>>17265 >They might see a comeback with specialized roles depending on where wars are fought in the future. In North America or southern South America for instance, the oscillating design would be highly efficient outside of the metropolises. Or if you make an unmanned one where most of the drawbacks don't really matter. Although even so, they are not that useful in an urban environment due to their limited elevation. Y With modern robotics you could make an unmanned turret where the breech of the gun depresses into the turret ring to the point that the barrel is vertical, yet it wouldn't really impact the RoF, and that would be useful both in cities and against aerial targets. No, I'm not saying that every tank should also function as a SPAAG all the time, but with the threat of dronespams having extra AA is always a welcome.

>>17266 >Unmanned so you can depress the turret into the body So long as you make it easy to remove in the field for cleaning, that would indeed be an excellent use for the oscillating turret design since it could target both infantry and drones.

What would be best way to mix IFVs armed with either an autocannon in the 30-60mm range or a turret that has some higher calibre weapon for fire support (e.g. a 105mm cannon or a 120mm mortar)? Let's suppose that only the turrets differ between the two variants otherwise they are the exact same vehicle. A platoon consists of 3 vehicles, and a company is 3 platoons with an additional one for a total of 10. I can see two variations: >the company and platoon commander vehicles are fire support variants, the other 6 have autocannons >the company and platoon commander vehicles have autocannon, and one of the vehicles in each platoon have a big gun The only real-world example I know of were the Rooikat-equipped South African units, but I can't find much information about how those operated. >>17267 I don't think that would work with an oscillating turret, because the whole upper part of the turret would have to be depressed into the turret ring, instead of only the gun breech. I can see something like the Kugelblitz, but I don't see how that would be superior to simply raising only the gun barrel.

Can you make effective floating screens out kevlar, or it wouldn't give enough protection against small arms and artillery fire during a river crossing?

Can anyone tell me what would a wheeled (tire out of hard/elastic plastic, no air) tank with rockets that are autoloaded internally in a turret either in a tube or cannon that has multipurpose guided missiles as ammunition and a radar apparatus that could target land, air, and sea targets look like ? Does it need a autocannon also added to the radar apparatus to stop little drones from targeting it?

>>17841 >Can anyone tell me what would a wheeled (tire out of hard/elastic plastic, no air) tank with rockets that are autoloaded internally in a turret either in a tube or cannon that has multipurpose guided missiles as ammunition and a radar apparatus that could target land, air, and sea targets look like ? It would look like any other wheeled IFV, just with a different turret. >Does it need a autocannon also added to the radar apparatus to stop little drones from targeting it? We'd have to send it into combat both with and without an autocannon to find it out. I'd say if you can put one there then you should, and maybe remove it if it proves to be nothing but dead weight.

>>17841 Congratulations, you've just made a wheeled BMP-3.

>>19261 >In my case it's because I dream of ˝synchronizing˝ the guns used on land and on the sea. Specifically, with the kind of defensive system they are already putting on tanks the two best bets against them are going to be hypersonic missiles and really big guns. Therefore I imagine that for the front line the best main armament for a tank (or heavy IFV) would be a 76.2mm gun with a high RoF combined with a row hypersonic missiles. But the real tank killer should be a SPG with a 21cm gun: the first vehicle would mostly just designate targets for guided 21cm shells, and its own hypersonic missiles are mostly there for self-defence. >>19293 >When it comes to tanks, really, all you absolutely need to do to cause a mission kill is to poke a hole into the crew compartment. To that extent, extant 120-140mm tank cannons would defeat anything up to heavy CNT-based composites, no reason to pull out the heavy artillery and hypersonics yet. It's not futuristic armour schemes that I'm worried about, but active defence systems and newer generations of reactive armour. It is rumoured that Russians are already developing hypersonic anti-tank missiles, and they have successfully used laser-guided 152mm shells in Ukraine to hunt tanks, so using more missiles and bigger guns is just the next step in this game. Especially considering how long it takes to develop a new tank in this day and age, it's better to take two steps forward instead of trying to make an old school tank with a slightly bigger gun.

