• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's tanks

Any views from the RCAC world on the merits (or otherwise) of the Rheinmetall Panther KF51? Will it become the 'NATO standard' MBT?
 

Attachments

  • _panther_tank_gettyimages_1241894205_2_1300x820_1_1200x675.jpg
    _panther_tank_gettyimages_1241894205_2_1300x820_1_1200x675.jpg
    124.7 KB · Views: 7
  • 20220623-rheinmetall-kf51-1536x1024.jpg
    20220623-rheinmetall-kf51-1536x1024.jpg
    194.6 KB · Views: 7
On the positive side it would use a hull that we are familiar with. The 130mm cannon also has very impressive performance. Retaining a fourth crewmember whilst also having an auto-loader is intriguing and could help with information management within the tank. To be honest, my operator spent the lion share of their time working the radios and helping me track the battle.

On the negative side I worry about the shift to active defence to keep the weight down.
 
On the positive side it would use a hull that we are familiar with. The 130mm cannon also has very impressive performance. Retaining a fourth crewmember whilst also having an auto-loader is intriguing and could help with information management within the tank. To be honest, my operator spent the lion share of their time working the radios and helping me track the battle.

On the negative side I worry about the shift to active defence to keep the weight down.
So what's the view inside the corps on the AbramsX? Those look to be the main contenders.

:unsure:
 
So what's the view inside the corps on the AbramsX? Those look to be the main contenders.

:unsure:
To be clear, when I write here I do not speak for or represent the RCAC! I am only giving TangoTwoBravo's opinion, which when combined with $1.90 is worth a coffee. The position of the RCAC on any given issue is not my tea to spill unless its already been public domain.

Having said all that, certain aspects of the Abrams X technology demonstrator do not excite me, and some of it seems to be new technology for new technology's sake. Which was part of the the problem with FCS (Future Combat System). But that's also how we innovate so maybe I should stop being so skeptical.
 
On the positive side it would use a hull that we are familiar with. The 130mm cannon also has very impressive performance. Retaining a fourth crewmember whilst also having an auto-loader is intriguing and could help with information management within the tank. To be honest, my operator spent the lion share of their time working the radios and helping me track the battle.

On the negative side I worry about the shift to active defence to keep the weight down.
Thanks, I'm so bloody old and out of date that I no longer even know what all the words mean, and I'm really grateful for what I read here.

I think I understand 'active defence' but I doubt I explain it to a layman.
 
The Australian M1A2 project (LAND 907 Phase 2 MBT) is acquiring upgraded tanks from the US through FMS.
Since they were to o
They are not being manufactured in Australia.
You are correct they are not building from scratch....... Neither is FMS for the most part..
The US approved a Overhaul/maintenance facility to be built in Australia. Part of the original deal is the US would upgrade a certain amount of Abrams, then Australia would continue to upgrade the remainder themselves along with long term maintenance. This benefits the US as they have another facility in a friendly country to which they can ship tanks if they need overhaul in the area. It looks like Australia cut the number of Abrams being purchased not sure where things stand now with the program.

FMS has been upgrading the bulk of older Abrams to the newer SEP versions. Very few "NEW" tanks are actually being built.
 
Thanks, I'm so bloody old and out of date that I no longer even know what all the words mean, and I'm really grateful for what I read here.

I think I understand 'active defence' but I doubt I explain it to a layman.
Active protection systems are essentially countermeasures. The Israelis and Russians make extensive use of them. There are dazzlers that can work on other spectrums to blind the enemy optics (smoke grenade launchers would count I suppose) There are also active protection systems that detect and kill/disrupt the projectile with a projectile of their own. Given the speeds of projectiles I imagine there is lots of complicated math/physics involved in that. In theory it allows a tank to be protected against munitions without having to have all the weight of actual armour. I don't know if they perform quite as well as their brochures claim, but they do offer a way to protect a tank while keeping weight down.

I put my faith in actual armour (passive protection?) that can resist incoming projectiles by just being there and not relying on complex systems working perfectly. But I'm also an arch-traditionalist.
 
Thanks, I'm so bloody old and out of date that I no longer even know what all the words mean, and I'm really grateful for what I read here.

I think I understand 'active defence' but I doubt I explain it to a layman
Active protection systems are essentially countermeasures. The Israelis and Russians make extensive use of them. There are dazzlers that can work on other spectrums to blind the enemy optics (smoke grenade launchers would count I suppose) There are also active protection systems that detect and kill/disrupt the projectile with a projectile of their own. Given the speeds of projectiles I imagine there is lots of complicated math/physics involved in that. In theory it allows a tank to be protected against munitions without having to have all the weight of actual armour. I don't know if they perform quite as well as their brochures claim, but they do offer a way to protect a tank while keeping weight down.

