Rheinmetall KF51 Main Battle Tank (NEW)
- Thread starter BMD
- Start date
Any evidence of that please. Western tanks are 25-30% heavier, they have a lot more armour, and this armour is battle-proven. The record of Russian tank armour in combat is abysmal. They promised a lot for their new stealth fighter and then delivered the joke that is the Su-57, this tank is no different.
That depends entirely on which side remains in control of the battlefield after the battle.
If it looks like the enemy will be, well, there are ways of destroying a tank post-fact.
For Armata, maybe. KF51 which we are supposed to be discussing here follows Western turret design practices, it is just unmanned.
It won't, necessarily. That is precisely how bustle in Western tanks works - solid walls on five sides, thin protection on the sixth so that explosion doesn't vent into the crew compartment.
Issue here of course being that in Armata, explosion has to launch not the blowout panels but the entire turret in order to release itself, which means pressure will build up to a much higher levels before being released. And this makes any safety measures that more likely to fail.
The tank will likely be plugged whilst the crew is 'escaping'. Already zeroed in at that point.
Not always easy without air superiority, especially if retreating.
Sorry, I was discussing Armata with randomradio. The KF51 will obviously be much better armoured.
The rounds aren't all stored together in Western tanks though, the Armata has 40 stacked behind the crew. It would be like a Mk82 exploding inches from the tank.
LoS? The T-14 is 35% taller than the M1 (and Challenger 2) and not too much different in width or length. So it's beat on armour to volume too.
Sorry, zero hits on Google.
During WW2 a german tank was destroyed for 8 russian ones (or 7 or 10.... but it's in this range).
During the israel-arab countries war the western tanks were superior.
In Ukraine the russian tanks even with some more armor or active system are burning by hundreds.
It's not only tactic which is different.
Or the Su-57 is stealthy (unliky), or there is no Su-57 over Ukraine (because far too humiliating if one was shooted down...)
KF51's turret is not unmanned. The driver and extra crew sit in the hull, but the gunner and commander are in the turret.
The loader has been removed in exchange for an autoloader. But the autoloader can only carry 20 shells. It's just a Leopard with an autoloader. The new gun is a definitely improvement, but ammo is going to be a huge problem.
With heavy armour in the turret, it's as vulnerable to the T-14 as any other Western tank. It's only an improved third gen design. Basically, while APFSDS is largely useless against the T-14's turret, the T-14 can still use its APFSDS effectively against the KF51, so that's a major disadvantage.
This tank is a decent option for new users of Western tanks who are in the market for a new tank. Current users should just upgrade their existing Leopards and wait for the Franco-German MGCS to deliver. This new tank does not provide any significant advantage due to the weakness of the turret over the T-14.
Anyway I think this tank was made as both a demonstrator and as a competitor to the South Korean K2 that's making waves in Eastern Europe. The K2 has a much lower profile than Western tanks, so that gives it a pretty good advantage against the Russians. With Eastern Europe interested in getting rid of old Soviet junk, and with the Polish going for the K2 and K3, the South Koreans have a massive advantage over the Germans, and the Leopard wouldn't cut it. Nevertheless, I'd say the Leo 2A7 has a greater advantage over the KF51 in Eastern Europe. So, unless Germany invests in the tank, I fear it will remain a TD.
Unmanned turret is optional. So everything else you just rattled out is wrong.KF51's turret is not unmanned. The driver and extra crew sit in the hull, but the gunner and commander are in the turret.
The loader has been removed in exchange for an autoloader. But the autoloader can only carry 20 shells. It's just a Leopard with an autoloader. The new gun is a definitely improvement, but ammo is going to be a huge problem.
With heavy armour in the turret, it's as vulnerable to the T-14 as any other Western tank. It's only an improved third gen design. Basically, while APFSDS is largely useless against the T-14's turret, the T-14 can still use its APFSDS effectively against the KF51, so that's a major disadvantage.
This tank is a decent option for new users of Western tanks who are in the market for a new tank. Current users should just upgrade their existing Leopards and wait for the Franco-German MGCS to deliver. This new tank does not provide any significant advantage due to the weakness of the turret over the T-14.
