The Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 Main Battle Tank | 140mm SMOOTHBORE GUN
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- The need for an intermediate MBT solution waiting for the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), which entry into service is not forecasted before the 2040s, led KNDS Deutschland to develop a main battle tank (MBT) based on existing technologies, which answers the needs of today increasingly complex battlefield.
Lighter, more protected, and more lethal, this was the aim of KNDS Deutschland when starting the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 project. With a mass reduction of around 10% over the latest versions, a potential 140 mm main gun, and the crew protected against 57 mm ammunition all-round, plus the C-UAS increased protection, KNDS seems to have hit the target.
The Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 is powered by the usual MTU 873 diesel engine providing 1,500 hp coupled to the Renk HSWL 354 gearbox, its mass under 60 tonnes allowing it a power-to-mass ratio of 25 hp/t. It can reach a maximum speed on-road of over 65 km/h, range on road being 460 km. The chassis is 7.95 metres long, overall length with the turret at 12 o’clock armed with the 120/55 gun being 11.17 metres; it is 3.77 metres wide, the same as the latest Leopard 2s, height to turret roof being 2.44 metres, 0.2 metres less than the A7+.
Hope you enjoy!!
💥 💣 Check out our partnership clothing brand! Attire For Effect💣 💥 www.attireforef...
📸 Also follow them on Instagram: @attire_for_effect
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.co...
💰PayPal: paypal.me/Mats...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: 210A - 12A Street N Suite No. 135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J1
📸 My instagram: @Matt_matsimus
So they’ve made an Armata that actually works?
It's not that the Armata doesn't work, it's that they aren't able to get them out the factories
@@nicolaspeigne1429 to be exact, too expensive.
To be fair, even this wont be full scale till like 2040 according to the vid.... so kinda?
T-14 Armada works just fine they're simply not produced in large enough numbers.
Armata works as well ...just plagued by excessive corruption , of which level we are not gonna see in Rheinmetall anytime soon
That 30mm on the roof might be among the most important upgrades. In combination with all the sensors it allows the tank to shoot down incoming drones making it way more survivable...
Yeah that PG-7VL with 500mm RHA penetration ability will notice the difference instead of turning more armor into incendiary and kinetic scrap inside the turret.
@@mankihonda983 cringe russian bot as usual
Yeah if the drones were predators from the early 2000s
@@mankihonda983 that's why the 30mm is there in the first place, so it *doesn't* hit the vehicle.
Tank commander:hans fire ze machinegun at that armoured car
Gunner:sor zis is a 30mm aitocannon
Tank commander:ah potato potato fire it hans
Germany is making sure Gaijin has enough weird shit to keep War Thunder going for another few years
There's a shitton of Soviet prototypes that weren't added yet
@@saint_penrose512 object 490 being an example
I'm really just waiting for them to add the VT Panther and the VTS1.
@@therosen9923 or the object 640, that one would be really fun
I want them to add more of the 7 other M109s to the game
140mm with a 30 degree elevation, the tank could also serve as mobile artillery with the right ammunition.
Not sure there is much difference between that and the indirect drone sighted fire they want for these tanks.
-10° to +25°, he did say 35° elevation, but then clarified.
possibly, isnt that why the K2 black panther got popular ? it has some smart munition for indirect fire ? I mean, the idea of MBTs with indirect fire will only get more popular now since we're seeing Russians effectively use anything from T-55s to T-90Ms for indirect fire instead of wasting them in front line combat
@@Bellthorian russians extensively use their modern MBTs for long range sniping or drone-assisted indirect fire. Older ones like t-62 lacking ballistic computer, but I guess veteran crew with drone assistance can score some indirect hits too.
Yes - if you are okay to deploy the wrong tool to the job as a common method. In UA we see this a lot out of desperation and lack of propper equipment in place. Imagen teh same for a highly technologisised army with fancy top notch tanks is wastefull and unlogical.
Specially if you're allready short on super heavy shells in your unit. ARC carrys way too much armor around to be a economical artillery piece.
I don’t think the tank is dying. I just think it’s changing. Evolving is a good way putting it.
Exactly.
"Tanks are obsolete" is peak smoothbrain keyboard tactician.
Tank design simply has to adapt to factor in the increased threat from drones and ATGMs, the reality is that tanks fill a role on the battlefield that nothing else currently does, and will therefore still be needed.
Yeah, it's way past the times of trench warfare and WW2 style duking it out tank vs tank relying on heavy armour and penetration of the main tank cannon alone.
It's getting more complex with the complexity of the modern battlefield.
@@jamesoldham9995 Doubt it, I would rather have more IFV's with a 30 mm and some anti-tank rockets. The next "big" thing are wheeled drones, and you have one more problem to defend against.
Japanese Navy officers were thinking the same about the battleships.
They said this for some years about heavy artillery to. Also about anti aircraft guns like the Gepard, 40L70 and the Oerlikons. And look now? Now, no MoD would think of getting rid of 40L70 & Co.They would search for ways to improve the search and destroy radars and command posts and new ordnance.
With that massive 140mm gun, this is what Megatron would probably choose to turn into. I just try to imagine that gun being his arm mounted fusion cannon.
Optimus can be a red+blue HIMARS!
