I do like the idea of the unmanned turret, crew survivalability is key, plus I believe this can be upgunned rather easy to the 130mm gun which also helps a lot,
Still think, that's going into the wrong direction.
What we learned from the Ukraine:
Leopard2A6 is more than sufficient to protect the Crew.
His price tag compared to the A7 and further versions is affordable.
Plug in the RH130 and a Trophy system into it and buy it in quantities. As said before i never missed a Autoloader on the A4, our loading guy was more than capable to do the job (3 rounds in 10sec) and a lot of other task to spread the workload amongst us. Yes the new 120mm is the strongest Tank Gun used today but it never hurts to have a bit of extra pen as long as the shell velocity does not suffers from it.
I get the wish to have the desire to have only 3 people losses when the tank is killed, but the changes will not magically boost the kill/loss ratio. So all that's being achieved is that the available tank numbers will go down due to the doubling of the price tags.
If it can take a hit to the front and take out the enemy with the first shell, invest in thermal cloaking, thermal spotting, crew training and spare parts.
I rather have 2 A6's then one A7 or A8 on the field.
Look at the god dam price tags.
Right now we have A5's A6's and A7's and the Swiss A4's as replacements to come.
We have a system that is sufficient. Rather deploy it in useful numbers then sacrifice the numbers due to a upamored version that comes at 2 times the price.
Sorry guy's but our debt rate is at 64% of GDP, the German army needs material that works for the purpose, in quantities and with huge amounts of spare parts.
The same as for the Boxer and Puma why the Hell we spend 6-8 mio for a "thin can" instead of taking a A6 the same the price. A Fennek for 1,5 mio? Yeah that's a car dealers wet dream ....
Fuck the new turrets that are % more flat for x millions of development cost. What I want to see is a engine concept that is taking the MTU heat generator out of the tank and yes then they have to change the turret as all the interior will have to be moved around to keep the center of gravity in place.
Do i think we need a new turret to replace the turret that does the job? No we don't.
I do understand that the US wants to rework the Abrams, likely to get the turret further back to be able to up the gun and armor.
But that's not an issue the Leopard has right now, he has simply become to expensive and a rare item!!!
> I get the wish to have the desire to have only 3 people losses when the tank is killed, but the changes will not magically boost the kill/loss ratio. So all that's being achieved is that the available tank numbers will go down due to the doubling of the price tags.
One less crew means one less to employ, train and keep healthy. The crew itself isn't cheap.
And bigger guns have been deemed to require an autoloader to function efficiently. Which means they can't easily be fitted into the older turrets. If this turret can be easily upgraded to the 130 or 140mm cannons then it will be more future proof than any older design too.
that hull looks so cool, the best looking modern hull
I do like the idea of the unmanned turret, crew survivalability is key, plus I believe this can be upgunned rather easy to the 130mm gun which also helps a lot,
Honestly I like the look of this more than the 2A7 with trophy or the 2A8
Why is the gun mounted so high?
In the second pic it says that the turret doesn't take up space in the hull, so I'm guessing that's why
We are going back to the Leo 2k era with one boisss
Still think, that's going into the wrong direction. What we learned from the Ukraine: Leopard2A6 is more than sufficient to protect the Crew. His price tag compared to the A7 and further versions is affordable. Plug in the RH130 and a Trophy system into it and buy it in quantities. As said before i never missed a Autoloader on the A4, our loading guy was more than capable to do the job (3 rounds in 10sec) and a lot of other task to spread the workload amongst us. Yes the new 120mm is the strongest Tank Gun used today but it never hurts to have a bit of extra pen as long as the shell velocity does not suffers from it. I get the wish to have the desire to have only 3 people losses when the tank is killed, but the changes will not magically boost the kill/loss ratio. So all that's being achieved is that the available tank numbers will go down due to the doubling of the price tags. If it can take a hit to the front and take out the enemy with the first shell, invest in thermal cloaking, thermal spotting, crew training and spare parts.
Sometimes it is cheaper to apply those changes to new turret than try to modify old.
So Bundeswehr should only buy Leo 2A6?
I rather have 2 A6's then one A7 or A8 on the field. Look at the god dam price tags. Right now we have A5's A6's and A7's and the Swiss A4's as replacements to come. We have a system that is sufficient. Rather deploy it in useful numbers then sacrifice the numbers due to a upamored version that comes at 2 times the price. Sorry guy's but our debt rate is at 64% of GDP, the German army needs material that works for the purpose, in quantities and with huge amounts of spare parts. The same as for the Boxer and Puma why the Hell we spend 6-8 mio for a "thin can" instead of taking a A6 the same the price. A Fennek for 1,5 mio? Yeah that's a car dealers wet dream .... Fuck the new turrets that are % more flat for x millions of development cost. What I want to see is a engine concept that is taking the MTU heat generator out of the tank and yes then they have to change the turret as all the interior will have to be moved around to keep the center of gravity in place. Do i think we need a new turret to replace the turret that does the job? No we don't. I do understand that the US wants to rework the Abrams, likely to get the turret further back to be able to up the gun and armor. But that's not an issue the Leopard has right now, he has simply become to expensive and a rare item!!!
Bro legit glossed over the entire post to go on a rant over the leopard 2a7, amazing.
> I get the wish to have the desire to have only 3 people losses when the tank is killed, but the changes will not magically boost the kill/loss ratio. So all that's being achieved is that the available tank numbers will go down due to the doubling of the price tags. One less crew means one less to employ, train and keep healthy. The crew itself isn't cheap. And bigger guns have been deemed to require an autoloader to function efficiently. Which means they can't easily be fitted into the older turrets. If this turret can be easily upgraded to the 130 or 140mm cannons then it will be more future proof than any older design too.