You haven’t proved that at all. It is far more likely to be the American M230LF, which KMW has used in their previous RCWS FLW500.
Gun compared to FLW500
Gun compared to ARX30’s 30M781MPG
Not to mention that the M230LF also states NATO standard 30x113 (which ironically your source on the ARX30 fails to mention):
Here are my sources:
could be. i will keep an eye on it to see if the gun was not simply wrong.
i got to admit, this gun was identified as M781MPG is based on the identification of the barrel and the fact the KNDS was using this gun on related development. there is no source mentioning the gun as the M781MPG
in which case, the 30mm will surely have access to the proximity fuze as well as more punchy ammo
what you call factual not completely true are the only sources of facts.
i still have not seen any source that says otherwise outside “I said so”
man none of yours do either and the gun its the most look alike to the one shown in the leopard 2 ARC 3.0 also the tank was a tech demonstrator specifically from KMW who had patented the turret the modular armor for the turret the autoloader and some other stuff found in the tank
So there is HE-DP ammo. :)
bully light tanks and helicopters equally if its capable of using airburst
still it’s KNDS. not KMW.
under KMW, to simplify you the combined company still does work by themselves in this case KNDS deutschland its KMW and they even specify on documentation
i literaly showed you prove
and compared the guns.
Your only prove is “i said so” when i pointed out prove that it most likely isnt the gun you ignored it. You have to prove its the ARX 30, i only said its not the arx30 i did not claim its a specific rws because i dont know which one it is. But you state you know when its not possible
fact is the ARX 30 isnt named when it is named everywhere else
You think a company like knds would do a basic mistake like that?
nexter and kmw still exist under knds
thankfuly at least someone is smart enough to find the right rcws and isnt trying to frenchify a german side project
“NATO 30mm” is 30x173mm. 30x113mmB has seen widespread use by several NATO members, it’s not officially standardized.
main point is its not the ARX 30
Fair enough.
no, you were arguing. which is nothing close to showing proof. it’s just arguing.
at this point I am not even bothering to consider any of what you say, I saw nothing worth wasting my time
there is a good prove.
at least you know how to debate something with facts. i will correct the suggestion.
wait KMW had a hand in arjuns development and they still have idiotic faults that not even a base as Leo 2 had?
the project was mostly hampered due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and coordination issues if i had to explain every single one i would take another thread
Pretty sure it was made by a german company, on top of having a german hull.
Well, well, well…
If its time for tanks of limit parameters is come, how about more relics of lasted era (80’-90’)?
STRV 2000 T140/40
Glass cannon “as is”, but agile, low silhouette, and extremely deadly/versatile…
Just dont try “tank” enemy shots.
And Soviet “power supreme” - Obj.477(A/1) “Nota/Boxer/Rioter”.
Looks like Merkava on steroids, eh?
This bad boi can brag by:
Unmanned turret, with pretty weird autoloader.
152mm erase-from-existance-gun (14 shots per minute) (plus, optionally, 30mm autocannon (heard about ideas to use 57mm for that), but it been denied due to 57mm shells is too big).
1200mm of frontal composite armor (even without of ERA (at least - Kontakt-5), APS: Softkill (Shtora), and Hardkill (Arena), additional armor plates, etc), then protected fuel tanks for spalling, and only after that - crew.
1500HP diesel for dont cosplaying Maus.
Reversible transmission.