@Jreg1992 that would be just prime
Just saw Transformers one and realized how american it was with Optimus Prime transforming into a truck. But Megatron is cool with a tank/pistol. My Fav is Shockwave.
@meskalin64 Yeah I saw Transformers One a couple months ago with my son. When I was a kid I thought it was strange that Megatron turned into a pistol. Him basically shrinking himself into a gun that could be used by his soldiers, what if Starscream decided to just crush him in his pistol mod. After the G1 cartoon they removed it because they didn't like the idea of kids playing with a toy that looked like a realistic gun, being a P38 with a long barrel and scope. I prefer Megatron turning into a tank or alien aircraft. I like Shockwave as well, he could turn into a gun too, but it could fire himself and didn't shrink in size. Other iterations of Shockwave have him either be a tank or self propelled cannon although in TF One he was some sort of aircraft/spaceship .
140mm cannon at
Germany:JA
They are planning to fight against some $300 remote/wired fpv drones
Needs more barrels
@poat3453 No, they are planning to defend against those drones. And then go FIGHT other shit.
Probably they're trying to be prepared, just in Case something usefull comes out of the Armata Programm.
C&C was ahead of its time when it comes to predicting tank designs
Now we wait for the tank that can stand up and turn entirely into a turret.
@@germanvisitor2 and also the invisible one, the double barrelled one with blades up-front, the one that uses microwaves to disable anything...
@@revolverswitch
There were actually prototypes of double-barreled tank, if I recall correctly.
Seeing the upgrades for the new Abrams they feel like theyre going to be the same vehicle just built in different places.
MBT-70 II
Yes😂
For the algorithm and for the sake of truth: this is a fine machine. Another example of excellent German engineering.
No, it is a bad redesign on an aging platform that was great decades ago. They just did the same Russians do: refurbish an old design incorporating a decade old technology with a new sticker, new nickname and paint job to match.
Because a bigger gun ain't no way going to get rid of a $500 drone that is going to send this contraption called "tank" where T-72 turrets go when they die. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Well, not so much. Most of the upgrades presented in this video not related to armor have been developed by Nexter Defense System, the French part of KNDS. This upgrade package is for the most part just a result from the French technological transfer following the joint venture
I've always liked the Armatta concept because of the layered protection it gives the crew. I thought that a protective shell within the hull of an MBT, like the cockpit of the A10, would make a huge difference. In addition, you could also remove armour from elsewhere in the vehicle to make it lighter and more mobile at the same time.
The 30mm cannon on the roof is an excellent addition, though I'm not sure about needing a missile launcher. To reload a launcher, you'd need to get out of the tank, plus you'd need storage somewhere for them and space is already at a premium.
Handy as a backup or for very specific targets
In a peer-to-peer conflict, having to get out of the tank doesn't seem to be much of a problem. As I understand it, the tanks go forwards 5km, engage a few enemy vehicles or positions, and then you're quickly retreating back into an urban center or under a tree canopy. If you then wait there for 20 minutes and don't get shelled by artillery, then you know that the enemy drones haven't followed you home and you can feel safe leaving the tank.
140’s would definitely improve tanks indirect fire and infantry support capabilities.
Infantry support ? I would neither want to be near the tank nor the target when this thing fires 😅
@@UnfollowYourDreamsoh believe me, you’d want to be near a tank on a battlefield
140 mm will have very limited amount of ammunition, like 10ish shots, therefore it will probably be limited to tank hunting missions.
Yes, it would make it great at bunker busting with the correct ammo.
@@songokucarot1668 no. Certainly not. Everybody and his brother is shooting at that thing, artillery, fpv drones, rpg and atgm, making active and passive protection systems go off in the face of everyone in a 100m radius.
You bring up the exact point I was thinking of, with all the changes I'm surprised they didn't call it a Leopard 3. Keeps things much simpler and it is a completely different vehicle. Looks great though. Hope we invest in some of these in Canada soon
Leo3 = MGCS. This is more a Leo 2.5
When will they start making the 4th crew member an electronic warfare person rather than a loader?
Leo with autoloader = My dream come true kind of a tank.
Dog the type 90 has existed for a while now lol
Then you have to look at the KF-51 Panther, it has an even higher rate of fire and has 2 magazines of 10 rounds each + 10 rounds in stock. It has the highest rate of fire ever seen in a tank over 120mm caliber, but the KF-51 Panther has a 130mm cannon xO
@illusions4559 Thought that was one of them same 2A4 like the rest, now I remember its that damn Fuji (B) in War Thunder. But after I logged in & inspecting it, I would say it certainly heavily inspired by Leo2A4 but not quite the true Leo 2A4 with just an added autoloader(ever the hull layout is different) In my case it like Leo 1 & OF-40 of Italian.
@@FestungEuropa.v Interesting concept indeed.
@@MeCitadel It's not really a concept
Keep it up, you create great content :)
I love the Leopard 2A4 Revolution.
Jesus the fire rate on this tank is insanely fast.
The KF-51 Panther has an even higher rate of fire and has 2x magazines with 10 rounds each + 10 rounds in stock. That's extreme.
The next generation of tank has got to be absolutely a game charger to stay relevant in the era of drones.
I'm waiting for remote weapon station upgrades into anti-drone stations, then connect them into a shared network (like AEGIS for ground vehicles).
