France and Germany to jointly work on new main battle tank - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote] 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. The Defense Ministry is in the process of drawing up a new "white paper" listing Germany's security policies and goals for the present day. The manufacturer of the current Leopard 2, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, is scheduled to fuse with French firm Nexter Systems in the course of this year. This has prompted media reports in Germany saying that the new Franco-German firm, with more than 6,000 staff and a combined turnover of around 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion), could be a strong candidate to win the contract to develop a new battle tank for the German Bundeswehr.[/quote] [url]http://www.dw.com/en/germany-france-to-jointly-develop-leopard-3-tank/a-18468270[/url]

these combined european defense projects usually don't turn out well, either nations start dropping out and it gets canceled or they end up massively overpriced hope this one will break the pattern though

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;52920399]these combined european defense projects usually don't turn out well, either nations start dropping out and it gets canceled or they end up massively overpriced hope this one will break the pattern though[/QUOTE] Germany and US tried to make an MBT together and it worked out pretty much like you describe. It is actually where the Leopard 2 came from. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70[/url] Weirdly the US then scrambled to put together a new MBT and produced the Abrams, which has weirdly worked out.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;52920399]these combined european defense projects usually don't turn out well, either nations start dropping out and it gets canceled or they end up massively overpriced hope this one will break the pattern though[/QUOTE] Germany and France have similar tank doctrine though, right? IIRC both of them emphasize tank speed.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52920479]Germany and France have similar tank doctrine though, right? IIRC both of them emphasis tank speed.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that's every tank these days. Modern munitions has rendered highly armored vehicles obsolete.

Start building Bolos please

[QUOTE=GunFox;52920456]Germany and US tried to make an MBT together and it worked out pretty much like you describe. It is actually where the Leopard 2 came from. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70[/url] Weirdly the US then scrambled to put together a new MBT and produced the Abrams, which has weirdly worked out.[/QUOTE] I dream of a modern MBT wielding an auto cannon as it's secondary armament. A 105mm or 120mm smooth bore main gun and 20mm secondary gun. Makes me moist.

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;52920632]Pretty sure that's every tank these days. Modern munitions has rendered highly armored vehicles obsolete.[/QUOTE] But Leopards 2s and Leclercs are faster than Abrams, Chally 2, and Merkeva though for instance.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52920456]Germany and US tried to make an MBT together and it worked out pretty much like you describe. It is actually where the Leopard 2 came from. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70[/url] Weirdly the US then scrambled to put together a new MBT and produced the Abrams, which has weirdly worked out.[/QUOTE] The Abrams has drawn quite a lot of its design philosophy and technology from the MBT-70 prototypes, however. It's not like the results of the project were nil.

[QUOTE=Aide;52920643]I dream of a modern MBT wielding an auto cannon as it's secondary armament. A 105mm or 120mm smooth bore main gun and 20mm secondary gun. Makes me moist.[/QUOTE] Oddly enough, the french AMX-30 MBT were originally equipped with coaxial .50 cal Brownings and were replaced with 20mms when they were modernized. The AMX-Leclerc also carries a coaxial .50 cal Browning so theirs a chance that will be seeing something of a heavier secondary armament for this tank. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52920676]Im sure there are some tanks with grenade machine guns.[/QUOTE] I know the Japanese like mounting Automatic Grenade Launchers onto almost all of their AFVs.

I don't understand why MBTs would need notably heavier MGs than say 14.5mm for coaxial seeing as the main reason for coaxials is to kill angry fleshy things, last ditch range finding, and to put holes in very very light metal things like cars being driven by other angry fleshy things. I mean fuck is there anything too armored for a 12.7 or 14.5 that can't be just straight up erased by main gun munitions?

It will be interesting to see if whether the new Main battle tank will follow the Russian Armata T-14 philosophy. Essentially heavily prioritising crew safety by having all the crew sit in a very armoured capsule , and-unmanned Turret and auto-loader.

Unless you mount a rail gun, I'm actually unsure of why we want a main cannon at this point. I would equip it with a couple of small quad copters as well as parachute mounted cameras. It would then constantly scout with the copters and leverage terrain to it's advantage. The copters would spot and provide general guidance for vertically launched ground to ground AT missiles. It would also keep an auto cannon and horizontal TOW missiles to win direct engagements. A tank isn't really useful in a modern urban setting, and can stand to improve significantly in more open engagements. This is a design that allows it to engage enemies that never even see it. The old main battle tank design is of questionable usefulness.