>>19429 One more thing to consider: the turret receives most of the hits, especially because tankers are sensible enough to prefer hull down positions. If unmanned turrets are the future, then most of the time the best you can with a tank gun is to blow up the turret, but the crew will not only survive that just fine, then can even drive away to a depot, get a new turret installed, and come back to the fight in a short time. Meanwhile a heavy artillery shell coming down from the sky like an angry thunderbolt will completely destroy the tank and slay the crew, making it a much more permanent loss.

>>19429 You appear to be effectively asking for a heavy reconnaissance vehicle (what the US calls Cavalry) and saying it's a tank. Also, everyone who is anyone in terms of artillery can already crack everything up to the aforementioned CNT-based composites with extant howitzers. As a matter of fact, the US was already using artillery to crack tanks in WW2. The reason why the US never fielded heavy AT guns in great quantity was that their numerous howitzers were already filling that role. As for ADS, they can't exactly slap an 20mm rotary cannon on main battle tanks and still have them function as tanks, so without going with an armored corps of nothing but Maus-sized tanks you are limited to the shotgun-style or reactive plating ADS which are designed to stop RPGs (and maybe the comically slow TOW) - not 120mm APFSDS or 155mm HE shells. HVATMs only refine an extant threat, they aren't real game changers either; at the ranges they are viable ADS doesn't really help anyway, their main advantage is that the firing vehicle (Helos, for example) doesn't have to expose themselves for as long. This is also a sort of useless development since Russia already had ATMs that were nearly immune to non-Russian ADS', so they are just increasing the cost of their own munitions for no discernible gain. >>19431 >One more thing to consider: the turret receives most of the hits, especially because tankers are sensible enough to prefer hull down positions. Turrets receive the most hits because it's the easiest target to hit with the highest chance of causing severe, mission-killing damage. Knocking out the turret eliminates the threat that the tank presents, knocking a track off or putting a few holes in non-critical locations on the hull will too often leave the turret operational and still a present threat. Even with HEAT shells. Hull down is not really as effective in tank engagements anymore due to the prevalence of local level reconnaissance, both aerial and ground, that allows for flanking or improvised ambush engagements with attached infantry MANPATs forcing abandoning cover. It's excellent when you can get it during a snap engagement, but it does not aid when the enemy has enough time to go around you or can afford to wait you out for artillery or air strikes (which are the US' two preferred methods of cracking tanks to begin with). >If unmanned turrets are the future The US experimented with unmanned turrets back with the TTD. Loved the thing, but eventually turned it down as an evolutionary step due to its limitations. First off, it's prohibitively expensive, as Russia is finding out. Secondly, it requires far greater than average levels of mechanical know-how to maintain, which is rare for an army to have in the field (once again, ask Russia how those dedicated mobile Armata depots are going, you'll find out not very well). Thirdly, while the protection of the crew is excellent in the initial engagement, the situational awareness of the crew drops to unacceptably low levels - even with full 360 degree surveillance systems, they found the Driver was often noticing things before the Commander could and the Gunner often would have no clue what the two were talking about despite being seated right next to them. Fourthly, tied in with the third thing, vision is terrible. Static cameras have too many dead spaces which are incredibly difficult to manipulate and rotating head cameras do not replicate the visibility of conventional optics. Additionally, they noted that a headless but otherwise unharmed tank may be able to be quickly repaired, but it's still mission killed and has to egress from the front line completely helpless save using its tracks as a melee weapon. No battlefield is a perfect peekaboo set up, it will have to expose itself at some time to make it to the rear, and a headless tank can't really help a tank platoon ward off flanking, All in all, they concluded that the concept was exceptional for a defensive tank, but the limitations were too great for an offensive breakthrough or siege tank such as they desired. Incidentally, Russia designed the T14 for primarily defensive purposes, understanding that the offensive capabilities of the vehicle were limited. The limitations were acceptable with their doctrine, they aren't for most other nations. >heavy artillery Extant artillery can already do that. Often with greater tactical mobility and effective tactical range. Bigger weapons systems are usually harder to move, thanks to weight and volume, resulting in shorter barrels with less efficient powder burn characteristics or absolutely massive monstrosities with barely any mobility (or both, often both), making for lower velocities and a nightmare trying to avoid counter battery fire. This is before you even get into the logistics of feeding the things, mind you. Where Heavy Artillery shines is in strategic long range fire, not tactical fire. Trying to pull them against individual tanks, while spectacular and glorious, is overkill of the sort that is extremely complicated to pull off in reality.