@JeffBilkins seems like the logical answer. As well the use of chemical lasers.
@@JeffBilkins have you seen the skyranger 35 concept vehicle where the massive turret designed to destroy drones etc. is mounted on a leopard 2 chassis? The skyranger 30 on the boxer is a nice first step but having a tracked vehicle that can follow MBTs into any terrain that can bring a lot of ammo to defend against drones with airburst munition seems like a good idea rather than exclusively relying on remote weapon stations on the MBTs themselves!
Russian tanks doing great and better than western.
@@warlordwossman5722 - all nice on paper, then the real life facts kick-in - no military industry available, crappy production numbers, so if a war takes more than 2-3 months you are screwed. Like most of the Europe is now. And, for a certain degree, even the US - China is still building 50 warships / year, vs 2-3 in the US, the russians still build hundreds of new T90M / year, while US some 50... who are "upgraded" old hulls... How many Leo produce now Germany per year ?? 5 ? 10 ? 12 ?? How many Chally the brits are capable to build ? 5 ?? The EU military industry is a Circus for fools.
Dang matsimus, you're on a tear!
The leopards are awesome, theyre probably my favorite mbt, specifically though the strv 122s
All tanks of the future need a dedicated situational awareness crewmember who would primarily use drones or secondary optical sensors and telescopes in order to monitor for threats or scout ahead of the tank. This means potentially 4 members, but I would say the ideal situation would be to have the driver take over the gunner role, fusing them which would make the tank much more effective as you don't have that communication issue. The commander would then monitor the tank status itself and coordination with other tanks and the third crewmember would be the situational awareness role and perhaps secondary weapons.
Technically Ai can replace most of the crew in ~10 years time, with 2 crew members being likely. South Korea even shown such concept. You have a driver/gunner and a systems operator/commander.
@interpl6089while obviously not a bad idea to have less crew I wonder if it would be that much more beneficial, less guys means less men to do maintenance or other tasks for the said vehicle
I love any version of the Leopard line. When I joined, the Leopard 1a5 was still in Germany. 2a6 is my favorite.
Please do a video on some French stuff, like the EBRC Jaguar or the Leclerc Evolution.
i think its been shown that the tank is necessary for anyone who plans to do any fighting and maneuvering at the same time. At worst i could see it becoming a command vehicle for various forms of semi autonomous land armored or unarmored vehicles
140mm! Absolute insanity! Far more potential and power, I wonder how the autoloader system will look and function 👀
Pretty much the same as the 155 mm system.
Have you seen the new t-14 armata 155 mm? This is nothing. Leopards failed in ukraine
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 okay so it was mostly leopard 1s that were sent, and only 13 leopard 2s even died
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 lol t-14 broke down at a parade and has never been seen in combat because it's so dysfunctional.
Who cares, its a boutique wankgear for idiots. No one cares if you can make a handful of really good or superior combat vehicles. You need numbers. Thousands.
Every single one of your armor (and other weapons systems) videos is priceless. Thank you as always Mat.
In Finland we are using Leopard 2's, so that's my choice. TH-cam have been acting a bit strangely lately. I have been subbed to your channel for years now and lately I haven't got any notifications from several channels I've been subbed to. I thought you had stopped making videos, but then I saw one of your videos by accident and went to your channel page to check it out and noticed there were quite a lot videos which I hadn't got any notifications at all. I'm just glad to see that you're still around.
@@Beethoven1981 thank you
I browse my Subscription page at least weekly looking for channels with the blue dot that means new content.
@@_Matsimus_ what do you think wich could/would be better Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 or KF-51 Panther?
Think about the 130mm of the KF-51 Panther by Rheinmetall. By technical specs it already has a 50% upgrade in firepower to their older 120mm cannon. Mind you, that's just basic shooting tests, not battlefield experience. That's just an increase of 5mm radius. That's tiny.
An increase to 140mm is a huge increase by comparison. Yes it only means 10mm or just 1cm more radius. But the surface area increase thanks to πr^2 is huge. Add to it potential length increase of the caliber, and the change in the amount of propellant is huge.
I'm thrilled to see what the next and upcoming Leo 2A8 will finally look like.
Guess Germany is in a very luxurious position having manufacturers of KF51 and Leopard 2A-RC3.0 in its country... as far as I know, both are demonstrators and far from production level.
I think we have to wait and see what decisions are finally made. Croatia, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Lithuania, Sweden and Germany will get the Leopard 2A8, Hungary and Italy are getting Panther KF51.
I understand the concept of RC3.0 but I'm not sure if it is so much better as the original KF51version that Rheinmetall first came up with. (Germany is getting a "Roland" successor based on Boxer (like Skyranger is replacing the Gepard) - so there is no need for any missile system placed on or inside the next MBT).
Yes it would be great if it leads directly into the MGCS Program but I'm not sure if the political will is surviving the harsh reality and the internal contest situation and ambitions between Nexter an KMW inside KNDS... looking on the different demonstrators presented by KNDS at Eurosatory... beside different equipment and strategies between French and German Army (France has no IFV like Puma, it's a hole different set up).
Commander: "How many shots could you load in one minute ?" Loader: "HOLD MY BEER !"
Thanks man. Watching now.
