EMBT technology demonstrator

it doesn't have its own thread and with zero info out there idk if it's worth so here it is - the unloved child
 

Attachments

  • uLkVopu.jpg
    uLkVopu.jpg
    71 KB · Views: 76
Been mulling this for a couple days, and I think if you're going 2+2 in a tank concept you might be better off putting the gunner in the hull with the driver. Of the four positions, driver obviously stays in the hull and TC stays in the turret so they can put their head up. If gunner is in the hull, the fourth crew member can operate a drone just as well as they could in the hull. But they can also stick their head up and look around, which gunners don't often do, and if the autoloader has an issue they can try to fix it or maybe even manually load shell or two. With the gunner in the turret, either they or the TC would have to tend to any gun/autoloader trouble which is a lot more inconvenient to their roles.
 
I think the trend is toward largely interchangeable crew stations anyway. The descriptions of the KF51 indicate that the only reason the gunner's station is specialized is that the legacy gunners sight can't network to multiple stations. A future model might be able to run the main gun from any station as needed.
 
The turret face appears filled with optics. So much so, I wonder about it's armour capability. Surely indirect optics would be better and less vulnerable?
 
Careful mate, watch the 'logic' there. Not popular..........
 
CaID said:
there is 2 side projects related to this development.
Germany developed the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 & the Leopard 2A4 Panther EVO
France developed the Leclerc Evolution which is a Leclerc with EMBT 2022's turret
Click to expand...
Well next to Panther EVO we also see a more evolved KF51 Design.
 
https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...ttle-tank-improves-the-e-mbt-with-a-140mm-gun
Eurosatory_2024_KNDSs_new_EMBT-ADT_140_main_battle_tank_improves_the_E-MBT_platform_with_a_140mm_gun_925_001-bd4b3c5f.webp
 
What set of features would you choose to defend your tank on the modern battlefield?

ADT-140 set that comes with a 30mm programmable ammo turret (150 rounds) + backup 7.62mm (200 rounds) both auto aim, Diamant/PROMETEUS APS (I counted 24 slabs, 2 rear-facing, 4 forward-facing and 9 on each side, 2 charges per slab look-up and look-down), ECLIPSE RF jammer and GNSS spoofing, common ERA+NERA and Galix 13 80mm smokes (thicker and longer lasting).

OR

KF-51U with a 7.62mm 3 barrel rotary auto aim turret (2500 rounds), Iron Fist aps (between 4 or 6 rounds apparently, 2 or 3 in each side), strikeshield aps/ERA all around, MUSS 2.0 IR and rf jammer + GNSS spoofing, 4 HERO-120 drones (technically it's an offensive thing but it should be no problem to employ it in a defensive manner) and ROSY 40mm smokes (not as thick, doesn't last as much but deployment is sub 1 sec vs 1,5 sec of the Galix).
 
Last edited:
Lepespi said:
What set of features would you choose to defend your tank on the modern battlefield?
ADT-140 set that comes with a 30mm programmable ammo turret (150 rounds) + backup 7.62mm (200 rounds) both auto aim, Diamant/PROMETEUS APS (I counted 24 slabs, 2 rear-facing, 4 forward-facing and 9 on each side, 2 charges per slab look-up and look-down), ECLIPSE RF jammer and GNSS spoofing, common ERA+NERA, Galix 13 80mm smokes (thicker and longer lasting)
OR
KF-51U with a 7.62 auto aim turret (2500 rounds), Iron Fist aps (between 4 or 6 rounds apparently, 2 or 3 in each side), strikeshield aps/ERA all around, MUSS 2.0 IR and rf jammer + GNSS spoofing, 4 HERO-120 drones (technically it's an offensive thing but it should be no problem to employ it in a defensive manner), ROSY 40mm smokes (not as thick, doesn't last as much but deployment is sub 1 sec vs 1,5 sec of the Galix)
Click to expand...
Embrace the power of "and," my friend.

30mm programmable ammo with backup 7.62mm, Iron Fist APS, Iron Curtain-type APS, RF and GPS Jammer, 80mm for smokes and decoys, 40mm for smokes and anti-infantry.
 
When your tank is so heavy because all of your active and passive protection weights as mtuch as an Bradley
Scott Kenny said:
Embrace the power of "and," my friend.

