Let's not think about that and let the German army design new tanks for Ukraine and if the modern variation of the tiger is better than the modern variation of the panther, didn't that could theoretically mean that the new version could shoot through some armour of battleships
It was my experience as an armor crewman in central Germany (Fulda Gap and East German border) there are very few place where one has line of sight of more than 2 or 3 klicks. The German countryside is often heavily wooded, rolling terrain, with limit sight distance. This may not be the case in the northern plains (I don't know, never trained there), but in much of central Europe a gun with an effective range greater than the advertised 3.5 klicks is probably a luxury.
Very true, but vehicles like this are also exported all around the world. In Turkey for example, Leopard 2s could potentially have been firing out MUCH further than they could in the rolling, wooded terrain of central Europe. In the Gulf War, Challenger 1 was able to surpass 5km, and there's no reason to suspect M1A1 Abrams could not have done the same. The same is true for much of Asia and Scandinavia, where mountainous terrain can, rather than BLOCKING visibility, actually put you high enough to be firing from one mountain ridge across to another! Those distances can easily reach 5km. In other words, I agree it is absolutely a luxury, but one that CAN be very useful depending on who ends up using the tank and where in the world it goes.
In addition to Armor Cast's reply, I'll also say that these tanks are probably made for particular battlefields, such as eastern Europe, the mid east and whatever other areas are expected to be future battlefields.
One benefit of larger rounds is they can be improved upon when it comes to smart munitions and hybrid projectiles. You can have a lot different varieties of warheads and such from what I understand. Also a 130mm basically future proofs the tank. Hear the US was jostling with having the ability to have a 140mm.
I think the big idea of unmanned turrets being beneficial are that a smaller, lighter turret can be created, while keeping the same level of armor. That weight can then be used elsewhere for extra armor, fuel, modern electronics and targeting systems, and/or active protection systems. How exactly that would specifically work in practice is more subject to caveats.
It would hurt commanders environmental awareness to much i think. The top of the top of turret gives the commander 360 degrees view from higher up in a way that camera systems just can't. I don't see this becomming a standard in nato designs.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 This could change when they implement helmet mounted displays for the crew as it's common for helicopter pilots. Pretty much like VR goggles.
Tanks fighting in hull-down positions would see an even greater improvement in crew protection. If only the turret can be seen, then only the turret can be hit, and if the crew isn't in the turret then you can't really kill the crew when they're in a hull down position. The tank can still be destroyed but crew is extremely well protected.
@@geerdi5222 Helicopter pilots are not activly on the ground fighting. Have rockets shown at you while enemies are closeby and you are wearing shit over your eyes sound like the perfect way to make your soldiers panic.
its just for show it will never partecipate in REAL WARS ... 1) because wars today are proxy\fake wars against weakers enemies and\or just to sell weapons 2) because its not in ucraine so is like germany said, we are afraid to lose the so called best new toy :)))
As a Slovene can confirm that upgrading older designs to new standards becomes terribly inefficient very fast. The two tanks our armed forces upgraded in our short history gained much international ridicule, but where upgraded due to necessity of no one wanting to sell finished arms to a new nation, not due to the want of doing such an upgrade. The M55s is a heavily upgraded T-55, digitalising a T-55 to a late 1990s standard by adding soft kill protection laser rangefinders, Laser warning receivers, a weather station, modern independent day/night optics, modern encrypted communication suite, ballistic computers, and many more. Cost over 1,7 M€ per tank. The later upgrade of a M84a (a T-72 derivative design) to a M84a4 [sniper], adding all the bells and whistles of tanks of the 2000s cost around 3,5 M€ per tank. It took a complete gutting of all systems and changing absolutely everything to make it a very precise tank. That is insane kinds of money and work, well in the range of being able to buy a new modern tank would one be willing to sell one instead. And those prices are lowered due to our lower wages and most of the works and designs being done locally, a PPP adjustment to price would make modern western tanks cheaper by far. Upgrading old tech to new standards gets very expensive very fast.
Yes it reaches a point of diminishing returns. New vehicles for elite units & secondary issue for less elites units to soak up first rate munitions (sucks to die as cannon fodder) but Stalin understood the concept, you die for my caviar.
That depends on the platform. The Russians have managed to make a pretty cost effective upgrade, with the T-72B3M and T-80BVM, so it can be done on the cheap.
@@Orcawhale1 those are newer compared to upgrading a T55 which is by this point the T72's grandfather! The point still stands, upgrading a Sherman to 2000's standard would cost more than an M1 Abrams.
@@vondantalingting No, it don't. Because it still depends on the platform. What's more, the Sherman was infact upgraded quite heavily by the Israeli army, so no, the argument don't stand.
I really enjoyed you stating your experience prior to your presentation. I think more channels should do this. Good video, looking forward to watching more of your content!
This KF51... isn't just a main battle tank...as I notice at the back and front... it's like a sports car...for sure this beast runs like a sports car... good job Rheinmetall👍
thanks for making an actually good, accurate and informative video where there is no weird futuristic tank that never existed in thumbnail and wrong tanks in the video
Great video! Amazing analysis of the available information. I agree with you about the eventual extinction of the Leopard 2 and Abrams (as sad as it will be because I served on M1IP and A1's). Now as far as what you were saying about the hull being less armored than the turret. I can tell you the M1 was designed for a defensive war in western Europe. We were not planning on offensive operations as much. So the plan was to try and be engaging in hull down or meeting engagements. I do have some concerns about Abrams X I will post when you release that video. Have a great day!!
Always a pleasure to have vets in the channel! Abrams X is an interesting one, but at least in that case it is PURELY designed as a concept demonstration piece, while KF51 is actually designed with the intention of securing a contract by 2025. In other words, they could go as crazy as they liked with Abrams X, but Panther had a higher realistic standard to keep to... ... I'm not sure it succeeded
the backwardscompatibility of the turret is a smart move in my opinion. makes upgrading existing tanks possible and adding new tanks to the fleet wont be a logistical nightmare as they had in ww2
Great deep dive into the KF51. While on the topic of next gen Main Battle Tanks; I have seen plenty of videos about next gen fighter jets, including what the generations mean, what technologies are persued, their impact, etc. However there doesn't seem to be many, if any, videos taking a step back from specific tanks, prototypes or concepts and talking about all the near future technologies that are being looked at for next gen tanks. Nor what their advantages, drawbacks or impact onto the battlefield could be. Perhaps this could be a topic for a next video? Looking forward to your future videos!
This thing just looks like a monster. I love the bigger gun… even if it is redundant or unnecessary. The potential ability to control a reaper drone from the fourth position is just insane if it can do that. The recon drones are a huge step and the fact that it can data link will make it possibly able to fire at area targets (maybe precision as well?) from beyond visual range based on targeting data from a drone or forward deployed friendly asset. It really does seem like this is truly the next gen tank.
How do you only have 124k subs!? You have the best tank content IMO! Easy to understand for noobs like me, very detailed, and the perfect length to keep you engaged and not turning it off halfway through
Thank you mate, always means a tonne to get comments like this! I’m actually thrilled to be at over 100k already. I have however had several stretches where I’ve not been able to upload for months at a time, so if not for that we’d probably be quite a bit higher. Here’s hoping for the future!!
Congratulations! You deserve it, your videos are always some of my favorites, and fuel my passion for armored and aerial warfare alike. This thing is a sci-fi tank, pure and simple. It looks like something I'd seen in Command and Conquer or Empire Earth, some futuristic super tank which does everything better and cooler. Even if it's just some proof of concept, test bed, or a massive publicity stunt, it's still fucking awesome.
@Fidd88 Did you watch the video? He talks about that specifically. Modern ammunition (and armor, for that matter) doesn't deflect the same way as those rounds did in WWII. APFSDS loses its momentum because it deforms to a much greater degree on any non-penetrating impact, even an intense angle like that. It doesn't bounce up or down while holding the same shape, it basically shatters. The remaining small fragments wouldn't be able to penetrate the turret or hull.
Regarding the effective range of a tank's main gun, it's not limited only to the gun itself but also to the FCS system and the optics. There's always a tolerance in targeting accuracy regarding the sensors suite and the control system, for example 1 milimeter tolerance might be OK under 3 km range but over it this tolerance difference might make you hit a non-critical part of your target instead of the center of mass to destroy it. Making improvements in these regards will also aid the new 130mm gun to be more precise. As a gross example, you could use the same exact gun in parallel with Cold War era optics and FCS system, but if you can't see the targets past 2km away or aim with enough precision, you'll never be able to aim at them and shoot them properly. Only if we talk about the resolution advances in thermal optics, modern systems are able to see the temperature difference between someone's nose and cheecks, compared to an '80s optic which would just show you a faint shape of a human warmer than his surrounding environment. Some of these sensors and electronic systems do come with a drawback, though -they increase the complexity of the tank which adds up additional chances of failures, plus some of these systems are still pretty fragile and even if the tank is not damaged and can be operational, if you destroy these optics with a machine gun or even the shockwave of an explosion (or even cause the lenses to get misaligned), the tank will not be able to aim it's shots properly anymore.
I think a sensible redesign for the turret would be to split the quadlauncher into 2x2 launcher(2x in the vertical ) and move them on either side of the turret, outside of the main armor and give them just some armor against small arms. This way you could keep an 20 or maybe 18 shot autoloader and retain the drones/missiles, which _are_ usefull. Also If the get hit and explode, this way the main armor would keep the tank safe.
During the 1st Gulf War my PSYOP Loud Speaker Team was attached to an armor battalion. We had the only Humvee among all the tracked vehicles. We were positioned between two Abrams as some protection. One in front one in back. The one a couple of tank lengths in front of us hit a mine that took out one side of the engine. Saw the mine fire a shaped charge that came out of the top. No one was injured. It was hilarious immediately because radio traffic started with who needs what before they killed it. It was cannobalized for everything that could be taken in the time allotted. Then they killed it dead by hitting it with 120's. It is amazing because the crew didn't know they hit the mine until they were told because they thought the engine died of its volition. By the way if we had hit it in our Humble it would have killed us.
I learned about this tank a while back since it was more publicized in Germany, and man it's great to see. I love tanks and this new Panther looks gorgeous and hopefully performs well!
@@freezyfridge The Puma is a pretty good tank with some teething issues as all new weapons systems are nowadays, there is much more technology in those vehicle than there used to be. And if you're talking about the Pumas that stopped working during that VJTF maneuver. The official report by the Bundeswehr states it is an issue with training of the soldiers both operating and maintaining the IFVs. Even though Lambrecht wanted to blame Rheinmetall for it. The BAAINBw interferes a lot with the development of new vehicles for the German army, the Puma is the result of that. The Lynx shows how well Rhienmetall can work if they're not being bothered in the development process ;)
Yes.. excellent analogy. Your out side the box thinking is spot on.. and should be applied As all things considered! It mostly comes down to HOW its used as a battle field asset in conjunction with MBTs .. overkill can be an asset in itself coupled with its weight to horsepower ratio!! Imagine how messy that would be for the opposing forces!!