The modular turret and the concept of the turret being "separate" from the hull allows a greater range of systems like the scout running HV 75 mm guns with more missiles and drone launch and counter drone systems. Having an AA and Mine clearing/line charge turret as options as well. The ability if it is possible to swap turrets in the rear area means repair or reconfiguration of the units armor can be done as needed. Having one hull for a large number of mission packages means far less spare parts and common technical training to lesson the burden on combat area supply and repair.
I really hope the 30mm has a fire control radar and is automated like the AEGIS or at least a data link with a ground based radar system to allow for easy identification of drones. It's pretty much going to be the only viable anti-drone system that I can see working. Platoon integrated SPAAG's will be a good stop gap solution though. Too easy for a swarm to take out though since a single SPAAG wont be able to keep up. Especially when it has to reload.
That's what MASERs are for.
I am skeptical that it would be effective against drones. First, you need to detect the drone in a quick manner to react. 2nd, decoy drones exist. 30mm gun to air burst seems like over-engineering. 3rd, tank doctrine still seems stuck on the concept of tank vs tank battle, when that is a very rare; no focus on indirect fire capability. History has proven that tank vs tank battles just don't happen often, so the Western idea that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank isn't realistic. Tanks are meant to draw fire and move quickly as to overwhelm the enemy, or outflanking the enemy; they require mass, speed, and defeat almost anything their way. Otherwise, they are not effective, so when they are not doing that, they need long-range indirect fire capability to stand-off or skirmish without being too noticeable, because tanks are not good for attrition. They are expensive things to lose, and they are many countermeasures to their ability to roam freely. Western tanks in Ukraine don't have a lot of use because they can't be used in mass without huge risk (not easy to replace), and they have absolutely no ability to indirect fire in skirmishes, which is what happens in Ukraine. Ukraine is an artillery and drone war, not a tank war. Big difference.
@samuelmorales2344 Who's being unrealistic?
That's *why* Western militaries have emphasized AT weapons for infantry since the First World War. What do you think Javelin and NLAW are _for?_ Don't you think, "Maybe the lack of tank-on-tank fighting is why _no more than_ 25% of a Western tank's ammo load is AT?"
Fucking *DUH.*
@@samuelmorales2344 1st Trophy
2nd Gepard/Skyranger/CV90
3rd Western tanks are designed to destroy hardened targets in dangerous environments. Tank on Tank is just an additional capability and also covers combat against mechanized forces.
In general, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a bad example because it was fought from the beginning with a lack of certain resources, which is why it is also fought outside the doctrine and tanks are misused as artillery.
With the Trophy system, the tank has a spherical air surveilance radar coverage. The 30 mm are chosen as that's what is entering service with the Skyranger anyway and it's about the minimum size necessary for airburst munitions.
Been a fan of yours for years, I'm impressed with how many videos you've been cranking out lately
140 mm is crazy
Now look up russian 152mm. They putting in t-14 armata now
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479
So it is not meant for battle?
With that Elevation the tank could also act as indirect fire support which is actually what most tanks in Ukraine nowadays anyway do. I hope they add the ability to the target computer. Just imagine a Leo2 Platoon receives an Artillery Fire Mission at an Target at 8-12km and opens fire using 140mm HE shells..
Old crusty M1 Tanker here. Always heard the debate for autoloaders vs manual load for reduction of crew. My personal dislike is what is often overlooked by most people not in the know. Maintenance. The vehicle commander is often called away to briefings and such leaving the crew to preform basic before and after ops maintenance. And that's not even counting heavier tasks such as dreaded power pack pulls or even worse, track related issues. Having that one less crew to do the tasks means longer downtime and honestly a much bigger pain in the butt to deal with.
Do what the French do -- have extra crewmembers outside the tank.
Germans have panzer grenadiers on heavy puma ifvs organically integrated into armored forces - so that's your additional spare hands
@@solarissv777is this at the company or platoon level?
@solarissv777 Thank you. I hadn't considered the grenadiers being integrated into the company's. From an American standpoint anytime scouts are attached they have absolutely nothing to do with the tanks.
Manual loading just isn't doable with the bigger callibers anymore though and requiring less people is a good thing when you don't have millions to throw in the meatgrinder like the russians do. We'll have to see how this works out but the Leopard was always planned with being integrated in a unit, so it's never just 3 people around.
The Swedish arm has the best Lepard 2 version of them all, but this tank looks promising. Greetings from Stockholm Sweden 🇸🇪🤝🇨🇦
This tank is the new "King Tiger". Good luck.
Hopefully they make it more reliable though looking at German cars maybe they haven’t
And will lose to mighty armata 152 mm
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 that’s assuming the Russians ever build any
@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 *125
Nah too early to give such title to this tank
This tank is a an advancement of the M1 TTB as opposed to the Armata is that it's a crewless turret but will work.
I don't think you need 140 when nothing can stop the newest 120 rounds. A higher velocity 120 with newer metallurgy like the Japanese have will extend 120 for the foreseeable future.
It can probably be used as a new doctrine in the military.
The bigger gun and high elevation would probably allows the this tank to be used a semi artilery support.
It also would allows new kind of ammunitions in the future..
Who knows..
120mm still got more life with electrothermal propulsion being tested in the gun of the AbramsX. Shell velocities can hypothetically reach mach 4-5 and it's accuracy is beyond any conventional gun.