Anyway I think this tank was made as both a demonstrator and as a competitor to the South Korean K2 that's making waves in Eastern Europe. The K2 has a much lower profile than Western tanks, so that gives it a pretty good advantage against the Russians. With Eastern Europe interested in getting rid of old Soviet junk, and with the Polish going for the K2 and K3, the South Koreans have a massive advantage over the Germans, and the Leopard wouldn't cut it. Nevertheless, I'd say the Leo 2A7 has a greater advantage over the KF51 in Eastern Europe. So, unless Germany invests in the tank, I fear it will remain a TD.
Rheinmetall
Rheinmetall ist ein führendes internationales Systemhaus der Verteidigungsindustrie und zugleich Treiber zukunftsweisender Innovationen auf den zivilen Märkten.
rheinmetall-defence.com
Aside from that, for a Leopard 2A7+, the turret armour is 1,000+mm RHA against KE and more against CE, and the KF51's APS can defend against KE rounds anyway. And note that the KF51 is an export tank, no the Leopard II replacement.
Last edited:
'Cause all the armour is in the hull.
The Su-57 has been operating over Ukraine since June last year.
Media fluff. The entire turret design will change, it will no longer be KF51. I'm only referring to the existing version. And there's nothing really special about it right now.
The idea behind KF51 is to tap the export market. By the time an unmanned turret comes out, the MGCS will become more important. Especially so in Europe. With Poland having chosen the Abrams and K2, the only other alternative for Europeans is the Leopard 2A7 and newer variants until the MGCS comes in. This tank may be of more interest outside Europe.
The hull is higher too and longer than a M1, to fit the crew below the turret. Plus the turret still has weight because it has to carry the gun.
It was seen once flying at low level over Russian occupied territory. Flying at low level doesn't suggest confidence in stealth. Even Mi-24s are doing that. And I don't see it conducting any bombing over Kyiv, that would be much cheaper than using those expensive cruise missiles.
That's actual width not RHA equivalent and doesn't include added RA modules.
Yeah, and 1000+mm RHA against KE for the Leopard does not count the additional RA modules, and is against KE not CE.
At the end of the day, a Challenger II has been hit by Milan ATGMs and other 1000mm RHA capable missiles and rockets. It's proven.
Challenger 2 - Wikipedia
T-80s and T-90s have been claiming 1,550mm RHA with Kontakt-5 but we've seen T-90Ms destroyed with Carl Gustav RRs in Ukraine, which are only rated at 400-450mm penetration. All Russian claims are horseshit as always, whereas when the West says '1000+mm RHA' they actually mean it.
Turret weight is irrelevant, it barely has any armour.
And the height is still around the height of a person. It's extremely difficult to target such a low profile from a distance. It's just a bit higher than a sedan.
The entire idea behind an unmanned turret is it's extremely difficult to target and hit the hull. And to kill the T-14 crew, you need to hit the hull consistently at the same spot, which is every more difficult.
I don't think you have understood. Western tanks have hull armour thickness of less than 700mm. The T-14's hull armour thickness is nearly 1000m.
At the end of the day, a Challenger II has been hit by Milan ATGMs and other 1000mm RHA capable missiles and rockets. It's proven.
Challenger 2 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
T-80s and T-90s have been claiming 1,550mm RHA with Kontakt-5 but we've seen T-90Ms destroyed with Carl Gustav RRs in Ukraine, which are only rated at 400-450mm penetration. All Russian claims are horseshit as always, whereas when the West says '1000+mm RHA' they actually mean it.
Lol, you don't know what you're talking about.
The hull is still higher than those on Western tanks because it has to fit the crew in the hull.Turret weight is irrelevant, it barely has any armour.
And the height is still around the height of a person. It's extremely difficult to target such a low profile from a distance. It's just a bit higher than a sedan.
Made easier by the fact the hull is larger due to unmanned turret. Or a sensor-fused munition sends an EFP straight through the top of the crew hatches in the hull, which is now extended out well beyond the turret, thanks to unmanned turret.
Top of hull protected by large turret with 2000mm RHA frontal against heat (see diagram bottom)...
...without extended frontal turret armour module.