>>19440 >You appear to be effectively asking for a heavy reconnaissance vehicle (what the US calls Cavalry) and saying it's a tank. I fail to see that a vehicle with the same firepower, mobility, and protection is not a tank just because it uses a different mixture of armament than other tanks. If the US is fine with a 120mm cannon that fires a HE shell that is only comparable to a 75mm shell, then switching to a ~75mm cannon shouldn't hurt the overall firepower that much, especially if we consider that the majority of their potential targets warrants HE shells, and the SAP shells of that cannon would work exceptionally well on most AFVs other than MBTs. So that leaves only a very specific target this cannon cannot destroy easily, and that's why it has hypervelocity missiles. Against everything else it's an upgrade, because it is a more accurate weapon with a higher RoF and more ammo. And against MBTs hypervelocity missiles are also an upgrade, as they have higher accuracy and range, and you can fire them in salvos, effectively increasing their RoF over a 120mm cannon. Yes, I admit that strapping armoured missile launcher tubes all over a turret limits how many of them you can carry into battle, but a single tank usually doesn't have to take out a whole enemy tank company on its own. If I wanted to b cheeky I'd ask you if you count the Ticos as destroyer escorts. After all, they have only a pair of 5" guns in single mounts, and they are primarily meant to work together with other assets. >shotgun-style or reactive plating ADS which are designed to stop RPGs (and maybe the comically slow TOW) - not 120mm APFSDS or 155mm HE shells. We don't have a direct line to the designers to ask them, but these simulations seem to suggest otherwise: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=YUlNU-uziF4 https://yewtu.be/watch?v=nsJQe3i2dvE https://yewtu.be/watch?v=6hhSMryZaQY Granted, these are only simulations, but the Armata is either a Potemkin tank, or it was designed to take on the enemy head on. If the first if true, then nothing works on it, and this whole discussion is pointless. But if the latter is true, then I don't they'd bother developing a new tank because they are so afraid of their own RPGs. >This is also a sort of useless development since Russia already had ATMs that were nearly immune to non-Russian ADS', so they are just increasing the cost of their own munitions for no discernible gain. Do you honestly suggest that would be better off saying ˝good enough˝ and stopping all R&D, because the enemy will never catch up? As the story goes, the Germans did just that after defeating France, and a year later they were so shocked by unexpected enemy developments that they spent the rest of the war sending prototypes to the frontline. >Hull down is not really as effective in tank engagements anymore due to the prevalence of local level reconnaissance, both aerial and ground, that allows for flanking or improvised ambush engagements with attached infantry MANPATs forcing abandoning cover. Apparently the Armata has a dozer blade so that it can dig in itself without outside help if need to be, and I assume it's designed to dig a trench from which the tank can go out either forward or backward. Waiting in that trench until the enemy surrounds you is of course suicidal, but if this is true then they might still have a thing for a hull down position. >artillery or air strikes (which are the US' two preferred methods of cracking tanks to begin with). And this feeds back to the initial point: why do you need an MBT with an overspecialized AT gun if your preferred method of taking out enemy tanks doesn't involve said AT gun?