[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;52920752]I don't understand why MBTs would need notably heavier MGs than say 14.5mm for coaxial seeing as the main reason for coaxials is to kill angry fleshy things, last ditch range finding, and to put holes in very very light metal things like cars being driven by other angry fleshy things. I mean fuck is there anything too armored for a 12.7 or 14.5 that can't be just straight up erased by main gun munitions?[/QUOTE] Airburst or just plain HE explosive autocannon rounds do a better job of killing infantry than a .50 does. .50s are more suited for unarmored vehicles than infantry all together.

[QUOTE=Aide;52920643]I dream of a modern MBT wielding an auto cannon as it's secondary armament. A 105mm or 120mm smooth bore main gun and 20mm secondary gun. Makes me moist.[/QUOTE] Have the Moderna, a T-72 with a 30mm gun from a BMP bolted onto it [t]http://tanknutdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20140923-la-lam-xe-tang-nang-cap-t-72m2-cua-slovakia-1.jpg[/t] its kinda modern

[QUOTE=GunFox;52920911]Unless you mount a rail gun, I'm actually unsure of why we want a main cannon at this point. I would equip it with a couple of small quad copters as well as parachute mounted cameras. It would then constantly scout with the copters and leverage terrain to it's advantage. The copters would spot and provide general guidance for vertically launched ground to ground AT missiles. It would also keep an auto cannon and horizontal TOW missiles to win direct engagements. A tank isn't really useful in a modern urban setting, and can stand to improve significantly in more open engagements. This is a design that allows it to engage enemies that never even see it. The old main battle tank design is of questionable usefulness.[/QUOTE] ATGM based vehicles still have issue with range, rate of fire, and capacity. A smooth bore 120 can still knock down monkey model T72s, which is all anyone sees these days, has a longer effective range, quicker rate of fire, and if they have a spotter they dont even need to have LOS on a target.

ATGMs are also far more expensive than 120mm rounds and won't easily be defeated by active kill systems every major nation is just about to deploy in large numbers.

"germany, why is there a dial indicating the distance and direction to paris?" "ja it is standard issue on all german tanks, it is a very long tradition." "....."

[QUOTE=Aide;52920643]I dream of a modern MBT wielding an auto cannon as it's secondary armament. A 105mm or 120mm smooth bore main gun and 20mm secondary gun. Makes me moist.[/QUOTE] Some tanks have already tried that, one of the first variants of the Centurion had a 20mm, and I'm pretty certain the AMX-30 had one as well. I even remember some earlier rendition of the Abrams had one on paper.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52921024]"germany, why is there a dial indicating the distance and direction to paris?" "ja it is standard issue on all german tanks, it is a very long tradition." "....."[/QUOTE] (Enters cabin of a T-14) (Literally nothing but distance finders and GPS maps adjusted to Berlin coating most of the walls with a vinyl floor depicting how to get to Berlin from any city in Russia) "Never again blayt."

[QUOTE=O'Neil;52921094]Some tanks have already tried that, one of the first variants of the Centurion had a 20mm, and I'm pretty certain the AMX-30 had one as well. I even remember some earlier rendition of the Abrams had one on paper.[/QUOTE] They probably ditched the 20mm for logistics reasons. Using gas for the turbine made sense because pretty much everything else they used ran on gas, so logistics was made a LOT simpler over-all. Using a secondary armament that uses ammo found on pretty much every other land vehicle also makes sense logistically.

[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;52920752]I don't understand why MBTs would need notably heavier MGs than say 14.5mm for coaxial seeing as the main reason for coaxials is to kill angry fleshy things, last ditch range finding, and to put holes in very very light metal things like cars being driven by other angry fleshy things. I mean fuck is there anything too armored for a 12.7 or 14.5 that can't be just straight up erased by main gun munitions?[/QUOTE] I work on and operate both 25mm and 30mm guns. They are several orders of magnitude more effective in engaging soft and lightly armoured targets than .50 cal will ever be, they also have a superior range especially AP which has a much flatter trajectory at extreme ranges. We put 20mm on our Super Cobras as well which are extremely effective at engaging softer targets. If they can afford to mount a 20mm or up gun system on the tank then it's a huge upgrade no matter how you look at it.

[QUOTE=Ta16;52921577]I work on and operate both 25mm and 30mm guns. They are several orders of magnitude more effective in engaging soft and lightly armoured targets than .50 cal will ever be, they also have a superior range especially AP which has a much flatter trajectory at extreme ranges. We put 20mm on our Super Cobras as well which are extremely effective at engaging softer targets. If they can afford to mount a 20mm or up gun system on the tank then it's a huge upgrade no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE] Interesting, I thought that 50 cal where the superior heavy mounted weapons #"the more you know!# (assume a 50 cal is still pretty darn good though?)