@@X.Y.Z.07I read somewhere that object 195 with its 152mm gun was theorized to share the same HE ammunition as artillery so I can see where this could go.
It’s dangerous to assume that potential opponents won’t catch up in terms of armor technology. There’s no potential left for increasing the muzzle velocity of existing 120mm cannons using conventional means. There comes also the point of diminishing returns as above certain impact velocities kinetic penetrators become less effective. The 130mm and 140mm designs coming out of France and Germany address this in a conventional and thus safer way, simply increasing the size of the projectile while maintaining the optimal muzzle velocity.
@@X.Y.Z.07reminds me of the more realistic version of the Starcraft Siege Tank
I'm still more in favour of Rheinmetalls KF51 solution, albeit with a new hull. I believe one of the most important improvements that need to be made to the Leopard 2 is the shift to the MTU 883 engine, which is much more compact than the 873. This would allow for the turret to be moved back abit, and more internal hull space to be made available.
I am an American, and I fully back the Abrams tank, but I still have great respect for the Challenger, Leclerc, and Leopard battle tanks.
The Abrams and Leopard share the origin.
What makes the Abrams tank is the leopard tanks gun
@@davidprins5504I mean sort of, it contributes. The depleted uranium armor, sensor suite, and incredibly well trained tankers are what truly make the Abrams great.
140 mm HE shell with fast reload would be a huge fire support for infantry
Gotta love the big Cat but I have a built-in bias toward the Merkava. Shalom!
Stop the genocide 😑
Informative and with just the right amount of personal inputs spread about based on your experiences. I tend to binge watch a bunch of these all at once. This one was one of the better ones.
Fun fact: The original Leopard 2 was pitched to have a remote controlled turret. It was thought to futuristic and cut... Now everyone goes "Armata blabla..." Guys, everything is german. Your nasa, the russian rockets, the printer, the nukes, the tv, the car, the chemicals in your food...
L85s
this approach to updating the tanks looks very promising.
Wasn't the Rh 130/52 gun specially developed to be compatible with current Leopard 2s? It sure needs the autoloader, but by using the older Leo 2 hull it seems to be working as intended.
Yes it is new autoloader turret for Leo2 chasis. And you can change guns in new turret.
@ErkiEntveg I think they made it specifically that it will fit in a minimally modified old turret as well. Technically it should the gun weigs just 300 kg more than the 120mm/L55 gun and internally has very similar dimensions , but with a human loader (and limited bustle storage) it would repeat the T-62 problem with limited space and big ammo that would result in abysmal rate of fire even if they somehow made the ammo somehow possible to reasonably manipulate within the turret as the ammo weighs 30 kg per piece, so 30 % more than current 120 mm tank ammo.
You have been having some good videos lately. I like your personal insights from your military experience.
@Matsimus I find it kinda funny how menbers of the tanks fanclub, especially on that channel went from denying the absolut supremacy of on autoloader like in the Leclerc because of complexity to "oh that's such a good idea to have a basketless turret with the most complex gun elevation system possible" in less than 5 years.
And I think nowadays you really need a 4th crew member to manage onboard systems and countermeasures.
Leo 2A7, beauty and beast in one.
The Armata was far from the first tank to have the remote turret concept. General Dynamics working with the Jordanian military, was pioneering this concept long before the Armata with their Falcon 120mm remote turret made by the Jordanian KADDB defense corporation in partnership with IST Dynamics of South Africa. This was placed upon a Challenger 1 chassis but is designed to be used on many different tank chassis systems with the Falcon 2 and Falcon 3 designs.
Soviets in cold war had prototypes long before Armata.
@@MrPezsgess Which prototypes were those? I'm not aware of any such prototype before 2010.
@wigon Like Object 299 that almost 1985. This has similarities with Armata like unmanned turret, 152 mm gun. I mean the soviets were pretty advanced but they never comited fully to an idea that's crazy. Like between 1930-1940 they worked on remote controlled tanks. You can read about teletanks. They also had a lot of projects that could have been with unmanned turret like the Object 477 this has little to no information but there were more types. It seems Russia doesn't want to directly compete with western tanks as all their tanks in service are small MBT-s 2/3 the size of other tanks.
Abrams TTB also
I love leopard 2k, and 2A6. I never imagined that someone will just take best of both and made greatest meta tank in war thunder xd. Even if gajin would make armata work, this 140 will make armata armor feel like paper.
The Armata does look quite formidable but to my knowledge has not yet been tested in actual combat. It would appear that drones are now the biggest threat to tanks on the modern battlefield and I haven’t yet seen any tank that can adequately defend against them.
None of the tanks destroyed by drones in Ukraine are particularly modern and thus lack active protection systems. FPV drones are just slower missiles and are at most a software update away from being hard countered by the existing APS systems found on the latest models of tanks and AFVs.
There's a reason the M-1A2 SEP v.2/v.3 reintroduced the M-60's powered cupola mount -- with upgrades taken from the Avenger SPAAGs that are going away -- plus upgraded top armor and vastly improved sensors for the driver.
@@davidgoodnow269where on Earth did you pull that out of? The CROWS on the SEP v2 and v3 is powered and has Gen 3 thermals a laser rangefinder and an integrated fire control system. The M60 cupola is just a manually operated machine gun mount with overhead protection. There is not even a valid comparison between the two.