>>19440 >>19608 >First off, it's prohibitively expensive, as Russia is finding out. >Secondly, it requires far greater than average levels of mechanical know-how to maintain, which is rare for an army to have in the field (once again, ask Russia how those dedicated mobile Armata depots are going, you'll find out not very well). These points are usually what people bring up about autoloaders, and so I have a hard time responding to them, because -again- Russians can manage to put autoloaders into everything, so maybe they eventually figure out unmanned turrets too. >Thirdly, while the protection of the crew is excellent in the initial engagement, the situational awareness of the crew drops to unacceptably low levels - even with full 360 degree surveillance systems, they found the Driver was often noticing things before the Commander could and the Gunner often would have no clue what the two were talking about despite being seated right next to them. That sounds like a problem with orientation that can be easily solved by bolting the seats of the gunner and commander to the bottom of the turret, in a position that is still inside the hull, just behind the driver. Of course we can argue if this still counts as an unmanned turret if they are effectively outside of the turret, but not in a completely separate compartment. But it still means that a hit to the turret won't directly affect them to nearly the same extent. >Fourthly, tied in with the third thing, vision is terrible. Static cameras have too many dead spaces which are incredibly difficult to manipulate and rotating head cameras do not replicate the visibility of conventional optics. I admit that this is true, but you have to take into account that NATO tank commanders usually fight with an open hatch, while Warsaw Pact tankers were taught to always button up inside the tank during combat. >Additionally, they noted that a headless but otherwise unharmed tank may be able to be quickly repaired, but it's still mission killed and has to egress from the front line completely helpless save using its tracks as a melee weapon. No battlefield is a perfect peekaboo set up, it will have to expose itself at some time to make it to the rear, and a headless tank can't really help a tank platoon ward off flanking, It's a gross oversimplification, but if you win the initial engagement then you have a good chance of collecting and repairing knocked out tanks, and so being able to repair them much faster is a boon. If you lose the initial engagement then a headless tank still has a chance at retreating, even though this chance is admittedly not that great. But consider the morale and personal aspects: if an unmanned turret blows up, then the crew learns that they fucked up something, and hopefully they learn how to avoid that in the future. Then they drive back to a depot, get a new turret installed, and go back to the front. If a manned turret blows up, there is a good chance that you end up with 2-3 dead people, and a driver who now has to deal with the situation, and everyone in the unit knows that they just lost 2-3 comrades. So now you have dead crew members who learned nothing, and everyone in the unit will remember how their lives ended, and so they might be much more cautious in the future, to the point of hindering themselves. Again, this is an oversimplified and idealized situation, but I just want to illustrate that there are more to this than mission kills. >All in all, they concluded that the concept was exceptional for a defensive tank, but the limitations were too great for an offensive breakthrough or siege tank such as they desired. >Incidentally, Russia designed the T14 for primarily defensive purposes, understanding that the offensive capabilities of the vehicle were limited. The limitations were acceptable with their doctrine, they aren't for most other nations. I haven't heard any of this before. Admittedly, the last piece of news that comes to mind is that they were experimenting with an upgrade that would have let the crew of one Armata remotely control an other one. Although that can be used both offensively and defensively, assuming that it works reliably enough on a battlefield.

