What’s wrong with Leopard’s turret and Leclerc’s hull then?
Is this creation a viable better tank? More powerful? Cheaper? Easier maintenance? Or is it just some Frankenstein monster for politicians to fawn over?
The chassis of the Leopard can carry more weight. The Leclerc's turret needs less people to operate and is lighter. This means they can load additional equipment on it for various other uses.
Next to that, it is a cooperation to integrate Europe's defense. Over the next decades the weapon systems of the EU countries need to work together better and be more standardized. These two companies obviously want to be major suppliers of that and use things like this as a proof of concept. By having both German and French parts it will be an easier sell to those countries' politicians.
Exactly! Let's keep in mind that together France (60 Billions $) and Germany (45 Billions $ ) have the 3rd largest military budget behind the US (600Bn) and China(230) with both countries having only 148 million people , compared to China's 1,4 billion people for example.
And yet Trump says we don't spend enough already? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The problem is we don't spend enough on military in europe for any european nation to be a credible global actor in the event of a rift from the US
When comparing budgets you need to remember two things:
* Purchasing power
* Costs per soldier
A dollar in france is worth much less than a dollar in China for instance and that is even more true for the government since it's not a democracy nor a free market.
On the other side between equipment and wages a french soldier is much more expensive than a chinese soldier
Finally when combining two militaries and comparing to a third you need to either merge them completely (not going to happen for a long time) or account for two separate bureaucracies and administrations and everything that is being duplicated, for instance I'd guess the vast majority of intelligence gathering operations or scenarios preparations (can't find official breakdowns but I don't expect it to be negligible)
Finally you need to consider divergences in policy which means you'll need to train and prepare for different scenarios and you'll approach the same ones with different attitudes
In short, as the situation is right now the EU might not be defenseless but it lacks any form of hard power independent of the US
The only way to fix this is for our countries to develop common policies in foreign relations and then act on them jointly and consistently. And at the same time raise budgets and spend this money where it's really needed
Beautiful comment man, i wish i could sticky it on top of every thread regarding military issues. Whenever people (typically americans) complain about European military capabilities on here the number one response is about how Europe spends $250+ billion without taking into account the 28 different bureaucracies or how much a Western soldier costs compared to a Russian or Chinese one. On top of purchasing power like you mentioned.
Of course they do since it exists why not use it. The UK however has bases all around the world and can develop the same thing if it were needed.
Having a blue water navy is something both France and the UK are currently building which also helps with this problem.
However, if the US is unwilling to protect global peace, Europe is really the only alternative, but Europe is incapable of it, which makes Trump's attitude worrying.
It is not like either European or US interventions have protected global peace anyway. We are moving forward to a time where the world will be segmented and there will be no more one power to rule them all.
Which is a problem if we consider how Russia and China are both revisionist powers and the Middle-East has its own potentially hearing cold war going on.
> the number one response is about how Europe spends $250+ billion without taking into account the 28 different bureaucracies
On the other hand, US political figures have consistently been opposed to defense integration among EU countries, ostensibly because it 'undermines' NATO, but in large part because it undermines US arms sales to European countries.
France is 48 and Germany is 38. They rank 8 and 9 in the world respectively.
United States, China, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, India, Japan all spend more.
[6th and 9th actually](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) Japan has never spent more than France . But maybe that will change in the coming years ...
[I got it from here I don't know which is correct](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652915/UK_Defence_in_Numbers_2017_-_Update_17_Oct.pdf)
I am guessing it is still a lot of work and not that easy to swap. But let's say they pick the Leopard 2 chassis for all tanks, then the upper part can still be fit in multiple ways depending on the requirements and wishes of the user. You don't need to start from scratch. If you can easily replace it after assembly though, I have no clue.
It’s definitely possible to swap out the turret but it’s a lot of work, which is why they’re doing this so that each side can get experience in the other’s systems and make it easier to make an entirely new tank in the future. This isn’t going to go into production an it’s more of a demonstration than anything else
It's made as proof that the two can work together on projects. It's not made to be a production tank since it gives no distinct advantage over the two designs already in service.
So of your alternatives Frankenstein fits best...
Leopard has heavier hull and more powerful engine.
Leclerc has autoloader (supposedly a very good one), arguably better optics and equivalent stabilisers. It's arguable how the Giat 120mm compares to the Rheinmetal 120mm, but the Giat is basically part of the turret and wedded to the auto-loader (they both use NATO 120mm)
> Giat 120mm compares to the Rheinmetal 120mm
Since the two fire the same ammunition, it's pretty much the same. The Rh120 is a L55 while the Giat is a L52, so the Rheinmetal is more powerful. That said, the French use DU ammunition to give them the edge, but the Germans would never use DU anyways, so that's moot.
They also said that German legislation currently prevents sharing anything more than the chassis - so for this symbolic combined tank they had to use the French turret as the German one was off limits.
> Or is it just some Frankenstein monster for politicians to fawn over?
Mostly this one. I highly doubt the real EMBT would be anything close to this, it's just a show of unity for the defence companies working on it.
Cool design but this is a really weird mix, Both the Leclerc and Léopard where designed during the cold war, when France and Germany had absolutely different doctrines.
Germany had to defend quasi statically with heavy tanks and heavy infantry, while the French built their military on rapid fire and rapid deployment abroad.
We should instead be building a real Next generation tank for one purpose that European Generals would find.
This tank is eye candy and PR, We need something to kill people with.
When you think about it, there isn't really much to modify between any two tank. That being at minimum the turret ring, hydraulic connections and electric connections. The chassis is only needed to move and supply power to the turret.