The thing is, that RM actually wants to be part of the MGCS program and provide the turret for that. However that seems unlikely, as KMW and Nexter fused and it now seems that RM gets left out completely. So I think this is their effort to get back into the selection process and find a way that they are being picked as the provider of the turret. I dont believe that the Bundeswehr will actually by the KF51 because they want to do their thing with the French in order to produce a greater amount and push down costs / make exports more attractive. Which means that the KF 51 will never be ordered in Germany and is thus quite unlikely to be exported/ ever actually be produced.
The MGCS program is a clusterfuck. This french company (is it Nexter?) insists on putting a 140mm barrel on the tank while Rheinmetall wants to use a 130mm one on it. Sure, there is company politics here, RM makes the 130mm and Nexter wants to use the 140mm they make. The problem is that the 140mm barrel hasn't even been developed yet. And the problem is that an important feature of a tank (dimensions of the turret?) is determined by the size of the barrel. So as long as this isn't clear, MGCS is just stuck not getting anywhere. So I think Rheinmetall does multiple things at once here, freeing themselves of MGCS which they deem stuck/ in the wrong direction, proving their 130mm barrel, and probably what you said here
I don't think of the KF51 as a 'new tank'. Instead I think of it as a 'technology demonstrator for Leopard 2 upgrades'. The Leopard 2 is an extremely popular tank and the Leopard 2 chassis used in various other tracked vehicles is even more popular. If Rheinmetall manages to offer (and cleverly market) the 'KF51' as a 'cost efficient high tech turret upgrade' converting old outdated Leopard 2 tanks from the 1980s into a modern 'next generation battle tank', then this concept could really find a very significant market. Using a Leopard 2 chassis can come with very significant cost savings for many armed forces already operating Leopard 2 tanks (and/or it's siblings). Logistics, maintenance, repairs, all of these would barely change for the chassis of a KF51 at all. Only for the turret, the ammunition, and other upgraded capabilities would these change from a Leopard 2 to a KF51. So as a result this would be very comparable to them converting from an old Leopard 2A4 to new Leopard 2A7+. Compare the cost of such conversions to the cost of introducing an entirely different brand new battle tank into service and you may see many potential NATO buyers interested in a KF51 simply as a means of looking to get the most bang for their buck, probably even more so for a 120mm KF51 style variant. Let's also not completely forget that Germany has a history of being reluctant with allowing weapons exports of the latest and newest high tech systems. Submarines, tanks, guns whatever you look at, German manufacturers tend to sell export variants somewhat less capable than what the German Bundeswehr and the closest development partners themselves operate. For German lawmakers a KF51 would be merely "an upgraded Leopard2", not an entirely new "Main Ground Combat System" MGCS Germany and France have teamed up to develop together. Exporting a KF51 as an 'upgrade package for already existing older Leopard 2 tanks' should be much less difficult and much less problematic for a German manufacturer such as Rheinmetall to realize than exporting an MGCS tank would be.
@@tomwoggle9411 I've been wondering if something like that could be the case as well. Also the KF51 would be available substantially sooner then the MGCS as well.
I can see the rationale behind reducing the ammo capacity to add increased functionality. If RM has made studies that suggest that in 90% of cases, the tank wouldn't even touch the discarded 50% ammo, then cutting it out and replacing it with a system that provides both utility and longer range kill options seems like a reasonable idea. Additionally, adding the launcher makes it easier to upgrade to some future type of missile that might be developed.
I find it interesting that even 'new' tanks aren't so new underneath. Essentially every new tank is an older tank that's just been upgraded. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing if the original tank was good (or at least, good enough) - it saves money, makes training easier and improves the chances of it being reliable from the get go. Its just wild that apparently the core design concepts of tanks hasn't changed much since the 1970's - and many tanks in service today are older then I am (37) but have essentially just had cosmetic surgery to remain 'youthful'. Don't mistake me though - clearly the tanks are better. Optics, stabilisers, ammo storage, communications, armour and other things that make a tank more then just a big tractor are all new and improved. We just don't see the huge radical design evolution we did between the 1920's and 1960's.
I will say I am more open to the unmanned turret idea. One of the key things threatening tanks is top attack munitions, so if you can move crew away from where those are likely to hit (the turret), you are far safer. As for mines, as far as I know it’s rare for a tank to be destroyed by them, far more often being disabled. Given both these things, moving people AWAY from where they are likely to be shot seems like a good idea, as sure that area is softer and more vulnerable to say RPGs or other traditional weapons, but modern tanks are more worried about top attack than any of those.
The vast majority of NATO tank crewmen who have been killed in their vehicles in combat since 1990, have been killed by mines/IEDs. Almost none have been killed by enemy tanks or even ATGMs. As for top attack missiles… well, for one Russia don’t have any, and two… those things really don’t care about WHERE in the tank your crew are. They’re all dead anyway
While you try vainly to use “ no Nato tank crews have been killed by tank on tank action , that makes zero sense.. as you actually need tank on tank action for ( by ) someone who actually has a modern tank force to fight Nato .. By the utter stupidity of your own logic , we should take torpedo tubes Off Nato submarines since it was only used once in the last 60 years ..
@@reserva120 Plenty of tank-on-tank action has occured. It's much more rare than it COULD have been, true, and primarily against older generation tanks... but there is enough of a sample size and enough study and reasoning behind the idea, to be able to say that tanks are NOT the most significant threat to other tanks on a modern battlefield. ATGMs are still very much among the BIGGEST threats... but we've also done exceptionally well at accounting for these (as evidenced by Israel's almost "accidental" success when pushing Merkava's against Hamas forces). What I'm saying here is not "my logic". I'd love to claim credit for it, but I am just parroting what every respectable expert has already said before, Nick Moran chief among them. As for torpedo tubes, yeah we can remove em... ... ... when there is a viable and superior alternative to replace them. Right now there is not.
And anti ship missiles have Proven to be very effective an cheaper to use,( vs what you said about Torpedo's nearly a 100 to 1 over the last 50 years... so the whole slippery slope of Ideas can catch you, not being a pain, just keep in mind it's easier to poke holes than to fill them
Never seen a video by you before, but your self-deprecating beginning ("I'm not an expert, just a military buff") hides a pretty extensive knowledge and experience in everything related to tanks. Definitely an expert.
The dynasty of the m1 abrams and leopard 2 may be coming to an end but the abrams x and panther show that we’re planning to follow up with amazing and formidable replacements.
Re the drone and 4th crew member option replacing ammo space: Consider that a ger tank Co has 3 platoons of 4 tanks plus 2 command tanks for cpt and 1lt. Plus an additional 2 tanks for col and ltcol per 44 tank battalion. Loitering ammo and 4 seats could be limited to those 8 command tanks, leaving the other 36 tanks in the bat with 30 rounds of 130mm each.
Correction - without the drones, max ammo capacity for the Panther is 20, not 30. With the drone system installed that drops to 10. There IS also the option of carrying a third ten-round resupply drum EXTERNALLY on the rear of the turret… but this is a ridiculously bad idea.
@@ArmorCast i have got a question, i have heard somewhere that the doctrine of the leopard is to have trucks following them around, and carrying stuff like air intake parts neceserry for the leopard to drive under water. is this even true? and if it is cant they carry ammunition?
@@ArmorCast I remember an interview with a RM guy claiming the 4th crewman space can be used for additional 10 rounds of ammo like it is used now in the Leopard, but with blow out protection. Else it would be empty space, which would be wasted. Getting the ammo up in the turret might get tricky, but shouldn't be impossible.
@@robo-suport_czrobofactory3116 Of course all tanks are supported by ammunition trucks. But that ammunition is useless if it isn't in the tank. 10 rounds of ammunition is very low which means tanks will have to be reloaded more often and the ammunition trucks will have to remain closer to the tanks, where they are very vulnerable.
@@Rampant16 "ammunition trucks will have to remain closer to the tanks, where they are very vulnerable." i guess that would depend if the tank is in combat or not, then again the drone menace doesnt guarantee that even if u arent under fire that there isnt a grenade comming down as you are reloading... hard to discuss this as i dont know much about how a battle field looks like. either way thanks for the response.
Like you said I the KF-51 as a tank has some shortcomings to fix. But I think as a concept its something that will definetely set the tone for future MBT's to come. It was about time someone made a tank for the modern networked battlefield that does more than just be firepower on wheels. Having the ability to launch drones and being a networked platform is something that will keep tanks relevant for decades to come. I know for instance in my country (The Netherlands) we got rid of the Leopard 2's for a while because the consensus was that in the modern battlefield where things such as intellegence and small surgical operations are key, a tank simpley wouldn't fit in anymore. We have the tanks back now. But I think that a tank like the KF-51 would be very attractive for a small armored infantry like we have because it fulfills more roles than simply punching through enemy lines. It can actually support infantry and work together with other network centric platforms to get a better view of the battlefield.
I think we have to change the way we look at Main Battle Tanks. Apparently that new land combat vehicle system the Germans and French work on together goes far beyond just developing a new MBT. It seems they are developing a whole new family of specialized vehicles and the MBT is just one of them. What they are envisioning is that you won't have tank platoons with 4 MBTs working together anymore, but instead "teams" or "packs" of several specialized vehicles. Such a pack will probably contain something that resembles a MBT as a "dueling vehicle" specialized on destroying hard target enemy vehicles, one "NLOS" vehicle, some sort of self propelled howitzer or a launching platform for loitering ammunitions or kamikaze drones or both, a air defense and anti drone vehicle and a command vehicle which controls several recon drones and can perhaps remote control the other vehicles. It might also get a electronic warfare capability. And then you can attach one or more Infantry Fighting Vehicles to such a pack for the anti infantry role and other specialized vehicles like recovery and engineering vehicles. Such packs would kind of function like a vehicle version of special forces teams.
@@TrangleC The more modern combat we see, the more we realize that there's never a single solution. You have to be adaptable, and flexible in your role. Everything in modern combat has slowly started embodying this new perspective.