>>19608 >I fail to see that a vehicle with the same firepower, mobility, and protection Because if you even bothered trying to study armored doctrines you would very easily understand that your concept has neither the firepower, freedom of mobility, nor protection as even an M1 Abrams. If you're going to try to talk tank (or warship) designs, I suggest you at least try learn the difference between specialized and single-purpose systems. This is not that hard. >HVATM-Cannon combo This is stupid for a MBT. The 120mm Tank cannon is specialized in the AT-role, but it is by no means single purpose nor 'over-specialized'; with the correct ammunition it is capable of dealing with essentially any target that a tank in a combined-arms force realistically should be engaging. Yes, the straight 120mm HEFSDS shell is only roughly as good as an HE shell as the WW2-era 75mm shell. That doesn't mean the 120mm HEFSDS is bad, it means the 75mm HE shell was that good. Did you somehow manage to forget that the Shermans' 75mm gun was quite literally a howitzer? But if you want effect down range, why are you even bothering with straight HE-type shells to begin with? You have a tank gun, not a howitzer, use it like a tank gun for tank gun purposes. The Americans don't even supply straight HE-type shells anymore because they don't see any use for them; between the M829A4 APFSDS, M830A1 HEAT-MP, M1028 Canister, and M908 HE-OR-Tm shells, basically any engagement is covered; and deciding that was too many shell types they're currently throwing around the XM1147 AMP multi-role shell, which basically is your coveted HE shell on steroids and some super-soldier serum; and that's just what the Americans have developed. >why do you need an MBT with an overspecialized AT gun if your preferred method of taking out enemy tanks doesn't involve said AT gun? Because without the ability to legitimately threaten the enemy tank, there's no way to pin the thing for the artillery/air-strikes to engage in the first place. Do you also claim Machine Guns are useless considering they very rarely get direct confirmed kills? Do you have any clue what 'Suppression by Implicit Threat' means? The specialized (but not single-purpose) AT cannon presents an immediate, credible, and long lasting threat to enemy tanks, allowing them to suppress enemy tanks enough to either allow other assets to get them (be those other tanks, artillery, or attack helicopters) or in rare cases to bag them themselves if they try playing peekaboo. At the same time, it allows the tank appreciable effect against other targets when called upon. Specialization, but not single-purpose. Yes, your HVATM can present this threat, but have you given any thought at all to how large or heavy armoring just 8 tubes for these hypothetical HVATMs would be? Who am I kidding, of course you haven't, you somehow think just moving the Commander and Gunner two feet backwards is going to fix any disorientation issues which stem from an entirely different, patently obvious source - oh, say, the well known disassociation caused by viewing things through cameras that has been plaguing drone operators for over three decades now. Here's an idea: Give them a VR headset and digitally stitch the video feeds together. It still not a complete solution, but it at least makes more sense than just rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic. You're effectively doubling the turret's weight once you factor in the increased structural strain AND giving it Dumbo ears - and this is for a truly single-purpose weapon system, they'd be far to expensive to waste on anything other than high-value targets. To reiterate: you're better off sticking with the cannon. If you want an upgrade in lethality that badly, just throw in a 125mm, 130mm, or even 140mm gun... >If I wanted to b cheeky That's less cheek and more having your head shoved so far up your ass that you've defied physics and simultaneously turned yourself into both a Mobius Strip and a one-man human centipede. Warships are not tanks, trying to compare them is like me telling you that you're a manchild for not being as good as Michael Phelps at swimming - a categorical error of the highest caliber. >Do you honestly suggest that would be better off saying ˝good enough˝ and stopping all R&D, because the enemy will never catch up? No. I do, however, suggest they would be better off not chasing wunderwaffen during nominal peace time when their economy is in tatters and their industry a joke that cannot even manage to field in useful numbers the systems from four generations ago. They would be better served by pursuing cost-effective solutions to existing problems than expensive solutions looking for problems. I'm not addressing any of the rest of this, suffice to say it's stupid and doesn't work the way you think it does. Now, I'm going to go dunk my head in a bucket of water before I burst my last blood vessel and mutate into cafe/k/'s Gordon Ramsay of warmachine design. Something, something idiot sandwich.

>>19629 Looking at this with a cooler head, I realize that posting after an extremely long four days involving hospitals and long hours arguing with medical professionals is a thoroughly garbage bin idea.

>>19629 >not mutating into cafe/k/'s Gordon Ramsay of warmachine design Strelok, you disappoint me.

Classified tank specs leaked on War Thunder game forums – again https://archive.md/hS9Jg Yes, you read that right, again. >A French Army tank crewman has leaked a portion of the Leclerc Main Battle Tank’s classified manual on the forum for popular online game War Thunder, the second time a leak of tank specifications has happened. Anyone got the leaks?

>>19817 I hope War Thunder will add the Armata. We'd have every design and test document available within 48 hours or less.

>>19817 >Security through obscurity Show me the schematics or die a dog's death when it's leaked!

What is this?

>>21805 BMD-2. Soviet era IFV that was designed originally for VDV IIRC. Designed to be airdropped and put into action almost immediately. Fully amphibious, armed with 30mm cannon. ATGM not present in the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-2 https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/bmd-2.html https://archive.ph/20130219175954/http://warfare.be/db/catid/245/linkid/1782/title/bmd-2/

>>21809 >only used by Russia and Ukraine Thanks, now I understand why I couldn't figure it out: I simply am not familiar with all these airborne wonders.

The russians have been spotted putting metal grilles on top of T-72B1s to protect against top attack munitions.

>>21874 I'm not even sure if throwing a camo net on that would make it more or less goofy.

>>21874 Pretty sure these are meant for Crimea, not Ukraine. Russian tanks are equipped with an APS package, they have no need for these sandnigger tier grilles. Their tank forces near Crimea are B-tier and aren't issued with APS.

>>21874 This just asks for some drunk retard to total a tank by using these grills for cooking.