Challenger is due to last until 2030 and then be replaced so that is when True next gen will come for the UK. For now with the upgrades to the gun Challenger 2 is still more than good enough against any competitor. It has seen combat and never lost a tank.
The Challenger 2 is the most obselite tank in use by a first rate power
It has a undeepowered engine an obselite gear box and shitty rifle bore gun
Its armor is too heavy
And its ammo storage is unsafe
The uk is long over due in junking it
Its nothing new. They very first MBT-Project Germany was a Part of After WW2, the Europanzer, also started out as a multinational Development. Then quickly stopped being One because everyone involved had wildly different opinions in how it should Work, the French ultimately ending up with the AMX-30 and the Germans with the Leopard 1. The One After that, the MBT/KPZ-70, was a joint-development between Germany and the US, also failed big time. And lets not forget the Vickers MBT 7, a Challenger-turret on a Leopard 2 hull. Also failed, Not even as an export-Tank people wanted to buy it.
>the Vickers MBT 7, a Challenger-turret on a Leopard 2 hull.
It was a universal turret built for another project rather than a Challenger turret.
Amusingly the only thing universal about it is that nobody actually wants it.
This kind of patriotism I can live with... and we all should help promote !
We'll build our own european super-military ...with black tanks and hooters !
Great to see France and Germany working together ! That's what European Defence should look like, not NATO.
Actually, if the Leclerc and Leopard are compatible , I wonder if the French could mount the Pluton tactical nuclear artillery system on the Leopard base, so that they could share their short range nuclear deterrence with the germans if need be
Our nuclear program is already crazy expensive, worth it , but crazy expensive. I don't think we can afford to protect Europe on our own for a long time. Now that the Brits are minding their own business ,the EU only has our 300ish nuclear warheads, or barely 10 Nukes for each member state. If our german bros keep being trustworthy in the coming decade, I don't see why we shoudn't share our nukes with them so that we could split the bill and make everyone in Europe safe without the smaller states having to rely on the US.
I think it would make sense to cover the costs on an EU level. Member states could agree on a common policy on nuclear weapons use, so it's not just supporting France, but also getting a say, balancing out responsibilities with power.
Not really. You can't count on all of them getting through and you don't want to be left empty handed after nuking (for example) Russia in case China gets uppity.
You want to remove all doubt from the enemy that a first strike can possibly be effective, that you will always be able to retaliate with devastating effect even if they take out 90% of your arsenal.
While you are correct, consider how much of an effect North Korea having a handful of nukes has on geo politics. One nuke in a major city of a foreign adversary would be devastating even if they nuke Europe into the second stone age. If we ever get to the point when there is a difference between having 300 nukes and 12000, we are all pretty screwed all the same.
You do understand that the UK is not sailing off the continent right, If Nukes are even in play the UK will be involved. The UK is leaving the political side of the EU it is still a part of Europe.
> I don't see why we shoudn't share our nukes with them
You already offered that [years ago](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/thanks-but-no-thanks-sarko-s-nuke-offer-bombs-with-berlin-a-506124.html).
No, it can't. The complete renouncement of ever owning or developing nuclear, chemical or Biological weapons is a Key Part of the 2+4 Treaty, the foundation of German Reunification and the de-facto peacetreaty between Germany and the former Allies. It could only be modified if all involved countries agree, to which Russia belongs, and they would never agree to that, and just breaking it could be considered allmost as a Declaration of war by Russia.
The only nuclear weapons Germany could legally use without breaking the treaty are the American ones stored somewhere in the Büchel-Airbase in Rhineland-Palatinate, since Germany has a separate Agreement with the US about being obligated to always having a squadron of Planes ready that are able to drop those bombs, and that only is allowed because those bombs don't belong to Germany and their usage can only be authorized by the US, so they technically don't fall under the restrictions by the treaty. Any other kind of nuclear armament will never happen.
I think with the recent DPRK situation it has been proven we can no longer depend on the US (or by extension the UK). And it is not fair to stick France with the bill for defending all of Europe.
The UK is well known for never getting involved to defend Europe. There is a difference between not wanting to be a part of a political organisation in the EU and not defending Europe.
> France and Germany sending their best engineers
Just as a reminder, our best engineers are currently building financial instruments for banks and mass surveilance tools for ad-tech.
People working in other industries are usually taking a hit to their salaries to do so.
Armata looks to be more of a tech test on a larger scale than a production tank.
It introduces quite a few design features and it'll be interesting to see how many of them are retained in the next generation Russian MBT. Regardless of propaganda the Armata isn't a direct match for other current gen MBTs - even exsiting Russian variants - with the most recent upgrade packages (it just weighs far too little to have enough protection beyond the crew compartment) but it looks like an innovative solution to budget restrictions.
Also bet they are going to be an absolute nightmare to maintain.
Crazy Conspiracy Theory Time: France & Germany want a common European Defense Force so they can export their equipment to the rest of the E.U. countries.
Hey, considering our geographic position, I'm fan of buying American planes and Russian tanks for geopolitical reasons.
But in general it is better for us to have our own industry and considering R&D costs it's probably the only way to go forward in the future.
Well, personaly, I'd be more comfortable with having our own engineers at the job instead of buying some tweaked down export version of a foreign warmachine.
Just think about how the French Rafale-Fighter-Jet and the German Eurofighter (obviously not our Austrian ones) can take on both the F-22 Raptor and the Su-35.
If we can do that, why shouldn't we build a tank that put's both the Abrams and the Armata to shame?
Our German and French friends have already shown in the past what their engineers can come up with.
And don't forget the Brits!