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52920954]ATGM based vehicles still have issue with range, rate of fire, and capacity. A smooth bore 120 can still knock down monkey model T72s, which is all anyone sees these days, has a longer effective range, quicker rate of fire, and if they have a spotter they dont even need to have LOS on a target.[/QUOTE] 120mm can certainly also murder the hell out of any tank Russia fields, unless you actually believe every single piece of official information on the T-14, which is pretty dubious.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52921608]Interesting, I thought that 50 cal where the superior heavy mounted weapons #"the more you know!# (assume a 50 cal is still pretty darn good though?)[/QUOTE] Can't speak for other nations, but the American M2 Browning (in any flavor) is so fucking old, tried, and tested that they're cheap as sin to operate and produce. We even tried making lighter flavors for the cupola of tanks in the Cold War and everyone hated them. They have good range, moderate penetration even with bog cheap ammo, and the rate of fire makes it easily controllable by any ol' sonny Jim who hopped on. [QUOTE=Ta16;52921577]If they can afford to mount a 20mm or up gun system on the tank then it's a huge upgrade no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE] Besides the raw cost, their size, ammo capacity, ammo cost, and maintenance costs probably add up to a point where the it's a hard sell over the venerable fiddy-cal (or Slavic equiv.) I assume because tanks should be working with other units that could be dedicated to doing a better job of whatever the intended to use the extra firepower for. It's a general's wet dream to have tank be some kind of super anti-tank, anti-light-armor, anti-air, anti-infantry powerhouse - but you can't stack that many jobs onto one chassis and crew, and expect it to work well. [QUOTE=GunFox;52920456]Germany and US tried to make an MBT together and it worked out pretty much like you describe. It is actually where the Leopard 2 came from. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70[/URL] Weirdly the US then scrambled to put together a new MBT and produced the Abrams, which has weirdly worked out.[/QUOTE] The project went poorly because USA and Germany had wildly opposing design philosophies and bashed their heads together until they couldn't take it anymore. Germany buggered off and went back to working on their Leopard 2 (not sure if they even got any real experience out of the program.) USA on the other hand kind of liked the MBT-70, despite the fact it was nausea-inducing vomit coaster for the driver (who was stationed in the turret, which, y'know, [I]spins[/I]) and the 20mm was basically too clunky to even operate properly. They springboarded off the MBT-70 by making it cheaper and fixing the armor in the XM803, which massively helped influence the XM-1 and by then we're at the Abrams (the spawn of the XM-1 program.) The Abrams only [I]worked out[/I] because America took some good notes during the joint program, and if nothing else, learned that they actually need to make their tanks [I]kind of[/I] fast to make the best use out of them. [QUOTE=download;52920987]ATGMs are also far more expensive than 120mm rounds and won't easily be defeated by active kill systems every major nation is just about to deploy in large numbers.[/QUOTE] Nations are starting to look back to 140mm+ cannons for tanks because the 120mms are about at their laws-of-physics capacities for making armor deader with solid ammo (AP). Not that I believe the craziness about the T-14 going on, but armor is [I]just about[/I] at a point where most top-shelf MBTs can now somewhat resist each other's solid ammo, and chemical (HEAT) is on the way back out due to all kinds of protection systems becoming more effective than just slapping on counter-explosive bricks and covering your tank in bed springs.

[video=youtube;aypQeUYFYW4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aypQeUYFYW4[/video]

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;52920632]Pretty sure that's every tank these days. Modern munitions has rendered highly armored vehicles obsolete.[/QUOTE] Well, I don't know about your last point. But as the tank is now a mature technology, you find that most nations designs converge together more closely and more often. It is a stark contrast to the early days of the tank - there were so many different ideas.

The germans are going to order more than they actually need to increase their workshare and then drop orders at the last moment, and the french are going to pullout halfway through the project

Can I just say the first Europanzer prototypes were so a e s t h e t i c [t]https://i.imgur.com/7UKiGuS.jpg[/t] [t]https://i.imgur.com/voNQyAF.jpg[/t] [t]https://i.imgur.com/z3ZFi7w.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52921559]They probably ditched the 20mm for logistics reasons. Using gas for the turbine made sense because pretty much everything else they used ran on gas, so logistics was made a LOT simpler over-all. Using a secondary armament that uses ammo found on pretty much every other land vehicle also makes sense logistically.[/QUOTE] The 20mm on the centurion was originally designed with the purpose of defeated anti-tank guns. With the gun shield around the gun, a normal 7.62mm coaxial machine gun wasn't enough to defeat them, and firing and aiming the main gun took time, and if a miss, correction would take a little more. It was a combination of reasons, but the increased use of man-portable anti tank weapons really made people question its usefullness when a 7.62mm was largely similar at the time to what it offered.