One other reason for the Dutch army was that the Dutch army has changed roles. In the Cold War, the Netherlands was the second line of defense and thus our land forces were designed for taking on Warsaw Pact forces in convention combat. Since then, however: the only relevant land territorial threat is Russia with Poland & Germany being our land buffer. That means that our land forces have 2 roles: rapid deployment towards Poland just in case, and worldwide expeditionary warfare within NATO / coalition warfare. As heavy MBT’s are not as strategically / operationally mobile, it makes more sense for the Dutch land forces to focus on forces with higher mobility to rapidly deploy to support heavy allied groundforces such as the tank-heavy German & Polish forces. In other words: they place the tanks, and when shit hits the fan our IFV’s, air assault, infantry and special forces race towards them to support. And in expeditionary operations, we have some artillery for firebases
Or, as I understand now, after all the info, from the last few years of modern warfare, no one has a clue where it will go, so they left options for future updates - additional post for the 4th crew member, if needed! Launch platform for some kind of drones or missiles if needed, or return to additional ammo, or fuel, or... if needed. Other things optional to add/replace..if needed... Just, no one knows where warfare will go, and what will be (if any) role for the MBT! So all options are open (MODULAR in modern language)... Maybe tanks will not be used as direct battle vehicles, but just to protect high ranking officers on the battlefield from sniper rifles and diversions, while they can observe battlegrounds from inside the new "tank", using modern senzors and drones...with driver, guard, and maybe even wife... With all the comfort that can offer, air condition, active and passive protection, high mobility, and all kinds of communication possibilities (on line games, tv, and SATCOM..) ;)
I just cannot understand why so harsh words versus Challenger 2 MBT? It is Challenging, as I already said, but keep for future historical evidence, not rush in, because "only fulls rush in..." ;)
The launcher module for loitering munitions/recon drones, that will use valuable main gun ammo space, looks more like something for a platoon/company commander version. It does make sense to have specialised variants within a company; variants that are indistinguishable from the outside.
To a degree, yes. Russia for example have dedicated “command” variants of their tanks in each battalion. But anything that doesn’t directly benefit, or even takes AWAY from, the ONE role the main battle tank is designed for… is not smart to include. Tanks are already too big and heavy, and every measure to reduce their size and weight is important. The inclusion of drones and systems that another, dedicated vehicle in the regiment could be operating… is not a good idea.
@@ArmorCast A separate, dedicated vehicle would require more personnel and logistics to the unit though. At the very minimum, the drone car would need a driver and a drone operator while the tank already has a driver installed. If you have 150 men in total, having to divert more of them to driving might not be the most efficient use of manpower. As always, in the end it's always a compromise between different and often contradicting demands and desires.
@@ArmorCast Could a modified IFV being used as the basis of a _drone carrier_ be a good concept? Ditch the infantry capacity (and mission profile) and instead have launchers and resupply for drones and the operators/pilots sitting inside at control stations in the space that was formerly for carrying the troops. Using a existing IFV hull has both development cost and in field logistics benifits, and also means that enemy forces can't readily identify it as a drone "mothership" and thus a priority target, especially if it's accompanying other IFV's. The autocannon also provides it with good personal defence against a wide range of threats, assuming that enemy MBT's will either be dealt with by its own anti tank Kamikaze Drones or by friendly MBT's (or FO artillery) that are data linked - see below. The IFV autocannon will be the bane of enemy infantry that have been spotted by its drones, especially if airburst range data can be automatically fed in. And being the standard IFV it will be able to keep up with the other armour and do dedicated overwatch while the "heavy MBT" does the job it's optimised for. However a small _long endurance_ helicopter drone optimised for a MBT does make sense just for situational awareness in both Tank vs Tank battles and in spotting anti tank infantry that could ambush the MBT. But leave launching and controlling the attack drones to a dedicated vehicle that isn't on the tip of the spear, but following close behind.
@@johanmetreus1268 Apparently that new land combat vehicle system the Germans and French work on together goes far beyond just developing a new MBT. It seems they are developing a whole new family of specialized vehicles and the MBT is just one of them. What they are envisioning is that you won't have tank platoons with 4 MBTs working together anymore, but instead "teams" or "packs" of several specialized vehicles. Such a pack will probably contain something that resembles a MBT as a "dueling vehicle" specialized on destroying hard target enemy vehicles, one "NLOS" vehicle, some sort of self propelled howitzer or a launching platform for loitering ammunitions or kamikaze drones or both, a air defense and anti drone vehicle and a command vehicle which controls several recon drones and can perhaps remote control the other vehicles. It might also get a electronic warfare capability. And then you can attach one or more Infantry Fighting Vehicles to such a pack for the anti infantry role and other specialized vehicles like recovery and engineering vehicles. Such packs would kind of function like a vehicle version of special forces teams.
Interesting to know the Hero is an optional component for a command or recon variant... I think having a greater range and leveraging better information sharing and being able to scout remotely will be useful, as for the javelin Hero's, and I can see it being very useful against tanks that may not be as advanced, such as the majority of unupgraded Russian or Chinese stock and light armor, and possibly have applications with an HE or Frag warhead against infantry in trenches or other difficult to attack positions (which likely lack APS systems generally reserved for vehicles). Having a loitering munition may be a significantly advantageous ability due to the entire vehicle being able to be fully in cover, while also assuming the trend of digital combat integration with AR and live HUD elements is embraced - everyone can see what the drone sees, not just the tank. This may also result in more use of LOS encrypted laser communications as electronic warfare becomes more and more integral. Imagine a fleet of these tanks launching a swarm of loitering munitions as a preemptive strike to soften armor as they are moving towards a target objective, not having to rely on calling in artillery and waiting for it, and also being able to immediately strike in the following confusion after the munitions are commanded to detonate simultaneously.
I think it's optional because you don't need a recon drone on every tank. Some smart planners will figure out that you need X of them per platoon, or per battalion, or whatever, and then some of them will carry it, and the rest will carry more ammo. Or option B: It won't be launched from the tank at all. It has no real reason to right? It can fly, much faster than a tank can drive too. Launch the drones from bases or vehicles that are well behind the frontlines, have them catch up to the tanks, and tank crews control them from there. Almost exactly like Loyal Wingman.
If you consider this as an upgrade options demonstrator for the export market, then it makes a whole lot of sense and opens up a lot of possibilities: 1) drop-in turret upgrade for Leo II with new 130mm gun 2) Keep current 120mm gun and 4th crewman, replacing autoloader and cassettes in demonstrator turret with current compartmented storage. This option makes the turret an interface between the old hull & gun and new electronics, active systems, drones, etc. The lighter armor maintaining current level of protection even has an improvement on performance using an unmodified legacy hull: lighter overall weight means higher speed; access to more bridges and roads; and less wear on drive. suspension, tracks, etc.
I think RM will be reluctant to offer a 120mm gun version of the KF51. For one they already have developed a "light tank" which is basically a 120mm gun turret on a Lynx chassis and secondly, I think one of the purposes of the Panther is to get the 130mm gun out there as fast as possible and establish it as the new NATO standard before anyone else (like Nexter with their 140mm gun) can develop their own next generation gun.
@@TrangleC I don't mean that they will offer a 120mm KF51, I mean that they will offer an upgrade package for existing Leo2 A6's & A7's consisting of dropping the KF51 turret into the Leo2 hull with the existing 120mm. This allows the new turret to take all sorts of future electronics upgrades which the existing Leo turrets cannon handle.
@@jhilal2385 Yes, but that is what I meant too. Since the KF51 currently basically is just the turret, offering a KF51 turret with a 120mm gun would basically mean offering a KF51 with a 120mm gun. The reasons I gave for why I think that is unlikely still stand.
Beautiful looking tank with a lot of potential, in 120 I could see this being a winner for Rheinmetall. No customer wants to be the first to adopt the 130 as it will cause massive financial and logistical problems. For it to be taken on it would have to be either adopted on mass by a lot of NATO countries or the US. Who knows with defence spending increasing maybe it might happen, but current 120 ammunition is very capable.
I think he has a great point with the velocity and active defence systems. If the 120 ammo just can not defeat it, it simply doesn't matter how good it is for the rest. Sonsoflorgar was thinking what i was thinking as well. The first version could be delivered with the 120mm gun. With the 130mm becomming part of an update package when these defence systems become widely adapted by adversary armies. An a2 or a3 version of the tank could accept the gun without issues then.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Personally I think there really doesn't seem to be an urgent need for a bigger gun. Sure they can work on developing it but there's no Russian or Chinese tank that can stand up to the current 120 mm with the most recent ammunition. The T-14 Armata made people think a bigger gun was necessary but given the Ukraine situation, it is looking increasingly unlikely that Russia will ever be able to field large numbers of Armatas. The effectiveness of Russian equipment in Ukraine has also put further doubts on whether the Armata is as capable as Russia claims. To me it seems like sensor systems for improved situational awareness and anti-drone/missile defensive systems are much more urgent requirements for Western MBTs, rather than improvements in cannon performance vs. tanks.
@@Rampant16 it all depends on how quickly china adopts active defence systems that can defeat the 120mm rounds. If they start mounting these systems that the 120 can not defeat on their new tanks as standard, and the 130 is able to defeat it, it will be adopted immediatly across nato. Also one does not exclude the other. Seems like they are on top of the situational awereness already with current models. And the next gen systems will take it another leap forward as well. These systems have been the backbone and main focus of nato for a long time already.
I saw the picture of the driver compartment in Lazerpig's T14 video. It literally looks like something straight out of Mobile Suit Gundam with monitor front and on the sides. The only better driver I can think of is the AT pilot goggle, which is directly connected to the tank's sensors from Armor Trooper Votom.
Interesting vehicle. As you indicate not enough ammo and too many extras that need to be mounted on other vehicles. I have studied tanks since the 1950's the one point that was always made keep it simple enough with enough ammo to survive a day's fighting with a very tired crew operating it. The Marines after the fight for Tarawa added additional ammo storage for future fights to avoid running out of ammo when it was needed. Under the worst conditions a crew needs at least one quarter of its basic load with one third being much better to stop a counterattack. At one third left you need to be coordinating resupply or relief pronto. Note: I served 27 years in the US army teaching how to kill tanks among many other skills both on active duty and in the reserves. I retired in Dec 1998.
It would really heavily on nearby logistics. But.... considering the daily tank loss of russia didn't go above 10. And this tank would be 1 shot 1 kill... plenty ammo
I have heard the statement that the KF51 is NOT a next generation tank but rather the maximum you could squeeze out from the current generation. Is there any truth in this?
It really depends on what you define as "generations". There are no hard and fast rules on this, so it's up to interpretation. HOWEVER, most would call this a next gen tank design given its capabilities and its distinctions (lighter weight, new integrated active protection and advanced sensor suites, new gun and the capabilities THAT brings, etc. Challenger 3 I would perhaps say is fair to call a current generation tank suped up to represent the absolute top of its gen, but KF51, along with Abrams X, should definitely count as "next gen". Though I would be very keen to hear the arguments of why it ISN'T "next gen"
Omg someone has actually made his homework’s. Yes you are absolutely right. The MGCS system (German-French tank project) will be the next true gen tank with an unmanned turret, 1 remotely controlled commanders station with a RMG .50, highly modular armor layout, auto-loader, ADS systems and SUPPOSEDLY fully remotely controllable oh I forgot another coaxial RMG .50… Keen eye you got there ! Prost from Germany 🇩🇪
Love your honesty Captain. Your info is fantastic and seemingly very well researched. I would have said without doubt you had attended university in some historical capacity. Taa for sharing your work with all.
The increased caliber of the gun, would alone result in "only" 27% increased performance, channeled into whatever parameters. So with the quoted figures around 50%, more is going on here. Something which is also obvious when you inspect the new ammunition. Much more propellant for a "hotter" round, the size of which necessitates autoloader. Not just bigger caliber, but a new generation as well.