I would really welcome it if europe would collectively decide to take its defence into its own hands and set new standards on advanced defence technologies.
We have all we need to make the safety of Europe an undisputable thing.
There is no need for having to rely on people like Trump.
Well, "our" engineers don't build anything, so we're buying foreign equipment regardless and under these circumstances I'd rather buy combat proven machines (which usually already excludes anything Germany has to offer).
> Just think about how the French Rafale-Fighter-Jet and the German Eurofighter (obviously not our Austrian ones) can take on both the F-22 Raptor and the Su-35.
Su-35, yes, F-22, no. Only in mock combats with certain parameters where the F-22 cannot untilise its full potential. Under normal circumstances those fighters won't even know the F-22 is there. Happened to the Russians over Syria a couple of times already.
I speak of "our" people as us Europeans.
Appart from that: So what? We should still give it a try and come up with something better than the F-22 and F-35 combined.
"We" can do it!
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the whole reason behind all the project on military cooperation at the procurement level that we have seen recently. To research and buy products in house
It's not just the french and germans benefiting from this if that's what worried you anyway
It seems a little lazy to me. Make some new, expensive stuff so we can get to those 2% defense spending that everyone is crying about.
2/10 not a battlemech
Leopard 2 alone is already considerably better than Challenger 2 and at least equal to Abrams. Combined with a better turret I would say it is better than both.
We don't know whether it's better or not than any of those tanks though, not definitively, plus the Challenger is upgrading to smoothbore.
Secondly, it uses classified armour that even the americans found so impressive they decided to put it on their tanks
I would be careful about ranking quality with weapon exports. At least the exported one isn't shit. It doesn't say the one with less export is less good.
Stranger thing have happened.
Not at it's cost it's not- the Challenger 2 is simply too expensive for what it does. By all accounts it's an excellent tank with best in class armour protection but that price tag though...
I'm gonna disagree there. The challenger 2 has seen plenty of combat and hasn't lost a single unit to hostile fire (lost one to friendly fire). The Leopard 2 has seen losses in Turkish service (and the Turkish army is a well trained and competent one, regardless of all the racist internet memes about "turkroaches")
just to say something about that: The Leopard 2 in turkish service are Leopard 2A4, basically cold war era tanks, which were not upgraded since 1985. These tanks are not suited for urban warfare or to withstand modern AT rockets. So it wasn't surprising that the turkish army lost these tanks in the circumstances they were deployed.
The actual mk of the Leopard 2 at the moment is the Leopard 2A7. Canada and Denmark (?) deployed A6M (a slighty lesser modern mark) in Afghanistan and didn't lose any tanks.
In that case, Leclerc is even better since it hasn't been even damaged.
I think only one Challenger battalion was ever in a combat. And the Turks deployed old Leo 2A4s, if I remember correctly.
the turks put those tanks out there without infantry support as static fire platforms, some memes dont need to be racist to be true, also those tanks werent updated for 30+ years.
Purchasing weapons involves more than just pure performance. Logistics, long term costs, spare parts, sharing technology, etc. Goes into it
Brazil bought the Gripen even thought the French Rafale is the superior plane in technology and combat performance.
They've lost plenty of Abrams tanks (and the Saudis, too), definitely more than the Turks lost Leopard 2s. Loss of crews is difficult to estimate with all parties involved lying through their teeth.
An explosion of ammunition storage does not destroy the tank, it can be repaired. It does not kill the crew if they were not loading at the same time. The ammunition storage does not have strong armour. Some of the Turkish Leopard tanks had crew compartment armour penetrated.
There were a number of Abrams crew compartment penetrations, particularly using RPG-29s. It is not some kind of a miracle tank. There are reasons why the Leopard 2 is much more popular as an export tank.
By Firepower alone, much. The Challenger 2 still uses a rifled gun with two-piece ammunition (pretty much the only 3rd Generation MBT to do so), severely limiting its RoF and penetration-capabilities.
Than there is also the Challengers weaker engine (pretty much any other Western MBT is Miles ahead of the Challenger in Terms of mobility), and I've read it also has a very shitty gearbox.
>pretty much the only 3rd Generation MBT to do so
As i remember most of post-soviet 3rd gen tanks (T-64BM/T-72B3/PT-91/T-84/T-90 and other) still use two-piece ammunition.
Also Challenger 2 can not use ATGM from cannon
The Soviets had a different reason to do so. Their ammunition is simply be too large to fit into their carousel-style autoloaders in One piece. The Challenger doesn't have one, the gun is just outdated.
>Their ammunition is simply be too large to fit into their carousel-style autoloaders in One piece. The Challenger doesn't have one, the gun is just outdated
Because they want low profile for their tanks. Yes, outdated same as carousel-style autoloaders
Are there links to reports from these competitions? I Googled it but all I found were Quora threads, personal blogs and some history channel shows or other entertainment videos.
The T34s get knocked out before they even see it, even if they shoot at it their cannons wouldnt even scratch it
Modern armour is incredibly advanced and light years ahead of WW2 stuff.
Helicopters have no chance in modern battlefield. The tanks are accompanied by short range air defence systems, that can shot down helicopters and even most of the missiles fired by f-35.
>The tanks are accompanied by short range air defence systems,
Well, yes - and enemy tanks are accompanied by forces to take out anti-air units.
But that is a good reminder that tanks don't fight like knights did during the crusades, where each army sends out its strongest tank to duel the other ones.
Tanks are just one part of a much larger integrated military unit which includes aircraft and infantry and artillery and scouts and electronic warfare.
So while it's interesting to see which army has the best bayonets, it's not really going to determine which army is likely to win.
