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

Upgraded Leopard

U

USMCMatt

Guest
With the CF‘s considering the General Dynamics Low-Profile 105 turret for the LAV III, it would seem logical that the Leo‘s could be equipped with this turret as well.

It is expected that the GDLS turret will be equipped with a new Rheinmettall 105mm smoothbore barrel. This smoothbore barrel will allow for greater muzzle velocity, which will equate to increased lethality of the 105mm rounds.

Currently the Leopards are having to be encased in a substantial applique armor package to make up for the turret‘s lack of armor protection. This results in a tremendous tax on the vehicle‘s powerplant due to the excess weight.

By utilizing the GDLS Low-Profile turret, the tank would be benefitted 3-fold.

1. More lethal 105mm.

2. Less need for applique armor. The turret crew would be housed in the hull of the tank and only the hull would need to have the applique armor package for crew survivability. This would allow the Leopard to maintain its excellent power-to-weight ratio and mobility.

3. Commonality of turrets. By having common turrets in both the LAV III assault gun variant and the Leopard the logistics system would be streamlined and the Armoured Corps would have 1 training system for tank gunnery thus simplifying gunnery training standards and allowing for soldiers to be posted to various units in the Corps without having to retrain them on different gunnery systems.

The Leopard 1‘s hull is an excellent baseline. The vehicle possesses an already low-profile and excellent mobility. By equipping it with the GDLS 105mm Low-Profile Turret, the CF‘s would have an excellent MBT capable of operating globally without the weight/mobility restrictions of MBT‘s such as the Challenger/Abrams/Leopard II.

The end result would be a lethally armed, highly mobile, very survivable MBT that would be useful well into the 21st century.

Anyone have any other thoughts?
 
You‘ve got a lot of good points, especially the common turret. This would give the reserve guys a chance to training on the same turret and use the same gun drills. The only fly in the ointment is the bean counters in Ottawa.
 
The US Army has already decided on this vehicle. The Mobile Gun System (MGS) is a pedestal mounted, low recoil 105mm cannon mounted on the top deck of the LAV. It is a low recoil version of the L68 that was mounted on the M-60 and early M-1 series tanks. It will inherit a vast store of former tank munitions including special purpose rounds(read canister, etc.) not available for the 120mm on the current tanks. It is also an autoloader. As such this is not a turret. To equip the first six medium weight brigades (read approx 2000 vehs, including variants for troops etc.), excluding electronics and comms, will cost an estimated $4 billion US (before overruns). That‘s like.... $870 gazzilion Canadian dollars. The point now becomes mute for Canada. We‘ll probably get five or six at the school. The base veh without add on armour protects against 14.5 mm heavy MG (.50 cal). The M-1 has never been penetrated with any enemy weapon system. On the other hand, the 70 ton tanks take weeks of travel by sea to arrive in a distant theater. While the 8 wheeled armoured cars, at 19 tons, can be transported by the C-130, the battelfields smallest airlifter. You should be able to move to any trouble spot within 96 hrs.
The current contract schedule has 2,131 vehicles being delivered to the US by 2008. Breakdown - 714 infantry carriers, 321 recce vehs, 252 command and control vehs, 241 mortar platforms, plus specialized vehs like anti tank, fire support, armoured ambulance, NBC recce and engineer variants. There will also be 204 of the MGS vehicles.
To get to the original question, I don‘t know if the pedestal is adaptable. You would have to build a new commander station in the hull (not a turret remember?) Find places for the radios and electronics, etc. Spend more than what the new veh costs and finally get the hybrid out of rebuild sometime in the 22nd century. You would still be left with a predessesor to a mastadon that wouldn‘t go on a plane. However, I‘m sure that with a govt credit card for the cutting torch and gas, some bondo, six or seven kegs of beer and a month of good weather in the summer, the guys here at home could probably do it. It would be a one off though. As soon as they found it was possible by us, the vehicle and plans would be destroyed a la Avro Arrow, and we would find ourselves collecting bars for our Special Service Medal in Antarctica. :D
 
Great stuff here!!! But some problems unfortunately.