There is absolutely nothing from the Avenger on the SEP v2. I left the Army before the v3 entered service but I doubt it has any Avenger bits stuck on it though I'd kill for an M3 instead of an M2 in an anti-drone role. The M3 has nearly double the rate of fire.
@josephahner3031 It's been decades since I qualed on the M2, but I remember the cyclic being variable by adjusting the timing, 450-1,000 rpm, with guidance suggesting keeping it between 450-600.
But, where did I get that about the Abrams cupola? I am the guy who suggested it. I specified using the thermal and LIDAR ranging, tracking, and targeting package from the Avenger since Avengers were being pulled out even though they were filling a vital role protecting FOBs. I figured that it would be just as useful on a tank, in the same role: identifying and targeting infiltrators. But I also specifically said that the cupola and mount needed to be electric and very fast, to target drones; and if it can engage mortar shells (yes, the Avenger is accurate-enough to), then that's a big bonus.
Tanks weren't my job, and other than responding once to cover one from an RPG team that snuck in and shot at one, I was never involved with them. It was mostly Bradleys that performed perimeter patrols, after my legs were too damaged to keep doing morning and evening sniper runs. (Nerve damage. I could still walk around and do my job, I'd just fall over randomly.)
The M60 cupola is a case of "better than nothing," with a maintenance-intensive jamming piece of crap for a machine gun, but as long as that M.G. is working, it's better than being exposed . . . that's the similarity.
@@ElijahDecker sure, an AT missile costs only 500-1000 USD... 😂😂😂 while a chines drone can go to 250.000 or more. Get an education, dude !
AI driven autonomous drones are coming, capable to scout & shot the big armor, and they come in swarms, at night, or in daylight, in numbers, and produced by millions / month, and needs no crews trained for years !
These new MBTs are reminding me of the german "Panther" and "Tiger" from WW2. Big and mighty but very slow. Some called them "mobile bunkers". These tanks were a very good target for airplanes with rockets. And today the MBTs are a wonderful target for UCAVs and drones. We saw it in October 2020 in Berg-Karabach and since February 2022 in Ukraine.
... the new tanks are lighter than current tanks
We've officially surpassed the Leman Russ tanks in terms of gun calibre!
Without inverting the knees of the tank commander the first time the main cannon is fired.
Next stop: Baneblade!
It makes sense tanks are much more complex than relying on layers of rolled steel but more and more on modern active and passive defensive systems.
The role of the tank is still strong. Even if the role evolves. It's still good to have the kind of defensive mobile machine capable of engaging other heavy armor.
Especially as the active defense system evolves. You don't want to have to expend 20 anti tank missiles just to hope to get 1 past the active defense system.
And it's a lot harder to counter a 120mm, 130mm or especially 140mm anti tank projectile.
6:00 More likely , a tank batallion with 2 standard 120mm companies, and a heavy company with 130mm (GER) or 140mm (FRA).
Or even mixed at one per four-tank platoon (like 76mm Shermans to 75mm Shermans), or two per platoon if the platoon goes to six tanks.
This seems like it could be a very valid upgrade path for countries that have the Leopard 2. Real questions I have on how good the top-side protection is, because most implementations of Iron Fist-type Active Protection Systems skimp on reloads, effective _ability_ to reload the Iron Fist launcher, and backup systems -- you'll note the Israelis typically use the two-shot Iron Fist in _pairs_ on a tank, or use _it_ as the _backup_ for priority threats, while their older Claymore-style missile-buster has a fast reload and a stack of fourteen (!) reloads in its magazine -- the continued minimalist smoke dischargers that cannot accommodate multi-spectral Improved Thermal Smoke [120 mm mortar shell]. The twenty-round two-layer magazine is presumably for 120 mm cannon semi-combustable ammunition; so, perhaps sixteen rounds of 130 mm and twelve of 140 mm. That's rather light. Importantly, _does the missile launcher have a magazine,_ and does it have an autoloader?
The 30 mm automatic cannon is welcome for its anti-drone potential -- and we have seen plenty of tanks taken out by 25 and 30 millimeter cannon fire -- but the Steyr-Daimler-Puch 15 mm Heavy Machine Gun would be, in my opinion, the much better choice. Its standard FSAPDS-D ammunition is Geneva-legal for use against infantry (AT teams) and collanderizes APCs and most IFVs. Its HE round should be extremely effective against drones, as it was engineered to be effective against military helicopters. And a very great deal more count of ammunition can be carried in whatever volume was provided for 30x113. But, will penny-wise pound-foolish bureaucrats obsessed with bespoke requirements and localization pay the "high price" of the A-RC 3.0 rebuild and conversion?
Having drones on-board would mean needing the return of the fourth crewman, to serve as a drone controller. Better to have that man teamed with a battlefield hacker/Electronic Warfare man, a Signals Intelligence man, and a Communications Specialist, all aboard a Boxer or CV90, with all their supporting gear and a great deal of charging capacity for drone batteries and the fuel to power it. Drop the turret to favor arrays of antennae and a great deal of A.P.S., and you have your reconnaissance vehicle; carry a fair number and variety of drones in external baskets.