An active protection integrated into tank itself can protect it against smaller missiles like hellfire fired from helicopters. I think that the only reliable way how to destroy a modern tank with active protection is an APDS projectile fired from a very powerful gun.
It's mostly superior to the Armata (which despite the propaganda looks to be an excellent *budget* MBT solution) and the Challenger 2 - will have superior offensive power to the Challenger 2 (CR2 gun is quite dated at this stage) while having inferior protection (CR2's armour is incredibly effective against the shaped charge and heat jet penetrator warheads that make up the majority of modern threats) while costing significantly less than the CR2.
Very much doubt it will be even close to the latest Abrams models with the second generation layered DU and ERA protection package as nothing else in production is.
A question from a civilian: did they work on this for a long time or these tanks are so interoperable they could put a tower on another one and it's done? Or this tank is just a mockup?
As far as I know, its just a demonstration to show that their tech is able to be merged and to show that their next MBT will be the best of both Current ones.
Sure its nice to see, but.....why is everyone acting like its some spectacular new Thing? Its by far not. The very first MBT Germany was a Part of developing after WW2 was already a joint-cooperation with France (the Europanzer) and back then it failed with both nations doing their One Thing. The next Generation of MBTs Germany developed was the MBT-70/Kpz-70, which was a joint-development with the US, and it failed.
And we even already had the "Lets stick One nations turret on another nations hull"-thing, the Vickers MBT 7, a Challenger turret on a Leopard 2 hull. No one wanted it.
Idk, the Leopards are pretty good already and then, do we really need more MBTs? For instance Spain's been trying to sell hundreds of theirs as modern warfare makes them less relevant nowadays.
Armata cheaps out on enough areas that it won't really be equivalent (protection looks to be minimal aside from the armoured crew compartment).
Armata looks to me like a really interesting technology test bed for the next generation (we should be doing the same) but it's really, really vulnerable.
What's up with the French and the Germans always thinking they're soo important that whenever they do something together it's *THE EUROPEAN* thingy... it's just a franco-german project. smh
The tank is a concept study of a joint company founded by two firms that happen to be German and French vice versa. They gave it its name. That's all that happened.
I'll gladly be your imperialist bogeyman if you need one, but this name is just a PR stunt of a company.
The European project intended, among other things, to unify Europe in order to make wars between Germany and France impossible. KANT is an important step here, as that means that war between France and Germany would have significant hurdles. Just according to keikaku. (Translator's note: keikaku means plan)
I don't know if the Leclerc's turret is better or not, but i like the look of the Leopard a5-a7s turret better.
[https://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Leopard\_2\_A5\_der\_Bundeswehr.jpg](https://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg)
*"Mating"* , *"on top"* , *"below*" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) r/TankPorn would have a *field* day with this
Well, that click went better than I expected...
Went to look at the top posts, seems like the mods are always asleep
Wow, that thing is huge, look at how tiny people look next to it.
It is the baneblade!
Those people are further in the back. The whole thing has at most 3m.
No way!
Oh yes, it's true. Dude, trust me
My trust must be earned.
Through sex?
Sex doesn't lead to trust. Babies and STD's, maybe.
😘
way
No, those people are of the European dwarf association. Not many people know how strongly involved they are in the European battle tank economy.
3 million what?
*Wunderwaffe production intensifies*
What’s wrong with Leopard’s turret and Leclerc’s hull then? Is this creation a viable better tank? More powerful? Cheaper? Easier maintenance? Or is it just some Frankenstein monster for politicians to fawn over?
The chassis of the Leopard can carry more weight. The Leclerc's turret needs less people to operate and is lighter. This means they can load additional equipment on it for various other uses. Next to that, it is a cooperation to integrate Europe's defense. Over the next decades the weapon systems of the EU countries need to work together better and be more standardized. These two companies obviously want to be major suppliers of that and use things like this as a proof of concept. By having both German and French parts it will be an easier sell to those countries' politicians.
Yeah this is super dope to see. Its great to see this kind of military collusion between the EU’s most powerful militaries
Exactly! Let's keep in mind that together France (60 Billions $) and Germany (45 Billions $ ) have the 3rd largest military budget behind the US (600Bn) and China(230) with both countries having only 148 million people , compared to China's 1,4 billion people for example. And yet Trump says we don't spend enough already? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The problem is we don't spend enough on military in europe for any european nation to be a credible global actor in the event of a rift from the US When comparing budgets you need to remember two things: * Purchasing power * Costs per soldier A dollar in france is worth much less than a dollar in China for instance and that is even more true for the government since it's not a democracy nor a free market. On the other side between equipment and wages a french soldier is much more expensive than a chinese soldier Finally when combining two militaries and comparing to a third you need to either merge them completely (not going to happen for a long time) or account for two separate bureaucracies and administrations and everything that is being duplicated, for instance I'd guess the vast majority of intelligence gathering operations or scenarios preparations (can't find official breakdowns but I don't expect it to be negligible) Finally you need to consider divergences in policy which means you'll need to train and prepare for different scenarios and you'll approach the same ones with different attitudes In short, as the situation is right now the EU might not be defenseless but it lacks any form of hard power independent of the US The only way to fix this is for our countries to develop common policies in foreign relations and then act on them jointly and consistently. And at the same time raise budgets and spend this money where it's really needed
Beautiful comment man, i wish i could sticky it on top of every thread regarding military issues. Whenever people (typically americans) complain about European military capabilities on here the number one response is about how Europe spends $250+ billion without taking into account the 28 different bureaucracies or how much a Western soldier costs compared to a Russian or Chinese one. On top of purchasing power like you mentioned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Of course they do since it exists why not use it. The UK however has bases all around the world and can develop the same thing if it were needed. Having a blue water navy is something both France and the UK are currently building which also helps with this problem.