1. The current liberal government with it‘s self appointed king, is more interested in stealing tax dollars to increase the budget deficit in the misguided notion in which they think it‘s better for the most taxed people in the world, than spending it on military or even health care equipment.

2. A Canadian company has to profit, in order to buy more votes and put more dollars into the emporer‘s election war chest. This won‘t happen as we‘re talking of GM and Bombardier who have to many irons in the fire and don‘t see it as profitable to expend research and development money only on the Cdn military.

3. The new platform would provide a big ugly looking and intimidateing gun. It would be viewed as an offensive weapon designed to protect our troops and give them an edge. This is 180 degrees from the current government policy of putting our soldiers in harms way for their current political gain and at the behest of whatever third world country dirt farmer is in charge of the UN at the time. Our politicians would not be able to beat their chests and stand in front of the world saying with misguided pride how many peacekeepers we‘ve lost to the cause, if we were able to protect ourselves.

4. While maybe doable, recceguy has a point in saying that the platform would be outdated before before we rolled out the first prototype. Then we would be stuck with another oudated piece of equipment for another 20 years.

5. Offensive weapons of this type are meant to fight wars. The CLS, Gen Jeffries stated only this week that Canada has a medium combat capability designed to counter small threats and if we needed to do more it would be in conjunction with high intensity capable allies, meaning I suppose, we would grovel and borrow the equpment needed. If the allies were willing to give us a role other than driving supply trucks and manning kitchens.

6. Jeffries also stated he could not afford to train more than 4 of the 12 battle groups per year. There hasn‘t been a Brigade size ex in over ten years. To prove such a weapon combat capable, a Combat Readiness Evaluation ex would have to be held and the tin pot dictator would rather give loud mouth Shiela Copps a $200 million grant, over what‘s been already given, to preserve the sanctity of the CBC because nobody cares what LLyod Robertson has to say. It also gives them the capability to dig up horror stories about the CF and perpetuate them, without telling of the good our overworked, under paid and under appreciated soldiers have done.

7. In closing, keep the ideas flowing, as long as like minded people can dream and bitch and think for themselves, the lying thieves in Ottawa can‘t win.
 
:eek: Centurion!!!!

I want to drink copious amounts of beer with you!!!! :D
 
I do appreciate the humor that has followed my post, however I do believe that my idea of upgrading the Leopard with the Armored Gun System/Low Profile Turret, whatever you want to call it is a good idea.

Recceguy‘s concern that the Leo. hull doesn‘t have enough room to house the crew is not a big problem. An upgraded Leopard would only have a crew of 3; Driver, Gunner, and Commander. Besides, the entire crew at present fits within the confines of the vehicle‘s turret ring. With the upgraded layout, the only difference is that you have one less crew member, and they‘re within the hull of the vehicle, as the driver is.

Finding room for the FCS/Comm. equipment wouldn‘t be a big problem either. There‘s definitely enough room within the turret basket area of the Leopard to house it all.

The Leopard would not be deployable by C-130 as the LAV III family would be, however it would provide Canada with an excellent MBT alternative to purchasing costly and soon to be obsolete MBT‘s such as the Abrams, Leopard II, Challenger 2 and LeClerc.
 
Matt,
Don‘t get me wrong , the idea has merit. The crux being as I and centurion both stated our government just plain is not interested, for logistical, monetary and political gain reasons. And with you guys moving to medium weight brigades, that‘s more than likely what we‘ll tie our "medium intensity force" to. Whether or not the idea makes sense for the soldier. We up here have to work with what we‘re given,............. begrudgingley by Ottawa, and are expected to be happy about it. It‘s tough but we soldier on none the less. Heavy tracks are getting to expensive for us (read Ottawa). In Pet they roll the Leo‘s out once a year for gun camp, clean ‘em, grease ‘em and put them away for another year. Thx for the thought though. By the way, I think centurion was deadly serious, no humour involved.
 
mj00thumb.jpg
 
Recceguy,

Nice pic of the Ft. Knox MOUT site a la LAV III Assault Gun and the ill-fated M8 Armored Gun System in the background.

I was out there in March with my unit for a Urban Ops. package for our battalion‘s LAV scouts.