>>21874 >>21878 >>21898 But yeah, why no ERA? It seems to be no issue to just stack layer of ERA on the roof.

>>21973 Strelok, everywhere on that turret that can have ERA already has ERA on it. Everywhere else is sensors, weapons, and hatches.

>>21975 I know, that looks like T72B 89'on first glance, that version has ERA on the turret. I was kinda joking, like instead of metal bars you put ERA on that umbrella thing. I guess I worded it poorly kek

>>21978 I'm no engineer, but I've learned that the usual answer to such questions is weight. I guess you'd have to use some rather thick and heavy bars to construct something that can bear the weight of those ERA bricks.

>>9428 How about putting a Leclerc turret with the 140mm gun on a T-72 chassis?

>>15892 The Tiger II was a good tank though. The Leopard 2 didn't have armor because back then it truly was pointless. But during WWII armor was very effective. The image you posted isn't a Tiger II taken out in combat. It's a Tiger II abandoned and then bombarded by soviet artillery. Here's a good read: https://archive.ph/Aoclv

>>34763 >Leopard 2. Sorry, I've been typing about tanks all day in a military forum and my brain was on autopilot. I meant Leopard 1

How would you design a dedicated laser armed tank?

>>34796 I wouldn't

>>34796 >take tank chassis of choice >replace the turret with a laser mounting that is both small enough to fit there and consumes so little power that the tank engine can supply it reliably >or see if you can fit in some additional power plant Methinks you'd end up with a laser that is not strong enough to be really useful for how much the whole system costs. I mean, I guess you could fry optics and destroy tiny drones, but it's not the kind of gamechanger that casually eradicates any flying contraception fielded today.

>>34843 >They have some major design flaws making them basically death traps. And not in the tank sense of way. >They basically completely failed the trial in the Afghanistan war. Seriously I have no idea why they would use them at this point. >Though I guess they suck at basically everything, they have a lower range than T-72s as well. Still don't understand why they weren't part of the first wave. Can you detail the problems of this tank?

>>34796 >>34827 It depends on what exactly you want to do with it. What it's supposed to shoot with its laser(s)? Single very agile/fast targets? Small swarms of drones that need to be blinded or put down very quickly? Try to replace autocannons with frag against big swarms of small missiles or drones? The generator(s) are on the continuous power side, which can be the bottleneck for long-term rate of fire, i.e. will matter most if you want sustained fire. If you want occasional very energetic zap or short bursts with long intervals, the bottleneck is more likely to be on the pulse power side, in capacitors. That's aside of the weapon itself.

Ukro-russo war made me think: The idea behind BTGs is to provide flexible, heavilly mechanized support to elements of separatist militia. This, of course, could be improved by further mechanization of militia forces. Separatists of course have BMPs and so on, but their performance is greatly limited by the omnipresent antitank missile launchers. Sadly, the only real way to counter them are APS systems, which will not get mass produced anytime soon. Besides, the goal here is making cheap shit you can gift to locals by hundreads with military budget equivalent of pocket money. So here is the idea, the IFV of the future: Truck with howitzer. It can still perform well against its designated opponents (light vees and entranched infantry), especially if you invested in some fun ammo variants ( howitzer propelled thermobarics?). It would have enough range to outshoot ATGMs (in ideal conditions) while offering indirect fire. It only needs enough armor to withstand small arms and shrapnell, since it will die either way to anything bigger, no matter how well it is armored. Ideally can transport entire squad, though it might be hard to achieve. You could also use it to move supplies. Basically a purpose built technical/artillery support. Thoughts ? Do you think it would be viable? Do you think you could mount one on BMP while retaining infantry transport capacity?

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_tracked_vehicles/panther_kf51/index.php https://archive.ph/9wGMD https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fTBA5tQsDbE tl;dr Rheinmetall made a new turret for the Leopard 2 that has the new 130mm gun with an autoloader and a 12.7mm coax, and they decided to call it Panther KF51. It kind of looks like something out of the later Command&Conquer games. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=-JigFW_PQpY And General Dynamics released a fucking teaser with a computer rendered model that is supposed to be the new Abrams.