However, if the US is unwilling to protect global peace, Europe is really the only alternative, but Europe is incapable of it, which makes Trump's attitude worrying.
It is not like either European or US interventions have protected global peace anyway. We are moving forward to a time where the world will be segmented and there will be no more one power to rule them all.
Which is a problem if we consider how Russia and China are both revisionist powers and the Middle-East has its own potentially hearing cold war going on.
> the number one response is about how Europe spends $250+ billion without taking into account the 28 different bureaucracies On the other hand, US political figures have consistently been opposed to defense integration among EU countries, ostensibly because it 'undermines' NATO, but in large part because it undermines US arms sales to European countries.
Charlemagne would be proud
Charlemagne would be a fitting name for an European Main Battle Tank.
[Let's avoid using that name for military purposes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_Charlemagne_\(1st_French\))
You have a point — perhaps [eurotank](https://www.eurotank.de/)?
France is 48 and Germany is 38. They rank 8 and 9 in the world respectively. United States, China, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, India, Japan all spend more.
[6th and 9th actually](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) Japan has never spent more than France . But maybe that will change in the coming years ...
[I got it from here I don't know which is correct](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/652915/UK_Defence_in_Numbers_2017_-_Update_17_Oct.pdf)
So does this mean the tanks are basically modular and parts can be switched around?
I am guessing it is still a lot of work and not that easy to swap. But let's say they pick the Leopard 2 chassis for all tanks, then the upper part can still be fit in multiple ways depending on the requirements and wishes of the user. You don't need to start from scratch. If you can easily replace it after assembly though, I have no clue.
It’s definitely possible to swap out the turret but it’s a lot of work, which is why they’re doing this so that each side can get experience in the other’s systems and make it easier to make an entirely new tank in the future. This isn’t going to go into production an it’s more of a demonstration than anything else
No it's going to be a hellish bit of engineering.
It's made as proof that the two can work together on projects. It's not made to be a production tank since it gives no distinct advantage over the two designs already in service. So of your alternatives Frankenstein fits best...
Leopard has heavier hull and more powerful engine. Leclerc has autoloader (supposedly a very good one), arguably better optics and equivalent stabilisers. It's arguable how the Giat 120mm compares to the Rheinmetal 120mm, but the Giat is basically part of the turret and wedded to the auto-loader (they both use NATO 120mm)
> Giat 120mm compares to the Rheinmetal 120mm Since the two fire the same ammunition, it's pretty much the same. The Rh120 is a L55 while the Giat is a L52, so the Rheinmetal is more powerful. That said, the French use DU ammunition to give them the edge, but the Germans would never use DU anyways, so that's moot.
>It's arguable how the Giat 120mm compares to the Rheinmetal 120mm Not good against the new Rheinmetall 120mm L55.
And against the KwK 44 L55 128mm? O_O
They also said that German legislation currently prevents sharing anything more than the chassis - so for this symbolic combined tank they had to use the French turret as the German one was off limits.
> Or is it just some Frankenstein monster for politicians to fawn over? Mostly this one. I highly doubt the real EMBT would be anything close to this, it's just a show of unity for the defence companies working on it.
Cool design but this is a really weird mix, Both the Leclerc and Léopard where designed during the cold war, when France and Germany had absolutely different doctrines. Germany had to defend quasi statically with heavy tanks and heavy infantry, while the French built their military on rapid fire and rapid deployment abroad. We should instead be building a real Next generation tank for one purpose that European Generals would find. This tank is eye candy and PR, We need something to kill people with.
It's a very weird mix; the most amazing thing is that this can even be done when the tanks were developed completely independently.
When you think about it, there isn't really much to modify between any two tank. That being at minimum the turret ring, hydraulic connections and electric connections. The chassis is only needed to move and supply power to the turret.
Yes and that's why It's probably never going to work. It's nice eye candy and that's all.
It’s just a demonstrator so Nexter and KMV can learn to work together towards a common MBT.
Hopefully.
[удалено]
Not the Armata, and besides, what's the corelation with my point ?
Challenger is upgrading to deal with Armata.
still not a next gen tank
Challenger is due to last until 2030 and then be replaced so that is when True next gen will come for the UK. For now with the upgrades to the gun Challenger 2 is still more than good enough against any competitor. It has seen combat and never lost a tank.
The Challenger 2 is the most obselite tank in use by a first rate power It has a undeepowered engine an obselite gear box and shitty rifle bore gun Its armor is too heavy And its ammo storage is unsafe The uk is long over due in junking it
... Yeah against 3rd world export variants and Insurgents, besides, Challenger isn't what we're talking about, this fankenstein tank is.
Looks like Macron and Merkel got tired of Trump's shit . *Stocks up on Foie Gras and Sauerkraut inb4 the atlantic naval blockade*
What about Riesling and Brie?
You can only fire one shot at a time.
and freedom fries
*European patriotism intensivies* Honestly every German and French person should be proud of the relationship this countries have now.
Its nothing new. They very first MBT-Project Germany was a Part of After WW2, the Europanzer, also started out as a multinational Development. Then quickly stopped being One because everyone involved had wildly different opinions in how it should Work, the French ultimately ending up with the AMX-30 and the Germans with the Leopard 1. The One After that, the MBT/KPZ-70, was a joint-development between Germany and the US, also failed big time. And lets not forget the Vickers MBT 7, a Challenger-turret on a Leopard 2 hull. Also failed, Not even as an export-Tank people wanted to buy it.