With a totally new turret, crew compartments and so on, I have a hard time to call this a Leo 2. This seems like its a new vehicle. I also do not agree that 40 rounds is not needed, I think you want all the ammo you can get (mostly HE variants). I think that is more important than 140mm.
For the algo, and good job man. I dont thinks tanks are going anywhere until something like starship troopers power armour is invented.
Nice, and with the proper programing some auxiliary artillery too!
Ideally yes, realistically it is not economical for the wear on the barrel and aiming system, and cost of the custom ammunition for practical use is prohibitive etc etc
Interesting setup, sensor suite design and installation location will be critical. Ability to call for artillery fires is another element needed to offset the very poor ammo loadout. I study the past to understand what worked and what is needed now. The Marines on Tarawa found out the hard way the Shermans needed more ammo as it was impossible to upload ammo during daylight so in many later operations, they were carrying 100 rounds using added easy access racks.
Ukraine is using tanks as long-range snipers in the more static areas. They are leading in drone development and deployment across both land and water deployment and on par with Russia in air deployed drones with fiberoptic control just starting now.
Wonder how comfortable it would be if you are stuck in there for a while due to NBC. Also, would it come with a boiler for drinks/food?
Damn straight, those are good questions!
Most essential equipment for any British AFV for decades!
Should be called the Leopard 2.5 A-RC
Awesome. Keep it coming.
That 140mm is actually mostly the same size as the 130 but is slightly longer with HE shells and has a semi case telescoped design to give it more propellent. In other words as long as your ammo racks can accommodate the 130, the ammo capacity between the 130 and 140 are going to be the same. Just make sure you are using the right gun tube.
The only tank I know that scares me is my wife.
Your mention of the Spike ATGM reminded me: when the Indian Army tested the Spike in the Thar desert last decade, they found it couldn't distinguish between tank hulls & the hot desert in the background well enough (newer versions might have improved this). So beware of figures in brochures: they're often not achievable in the real world. The Hermes 900 drone is another such system that couldn't match the Indian Army's requirement of 30,000 ft altitude sustained flight for 24 hours (restriction: must be piston-engined), brochure figures notwithstanding.
It's a beast love it. 🤙
I want it in warthunder, with all 3 gun options. :)
Leopard 2Ag, with the arrowhead turret? sleek, low slung, and aggressive. Like the cat of the same name, it's a predator, and evolved to move fast, and hunt.
For the challenger 2 the gun swap wasn’t the issue. It was the changing of ammunition storage location and practices which was the challenge.
دبابة جميلة ❤
Sounds like a beast of a tank to me.
So that's the interim tank until the panther is ready. It looks pretty sharp. Thank you again for your cool video. Please keep them coming!
That's the plan!
@@_Matsimus_ No.
The Panther have been rejected by the German army. But chosen by Italy has an intermediary solution waiting for the future European MBT.
@karakiri283so translated, kf-51 will be the italian main tank till they have to change like they do from ariete.
@karakiri283 Hungary also got the KF51 but with 120mm gun and not 130
@LuLu-ip4zb cool. Thank you for the information. I don't know that.
volume is more algebra, than 'physics' 😉
thx for another upload
It is nice but it'll cost a stupid amount of money so we can't have enough to actually do anything with.
They should rig it up as drone/UGV leader and forward support to stretch the limited vehicles and payroll.
Reload new ammo like K10 do with the K9 have been nice.
I definitely wouldnt call it a Leopard 3 but it could be an interesting sidegrade to an A7 or even A8. It remains to be seen whether the "Armata" model will actually prove its worth, though I think KNDS already did better job with the APS, I have no idea how they are fitting enough ammo in the turret and maybe this would call for a turret bustle, might as well use all the space to the back of the turret, not like you are obstructing anyone.
Thanks for another great video with very good content. This tank will be an enormous contender for any adversary in the future.
I see a couple of problems with this new type of tanks, 1 with only a 3-man crew there will be more stress to do tank Maintenace of a battlefield repair plus if one man is killed or wounded the crew will not have anyone to replace him, 2 camera and Sencers are great, but they can never replace a human's eyes, if the cameras or Sencers are damaged in battle or by artillery in close call or a lucky infantry shoulder launch rocket or even a lucky bullet hit the tank will be vulnerable and blind on whatever side of the tank senser was destroyed on and have to retreat, 3 then there's the problem of no crew in the turret with vision slots, with a human in the turret you have human eyes with over view of the battlefield with view slots as back up, but if you have no crew in the turret than you must count on cameras and Sencers, and then you have the problem of number 2 I explained already, yes a Non crewed turret has some benefits but it also has a lot of negatives as well so there is a tradeoff.
To your second point- I believe each position in the tank can (could?) duplicate any other. Higher load on the individual in that situation, of course.
As to sensors, redundancy and protection of them is far easier, as cameras are potentially far smaller and easier to replace than a glass periscope. Modern armored vehicles don't have open spaces for human eyes- if the hatch is closed, you are looking through a periscope or very thick lexan/glass- the actual view is quite poor. With cameras they would be able to keep more spares available than periscopes.
Yes, there are tradeoffs, but I also believe it is unlikely that this would be the only kind of vehicle deployed.
AI will most likely help situational awareness like if something is getting closer or if you are getting fired at which direction fire comes from.