30mm programmable ammo with backup 7.62mm, Iron Fist APS, Iron Curtain-type APS, RF and GPS Jammer, 80mm for smokes and decoys, 40mm for smokes and anti-infantry.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
30mm programmable ammo with backup 7.62mm, Iron Fist APS, Iron Curtain-type APS, RF and GPS Jammer, 80mm for smokes and decoys, 40mm for smokes and anti-infantry.
Click to expand...
basically ADT-140 features with iron fist (PROMETEUS/Diamant aps is somewhat similar to iron curtain), would rather have NERA+ERA or StrikeShield plates?
kqcke for you said:
When your tank is so heavy because all of your active and passive protection weights as mtuch as an Bradley
Click to expand...
both advertise themselves just short of 60t, I think it's reasonable
 
My answer: Neither.

Chassis: Anything that can support 50-80 tons is good. Bonus points for production scale.

Gun: 120mm.

Armor: All around similar to Merkava 4. Emphasis top, sides, and rear protection.

APS: Trophy or Iron Fist. Nothing else works. A graphic I found on Prometeus shows dev and integration work on Leclerc going into 2029. No thanks.
Strikeshield is a huge mess as well. How many radars and EO modules does it have? KF41's Strikeshield setup includes 15 radars and 35 EO sensors. Dear dog I do not want to handle that.

Secondary armament: 7.62mm at least. A low recoil 30mm with ABM would be nice. Auto-tracking for both.

Data and sensory systems: EO sensors all around, onboard processing to scan and ID targets, and BMS to share data with everyone.

It was actually funny seeing the EMBT with a Trophy APS given that there's no way France would ever buy that for itself.
 
Given the poor performance of Israeli APS, I don't think it will have much of a future for European programs in the long run. Currently procured for certain systems as a bridging solution until the indigenous systems in development have matured.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Strikeshield is a huge mess as well. How many radars and EO modules does it have? KF41's Strikeshield setup includes 15 radars and 35 EO sensors. Dear dog I do not want to handle that.
Click to expand...
That makes a damage-resistant system, though.

Also, you go on to say you want EO sensors all around. So you're going to have a lot of EO sensors regardless.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That makes a damage-resistant system, though.

Also, you go on to say you want EO sensors all around. So you're going to have a lot of EO sensors regardless.
Click to expand...
I understand why that's confusing. EO sensors are necessary for all around vision. These are non-negotiable for a modern tank.
But Strikeshield has these embedded into every module. If it was possible to activate these via the existing radar and EO sensors already on the vehicle, then sure. But that is not a system that currently exists in that form.
 
Big_Zukini said:
But Strikeshield has these embedded into every module.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's a big liability, if it doesn't work properly because something happened with the sensor they are still working as a normal ERA, my problem with strikeshield is that the panels are massive, 2 strikes, 3 at max and you basically have a big target painted over a whole section of the tank with the super precise/controllable ordnances available today that's pretty bad
 
Lepespi said:
I wouldn't say it's a big liability, if it doesn't work properly because something happened with the sensor they are still working as a normal ERA, my problem with strikeshield is that the panels are massive, 2 strikes, 3 at max and you basically have a big target painted over a whole section of the tank with the super precise/controllable ordnances available today that's pretty bad
Click to expand...
If you're playing war thunder and you're sprayed by 57mm fire to the side, the StrikeShield may end up not giving you any benefit.
But IRL in real combat conditions, getting 3 hits into the same general area within the same engagement, is an exceedingly rare occurrence. And as such, should require little to no consideration by the engineers.
I'd say the only that such thing would realistically happen in a consistent manner is if a vehicle is knocked out anyway, and an enemy is now taking repeated shots to finish it off. As we see in Ukraine when a tank is disabled by, say, artillery fire, then gets progressively destroyed by a dozen drones.
 
Big_Zukini said:
But IRL in real combat conditions, getting 3 hits into the same general area within the same engagement, is an exceedingly rare occurrence.
Click to expand...
I've seem drones hitting the engine bay or the turret junction of tanks on the move very consistently, multiple hits in areas that would be covered by 2-3 plates at max
 
Lepespi said:
I've seem drones hitting the engine bay or the turret junction of tanks on the move very consistently, multiple hits in areas that would be covered by 2-3 plates at max
Click to expand...
Whole other thing if it was an attempt on a tank equipped with APS and complementary C-UAS equipment.
You could still attempt massed drone attacks on a maneuvering unit despite its defensive measures, but that'd give the attacker a substantial advantage.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom