The 2A6 hull is just a 2A4 late hull barely any diffence. The 2A7 uses new internal armor+ the addon it’s not just a 2A6 hull with addon armor. It’s supposed to be as strong as the turret
KNDS isnt really merged its just a collab company to do their projects like the MGCS, and the EMBT its still a colaboration project.
they did all the modifications on the hull to fit the turret and to make it more modular together with adding some of their own tech like composite additions and even sensors, afaik
Are they separated by a composite layer with multiple bulkheads?
The leopard 2 hull isn’t more V-shaped than the Leclerc, so I don’t really understand this comparaison either.
Except it is? The sides curve to the inside creating a V-shape that is desired when dealing with mine threats, I don’t see Leclerc’s hull featuring that shape.
The armour packages (which is what I assumed you meant) indeed are inadequate (against APFSDS), but in the same way the Leopard 2A6 hull is.
Why are you bringing the Leopard 2A6 into this when it’s not even a part of the discussion? By saying “armour pockets” (not package) I meant the physical dimensions. Leopard 2s upper & lower plates can accept more composite armour then Leclercs outright.
There literally is not reason to add an extra armor package in the same way strv122 and the 2A7s are equipped with.
What?
1 Like
would wait for this, there isnt any stats on it and could easily be something else, as for the 140 i dont wanna rant too much about it but its pretty meh tbh, also KMW already had a crewless turret they just modified it and uparmored it so it can be fit as to the MBT
Meanwhile the Germans brought an existing hull (which could be replaced by a Leclerc hull) and that’s it lol.
Read the above. Leclerc’s hull would also require extensive modifications for it to house the entire crew inside the hull. They’d likely have to remove the frontal fuel cell for that as well, and it’d still be relatively cramped.
guys i think its better to bring the discussion here since we arent really talking about a leclerc
1 Like
So the involvement of the Germans in this project is redesigning the inside of the hull by removing fuel tanks and adding a commanding station for the 30mm. That’s still incredibly underwhelming seeing what Nexter brought to this project …
its more than that internally even the composite should be different
1 Like
The 2A7V chassis (or whatever the Germans will end up using themselves) probably won’t be used by the French as it is just too heavy for what the French army wants.
The Leclerc hull is arguably a much better hull than the Leopard 2 for a three man crew:
- Much lighter allowing for more armour to be added on
- Shorter hull allowing for more armour to be concentrated over a smaller surface area
- The Leclerc has more space for electronics which is why between the French and Germans, it was only the latter that struggled to fit all the computers to handle new optronics:
Though the biggest issue with the Leclerc are the belly fuel tanks, though it was probably considered a non-issue when the Leclerc was being designed due to how it was supposed to be used.
As to why the Leopard 2 chassis was chosen, the French want to move to 4 man crews; obviously, the Leclerc can’t accommodate this.
4 Likes
Sigh. Go and re-read what I wrote, you’ve missed the point completely. It’s not even like the French “innovated” either. An unmanned turret with a huge gun, a big coax gun and APS? Where have I seen that befo- the T-14 and dozens upons dozens of different prototypes.
That’s still incredibly underwhelming seeing what Nexter brought to this project …
Because KMW doesn’t have to do a whole lot with EMBT, they practically brought the hull up to perfection with the second iteratiohn, Nexter had to play catch up to offer a good enough turret for it (i’ll be frank, their uber modified Leclerc turret, while pleasing to the eye, wasn’t the greatest - this turret fixes most of its issues).
In the meantime, Germany was playing with their own unmanned turret (maybe you’ve seen it already, maybe not, the Leo 2 A RC 3.0).
1 Like
They do use a metallic layered system. I do not have infos on how much layer and what width tho.
My bad, I did not expect those tiny indent to make such a huge difference
Once again, I really thought it was a typo. I don’t really understand your point here tho. Why couldn’t the Leclerc accept more composite ? The hull is several tons lighter, with a similarly powerful power pack, and excellent suspension system.
Once again, coming back to my error of misinterpreting you. If you have a problem with the Leclerc frontal armor, why not just adding more composite
2 Likes
How much more? Leclerc’s hull could very much also reach a weight limit much sooner than Leopard 2s (which is officially rated for up to 75 tons starting from the 2A7V), I don’t see why it couldn’t be mounted with “far more armour” either (when it has many times before, Leopard 2 REVO, Leopard 2 ATD etc).
Shorter hull allowing for more armour to be concentrated over a smaller surface area
This depends on crew placement once they’re moved down to the hull’s capsule. I doubt engine compartments will see more than just slat armour so they should be comparable in this case.
The Leclerc has more space for electronics which is why between the French and Germans, it was only the latter that struggled to fit all the computers to handle new optronics:
This is because Germany mounts all their computers in the turret. They also haven’t ditched analog solutions for data transfers yet (due to their preference for ‘reliability’ as such the space is more limited, but starting from the 2A8, they plan on fully switching to digital methods and thus freeing up a lot of space needed for more advanced electronic products. The hull by itself has more than enough space (especially after EPP is installed) to accept that which can be seen on RC 3.0’s example.
Btw, if you don’t mind, send the pdf over my way :^)
1 Like
man sorry but that’s just cope honestly, shorter hull means that they have to either change the crew position to make the composite longer or extend it further away, it is lighter but because of the same reason its shorter and its missing armor in the lower hull, the leclerc has the same if not less space for electronics as a 2A7
Leclerc XLR is supposed to be weigh up to 65 tonnes (almost 10 tonnes more than the current SXXI). It has a much smaller frontal profile than the Leopard 2 so it could possibly achieve a similar level of protection to modern Leopards if weight were the only constraint to be considered.
Currently, the Leclerc hull (in real life) should have between 600 - 700mm LOS of composite excluding the lower front plate but that’s mostly empty. Whether the French would be able to increase that to the 1000mm that you previously claimed (awhile ago now) that the Leopard 2 has… well, none of us could answer that question.
I misspoke here, I meant shorter hull in terms of height.
I’d assume they would consider putting it in the hull if they could. Ah well, neither of us could ever really know.
Leclerc systems are also all analogue until the XLR.
Really? Have we not argued enough to consider each other’s sources legitimate?
2 Likes
ah, then i dont get why would the armor be more affected there tbh
Guess that’s why the Leopard 2s still haven’t upgraded to ATTICA M (?) - that’s the megapixel 3rd generation TI the Germans use?
Meanwhile the French were able to fit a much bulkier and much more capable TI in the early 2000s…
buddy. nobody will use the EMBT, the embt literaly only is a showcase of the french german collaboration and how far the mgcs project is going.
If anything they might sell them as export, but neither france or germany gonna use them
1 Like
no my guesses that its cuz of horrible german politics lol
Dang, when Germany get things wrong/bad its politics, but when the French make something “worse”, it’s due to bad design
1 Like
Leo 2A7Vs and 2A6M3/A3 use Attica