How many losses of tanks in WW2? All tanks in all battles are vulnerable. Now the question is what new counter measures against drones will be developed. a CWIS instead of a commanders coupler gun?
Unless they can miniaturize the radar and sensory system needed to supporr the CIWS, the closest we can get is some kind of APS system that able to register Drone as a threat.
Already done, m'lad.
@@X.Y.Z.07and how do you think the APS works? It already has a radar
Its interesting to see the way they are evolving the Main Battle Tank, while I don't believe that Drones, Attack Helicopters and Guided Missiles mean that tanks themselves are obsolete I had wondered if the Main Battle Tank might be and we'd revert to more specialized modes of tank like in World War Two but for modern battlefields;
Infantry Support which has mounts for drones and close support assets and real-time intelligence, Panzerjager (not sure how you'd say this in English) which provides missile support for taking out heavy armoured threats, Anti-Air Tanks armed with auto-cannons and missiles for eliminating drones and aircraft, Self-Propelled Guns to act as mobile artillery pieces for taking out hard targets and stationary fortifications usw.
However from a logistics point of view having one model of tank which can fill all these roles to an extent albeit not optimized for any particular one also makes it easier to field a tank army and provides adaptability in the field that a specialized platform doesn't have.
Sub-caliber 140mm DU…
Very scary to think about…
I like the modern leopards a lot, but in my heart I still have a soft spot for the leopard 1A5. It's just such a sleek looking tank, insuffiecent armor sure. But fast and nimble! Back in the day I played a game called Armored Warfare and the 1A5 was my fave to jump into!
Makes you wonder if the KF-51 Panther 3 has been dropped. Not as complex to engineer as a modern fighter but still complex enough to take at minimum 10 years to design and set up for manufacturing. Tanks are mega projects
Different companies, Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 is KNDS and KF-51 is Rheinmetall. The new Italian, Hungarian, and potentially Ukrainian MBTs will be based on the Panther so it's not likely to go anywhere
@maxstarki am really excited (if plans aren't changed) for my home country of hungary to have modern Mbts4744
Great videos Mats, been a long time follower!❤❤
Why is there an x wing at @12:38 on the billboard XD
wow! what an inviting armor gap weakpoint underneath that breach!
There should be dedicated AA tanks in the main attack group that follow close. To protect the group from drones. Like a mix of laser/kinetic AA gun on this chassis.
That's what SHORAD is. In the Cold War, it was Gepards following the Leopard 1 / Leopard 2, which is why it was important that they could engage air targets while moving. The Soviets had the Shilka. The Americans had a bit of a gap, as the Vulcan Air Defense System wasn't very impressive and the Sergeant York never went anywhere. Nowadays, a bunch of countries are buying Skyranger turrets on various platforms, while the US have IM-SHORAD.
Yea the US never really invested much in short range air defense other than MANPADS and to some degree the Pivads with 20mm vulcan..
They're too confident with their Airforce.
Now that even small low flying drones can be direct threat in the battlefield, they would surely invest more on it.
I think you are mistaken when you say it takes inspiration from the Armata. The French with the Leclerc had the same basic layout for decades. And KNDS is a french-german entreprise.
Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said it was “inspired” by the armata
Since the standard crew daily maintenance remains approximately the same reducing the crew size is a major impact to the amount of manual labor each crew member is responsible for. That is a major impact when crew size is reduced, the law of unintended consequences applies.
Except the fact, in real life, in a war situation, a 3 crew tank country can deploy one more tank for each 4 tanks. That is 25% MORE crews available. A much more important advantage, in wartime, than an extra pair of hands. And if you build better tanks, from a maintenance pov ( rugged ones like the soviets did) you will do far better.
Nice to see you bk in full force again :)
As much as I love high caliber weapons, we are what, thirty years from power packs capable of high powered lasers? Fallout is looking more like an alternate documentary with the same ending than ever before.
Lasers for anti drone purposes i suppose ?
@nicolaspeigne1429 i mean...the technology for anti drone lasers already exists. The power pack is the only lagging technology. Once that parts sorted kinetic weapons from a direct fire standpoint will probably be obsolete, vehicle based of course. Artillery and nlos weapons will continue to be kinetic out of necessity but will again be countered by laser defense systems. We are already there. We just lack mobile power packs. We went from first flight to the moon in 60 years? 30 years from now it's not out of reason for vehicle portable main weapon lasers.
@jeffscherer2136 we will see, but until then you still need something to respond to drones, and a 30mm chaingun with proxy fuze is probably the most cost effective we have.
And when laser technology get mature enough for military applications in a compact format, you can just replace the 30mm turret by a laser turret
@nicolaspeigne1429 a 30mm chain gun with a proxy fuse sounds exactly like a 40mm bofors with a proxy fuse against kamikaze. That technology is on the way out. Right at this moment it might be the best we have but the fokker eindecker was like 25 years before the 262.
@@jeffscherer2136 you don't fight today's war with weapons that don't exist yet
every day the arms race moves us closer and closer to the C&C mammoth
In today's world and tanks in war i think Drones have become tank killers......This Leopard 2 A-RC Tank is no exception to the rule.....
Old Vietnam war F-4 Phantom pilot Shoe🇺🇸
Love all your content mate! I usually download and listen offline so I’m bad at likes but will improve!