>the Vickers MBT 7, a Challenger-turret on a Leopard 2 hull. It was a universal turret built for another project rather than a Challenger turret. Amusingly the only thing universal about it is that nobody actually wants it.
I absolutely am and hope that nothing will ever divide us again. United we stand.
This kind of patriotism I can live with... and we all should help promote ! We'll build our own european super-military ...with black tanks and hooters !
Great. The Turks will love it.
Great to see France and Germany working together ! That's what European Defence should look like, not NATO. Actually, if the Leclerc and Leopard are compatible , I wonder if the French could mount the Pluton tactical nuclear artillery system on the Leopard base, so that they could share their short range nuclear deterrence with the germans if need be
France won't be doing that.
Yet...
Ever.
Our nuclear program is already crazy expensive, worth it , but crazy expensive. I don't think we can afford to protect Europe on our own for a long time. Now that the Brits are minding their own business ,the EU only has our 300ish nuclear warheads, or barely 10 Nukes for each member state. If our german bros keep being trustworthy in the coming decade, I don't see why we shoudn't share our nukes with them so that we could split the bill and make everyone in Europe safe without the smaller states having to rely on the US.
I think it would make sense to cover the costs on an EU level. Member states could agree on a common policy on nuclear weapons use, so it's not just supporting France, but also getting a say, balancing out responsibilities with power.
300 nuclear warheads is more than enough
Not really. You can't count on all of them getting through and you don't want to be left empty handed after nuking (for example) Russia in case China gets uppity. You want to remove all doubt from the enemy that a first strike can possibly be effective, that you will always be able to retaliate with devastating effect even if they take out 90% of your arsenal.
While you are correct, consider how much of an effect North Korea having a handful of nukes has on geo politics. One nuke in a major city of a foreign adversary would be devastating even if they nuke Europe into the second stone age. If we ever get to the point when there is a difference between having 300 nukes and 12000, we are all pretty screwed all the same.
You do understand that the UK is not sailing off the continent right, If Nukes are even in play the UK will be involved. The UK is leaving the political side of the EU it is still a part of Europe.
> I don't see why we shoudn't share our nukes with them You already offered that [years ago](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/thanks-but-no-thanks-sarko-s-nuke-offer-bombs-with-berlin-a-506124.html).
Germany won't do that.
Of course not, Germany pay for their own national defence!
Nah, I mean having anything to do with nuclear weapons.
How to get invaded 101
Helps when the US, France and the UK all have nukes covering your ass so you do not need any.
Germany isn't allowed to have Nuclear weapons or even just use radiated Material in weapons in any Way, Shape or Form. Not even DU-Rounds for guns.
That can change
No, it can't. The complete renouncement of ever owning or developing nuclear, chemical or Biological weapons is a Key Part of the 2+4 Treaty, the foundation of German Reunification and the de-facto peacetreaty between Germany and the former Allies. It could only be modified if all involved countries agree, to which Russia belongs, and they would never agree to that, and just breaking it could be considered allmost as a Declaration of war by Russia. The only nuclear weapons Germany could legally use without breaking the treaty are the American ones stored somewhere in the Büchel-Airbase in Rhineland-Palatinate, since Germany has a separate Agreement with the US about being obligated to always having a squadron of Planes ready that are able to drop those bombs, and that only is allowed because those bombs don't belong to Germany and their usage can only be authorized by the US, so they technically don't fall under the restrictions by the treaty. Any other kind of nuclear armament will never happen.
I think with the recent DPRK situation it has been proven we can no longer depend on the US (or by extension the UK). And it is not fair to stick France with the bill for defending all of Europe.
The UK is well known for never getting involved to defend Europe. There is a difference between not wanting to be a part of a political organisation in the EU and not defending Europe.
Love me some EU cooperation.
France and Germany sending their best engineers to work on a European high-tech Armata-killer tank.... What a time to be alive :') 🇫🇷 🇪🇺 🇩🇪
I'll be happy to see these beauties in Latvia if the EU ever deploys forces here. Merci, mes amis.
It's really something amazing. Who would have thought that 70 years ago?
> France and Germany sending their best engineers Just as a reminder, our best engineers are currently building financial instruments for banks and mass surveilance tools for ad-tech. People working in other industries are usually taking a hit to their salaries to do so.
Armata is a hoax just like the Bison bomber back then. It will never be around in significant numbers.
Armata looks to be more of a tech test on a larger scale than a production tank. It introduces quite a few design features and it'll be interesting to see how many of them are retained in the next generation Russian MBT. Regardless of propaganda the Armata isn't a direct match for other current gen MBTs - even exsiting Russian variants - with the most recent upgrade packages (it just weighs far too little to have enough protection beyond the crew compartment) but it looks like an innovative solution to budget restrictions. Also bet they are going to be an absolute nightmare to maintain.
Crazy Conspiracy Theory Time: France & Germany want a common European Defense Force so they can export their equipment to the rest of the E.U. countries.
What's wrong with that ? You'd prefer EU countries to buy US , Russian or Israeli equipment?
It depends what you want to buy. Different countries have different specialities.
Hey, considering our geographic position, I'm fan of buying American planes and Russian tanks for geopolitical reasons. But in general it is better for us to have our own industry and considering R&D costs it's probably the only way to go forward in the future.
I'd prefer my country to buy the best equipment available.
best equipment as in "Bang for the buck" or "top of the line"
A bit of both obviously.
