Re: MBT's
 

So are they planning on putting the Trophy on all the LEO2s or just the 17 for the exercise? I can see the test run, but the way things are going one would think they would want it on all of their AFVs.

Re: MBT's
 

Betting there will be a lot of tests with ATGM with dummy WH to see if it works better than......some other systems do ( assuming of course those "other systems" were even installed and activated )

Re: MBT's
 

https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_r...Meu1vmay6q.mp4

Video of the Leopard 2A7/LeClerc Hybrid thing

Re: MBT's
 

Some might remember concerning the tentative transfer of the German LEOPARD 1A5 to the Ukraine, that one of the options could be to simply update the current 105mm L7A3 with the 120mm/L44.

That's old news as it was a simple modification that was tested and approved for operations with the LEOPARD 1A6. Along with having the same 120mm/L44 it was to have had also the same FCS as the LEOPARD 2.

But that was the problem they were ready to mass produce the same LEOPARD 2. We all know how that ended.

Though again still currently being "kicked around" for the Ukraine, the next makes me at least wonder if something else might be afoot from a totally non conspirial point of view.

Of all the platforms to choose from that are available they decided to mount the following on a LEOPARD 1 NOW. What impeccable timing.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/l...d-on-leopard-1
https://www.armyrecognition.com/euro...n_station.html
https://johncockerillda.com/products...ckerill-3105//
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...tail&FORM=VIRE

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Wish I had checked into the EDR site sooner to add it to my last post. But I'm here now, because of the KF-51 which in its first full "coming out party" within 2 hours at Eurosatory 2022 was renamed the PANTHER which would seem an appropriate choice.

So, for a deeper read on the PANTHER I give you the following.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/rheinmeta...bt-the-panther

I found it interesting that Rheinmetall used the following as taken from this article; "As said the hull protection was upgraded using the same concept adopted on the turret, the design having however to cope with some physical constraints, the Panther turret having the same slip-ring diameter of the Leopard 2. “In 2021 we did extensive trials with the 130 mm fitted to a Challenger chassis, and although the recoil is slightly higher no problems emerged for the hull,” Christoph Henselmann told us."

I decided to post the following for one simple reason in the captions they use words like "supposedly"/"might be"/"likely"/"possibly"/"could be" and so forth. If you're uncomfortable seeing dead bodies just "move along little doggy" to something else.
http://www.military-today.com/ukraine.htm

You'll see the man in charge of the site in some of the pictures he's the one you see when you are on the main page. He has sources in Russia maybe, that's how he got the "Russian" pictures.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

While that is cool, the only way this new Panther is going to be a reality is if they convince the US MIC to take it and replace the Abrams with it. Doubtful that will happen.

Re: MBT's
 

Is it me or are some of the decisions with the KF-51 odd?
Auto loader makes sense due to the size of the projectile but they kept the 4th crew position?
If I understand correctly he is the drone controller if they fit attack drones. To me it makes sense to fit recon drones in a heavily protected vehicle it can stop in cover & send them out say before cresting a hill or moving near buildings. This can be covered by the regular crew a feed to the driver might be handy. Why not put the none LOS weapons in a cheap light vehicle that follows? It could have 3 or 4 controllers on board & carry say NLOS & drones the tank acts as spotter because its not fragile.

So space taken up by a 4th crew man you do not need & they all have their own separate armoured compartments. Hmm T-14 makes sense to give the same comparative protection would one box not make sense instead of several its got to need more material. Plus communication & space issues.

Possibly why both machineguns have gone to 7.62mm to save ammo space because a lot of the space seems wasted to me. I suppose in a limited engagement with no support stand off would be useful but it seems a bit of a Frankenstein vehicle to me we have combined arms call in the support vehicle or artillery & use it as heavy recon. After all they are a lot cheaper so why compromise the expensive vehicle?

Re: MBT's
 

This is where we're at as of 24 June concerning U.S. weapons sent and enroute to the Ukraine.

This DOES NOT include the newest weapons package agreed to at the G7 this past Sat. which will send another battery of both HIMARS and HARPOON, more 105mm ammo, NASAMS, Coastal and Riverine craft as well as the JAVALIN and STINGER systems plus more. Notably more of our trucks as already posted to tow and resupply the 18 more 155mm M777/M777A2 systems about to be sent and those already there. I'm trying to verify we haven't sent them our towed M119A3 105mm. We've sent a whole lot of 105mm ammo so far as have some other countries. Ukraine is currently training on the New Zealand L119 105mm pieces and said training will be completed by the end of JULY.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Release...ce-to-ukraine/

I put this here as it's from a reliable source and because this thread will provide the widest distribution for those interested.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Re: MBT's
 

I hope to post a little tank news over my weekend but, in the meantime the NATO question has been resolved on my birthday and as I predicted (For the month anyway.) when the issue was raised. It's now just a matter of formality but, "done is done".

Anything can be negotiated.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ategory=foryou

Regards,
Pat
:capt: