective against modern tanks. that said the best counter to a tank imo is another tank if you can't wait for air power.

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/land/weapon-systems/support-weapons/carl-gustaf-m4/image-download/carl-gustaf-m4_8pg_brochure_d6.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hell even the Islamist realize the importance of ATGM's, the Russians are still bringing ATG to the mix and anyone trying to bomb them is going to meet a well layered AD system. Plus we don't have enough artillery to counter battery and due to all of it being towed, it's likely to suffer badly from being counter bombarded as well.


----------



## McG

Poland wants to be a part of this tank development.

http://defnews.ly/2aMFOQd


----------



## MilEME09

Wonder if the PL-01 concept tank will have any influence?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Can't wait until the EU mandarins in Brussels get involved in this. Hope I'm still alive in twenty years when they roll it out. ;D


----------