>>36256 >new Abrams I love the Abrams for what it is, but it's 40 years old and 20 years obsolete. Every time they make a new iteration of it, another part of my soul dies. While I understand why they won't do it (politics and money), I am cursed to forever wonder why they won't just put the CATTB (pic related) into serial production already. It was basically a Super-Heavy version of the Abrams with enough armor to actually block APFSDS shells and an autoloading bigass 140mm gun that had 1000mm penetration at 2km (tested) - and also had actual HE shells designed for it. It was pretty much what the Army has been saying an Abrams replacement ought to be for decades by this point.

>>36329 Some say that thing is only called Abrams for marketing reasons, although I'm not sure why would they do that. Still, you can make a ship of Theseus tier upgrade for a tank and that point the original design date doesn't really matter. >autoloading But muh eyez.

>>36256 It's an entirely new design, stop calling it a "new turret on Leo 2 hull" you dumb fucking retards. I've seen dozens of news articles call it such and it's plain fucking wrong. The KF51 is a new design and the only things in common with the Leopard 2 is the suspension/transmission system. Even the Rheinmetall CEO got pissed that so many morons called it an "upgraded leo".

>>36361 What's so new about it? Is the difference between this and the Leopard II as great as the difference between the T-90 and that new Russian memetank?

>>36371 >What's so new about it? Redesigned hull is optimised for maximum weight reduction. As a result the vehicle is faster than a Leopard 2 despite being more heavily armored and using the same engine. The 130mm is obviously a huge improvement and the autoloader is a big deal since no other NATO tank uses those instead of a human loader. Also it comes with 2 loitering munition drones which give the tank the ability to survey an area from above and engage targets without exposing the vehicle at all. Then there's a gazillion improvements on the electronics, sensors, optics and combat systems. It also comes with the Strikeshield APS by default

>>36447 I guess that really is a good enough list for a new tank. >the autoloader is a big deal since no other NATO tank uses those instead of a human loader. Did de Gaulle came back from death?

>>36447 >The 130mm is obviously a huge improvement >ignoring nato standards to introduce ammo which is not in stocks >improvement They should either keep 120mm or go all in and put 155mm on. >and the autoloader is a big deal since no other NATO tank uses those instead of a human loader. See post above. >Also it comes with 2 loitering munition drones which give the tank the ability to survey an area from above and engage targets without exposing the vehicle at all. This is unnecessery waste of internal space that could be used, for example, on storing ammo. And that space is wasted for something that should be performed by other units. Just park quadcopter drone or two on top of that fuckhuge turret. I am sceptical. Looks like another overengineered wunderwaffe that will cost too much to be produced in reasonable quantities. Low on ammo too.

>>36452 >They should either keep 120mm or go all in and put 155mm on. Or go for 140mm, because the original idea was to make a 120mm gun that can be upgraded to 140mm simply by replacing the barrel, and they already did it with the Leclerc. >>9428 The Worst Korean Black Panther is also designed so that the autoloader can handle both 120mm and 140mm ammo without any modification, therefore it is quite doable. The 130mm gun seems to be a compromise for no reason.

>>36256 >12.7mm coax I guess that would be this one: https://rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/detail_1354.php https://archive.ph/wip/iozsE >Partly to reduce the risk of jamming, Rheinmetall engineers have opted for a linkless, dual ammunition feeding system. Thus, apart from the muzzle, the RMG is completely sealed, an important consideration when operating in dusty, sandy environments. Thanks to the central electric drive, the firer will be able to pre-select a rate of fire of up to 600 rounds per minute. Matching the rate of fire to the specifics of the gun mount eliminates the problem of detrimental resonance frequencies. Powered by the electric drive, the gearbox-driven crank moves the bolt forward and back for the ammunition.

>>36452 >They should either keep 120mm or go all in and put 155mm on. If you're going to keep the 120mm, just keep using the leopard. The later variants ridiculously outclass any russian or chinese operational MBTs. The 130mm gun supposedly has 50% higher muzzle energy. It's meant to counter future threats ie. if the russians ever get more than a handful of armatas made. >This is unnecessery waste of internal space that could be used, for example, on storing ammo While I agree on principle, the Krauts somehow managed to stuff a 20-round ready rack in that turret regardless. That is impressive especially considering the larger caliber.