There‘s quite a view of the town from that church‘s belltower, as I can attest after having personally cleared it of OPFOR after a protracted gunfight. *laughing*

Outstanding facility. You canucks should see if you can get some way to get your unit‘s down there. Definitely worth the trip.

The water tower in the background acts as a Range Control post complete with closed circuit video feed of surveillance cameras around town, have control of various pyrotechnics options and have a sound system that bellows out the sounds of battle complete with screams of children being massacred by the godless enemy and various other psy ops stuff.

That‘s something that Canada is seriously lacking are FIBUA/MOUT facilities at the major training areas (Wainwright, Petawawa, Valcartier, and Gagetown).
 
Matt,
We normally get to Knox on the average of once a year. Unfortunately, the budget only allows the armoured guys to get the SIMNET. The infantry have been able to go and play in the FIBUA/ MOUT sites and seem to have a good time. Maybe when we‘re qualified on the same vehs as you‘ve got, they‘ll pay for the fuel and bullets, and let us do it right, as opposed to spending four days in the sims. They‘re closing down the old part of the training area in Gagetown and clearing a whole new set of ranges, etc. Maybe someone will have the foresight to incorporateFIBUA/MOUT also. (Got the pic from your ARMOR Magazine site)
 
The General Dynamics Low-Profile 105 turret was designed for a vehicle which was to be subordinated to the Infantry. That is a far cry from a MBT; regardless of how heavy and fast you make it. If it can do the job that is great.

I am intrested to know how the system affects the crews observation of the battle field. Is there a machine gun on the turret? How would this change affect the amount of rounds which could be carried?

The MBT must be able to operate independantly. The low-profile turret may require significant upgrading to achive this to the same standard as a conventional turret. I belive it can be done, but it is more costs.
 
McG,
I‘m gonna try and post a bigger picture so we can see some detail. Some things I can see are the commander‘s position seems to be in front of the pedestal to the left, with some type of gun laying/ observation systems mounted there. Unless it has a coax MG it won‘t have any on the pedestal. Again this is a pedestal, not a turret, there‘s only room for the gun in there. As far as being low profile, given the height of the LAV hull and the pedestal, I don‘t think there‘s much difference between it and the Leo, heightwise. And your right, the only thing that can do the job of a tank is a tank, which do not operate independantly, always with troop(4) in mutual support. OK, let‘s try the picture. :D Yep, it‘ll work. maybe USMCMatt can help with the details if he‘s been up close and personal with this thing. How bout it Matt?
mj00cov.jpg
 
Oops. I meant to say independant of the infantry. I realize that tankers don‘t like to be penny packeted.

I think as a support weapon the system is an excellent option, but it may aswell be mounted on a LAV III. There is no function to mounting it on a Leo if it is to support LAV mounted infantry, and cannot function as a MBT.

One thing tankers can look forward to, with the army adopting IFVs over APCs, is that they should no longer be called upon to provide intimate support to infantry clearing a trench. There is nothing more foolish than a 60 ton vehicle with a 105 cannon being employed soley for its coax.
 
I had heard the army was looking at the Italian Centario (as well as one or two others) with the 105 gun. The hull looks very similar to our LAV hull. What do you guys think of this option? :rolleyes:
 
Buy a proven vehicle off the shelf! What a novel idea. The biggest problem being "la petite gars de shawinigan" won‘t pocket his cut. Any money he receives via out side resources has to be buried on the 19th hole of his golf course, and it‘s a little warm at the moment. Heard a good story about the GM/GD 105 the other day. Seems the vehicle tie downs are required for firing as well as shipping. When the gun was fired at the 3 and 9, they had to tie the vehicle down! The cougar no longer has the distinction of having the worst platform rock in NATO. Also heard that during initial firing tests the first round blew open the doors and stripped the vehicle of it‘s lights and external stowage! USMCMatt - question, have you seen this thing up close or watched it fire? Would be interested.
 
Maybe someone could build the Centario under licence, there is a great big, empty, car plant that Crysler is building here in WIndsor. Humm, Liberal town...
 
Back
Top