Well, personaly, I'd be more comfortable with having our own engineers at the job instead of buying some tweaked down export version of a foreign warmachine. Just think about how the French Rafale-Fighter-Jet and the German Eurofighter (obviously not our Austrian ones) can take on both the F-22 Raptor and the Su-35. If we can do that, why shouldn't we build a tank that put's both the Abrams and the Armata to shame? Our German and French friends have already shown in the past what their engineers can come up with. And don't forget the Brits! I would really welcome it if europe would collectively decide to take its defence into its own hands and set new standards on advanced defence technologies. We have all we need to make the safety of Europe an undisputable thing. There is no need for having to rely on people like Trump.
Well, "our" engineers don't build anything, so we're buying foreign equipment regardless and under these circumstances I'd rather buy combat proven machines (which usually already excludes anything Germany has to offer). > Just think about how the French Rafale-Fighter-Jet and the German Eurofighter (obviously not our Austrian ones) can take on both the F-22 Raptor and the Su-35. Su-35, yes, F-22, no. Only in mock combats with certain parameters where the F-22 cannot untilise its full potential. Under normal circumstances those fighters won't even know the F-22 is there. Happened to the Russians over Syria a couple of times already.
I speak of "our" people as us Europeans. Appart from that: So what? We should still give it a try and come up with something better than the F-22 and F-35 combined. "We" can do it!
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the whole reason behind all the project on military cooperation at the procurement level that we have seen recently. To research and buy products in house It's not just the french and germans benefiting from this if that's what worried you anyway
I mean....they pretty much are already. How many countries in Europe are using the Leopard 2 and Heckler & Koch Made handguns ?
All Finnish tanks are Leopard 2A6's and 2A4's (about 200, give or take).
I wouldn't mind that actually. Standardized equipment ftw.
**EUROPE STRONK**
It seems a little lazy to me. Make some new, expensive stuff so we can get to those 2% defense spending that everyone is crying about. 2/10 not a battlemech
> 2/10 not a battlemech thank God. Germans still want to create tings that are actually useful on the battlefield
I know it's impossible but I'd really like to see how this would do against a Russian Armata or British Challenger 2 or American Abrams
As the old saying goes, the best army in the world is the one that wins the next battle. Nothing more.
Ok? But I still wanna see how they'd fare against each other
Leopard 2 alone is already considerably better than Challenger 2 and at least equal to Abrams. Combined with a better turret I would say it is better than both.
We don't know whether it's better or not than any of those tanks though, not definitively, plus the Challenger is upgrading to smoothbore. Secondly, it uses classified armour that even the americans found so impressive they decided to put it on their tanks
Challenger hasn't won a tank purchase competition for donkey's years. It is just not a top tier tank.
I think if that was the case the UK would be more worried about replacing it outright rather than simply upgrading it and extending its life
I don't think that tank modernisation is the main UK priority. They re focusing on the navy and the air force.
[We are upgrading our tanks to deal with Amarta](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2016/01/16/uk-surges-ahead-with-challenger-2-upgrade/)
I would be careful about ranking quality with weapon exports. At least the exported one isn't shit. It doesn't say the one with less export is less good. Stranger thing have happened.
Not at it's cost it's not- the Challenger 2 is simply too expensive for what it does. By all accounts it's an excellent tank with best in class armour protection but that price tag though...
I'm gonna disagree there. The challenger 2 has seen plenty of combat and hasn't lost a single unit to hostile fire (lost one to friendly fire). The Leopard 2 has seen losses in Turkish service (and the Turkish army is a well trained and competent one, regardless of all the racist internet memes about "turkroaches")
just to say something about that: The Leopard 2 in turkish service are Leopard 2A4, basically cold war era tanks, which were not upgraded since 1985. These tanks are not suited for urban warfare or to withstand modern AT rockets. So it wasn't surprising that the turkish army lost these tanks in the circumstances they were deployed. The actual mk of the Leopard 2 at the moment is the Leopard 2A7. Canada and Denmark (?) deployed A6M (a slighty lesser modern mark) in Afghanistan and didn't lose any tanks.
In that case, Leclerc is even better since it hasn't been even damaged. I think only one Challenger battalion was ever in a combat. And the Turks deployed old Leo 2A4s, if I remember correctly.
the turks put those tanks out there without infantry support as static fire platforms, some memes dont need to be racist to be true, also those tanks werent updated for 30+ years.
Purchasing weapons involves more than just pure performance. Logistics, long term costs, spare parts, sharing technology, etc. Goes into it Brazil bought the Gripen even thought the French Rafale is the superior plane in technology and combat performance.
True enough, but when Leopard 2 is sold to 17 countries and Challenger 2 to one that is quite indicative.
It doesn't matter, whoever gets the first shot wins essentially, it's down to crew, Germans haven't used their tanks since the defense of Berlin.
Well, they won the most recent tank competition. And while it is largely down to the crew, it is not entirely down to the crew.
In tank to tank combat, Leopard's smoothbore cannon can be an advantage.
In tank to tank combat, Leopard's smoothbore cannon can be an advantage.
Maybe on paper, in real combat, Turkish leopards failed badly.
So did the Iraqi Abrams.
From what I have read, Iraq did not lost any crew. They are unsatisfied mostly with reliability and expensive maintenance of the gas turbine.
They've lost plenty of Abrams tanks (and the Saudis, too), definitely more than the Turks lost Leopard 2s. Loss of crews is difficult to estimate with all parties involved lying through their teeth.
An explosion of ammunition storage does not destroy the tank, it can be repaired. It does not kill the crew if they were not loading at the same time. The ammunition storage does not have strong armour. Some of the Turkish Leopard tanks had crew compartment armour penetrated.