Thank you for the great video! I think it may be a viable alternative to instead of having the loitering munitions replacing ammunition capacity in the KF51 design an alternate turret for the KF41 that incorporates them...
A modified IFV being used as a _drone carrier_ seems like a good concept. Ditch the infantry capacity and instead have storage and resupply for drones and the operators/pilots sitting inside. Using a existing IFV hull has both cost and logistics benifits, and also means that enemy forces can't readily identify it as a drone "mothership" and thus a priority target. And being the standard IFV it will be able to keep up with the other armour and do overwatch while the "heavy MBT" does the job it's optimised for. However a small helicopter drone for a MBT does make sense just for situational awareness in both Tank vs Tank battles and in spotting anti tank infantry that could ambush the MBT. But leave launching and controlling the attack drones to a dedicated vehicle that isn't on the tip of the spear.
We will see how all this works out. The real test of product support will be front and center. If they allow export of Leopard 2 to Ukraine and if the logistics work out. They probably will have a great market for the Panther. I don’t really need to say more.
The Nationalists Shultz`s are not NATO team players bleeding out the Ukrainians. Don't forget they offered a few helmets earlier on and slow to join other members offering anything useful for defense. Offensive weapons tanks are needed to repel the Russian terrorists that commit atrocities like the German Nazi forefathers had spilled blood on the same soil.
That could get really intresting with the sensors and the recon-drone, when those are connected to the fire control system, just automatically guide the main gun to the source by the push of a button and fire. With the drone it could even get better, spot a target ready for an ambush, let the drone lock on the target and the gun moves to the target...they won't know what hit them 😆 The suicide drone launcher makes not much sense, it would be rather for an IFV, but maybe they though about a scenario, to neutralize targets that are hidden or beyond visual range...knock them out before they hit you...would even explain the bigger gun, just maximize the first strike capability. Think the plan is make one ore two tanks in the platoon to a missle platform if it's required for the mission, to not take less armored IFV into a massive tank fight just to have anti tank missle
I would remove the loitering ammo feature, because sacrificing HALF of your ammo for that seems not so whise, especially considring the long range of that weapon would allow it to be fired from a different vheicle while still being capable of supporting the MBT. Totally agree on the small quad drone, the simple ability to tag an enemy and relay the location with precise digital coordinates is a perfectly good idea, especially since it does not really impact the MBT wheight so negatuvely. I do not know about the 7.62 MG, i would prefer the road most next gen MBTs are going for: a light 30mm. But it seems that there is enough space to put that system in the turret. In general the KF51, the EMBT, the Abrams X and the K2 Black Panther all seems very solid tanks on paper, but who knows how they will perform in reality?
@@reserva120 What do you mean? It's pretty clear. I was just talking about what features of the MBT i like and what i would change, and justified my reasoning. I literally wrote 4 praragraphs.
i mean isnt the current docrtrine of the leopard for trucks to follow them around anyway? if the leopard wants to drive under water, then the truck has the air intake parts for the leopard to do that, cant they carry ammo as well? so if thats the case and the KF51 will be replacing the leopard then whats stopping the trucks from carrying the ammo and just stick in inside the tank when outside of combat without the need to return to base as much
For personal use. 5:28 130mm Long Schlong 12:44 Autoloader 14:33 Secondary 15.16 Loiter Munition 17:10 Spotter Drone 17:18 Protection 17:18 APS 18:39 Vroooom Spec 20:54 Passive Armor. Completely fuck on the physics, just like the ammo video. Btw, the ammo video still have all the issue and is still up there. 23:31 Analog to digital 23:26 NGVA 23:40 Goes back to passive armor? 23:59 Ranting about the hull 23:49 More Vroooom Spec, not sure why another part of it appears at 18:39 25:28 Sensory equipment 25:41 Detecting a thermal sensor? Which is a completely passive sensor? 25:59 Strv 103 control scheme again 26:25 Future of optionally manned turret/vehicle 26:45 Comment on paint job??? 26:57 That geometric block at base of gun, and very out of whack theory 27:16 Out of whack theory of geometry LO design 27:20 WHY, replace tenk? 28:49 Leo2 has upgrades, but not enough 29:31 Draws F22 parallel 30:16 Goes back to tenk 31:26 Germany military readiness suck. 30:56 Rant Rant Rant 31:57 Dubious comment on "cyber security" 32:54 B2 is a thing. 33:49 Goes back to tenk rant. 34:17 Why no unmanned turret? 35:09 Turret has more armor than hull, meaning crew in hull will have less armor... 35:43 Re think what tank should looks like. 36:02 Turret has less armor means mission kill is more likely. 36:18 T-14 layout is self defeating, pulling out statistic out of rear end 36:34 (Not) Modern threats... 37:01 Mine protection is not possible with crew in hull... 37:44 The rest is conclusion. 40:20 Poland will most likely not be Germany customer anymore, instead be an exporter themself.
The Chieftain has mentioned that he does not approve of having the 4th crewman or the loitering munition for the Abrams X and KF51 unless there is a compelling reason for this. The idea is that a tank is limited in size and that things like drone operation and loitering munitions can be done in either other vehicles should not be placed in a tank unless it can be justified via doctrine. For the KF51, instead of a fourth crew man, perhaps more fuel.
Better off with more ammunition. Even without the drone systems you’ve only got 20 rounds, that’s HALF what an Abrams carries and even less compared to the Challenger 2
@@ArmorCast But guessing by the modern weapons aiming system with high first hit probability, why are 20 shots not enough? Only because older systems have more ammo? Sounds just conservative, because it was always done that way ..
@@DJ1573 Against tanks the 20 rounds are maybe enough, but tanks are also used in the fire support role as can be seen in Ukraine. That requires a lot more rounds as they are often also used to supress enemy infantry.
@@DJ1573 tanks rarely fight other tanks, they sling HE around at infantry, fortifications and buildings. if they meet another vehicles its likely a light vehicle and a HEAT-MP shell will suffice, so having only 20 rounds onboard would be a massive drawback.
@@dougblack8414 But it should not be like this. Thats what IFVs are made for. The drone operator can coordinate tank contacts and response thanks to superior drone reconnisance while the IFVs take on fortifications/infantry together with the mounted infantry. You know about the german tank grenadier doctrine?
off topic but still relevant to what you asked. Yes the Challenger 3 does looks like a tank from the 60s while the challenger 2 looks like something from the 90's. That's aside from actually looking into how good the tank is.
With the amount of new technology on this tank, one must pray to the Omnissiah for it to all work!
I see what you did there
Is the German the modern equivalent to the mechanicus?
And it still doesn't have as much DAKKA as a Baneblade.
given our track record, it probably has a particularly angry machine spirit.
Pray to the Omnissiah!!! I can feel the machine spirit calling to me!
If the new Panther is already such a monstrosity, I wonder just how large the new Tiger tank is going to be.
Let's not think about that and let the German army design new tanks for Ukraine and if the modern variation of the tiger is better than the modern variation of the panther, didn't that could theoretically mean that the new version could shoot through some armour of battleships
@@marshthecanadian9832 I'm sure the german army will gladly accept payment-in-kind, preferably 18 yrs old and blonde.
@@pj_ytmt-123 i feel Bad for laughing so hard ON this as a german
lmaoooo
The Panther is actually smaller and lighter than the Leopard 2.
My left ear is really happy that you reached 100k subs 7 months ago, my right ear is sad it couldn't be part of the celebration!
lmao
It was my experience as an armor crewman in central Germany (Fulda Gap and East German border) there are very few place where one has line of sight of more than 2 or 3 klicks. The German countryside is often heavily wooded, rolling terrain, with limit sight distance. This may not be the case in the northern plains (I don't know, never trained there), but in much of central Europe a gun with an effective range greater than the advertised 3.5 klicks is probably a luxury.
Very true, but vehicles like this are also exported all around the world. In Turkey for example, Leopard 2s could potentially have been firing out MUCH further than they could in the rolling, wooded terrain of central Europe. In the Gulf War, Challenger 1 was able to surpass 5km, and there's no reason to suspect M1A1 Abrams could not have done the same.
The same is true for much of Asia and Scandinavia, where mountainous terrain can, rather than BLOCKING visibility, actually put you high enough to be firing from one mountain ridge across to another! Those distances can easily reach 5km.
In other words, I agree it is absolutely a luxury, but one that CAN be very useful depending on who ends up using the tank and where in the world it goes.
In addition to Armor Cast's reply, I'll also say that these tanks are probably made for particular battlefields, such as eastern Europe, the mid east and whatever other areas are expected to be future battlefields.
One benefit of larger rounds is they can be improved upon when it comes to smart munitions and hybrid projectiles. You can have a lot different varieties of warheads and such from what I understand.
Also a 130mm basically future proofs the tank. Hear the US was jostling with having the ability to have a 140mm.
I'll agree with you there, but the ability to really reach out there in the Gulf was a huge blessing.
Longest tank on tank kill 3.1 miles by a British Challenger rifled barrel gun
What you failed to mention is that this is probably the best analysis out there on this tank
I think the big idea of unmanned turrets being beneficial are that a smaller, lighter turret can be created, while keeping the same level of armor. That weight can then be used elsewhere for extra armor, fuel, modern electronics and targeting systems, and/or active protection systems. How exactly that would specifically work in practice is more subject to caveats.
It would hurt commanders environmental awareness to much i think. The top of the top of turret gives the commander 360 degrees view from higher up in a way that camera systems just can't.
I don't see this becomming a standard in nato designs.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 This could change when they implement helmet mounted displays for the crew as it's common for helicopter pilots. Pretty much like VR goggles.
Tanks fighting in hull-down positions would see an even greater improvement in crew protection. If only the turret can be seen, then only the turret can be hit, and if the crew isn't in the turret then you can't really kill the crew when they're in a hull down position. The tank can still be destroyed but crew is extremely well protected.
@@geerdi5222 Helicopter pilots are not activly on the ground fighting. Have rockets shown at you while enemies are closeby and you are wearing shit over your eyes sound like the perfect way to make your soldiers panic.
@@geerdi5222mk 1 vision device has unparalled resolution.....
Legend has it the tank is accompanied with the German tank song Panzerlied as it one shots every tank in existence from 10 km away
Legend has is it is as powerful as the first Panther once was…
Not very funny is it
its just for show
it will never partecipate in REAL WARS ...
1) because wars today are proxy\fake wars against weakers enemies and\or just to sell weapons
2) because its not in ucraine so is like germany said, we are afraid to lose the so called best new toy :)))
@@RealNotallGaming yeah but it’s still cool af and that’s what counts
@@wertyuiwestia yeah its cool to trasform an human in gulasch from 3km away
Meat time
As a Slovene can confirm that upgrading older designs to new standards becomes terribly inefficient very fast.
The two tanks our armed forces upgraded in our short history gained much international ridicule, but where upgraded due to necessity of no one wanting to sell finished arms to a new nation, not due to the want of doing such an upgrade.
