Help support TMP


"The EMBT (European Main Battle Tank)" Topic


12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



730 hits since 17 Jun 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP18 Jun 2018 8:12 p.m. PST

"Nexter designates the new EMT as "Enhanced" Main Battle Tank, while its German partner KMW says "European". So… The hull, engine and entire chassis comes from the Leopard 2 A7 and were modified to host the compact and light turret with automatic loading from the Leclerc. Composed of proven and tested technologies, the EMBT is a short-term response to the operational need of the market for high-intensity battle tanks.

By assembling a chassis, which is certified to MLC70, and a light turret operated by only 2 crew members instead of 3, the EMBT brings together the best in the battle tank state of the art, with an exceptional growth potential (roughly 6 tonnes) which allows to integrate many evolutions. The demonstrator presented on the booth illustrates the progress of the integration of KNDS, whose combined skills make it the legitimate and essential industrial actor of the two Franco-German future programs for the tank (MGCS) and artillery (CIFS)….."

picture


Main page

link


Amicalement
Armand

TimeCast Sponsoring Member of TMP19 Jun 2018 12:16 a.m. PST

Nato has never been able to adopt a common rifle or even standardise on a pair of boots.

How long before the French and Germans disagree on how this thing should proceed?

I doubt this will go much further…

TheWhiteDog19 Jun 2018 2:06 a.m. PST

About as far as the MBT-70 development, or the early Leopard 1.

I might just pop a Leclerc turret on a Leo 2 chassis to see how it looks though!

CorroPredo19 Jun 2018 6:14 a.m. PST

Two crew? They'll be doing PM twenty four hours a day.

TheWhiteDog19 Jun 2018 7:27 a.m. PST

Two crew for the turret. They're going in favor of an auto-loader due to the anticipated weight of the new shells.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP19 Jun 2018 10:39 a.m. PST

Don't loose fait my friend… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Lion in the Stars19 Jun 2018 1:43 p.m. PST

How long before the French and Germans disagree on how this thing should proceed?

How long did France stay in the Leo1 program? Let's see here… Wiki says joined in '57, left in '63.

I'll give it 5 years. (But I honestly thought the LeClerc's powerpack was better than the Leo2s)

Lion in the Stars20 Jun 2018 6:02 p.m. PST

Honestly, it doesn't really matter if NATO can't standardize on a single weapon, what matters is standardized ammo calibers!

Military purchasing is one of the things that the WTO agrees you can make a home country preference for. For tanks or small arms, it doesn't necessarily drive the price up too high. But for capital investments like ships or aircraft, it can. For example, look at the cost of a JAS39 Gripen versus an F16.

Daniel S22 Jun 2018 9:47 a.m. PST

Tanks are a problem as well unless you can use an off-the shelf design or build them in large numbers. Had Sweden chosen to adopt the Leo 1 instead of the Strv 103/S-tank the same money would have allowed for 20-25% more tanks being bought,expensive developement+small number of vehicles are not a good combination. Which is why the next gen "Strv 2000" was scraped at the project stage and we bought or leased two diffent versions of the Leo 2 instead.

Gripen vs the Falcon depends on which version of the two you look at, the early Falcons were execeptional value for the money as the Swedish study team noted when looking at the F-16 & F-18 (Both aircraft also provided more operational effect due to longer range and being better at ground attack.) But between the need to keep SAAB Aerospace in buissness and the fact that the US aircraft were more expensive to mantain and fly we ended up with the Gripen even though the study showed that the Gripen only got competetive when at least 300 units were ordered.

However some of the later F-16 versions are as expensive or even more so than the Gripen. It all depends on how much "bling" you add to the airframe.

Lion in the Stars22 Jun 2018 4:43 p.m. PST

Well, the Gripens always had a data link, which the early F16s didn't, which makes them more useful in smaller numbers.

(I should admit, I really like the Gripen. I wish I would buy a civilianized one, like the T38 trainer compared to the F5)

My big point was that the F16 carries a lot more stuff than a Gripen for about the same cost (17,000lbs v 11,000lbs). But you have to play nice with the US, which can be problematic, due to the US's bipolar foreign policy (hey, what else can you call it when we radically change policy directions every 4-12 years?).

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP23 Jun 2018 3:22 a.m. PST

It usually comes down to self interest in home grown industry.
Norway choose the F35 (fighter from hell) over the Gripen almost solely based on the fact it ment other users of the 35 would use the norweian produced missile. So our Kongsberg weapons factory makes lots of money. While our defence potentially gets severally weakened.

soledad23 Jun 2018 11:32 a.m. PST

As always politics comes into play when countries buy military hardware. Norway as a NATO country kind of had to buy US weapons and aircraft. There is also the question of countersues, I buy your aircraft and you buy my missiles.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.