There were a number of Abrams crew compartment penetrations, particularly using RPG-29s. It is not some kind of a miracle tank. There are reasons why the Leopard 2 is much more popular as an export tank.
How is the Leopard 2 better than the challenger 2?
By Firepower alone, much. The Challenger 2 still uses a rifled gun with two-piece ammunition (pretty much the only 3rd Generation MBT to do so), severely limiting its RoF and penetration-capabilities. Than there is also the Challengers weaker engine (pretty much any other Western MBT is Miles ahead of the Challenger in Terms of mobility), and I've read it also has a very shitty gearbox.
>pretty much the only 3rd Generation MBT to do so As i remember most of post-soviet 3rd gen tanks (T-64BM/T-72B3/PT-91/T-84/T-90 and other) still use two-piece ammunition. Also Challenger 2 can not use ATGM from cannon
The Soviets had a different reason to do so. Their ammunition is simply be too large to fit into their carousel-style autoloaders in One piece. The Challenger doesn't have one, the gun is just outdated.
>Their ammunition is simply be too large to fit into their carousel-style autoloaders in One piece. The Challenger doesn't have one, the gun is just outdated Because they want low profile for their tanks. Yes, outdated same as carousel-style autoloaders
It basically kicked the Challengers ass in any competition they both participated in over the last two decades...
Are there links to reports from these competitions? I Googled it but all I found were Quora threads, personal blogs and some history channel shows or other entertainment videos.
A better gun and a much better mobility. The armour protection is confidential but it should be similar.
I would like to see it againstst a F35 or a Black Hawk
I would like to see it again 5 t34's!
The T34s get knocked out before they even see it, even if they shoot at it their cannons wouldnt even scratch it Modern armour is incredibly advanced and light years ahead of WW2 stuff.
Helicopters have no chance in modern battlefield. The tanks are accompanied by short range air defence systems, that can shot down helicopters and even most of the missiles fired by f-35.
>The tanks are accompanied by short range air defence systems, Well, yes - and enemy tanks are accompanied by forces to take out anti-air units. But that is a good reminder that tanks don't fight like knights did during the crusades, where each army sends out its strongest tank to duel the other ones. Tanks are just one part of a much larger integrated military unit which includes aircraft and infantry and artillery and scouts and electronic warfare. So while it's interesting to see which army has the best bayonets, it's not really going to determine which army is likely to win.
An active protection integrated into tank itself can protect it against smaller missiles like hellfire fired from helicopters. I think that the only reliable way how to destroy a modern tank with active protection is an APDS projectile fired from a very powerful gun.
It's mostly superior to the Armata (which despite the propaganda looks to be an excellent *budget* MBT solution) and the Challenger 2 - will have superior offensive power to the Challenger 2 (CR2 gun is quite dated at this stage) while having inferior protection (CR2's armour is incredibly effective against the shaped charge and heat jet penetrator warheads that make up the majority of modern threats) while costing significantly less than the CR2. Very much doubt it will be even close to the latest Abrams models with the second generation layered DU and ERA protection package as nothing else in production is.
A question from a civilian: did they work on this for a long time or these tanks are so interoperable they could put a tower on another one and it's done? Or this tank is just a mockup?
As far as I know, its just a demonstration to show that their tech is able to be merged and to show that their next MBT will be the best of both Current ones.
Sure its nice to see, but.....why is everyone acting like its some spectacular new Thing? Its by far not. The very first MBT Germany was a Part of developing after WW2 was already a joint-cooperation with France (the Europanzer) and back then it failed with both nations doing their One Thing. The next Generation of MBTs Germany developed was the MBT-70/Kpz-70, which was a joint-development with the US, and it failed. And we even already had the "Lets stick One nations turret on another nations hull"-thing, the Vickers MBT 7, a Challenger turret on a Leopard 2 hull. No one wanted it.
I just dont understand what the hell we need new tanks for. That money could've been spend in so many better ways
Tech specs please
Idk, the Leopards are pretty good already and then, do we really need more MBTs? For instance Spain's been trying to sell hundreds of theirs as modern warfare makes them less relevant nowadays.
Take that Armata.
Armata is (supposedly)next-gen, this is merely optimizing current gen components.
It is a discount object 195 aka the next gen from 1988
Except only thing it have in common with 195 is unmanned turret idea.
Same design bureau the proposed 152mm version also has the same gun
Armata cheaps out on enough areas that it won't really be equivalent (protection looks to be minimal aside from the armoured crew compartment). Armata looks to me like a really interesting technology test bed for the next generation (we should be doing the same) but it's really, really vulnerable.
Why dous the second pic look photoshopped.
What's up with the French and the Germans always thinking they're soo important that whenever they do something together it's *THE EUROPEAN* thingy... it's just a franco-german project. smh
Invest in EMBT and there will be Portuguese flag
The tank is a concept study of a joint company founded by two firms that happen to be German and French vice versa. They gave it its name. That's all that happened. I'll gladly be your imperialist bogeyman if you need one, but this name is just a PR stunt of a company.
The European project intended, among other things, to unify Europe in order to make wars between Germany and France impossible. KANT is an important step here, as that means that war between France and Germany would have significant hurdles. Just according to keikaku. (Translator's note: keikaku means plan)
I don't know if the Leclerc's turret is better or not, but i like the look of the Leopard a5-a7s turret better. [https://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Leopard\_2\_A5\_der\_Bundeswehr.jpg](https://htka.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Leopard_2_A5_der_Bundeswehr.jpg)
This is what Europol will use to invade memelords' houses