The M55s is a heavily upgraded T-55, digitalising a T-55 to a late 1990s standard by adding soft kill protection laser rangefinders, Laser warning receivers, a weather station, modern independent day/night optics, modern encrypted communication suite, ballistic computers, and many more. Cost over 1,7 M€ per tank.
The later upgrade of a M84a (a T-72 derivative design) to a M84a4 [sniper], adding all the bells and whistles of tanks of the 2000s cost around 3,5 M€ per tank. It took a complete gutting of all systems and changing absolutely everything to make it a very precise tank. That is insane kinds of money and work, well in the range of being able to buy a new modern tank would one be willing to sell one instead.
And those prices are lowered due to our lower wages and most of the works and designs being done locally, a PPP adjustment to price would make modern western tanks cheaper by far. Upgrading old tech to new standards gets very expensive very fast.
I shall reply, You can only buy your girlfriend so much makeup before you realize you need a new girlfriend. Slava Ukraine!
Yes it reaches a point of diminishing returns. New vehicles for elite units & secondary issue for less elites units to soak up first rate munitions (sucks to die as cannon fodder) but Stalin understood the concept, you die for my caviar.
That depends on the platform.
The Russians have managed to make a pretty cost effective upgrade, with the T-72B3M and T-80BVM, so it can be done on the cheap.
@@Orcawhale1 those are newer compared to upgrading a T55 which is by this point the T72's grandfather! The point still stands, upgrading a Sherman to 2000's standard would cost more than an M1 Abrams.
@@vondantalingting No, it don't.
Because it still depends on the platform.
What's more, the Sherman was infact upgraded quite heavily by the Israeli army, so no, the argument don't stand.
I really enjoyed you stating your experience prior to your presentation. I think more channels should do this. Good video, looking forward to watching more of your content!
This KF51... isn't just a main battle tank...as I notice at the back and front... it's like a sports car...for sure this beast runs like a sports car... good job Rheinmetall👍
This is exactly the deep-dive look into the KF Panther I’ve been waiting for. Thank you very much for the detailed info and structured presentation.
dude that 40k music in the background fits perfectly, nice video also btw, keep it up mate
Children of the omnissiah is probably the best 40k song ever
i'm not the only one who noticed it? fuck yeah
@@felixhamel1853 The whole Mechanicus game soundtrack by Guillaume David is sublime.
thanks for making an actually good, accurate and informative video where there is no weird futuristic tank that never existed in thumbnail and wrong tanks in the video
I’m glad somebody noticed! 😂
The success that those rubbish text-to-speech clickbait ass channels get… it’s depressing
@@ArmorCast yes youre absolutely right, and its actually really annoying as well. Happy i clicked on your well made video. And keep up the good work
@@ArmorCast yes very depressing... rent seekers lacking morality, scummy bot herders! ptui!
Great video! Amazing analysis of the available information. I agree with you about the eventual extinction of the Leopard 2 and Abrams (as sad as it will be because I served on M1IP and A1's).
Now as far as what you were saying about the hull being less armored than the turret. I can tell you the M1 was designed for a defensive war in western Europe. We were not planning on offensive operations as much. So the plan was to try and be engaging in hull down or meeting engagements.
I do have some concerns about Abrams X I will post when you release that video.
Have a great day!!
Always a pleasure to have vets in the channel! Abrams X is an interesting one, but at least in that case it is PURELY designed as a concept demonstration piece, while KF51 is actually designed with the intention of securing a contract by 2025. In other words, they could go as crazy as they liked with Abrams X, but Panther had a higher realistic standard to keep to... ... I'm not sure it succeeded
I don’t think the US will ever field hundreds of manned M-1 MBT replacements. The future belongs to AI-enhanced drones and robots.
the backwardscompatibility of the turret is a smart move in my opinion. makes upgrading existing tanks possible and adding new tanks to the fleet wont be a logistical nightmare as they had in ww2
Warhammer 40k music in the backround?
Epic!
Mechanicus, specifically "Children of the Omnissiah"
Guillaume David
I like the fact that despite your 'enthusiast' credentials, you provide a detailed factual analysis that exceeds many 'experts'!
Great deep dive into the KF51. While on the topic of next gen Main Battle Tanks; I have seen plenty of videos about next gen fighter jets, including what the generations mean, what technologies are persued, their impact, etc. However there doesn't seem to be many, if any, videos taking a step back from specific tanks, prototypes or concepts and talking about all the near future technologies that are being looked at for next gen tanks. Nor what their advantages, drawbacks or impact onto the battlefield could be. Perhaps this could be a topic for a next video? Looking forward to your future videos!
Definitely going to be a topic in A future video, won't be the next one, will likely end up being pushed to early March
Closest I have seen is one by Alpha Heavy Gamer of "Is the Tank Dead?"
Why don't tankers get a cool helmet like pilots that let's them "see through" the vehicle.
@@CharliMorganMusic Israeli Iron Vision helmet.
And if everybody buys them. Like there are bits and pieces for the Eurofighter that this or that country didn't order.
I really didn't think I'd live long enough to see a new tank, haha.
This thing just looks like a monster. I love the bigger gun… even if it is redundant or unnecessary. The potential ability to control a reaper drone from the fourth position is just insane if it can do that. The recon drones are a huge step and the fact that it can data link will make it possibly able to fire at area targets (maybe precision as well?) from beyond visual range based on targeting data from a drone or forward deployed friendly asset. It really does seem like this is truly the next gen tank.
So a tank with aimbot and wallhack? Guess real life has no ban hammer.
good to hear you are feeling better. thanks for the info on the k51and keep up the fantastic work
Very cool! This channel must be a reliable source that won't spread misinformation based on game footage whatsoever.
How do you only have 124k subs!? You have the best tank content IMO! Easy to understand for noobs like me, very detailed, and the perfect length to keep you engaged and not turning it off halfway through
Thank you mate, always means a tonne to get comments like this! I’m actually thrilled to be at over 100k already. I have however had several stretches where I’ve not been able to upload for months at a time, so if not for that we’d probably be quite a bit higher. Here’s hoping for the future!!
@@ArmorCastAre you gonna make a return to "your favourite tank sucks" series?
Hungary has announced the will produce these in 2025. However it will use the L55A1 120mm, not the 130mm.
Seing that tanks are entering a new generation as I am studying to get to design some, really bring me joy
"Alright troops" That phrase sends shivers down my spine and brings up so many memories
Fitting that you offer praise to the Machine Spirit while purveying information on a new tank design. Praise to the Omnissiah.
Welcome back! :)
Cheers lad!
As you people dont know, this tank already shared the name “Panther” with the WW2-era Panzer V
I appreciate the fact that u waited it shows that u actually care about the information being accurate love ur content
Congratulations! You deserve it, your videos are always some of my favorites, and fuel my passion for armored and aerial warfare alike.
This thing is a sci-fi tank, pure and simple. It looks like something I'd seen in Command and Conquer or Empire Earth, some futuristic super tank which does everything better and cooler. Even if it's just some proof of concept, test bed, or a massive publicity stunt, it's still fucking awesome.
@Fidd88 Did you watch the video? He talks about that specifically.
Modern ammunition (and armor, for that matter) doesn't deflect the same way as those rounds did in WWII. APFSDS loses its momentum because it deforms to a much greater degree on any non-penetrating impact, even an intense angle like that. It doesn't bounce up or down while holding the same shape, it basically shatters. The remaining small fragments wouldn't be able to penetrate the turret or hull.
@Fidd88 Did you watch the video at all?
Regarding the effective range of a tank's main gun, it's not limited only to the gun itself but also to the FCS system and the optics. There's always a tolerance in targeting accuracy regarding the sensors suite and the control system, for example 1 milimeter tolerance might be OK under 3 km range but over it this tolerance difference might make you hit a non-critical part of your target instead of the center of mass to destroy it.
Making improvements in these regards will also aid the new 130mm gun to be more precise. As a gross example, you could use the same exact gun in parallel with Cold War era optics and FCS system, but if you can't see the targets past 2km away or aim with enough precision, you'll never be able to aim at them and shoot them properly. Only if we talk about the resolution advances in thermal optics, modern systems are able to see the temperature difference between someone's nose and cheecks, compared to an '80s optic which would just show you a faint shape of a human warmer than his surrounding environment.
Some of these sensors and electronic systems do come with a drawback, though -they increase the complexity of the tank which adds up additional chances of failures, plus some of these systems are still pretty fragile and even if the tank is not damaged and can be operational, if you destroy these optics with a machine gun or even the shockwave of an explosion (or even cause the lenses to get misaligned), the tank will not be able to aim it's shots properly anymore.
With some experts claiming the original panther to be the first mbt this makes it really come full circle
I think a sensible redesign for the turret would be to split the quadlauncher into 2x2 launcher(2x in the vertical ) and move them on either side of the turret, outside of the main armor and give them just some armor against small arms. This way you could keep an 20 or maybe 18 shot autoloader and retain the drones/missiles, which _are_ usefull. Also If the get hit and explode, this way the main armor would keep the tank safe.
Or just lanch the drones from another vechile ie puma
Look at Ukraine, often tanks operate alone @@SeanSoraghan
Your research, clear writing and diction...are more than enough to make you a near expert. Good show.Congrats on the 100K Marker..
During the 1st Gulf War my PSYOP Loud Speaker Team was attached to an armor battalion. We had the only Humvee among all the tracked vehicles. We were positioned between two Abrams as some protection. One in front one in back. The one a couple of tank lengths in front of us hit a mine that took out one side of the engine. Saw the mine fire a shaped charge that came out of the top. No one was injured. It was hilarious immediately because radio traffic started with who needs what before they killed it. It was cannobalized for everything that could be taken in the time allotted. Then they killed it dead by hitting it with 120's.
It is amazing because the crew didn't know they hit the mine until they were told because they thought the engine died of its volition.
By the way if we had hit it in our Humble it would have killed us.
Wow many good and interesting points, the side comments about retrofitting f22s makes a ton of sense and I haven't heard that mentioned so concisely.
I learned about this tank a while back since it was more publicized in Germany, and man it's great to see. I love tanks and this new Panther looks gorgeous and hopefully performs well!
i will shit my pants if it turns out like the puma
@@freezyfridge The Puma is a pretty good tank with some teething issues as all new weapons systems are nowadays, there is much more technology in those vehicle than there used to be. And if you're talking about the Pumas that stopped working during that VJTF maneuver. The official report by the Bundeswehr states it is an issue with training of the soldiers both operating and maintaining the IFVs. Even though Lambrecht wanted to blame Rheinmetall for it. The BAAINBw interferes a lot with the development of new vehicles for the German army, the Puma is the result of that. The Lynx shows how well Rhienmetall can work if they're not being bothered in the development process ;)
@@Asgar1205 pumas and leos (except export ones) are rustbuckets where the tech just breaks
@@freezyfridge source: you.
@@ruinerblodsinn6648 source: facts.