I don't think you have understood, not even slightly, this is a Challenger II (left) without additional armour modules (see images above). The only weak points are on the top surface of the hull and turret, which are weak on any tank. External armour modules are usually added to the few weaker points. (Right is a Tiger II.) Good luck penetrating that turret. Unless you can pick out a hatch from above somehow, you're wasting your f#cking time.
(Also note these are the minimum RHAs and apply only if you get a perfectly perpendicular strike, which is almost impossible due to sloping and shape.)
Lol. Tanks still can't see the hull as long as the crew is well-trained.
The Challenger armour upgrade is a joke. From a decent tank, it turned into a pregnant elephant suffering from elephantiasis and scoliosis.
It's probably the only modern tank this century that was penetrated from the front by an RPG, hence the ridiculous modifications that increased the tank's weight to 75T. In a tank battle, a Sherman will kill it.
The modification was done for the sake of urban combat against guerilla fighters. It's not suitable for a tank battle against a T-type tank. That's why it's called a "Streetfighter" upgrade.
The addition of the Trophy APS on the Challenger "3" will further increase weight.
BA should just import the KF51 instead.
How does a tank move without the hull being visible?
It was only partially penetrated from a point blank strike from below the tank. The firer died from the blast. The crew survived and the tank was able to drive back to base. That was before armour upgrade to that area shown in the above images.
Challenger 2 - Wikipedia
The only tank this century penetrated by an RPG? Bitch please, how many Russian tanks have been penetrated by RPGs and less in Ukraine and Chechnya. An RPG-29 tandem charge is rated to 750mm after ERA. It was a perfect shot from an underground hole. A T-90M's Kontakt-5 armour was breached by a damn 84mm recoilless rifle.
It wouldn't even be needed for a tank-on-tank battle because it could never be hit in the same place at the same angle in a tank-on-tank engagement. It was hit perpendicular in the front underbelly. A few sentences earlier you're saying that the hull won't be seen if the crew is well trained, now you think the underbelly can be hit from below by another tank.
Ground pressure is the only metric that matters and the Challenger II is only 8% more than a T-80, and the Leopard 2 is 9% less.
Tank Track Ground Pressure Examples
I have been reading some military history on tank operations during the WW2 and the subject of the ground pressure exerted by the tank’s tracks has figured prominently in the discussions on t…
www.mathscinotes.com
No Challenger of Challenger II has ever been lost to enemy fire. Neither have they ever lost a battle to any Russian tank. The Challenger I destroyed over 300 Russian tanks in Iraq without a single loss.
Challenger 1 - Wikipedia
You say the West are the war mongers, yet how many Russian tanks have been lost for ever one western tank, even within Russian use only?
Last edited:
Tactics. You manoeuvre your tank in such a way that only the turret is visible to the enemy.
It was only partially penetrated from a point blank strike from below the tank. The firer died from the blast. The crew survived and the tank was able to drive back to base. That was before armour upgrade to that area shown in the above images.
Challenger 2 - Wikipedia
The only tank this century penetrated by an RPG? Bitch please, how many Russian tanks have been penetrated by RPGs and less in Ukraine and Chechnya. An RPG-29 tandem charge is rated to 750mm after ERA. It was a perfect shot from an underground hole. A T-90M's Kontakt-5 armour was breached by a damn 84mm recoilless rifle.
It wouldn't even be needed for a tank-on-tank battle because it could never be hit in the same place at the same angle in a tank-on-tank engagement. It was hit perpendicular in the front underbelly. A few sentences earlier you're saying that the hull won't be seen if the crew is well trained, now you think the underbelly can be hit from below by another tank.
Ground pressure is the only metric that matters and the Challenger II is only 8% more than a T-80, and the Leopard 2 is 9% less.
Tank Track Ground Pressure Examples
I have been reading some military history on tank operations during the WW2 and the subject of the ground pressure exerted by the tank’s tracks has figured prominently in the discussions on t…www.mathscinotes.com
No Challenger of Challenger II has ever been lost to enemy fire. Neither have they ever lost a battle to any Russian tank. The Challenger I destroyed over 300 Russian tanks in Iraq without a single loss.
Challenger 1 - Wikipedia
You say the West are the war mongers, yet how many Russian tanks have been lost for ever one western tank, even within Russian use only?
I don't believe any T-type has been penetrated from the front, either hull or turret, with an RPG. These tanks have such protection already.