I put my faith in actual armour (passive protection?) that can resist incoming projectiles by just being there and not relying on complex systems working perfectly. But I'm also an arch-traditionalist.

Kind of like this?

 
So what's the view inside the corps on the AbramsX? Those look to be the main contenders.

:unsure:
Keep in mind the AbramsX shown at AUSA isn’t the AbramsX that anyone expects to be built.
The 130 and 140mm guns are still potentials for it — GD just opted for a safe spot in the current 120mm to show.

There is also some stuff for AbramsX that is still FOUO and beyond, so not available for public displays.
 
But I'm also an arch-traditionalist.
Rainbow Cartoon GIF by Daniel Spacek
 
On the positive side it would use a hull that we are familiar with.
We have 74 of said hulls, would Panther turrets + new power pack and overall refurb be a technologically feasible upgrade path to a common fleet that bypasses the waitlist at KMW?
 
We have 74 of said hulls, would Panther turrets + new power pack and overall refurb be a technologically feasible upgrade path to a common fleet that bypasses the waitlist at KMW?
No idea, but I imagine that the new turret is the long pole in the tent, so to speak.

When we went from C1 to C2 we bought about 100 thermal sights that had Leopard 1A5s attached to them. We put those Leopard 1A5 turrets into our C1 hulls, although some C1 hulls got swapped out for the "newer" hulls. But this was us buying used tanks in the post-Cold War environment.

So it is likely that getting a "Panther" turret would be as much wait time at the dealership as waiting for a whole Panther tank. We would, however, have hull parts already in stock with technicians already qualified with the hulls. In theory.
 
No idea, but I imagine that the new turret is the long pole in the tent, so to speak.

When we went from C1 to C2 we bought about 100 thermal sights that had Leopard 1A5s attached to them. We put those Leopard 1A5 turrets into our C1 hulls, although some C1 hulls got swapped out for the "newer" hulls. But this was us buying used tanks in the post-Cold War environment.

So it is likely that getting a "Panther" turret would be as much wait time at the dealership as waiting for a whole Panther tank. We would, however, have hull parts already in stock with technicians already qualified with the hulls. In theory.
My understanding was that Rheinmetall intends to have their own hull when it goes into production (which isn't ready yet), and that any new Leo hulls would have to wait at the back of the line of orders already placed with KMW.

As an aside, how much efficiency/ how much further could we stretch the same number of tanks if they were in a common fleet? One of each model to RCEME, 1 of each set aside as the tech reference, mixed fleet to the school, need some left behind for conversion training... adds up.
 
Last edited:
Active protection systems are essentially countermeasures. The Israelis and Russians make extensive use of them. There are dazzlers that can work on other spectrums to blind the enemy optics (smoke grenade launchers would count I suppose) There are also active protection systems that detect and kill/disrupt the projectile with a projectile of their own. Given the speeds of projectiles I imagine there is lots of complicated math/physics involved in that. In theory it allows a tank to be protected against munitions without having to have all the weight of actual armour. I don't know if they perform quite as well as their brochures claim, but they do offer a way to protect a tank while keeping weight down.

I put my faith in actual armour (passive protection?) that can resist incoming projectiles by just being there and not relying on complex systems working perfectly. But I'm also an arch-traditionalist.
I share your concern about complex systems ... a lifetime spent working with/around radios and radars, space based and terrestrial end even underwater and so on, made be a firm believer in the old adage about simple, robust things working best.
 
I share your concern about complex systems ... a lifetime spent working with/around radios and radars, space based and terrestrial end even underwater and so on, made be a firm believer in the old adage about simple, robust things working best.

The other end of the spectrum is represented by those whose sole protection was a shirt. Hills and holes looked particularly useful.
 
My understanding was that Rheinmetall intends to have their own hull when it goes into production (which isn't ready yet), and that any new Leo hulls would have to wait at the back of the line of orders already placed with KMW.

As an aside, how much efficiency/ how much further could we stretch the same number of tanks if they were in a common fleet? One of each model to RCEME, 1 of each set aside as the tech reference, mixed fleet to the school, need some left behind for conversion training... adds up.
From what I have read the Panther turret is compatible with the A4 hulls. Which is their primary sales objectives, current operators of the 2a4s
With new hulls being built as a alternative more environmental side of things. Who knows maybe we will see an electric diesel hybrid tank.
 
Back
Top