Yes.. excellent analogy. Your out side the box thinking is spot on.. and should be applied As all things considered! It mostly comes down to HOW its used as a battle field asset in conjunction with MBTs .. overkill can be an asset in itself coupled with its weight to horsepower ratio!! Imagine how messy that would be for the opposing forces!!
So glad I found this channel. The work you must put into these videos! Awesome!
Cheers lad! So glad you’re enjoying
The thing is, that RM actually wants to be part of the MGCS program and provide the turret for that. However that seems unlikely, as KMW and Nexter fused and it now seems that RM gets left out completely. So I think this is their effort to get back into the selection process and find a way that they are being picked as the provider of the turret. I dont believe that the Bundeswehr will actually by the KF51 because they want to do their thing with the French in order to produce a greater amount and push down costs / make exports more attractive. Which means that the KF 51 will never be ordered in Germany and is thus quite unlikely to be exported/ ever actually be produced.
KF51 was made for export markets. German gov has been pretty open about MGCS being their next gen tank
The MGCS program is a clusterfuck. This french company (is it Nexter?) insists on putting a 140mm barrel on the tank while Rheinmetall wants to use a 130mm one on it. Sure, there is company politics here, RM makes the 130mm and Nexter wants to use the 140mm they make. The problem is that the 140mm barrel hasn't even been developed yet.
And the problem is that an important feature of a tank (dimensions of the turret?) is determined by the size of the barrel. So as long as this isn't clear, MGCS is just stuck not getting anywhere.
So I think Rheinmetall does multiple things at once here, freeing themselves of MGCS which they deem stuck/ in the wrong direction, proving their 130mm barrel, and probably what you said here
I don't think of the KF51 as a 'new tank'. Instead I think of it as a 'technology demonstrator for Leopard 2 upgrades'.
The Leopard 2 is an extremely popular tank and the Leopard 2 chassis used in various other tracked vehicles is even more popular.
If Rheinmetall manages to offer (and cleverly market) the 'KF51' as a 'cost efficient high tech turret upgrade' converting old outdated Leopard 2 tanks from the 1980s into a modern 'next generation battle tank', then this concept could really find a very significant market.
Using a Leopard 2 chassis can come with very significant cost savings for many armed forces already operating Leopard 2 tanks (and/or it's siblings).
Logistics, maintenance, repairs, all of these would barely change for the chassis of a KF51 at all. Only for the turret, the ammunition, and other upgraded capabilities would these change from a Leopard 2 to a KF51. So as a result this would be very comparable to them converting from an old Leopard 2A4 to new Leopard 2A7+.
Compare the cost of such conversions to the cost of introducing an entirely different brand new battle tank into service and you may see many potential NATO buyers interested in a KF51 simply as a means of looking to get the most bang for their buck, probably even more so for a 120mm KF51 style variant.
Let's also not completely forget that Germany has a history of being reluctant with allowing weapons exports of the latest and newest high tech systems. Submarines, tanks, guns whatever you look at, German manufacturers tend to sell export variants somewhat less capable than what the German Bundeswehr and the closest development partners themselves operate.
For German lawmakers a KF51 would be merely "an upgraded Leopard2", not an entirely new "Main Ground Combat System" MGCS Germany and France have teamed up to develop together. Exporting a KF51 as an 'upgrade package for already existing older Leopard 2 tanks' should be much less difficult and much less problematic for a German manufacturer such as Rheinmetall to realize than exporting an MGCS tank would be.
@@tomwoggle9411 I've been wondering if something like that could be the case as well. Also the KF51 would be available substantially sooner then the MGCS as well.
@@Caesim9 Rheinmetall is not part of MGCS in the first place
He is back!!
I think you should have started with the most important feature of the Panther. It looks bloody awesome!!
I can see the rationale behind reducing the ammo capacity to add increased functionality. If RM has made studies that suggest that in 90% of cases, the tank wouldn't even touch the discarded 50% ammo, then cutting it out and replacing it with a system that provides both utility and longer range kill options seems like a reasonable idea. Additionally, adding the launcher makes it easier to upgrade to some future type of missile that might be developed.
I find it interesting that even 'new' tanks aren't so new underneath. Essentially every new tank is an older tank that's just been upgraded. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing if the original tank was good (or at least, good enough) - it saves money, makes training easier and improves the chances of it being reliable from the get go.
Its just wild that apparently the core design concepts of tanks hasn't changed much since the 1970's - and many tanks in service today are older then I am (37) but have essentially just had cosmetic surgery to remain 'youthful'.
Don't mistake me though - clearly the tanks are better. Optics, stabilisers, ammo storage, communications, armour and other things that make a tank more then just a big tractor are all new and improved. We just don't see the huge radical design evolution we did between the 1920's and 1960's.
I will say I am more open to the unmanned turret idea. One of the key things threatening tanks is top attack munitions, so if you can move crew away from where those are likely to hit (the turret), you are far safer. As for mines, as far as I know it’s rare for a tank to be destroyed by them, far more often being disabled. Given both these things, moving people AWAY from where they are likely to be shot seems like a good idea, as sure that area is softer and more vulnerable to say RPGs or other traditional weapons, but modern tanks are more worried about top attack than any of those.
The vast majority of NATO tank crewmen who have been killed in their vehicles in combat since 1990, have been killed by mines/IEDs. Almost none have been killed by enemy tanks or even ATGMs.
As for top attack missiles… well, for one Russia don’t have any, and two… those things really don’t care about WHERE in the tank your crew are. They’re all dead anyway
While you try vainly to use “ no Nato tank crews have been killed by tank on tank action , that makes zero sense.. as you actually need tank on tank action for ( by ) someone who actually has a modern tank force to fight Nato .. By the utter stupidity of your own logic , we should take torpedo tubes Off Nato submarines since it was only used once in the last 60 years ..
@@reserva120 Plenty of tank-on-tank action has occured. It's much more rare than it COULD have been, true, and primarily against older generation tanks... but there is enough of a sample size and enough study and reasoning behind the idea, to be able to say that tanks are NOT the most significant threat to other tanks on a modern battlefield. ATGMs are still very much among the BIGGEST threats... but we've also done exceptionally well at accounting for these (as evidenced by Israel's almost "accidental" success when pushing Merkava's against Hamas forces).
What I'm saying here is not "my logic". I'd love to claim credit for it, but I am just parroting what every respectable expert has already said before, Nick Moran chief among them.
As for torpedo tubes, yeah we can remove em... ... ... when there is a viable and superior alternative to replace them. Right now there is not.
@@ArmorCast when have NATO tanks engaged in peer-to-peer tank combat??? And not only have anti-ships missiles beennot
And anti ship missiles have Proven to be very effective an cheaper to use,( vs what you said about Torpedo's nearly a 100 to 1 over the last 50 years... so the whole slippery slope of Ideas can catch you, not being a pain, just keep in mind it's easier to poke holes than to fill them
Leopard 2 is already a beast, naming the KF51 "Panther" is an unterstatement
? panther is a legend and with a bit of luck this baby will be too. The name is a message, since the old one was a "russiankiller".
@@djneverblock7300 should have been called the Tiger
@@TH-camrAnalyst123 why tho?
Love the analysis on the unmanned turret analysis, can't wait for a deeper dive on it next video :)
Never seen a video by you before, but your self-deprecating beginning ("I'm not an expert, just a military buff") hides a pretty extensive knowledge and experience in everything related to tanks.
Definitely an expert.
Thank you mate, your confidence (though I’m not sure it’s ENTIRELY correctly placed), means a lot.
I try to do my best, you can be sure of that 👍
The dynasty of the m1 abrams and leopard 2 may be coming to an end but the abrams x and panther show that we’re planning to follow up with amazing and formidable replacements.
Re the drone and 4th crew member option replacing ammo space:
Consider that a ger tank Co has 3 platoons of 4 tanks plus 2 command tanks for cpt and 1lt.
Plus an additional 2 tanks for col and ltcol per 44 tank battalion.
Loitering ammo and 4 seats could be limited to those 8 command tanks, leaving the other 36 tanks in the bat with 30 rounds of 130mm each.
Correction - without the drones, max ammo capacity for the Panther is 20, not 30. With the drone system installed that drops to 10.
There IS also the option of carrying a third ten-round resupply drum EXTERNALLY on the rear of the turret… but this is a ridiculously bad idea.
@@ArmorCast i have got a question, i have heard somewhere that the doctrine of the leopard is to have trucks following them around, and carrying stuff like air intake parts neceserry for the leopard to drive under water. is this even true? and if it is cant they carry ammunition?
@@ArmorCast I remember an interview with a RM guy claiming the 4th crewman space can be used for additional 10 rounds of ammo like it is used now in the Leopard, but with blow out protection.
Else it would be empty space, which would be wasted.
Getting the ammo up in the turret might get tricky, but shouldn't be impossible.
@@robo-suport_czrobofactory3116 Of course all tanks are supported by ammunition trucks. But that ammunition is useless if it isn't in the tank. 10 rounds of ammunition is very low which means tanks will have to be reloaded more often and the ammunition trucks will have to remain closer to the tanks, where they are very vulnerable.
@@Rampant16
"ammunition trucks will have to remain closer to the tanks, where they are very vulnerable." i guess that would depend if the tank is in combat or not, then again the drone menace doesnt guarantee that even if u arent under fire that there isnt a grenade comming down as you are reloading...
hard to discuss this as i dont know much about how a battle field looks like.
either way thanks for the response.
The Panther KF51 STC is a very advanced design. Praise be to the Omnissiah for providing this knowledge to all.
Like you said I the KF-51 as a tank has some shortcomings to fix. But I think as a concept its something that will definetely set the tone for future MBT's to come. It was about time someone made a tank for the modern networked battlefield that does more than just be firepower on wheels. Having the ability to launch drones and being a networked platform is something that will keep tanks relevant for decades to come.
I know for instance in my country (The Netherlands) we got rid of the Leopard 2's for a while because the consensus was that in the modern battlefield where things such as intellegence and small surgical operations are key, a tank simpley wouldn't fit in anymore. We have the tanks back now. But I think that a tank like the KF-51 would be very attractive for a small armored infantry like we have because it fulfills more roles than simply punching through enemy lines. It can actually support infantry and work together with other network centric platforms to get a better view of the battlefield.
I think we have to change the way we look at Main Battle Tanks.
Apparently that new land combat vehicle system the Germans and French work on together goes far beyond just developing a new MBT.
It seems they are developing a whole new family of specialized vehicles and the MBT is just one of them.
What they are envisioning is that you won't have tank platoons with 4 MBTs working together anymore, but instead "teams" or "packs" of several specialized vehicles.
Such a pack will probably contain something that resembles a MBT as a "dueling vehicle" specialized on destroying hard target enemy vehicles, one "NLOS" vehicle, some sort of self propelled howitzer or a launching platform for loitering ammunitions or kamikaze drones or both, a air defense and anti drone vehicle and a command vehicle which controls several recon drones and can perhaps remote control the other vehicles. It might also get a electronic warfare capability.
And then you can attach one or more Infantry Fighting Vehicles to such a pack for the anti infantry role and other specialized vehicles like recovery and engineering vehicles.
Such packs would kind of function like a vehicle version of special forces teams.
@@TrangleC The more modern combat we see, the more we realize that there's never a single solution. You have to be adaptable, and flexible in your role. Everything in modern combat has slowly started embodying this new perspective.
One other reason for the Dutch army was that the Dutch army has changed roles.
In the Cold War, the Netherlands was the second line of defense and thus our land forces were designed for taking on Warsaw Pact forces in convention combat.
Since then, however: the only relevant land territorial threat is Russia with Poland & Germany being our land buffer.
That means that our land forces have 2 roles: rapid deployment towards Poland just in case, and worldwide expeditionary warfare within NATO / coalition warfare.
As heavy MBT’s are not as strategically / operationally mobile, it makes more sense for the Dutch land forces to focus on forces with higher mobility to rapidly deploy to support heavy allied groundforces such as the tank-heavy German & Polish forces.
In other words: they place the tanks, and when shit hits the fan our IFV’s, air assault, infantry and special forces race towards them to support.
And in expeditionary operations, we have some artillery for firebases
Or, as I understand now, after all the info, from the last few years of modern warfare, no one has a clue where it will go, so they left options for future updates - additional post for the 4th crew member, if needed! Launch platform for some kind of drones or missiles if needed, or return to additional ammo, or fuel, or... if needed. Other things optional to add/replace..if needed... Just, no one knows where warfare will go, and what will be (if any) role for the MBT! So all options are open (MODULAR in modern language)... Maybe tanks will not be used as direct battle vehicles, but just to protect high ranking officers on the battlefield from sniper rifles and diversions, while they can observe battlegrounds from inside the new "tank", using modern senzors and drones...with driver, guard, and maybe even wife... With all the comfort that can offer, air condition, active and passive protection, high mobility, and all kinds of communication possibilities (on line games, tv, and SATCOM..) ;)
I just cannot understand why so harsh words versus Challenger 2 MBT? It is Challenging, as I already said, but keep for future historical evidence, not rush in, because "only fulls rush in..." ;)
KF. 51 is one of the best main battle tank in the world.
Someone played "Command & Conquer: Generals" at Rheinmetall, that's for sure...
The launcher module for loitering munitions/recon drones, that will use valuable main gun ammo space, looks more like something for a platoon/company commander version. It does make sense to have specialised variants within a company; variants that are indistinguishable from the outside.
To a degree, yes. Russia for example have dedicated “command” variants of their tanks in each battalion. But anything that doesn’t directly benefit, or even takes AWAY from, the ONE role the main battle tank is designed for… is not smart to include. Tanks are already too big and heavy, and every measure to reduce their size and weight is important. The inclusion of drones and systems that another, dedicated vehicle in the regiment could be operating… is not a good idea.
@@ArmorCast A separate, dedicated vehicle would require more personnel and logistics to the unit though. At the very minimum, the drone car would need a driver and a drone operator while the tank already has a driver installed. If you have 150 men in total, having to divert more of them to driving might not be the most efficient use of manpower.
As always, in the end it's always a compromise between different and often contradicting demands and desires.
@@ArmorCast Could a modified IFV being used as the basis of a _drone carrier_ be a good concept?
Ditch the infantry capacity (and mission profile) and instead have launchers and resupply for drones and the operators/pilots sitting inside at control stations in the space that was formerly for carrying the troops.
Using a existing IFV hull has both development cost and in field logistics benifits, and also means that enemy forces can't readily identify it as a drone "mothership" and thus a priority target, especially if it's accompanying other IFV's.
The autocannon also provides it with good personal defence against a wide range of threats, assuming that enemy MBT's will either be dealt with by its own anti tank Kamikaze Drones or by friendly MBT's (or FO artillery) that are data linked - see below.
The IFV autocannon will be the bane of enemy infantry that have been spotted by its drones, especially if airburst range data can be automatically fed in.
And being the standard IFV it will be able to keep up with the other armour and do dedicated overwatch while the "heavy MBT" does the job it's optimised for.
However a small _long endurance_ helicopter drone optimised for a MBT does make sense just for situational awareness in both Tank vs Tank battles and in spotting anti tank infantry that could ambush the MBT.
But leave launching and controlling the attack drones to a dedicated vehicle that isn't on the tip of the spear, but following close behind.
@@johanmetreus1268 Apparently that new land combat vehicle system the Germans and French work on together goes far beyond just developing a new MBT.
It seems they are developing a whole new family of specialized vehicles and the MBT is just one of them.
What they are envisioning is that you won't have tank platoons with 4 MBTs working together anymore, but instead "teams" or "packs" of several specialized vehicles.
Such a pack will probably contain something that resembles a MBT as a "dueling vehicle" specialized on destroying hard target enemy vehicles, one "NLOS" vehicle, some sort of self propelled howitzer or a launching platform for loitering ammunitions or kamikaze drones or both, a air defense and anti drone vehicle and a command vehicle which controls several recon drones and can perhaps remote control the other vehicles. It might also get a electronic warfare capability.
And then you can attach one or more Infantry Fighting Vehicles to such a pack for the anti infantry role and other specialized vehicles like recovery and engineering vehicles.
Such packs would kind of function like a vehicle version of special forces teams.
Interesting to know the Hero is an optional component for a command or recon variant... I think having a greater range and leveraging better information sharing and being able to scout remotely will be useful, as for the javelin Hero's, and I can see it being very useful against tanks that may not be as advanced, such as the majority of unupgraded Russian or Chinese stock and light armor, and possibly have applications with an HE or Frag warhead against infantry in trenches or other difficult to attack positions (which likely lack APS systems generally reserved for vehicles). Having a loitering munition may be a significantly advantageous ability due to the entire vehicle being able to be fully in cover, while also assuming the trend of digital combat integration with AR and live HUD elements is embraced - everyone can see what the drone sees, not just the tank. This may also result in more use of LOS encrypted laser communications as electronic warfare becomes more and more integral.
Imagine a fleet of these tanks launching a swarm of loitering munitions as a preemptive strike to soften armor as they are moving towards a target objective, not having to rely on calling in artillery and waiting for it, and also being able to immediately strike in the following confusion after the munitions are commanded to detonate simultaneously.
I think it's optional because you don't need a recon drone on every tank. Some smart planners will figure out that you need X of them per platoon, or per battalion, or whatever, and then some of them will carry it, and the rest will carry more ammo.
Or option B: It won't be launched from the tank at all. It has no real reason to right? It can fly, much faster than a tank can drive too. Launch the drones from bases or vehicles that are well behind the frontlines, have them catch up to the tanks, and tank crews control them from there. Almost exactly like Loyal Wingman.
as a former M1 tanker and desert storm veteran i really enjoyed this video.
Always a pleasure to have combat vets commenting here! Thanks mate
If you consider this as an upgrade options demonstrator for the export market, then it makes a whole lot of sense and opens up a lot of possibilities:
1) drop-in turret upgrade for Leo II with new 130mm gun
2) Keep current 120mm gun and 4th crewman, replacing autoloader and cassettes in demonstrator turret with current compartmented storage. This option makes the turret an interface between the old hull & gun and new electronics, active systems, drones, etc. The lighter armor maintaining current level of protection even has an improvement on performance using an unmodified legacy hull: lighter overall weight means higher speed; access to more bridges and roads; and less wear on drive. suspension, tracks, etc.
I think RM will be reluctant to offer a 120mm gun version of the KF51. For one they already have developed a "light tank" which is basically a 120mm gun turret on a Lynx chassis and secondly, I think one of the purposes of the Panther is to get the 130mm gun out there as fast as possible and establish it as the new NATO standard before anyone else (like Nexter with their 140mm gun) can develop their own next generation gun.
@@TrangleC I don't mean that they will offer a 120mm KF51, I mean that they will offer an upgrade package for existing Leo2 A6's & A7's consisting of dropping the KF51 turret into the Leo2 hull with the existing 120mm. This allows the new turret to take all sorts of future electronics upgrades which the existing Leo turrets cannon handle.
@@jhilal2385 Yes, but that is what I meant too. Since the KF51 currently basically is just the turret, offering a KF51 turret with a 120mm gun would basically mean offering a KF51 with a 120mm gun.
The reasons I gave for why I think that is unlikely still stand.
Excellent prototype! I think this tank is a game changer if put into mass production after working out the bugs. Produce it!!!
Good time to release a new tank. : )
Hope we'll see german engineering dominate on eastern battlefields sooner than later.
The Steel of a New Germany
Beautiful looking tank with a lot of potential, in 120 I could see this being a winner for Rheinmetall. No customer wants to be the first to adopt the 130 as it will cause massive financial and logistical problems. For it to be taken on it would have to be either adopted on mass by a lot of NATO countries or the US. Who knows with defence spending increasing maybe it might happen, but current 120 ammunition is very capable.
And I bet KMW/Rheinmetal will initially offer it with a 120mm/L55 gun in a mount that can upgrade to 130mm
@@SonsOfLorgar even the US army is hesistent when it come to new caliber standard. So yeah, that would be the logical path.
I think he has a great point with the velocity and active defence systems. If the 120 ammo just can not defeat it, it simply doesn't matter how good it is for the rest.
Sonsoflorgar was thinking what i was thinking as well. The first version could be delivered with the 120mm gun. With the 130mm becomming part of an update package when these defence systems become widely adapted by adversary armies. An a2 or a3 version of the tank could accept the gun without issues then.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Personally I think there really doesn't seem to be an urgent need for a bigger gun. Sure they can work on developing it but there's no Russian or Chinese tank that can stand up to the current 120 mm with the most recent ammunition.
The T-14 Armata made people think a bigger gun was necessary but given the Ukraine situation, it is looking increasingly unlikely that Russia will ever be able to field large numbers of Armatas. The effectiveness of Russian equipment in Ukraine has also put further doubts on whether the Armata is as capable as Russia claims.
To me it seems like sensor systems for improved situational awareness and anti-drone/missile defensive systems are much more urgent requirements for Western MBTs, rather than improvements in cannon performance vs. tanks.
@@Rampant16 it all depends on how quickly china adopts active defence systems that can defeat the 120mm rounds. If they start mounting these systems that the 120 can not defeat on their new tanks as standard, and the 130 is able to defeat it, it will be adopted immediatly across nato.
Also one does not exclude the other. Seems like they are on top of the situational awereness already with current models. And the next gen systems will take it another leap forward as well.
These systems have been the backbone and main focus of nato for a long time already.
What an exceptionally engaging documentary. Congrats !
I saw the picture of the driver compartment in Lazerpig's T14 video. It literally looks like something straight out of Mobile Suit Gundam with monitor front and on the sides. The only better driver I can think of is the AT pilot goggle, which is directly connected to the tank's sensors from Armor Trooper Votom.
Interesting vehicle. As you indicate not enough ammo and too many extras that need to be mounted on other vehicles.
I have studied tanks since the 1950's the one point that was always made keep it simple enough with enough ammo to survive a day's fighting with a very tired crew operating it. The Marines after the fight for Tarawa added additional ammo storage for future fights to avoid running out of ammo when it was needed. Under the worst conditions a crew needs at least one quarter of its basic load with one third being much better to stop a counterattack. At one third left you need to be coordinating resupply or relief pronto.
Note: I served 27 years in the US army teaching how to kill tanks among many other skills both on active duty and in the reserves. I retired in Dec 1998.
It would really heavily on nearby logistics. But.... considering the daily tank loss of russia didn't go above 10. And this tank would be 1 shot 1 kill... plenty ammo
Comment is stupid
definitely subscribing, love your vids man!
I have heard the statement that the KF51 is NOT a next generation tank but rather the maximum you could squeeze out from the current generation. Is there any truth in this?
It really depends on what you define as "generations". There are no hard and fast rules on this, so it's up to interpretation. HOWEVER, most would call this a next gen tank design given its capabilities and its distinctions (lighter weight, new integrated active protection and advanced sensor suites, new gun and the capabilities THAT brings, etc.
Challenger 3 I would perhaps say is fair to call a current generation tank suped up to represent the absolute top of its gen, but KF51, along with Abrams X, should definitely count as "next gen".
Though I would be very keen to hear the arguments of why it ISN'T "next gen"
Omg someone has actually made his homework’s. Yes you are absolutely right.
The MGCS system (German-French tank project) will be the next true gen tank with an unmanned turret, 1 remotely controlled commanders station with a RMG .50, highly modular armor layout, auto-loader, ADS systems and SUPPOSEDLY fully remotely controllable oh I forgot another coaxial RMG .50…
Keen eye you got there !
Prost from Germany 🇩🇪
Congratulations bro.
Love your honesty Captain. Your info is fantastic and seemingly very well researched. I would have said without doubt you had attended university in some historical capacity. Taa for sharing your work with all.
Thanks for covering the topic of shot traps , it was the first thing I wondered about.
The increased caliber of the gun, would alone result in "only" 27% increased performance, channeled into whatever parameters. So with the quoted figures around 50%, more is going on here. Something which is also obvious when you inspect the new ammunition. Much more propellant for a "hotter" round, the size of which necessitates autoloader. Not just bigger caliber, but a new generation as well.
The design is gorgeous, a proud successor to the original Panther, which was a beautiful tank as well, despite it's many MANY mechanical issues.
well... with the egomanic demands of Mr. H and the 40's tech, it was good while it lasted... the Maus not so much...
now we need the beer test for the 51 ^^
Extremely good video with loads of information.
I would love to see sources, as well, but still. Awesome work.
Being able to be controlled in combat by just one crew member will be incredibly useful … _in war movies._
As a concept she is GORGEOUS. I'm interested to see how she evolves.
Are you compiling information for the Abrams X concept tank?
Also, we're still owed an Abrams chapter of Your Favorite Tanks Sucks.😁
I must say that the KF51 looks beautiful.
Eh it looks kinda goofy
You really put children of the omnissiah in this video I had no idea you were so based and cultured
Good, now send the Leopards east.
#FreeTheLeopards
Thank you for the great video! I think it may be a viable alternative to instead of having the loitering munitions replacing ammunition capacity in the KF51 design an alternate turret for the KF41 that incorporates them...
A modified IFV being used as a _drone carrier_ seems like a good concept. Ditch the infantry capacity and instead have storage and resupply for drones and the operators/pilots sitting inside.
Using a existing IFV hull has both cost and logistics benifits, and also means that enemy forces can't readily identify it as a drone "mothership" and thus a priority target.
And being the standard IFV it will be able to keep up with the other armour and do overwatch while the "heavy MBT" does the job it's optimised for.
However a small helicopter drone for a MBT does make sense just for situational awareness in both Tank vs Tank battles and in spotting anti tank infantry that could ambush the MBT.
But leave launching and controlling the attack drones to a dedicated vehicle that isn't on the tip of the spear.
@@casbot71 yes, with the small drones only you probably wouldn't need a fourth crew member and instead have the commander or gunner control it.
We will see how all this works out. The real test of product support will be front and center. If they allow export of Leopard 2 to Ukraine and if the logistics work out. They probably will have a great market for the Panther. I don’t really need to say more.
The Nationalists Shultz`s are not NATO team players bleeding out the Ukrainians. Don't forget they offered a few helmets earlier on and slow to join other members offering anything useful for defense. Offensive weapons tanks are needed to repel the Russian terrorists that commit atrocities like the German Nazi forefathers had spilled blood on the same soil.
This generation of tanks are so advanced it makes the tanks from famous sci-fi franchise obsolete
Germans... slaying competition in tank making since WW2. They are masters of armoured technology.
Don't know if the following is true or just bs: There's a saying claiming this(Personally i believe it's BS):"Death is a master from Germany!"
That could get really intresting with the sensors and the recon-drone, when those are connected to the fire control system, just automatically guide the main gun to the source by the push of a button and fire.
With the drone it could even get better, spot a target ready for an ambush, let the drone lock on the target and the gun moves to the target...they won't know what hit them 😆
The suicide drone launcher makes not much sense, it would be rather for an IFV, but maybe they though about a scenario, to neutralize targets that are hidden or beyond visual range...knock them out before they hit you...would even explain the bigger gun, just maximize the first strike capability.
Think the plan is make one ore two tanks in the platoon to a missle platform if it's required for the mission, to not take less armored IFV into a massive tank fight just to have anti tank missle
damn this new 4.0 premium for germany looks crazy!
Like I said , if Germany falls its normally on a trampoline
It even looks like the Panther of WW2 with the sloped armour.
Mechanicum OST....I knew you were a man of culture bro. Well done.
A great summary... thanks very much.
Wait a minute.... I've seen this before
Strange that you didn't talk about the collision between that independant project and the franco-german EMBT project supported by both governments
I would remove the loitering ammo feature, because sacrificing HALF of your ammo for that seems not so whise, especially considring the long range of that weapon would allow it to be fired from a different vheicle while still being capable of supporting the MBT.
Totally agree on the small quad drone, the simple ability to tag an enemy and relay the location with precise digital coordinates is a perfectly good idea, especially since it does not really impact the MBT wheight so negatuvely.
I do not know about the 7.62 MG, i would prefer the road most next gen MBTs are going for: a light 30mm. But it seems that there is enough space to put that system in the turret. In general the KF51, the EMBT, the Abrams X and the K2 Black Panther all seems very solid tanks on paper, but who knows how they will perform in reality?
Well it’s exchangeable so depending on the mission you can ether have more ammo or loitering munitions.
Man you said( wrote). so many words , an actually said nothing at all..
@@reserva120 What do you mean? It's pretty clear. I was just talking about what features of the MBT i like and what i would change, and justified my reasoning. I literally wrote 4 praragraphs.
i mean isnt the current docrtrine of the leopard for trucks to follow them around anyway? if the leopard wants to drive under water, then the truck has the air intake parts for the leopard to do that, cant they carry ammo as well? so if thats the case and the KF51 will be replacing the leopard then whats stopping the trucks from carrying the ammo and just stick in inside the tank when outside of combat without the need to return to base as much
First video where I heard RheinMetall not pronounced incorrectly as "rine medal". Great video.
The profile of this tank is awesome
Just stumbled on your channel. Very enjoyable content and, for those who know they know, the subtle mechanicus flair is a nice touch!
For personal use.
5:28 130mm Long Schlong
12:44 Autoloader
14:33 Secondary
15.16 Loiter Munition
17:10 Spotter Drone
17:18 Protection
17:18 APS
18:39 Vroooom Spec
20:54 Passive Armor. Completely fuck on the physics, just like the ammo video.
Btw, the ammo video still have all the issue and is still up there.
23:31 Analog to digital
23:26 NGVA
23:40 Goes back to passive armor?
23:59 Ranting about the hull
23:49 More Vroooom Spec, not sure why another part of it appears at 18:39
25:28 Sensory equipment
25:41 Detecting a thermal sensor? Which is a completely passive sensor?
25:59 Strv 103 control scheme again
26:25 Future of optionally manned turret/vehicle
26:45 Comment on paint job???
26:57 That geometric block at base of gun, and very out of whack theory
27:16 Out of whack theory of geometry LO design
27:20 WHY, replace tenk?
28:49 Leo2 has upgrades, but not enough
29:31 Draws F22 parallel
30:16 Goes back to tenk
31:26 Germany military readiness suck.
30:56 Rant Rant Rant
31:57 Dubious comment on "cyber security"
32:54 B2 is a thing.
33:49 Goes back to tenk rant.
34:17 Why no unmanned turret?
35:09 Turret has more armor than hull, meaning crew in hull will have less armor...
35:43 Re think what tank should looks like.
36:02 Turret has less armor means mission kill is more likely.
36:18 T-14 layout is self defeating, pulling out statistic out of rear end
36:34 (Not) Modern threats...
37:01 Mine protection is not possible with crew in hull...
37:44 The rest is conclusion.
40:20 Poland will most likely not be Germany customer anymore, instead be an exporter themself.
The Chieftain has mentioned that he does not approve of having the 4th crewman or the loitering munition for the Abrams X and KF51 unless there is a compelling reason for this. The idea is that a tank is limited in size and that things like drone operation and loitering munitions can be done in either other vehicles should not be placed in a tank unless it can be justified via doctrine. For the KF51, instead of a fourth crew man, perhaps more fuel.
Better off with more ammunition. Even without the drone systems you’ve only got 20 rounds, that’s HALF what an Abrams carries and even less compared to the Challenger 2
@@ArmorCast But guessing by the modern weapons aiming system with high first hit probability, why are 20 shots not enough?
Only because older systems have more ammo?
Sounds just conservative, because it was always done that way ..
@@DJ1573 Against tanks the 20 rounds are maybe enough, but tanks are also used in the fire support role as can be seen in Ukraine. That requires a lot more rounds as they are often also used to supress enemy infantry.
@@DJ1573 tanks rarely fight other tanks, they sling HE around at infantry, fortifications and buildings. if they meet another vehicles its likely a light vehicle and a HEAT-MP shell will suffice, so having only 20 rounds onboard would be a massive drawback.
@@dougblack8414 But it should not be like this. Thats what IFVs are made for.
The drone operator can coordinate tank contacts and response thanks to superior drone reconnisance while the IFVs take on fortifications/infantry together with the mounted infantry.
You know about the german tank grenadier doctrine?
That 100K is a milestone. But when you get that diamond plaque in two years, it'll all feel unreal.
I still get excited when I talk to other sizeable TH-cam channels that are SMALLER than this one! 😂
Feels crazy!
off topic but still relevant to what you asked. Yes the Challenger 3 does looks like a tank from the 60s while the challenger 2 looks like something from the 90's. That's aside from actually looking into how good the tank is.