European MGCS ( Main Ground Combat System)

This is good. With the artificial, politically induced delays gone or at least reduced, we can start seeing more progress on the next gen MBT.
 
I saw this coming a mile away. I don't think its confirmed but wouldn't be surprised if they go ahead with it.
Unlike aviation, where development costs are high and more companies are pushed to work together.. leading to less variety and options out there..
Armored vehicles are simpler and way more companies/countries are able to produce something on their own. In addition, they're also alot easier to upgrade/update to specific needs.

We're entering a phase where the future of armor warfare is changing rapidly and we're not quite sure what it looks like yet. Its why I think we are seeing greater divergence in new armored vehicles.. from the European experimental tanks with large 130-140mm guns, and the new Chinese Type 100 with quiet electric engines, and a smaller but high velocity 105mm guns, and the Japanese and Americans looking more at lighter MBTs.. it doesn't make sense to me for countries to invest on this massive new system yet. It makes better sense to take what is currently existing and continue on with incremental updates until we have a clearer understanding of future needs.

There's also other ways French and German industries can work together. CAPINT is an example (Leopard 2 hull, French turret), and it being an incremental rather than huge leap.
 
Revolution in military affairs, (overdue for 30 years) and people are arguing over size of the gun.
Big_Zukini said:
If Ukraine is the example, can you provide the statistics on usage of RCVs (UGVs) in the capacity of an MBT or alternatively as a main combat element?
No need for army-wide. Just one at least regiment sized unit would suffice.
Click to expand...
If it is direct fire support with sizable warhead, Considered:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IX_vlXm3mY


https://www.armyrecognition.com/arc...hermobaric-rocket-module-on-the-ukraine-front

In a world where even MBT scale armor and protection systems provides poor protection, mass and disposability is an alternative. Whatever defensive system planned, it is not happening soon enough for the conflict.

(When even strategic rear areas assets are getting wrecked, the more hazardous and demanding front is forget about it)

As for low actual usage, when the defense do not conduct direct fire battle but hide deep in hard cover, bomb ugv with maximum payload for reducing cover is effective. The cover needs to survive 155 and drone-based overhead attacks to demand other responses anyways.
---
Still, I am sure people demand "main battle" vehicle like stuffing artillery, command facility and anti-air on the same vehicle. Vickers A1E1 is demanded for every generation. Landships indeed~
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom