Some people who were saying Tanks days are over...this Tank has broken all Grounds and shall be the Bench Mark for all Next Generation Tanks to come in future
@@Apophis40K its idiotic. We will have hundreds of that tanks until russia will be able to build even one combat ready t14 which is by the way eitherway a crap tank. They not even have finished that project and allready start to announce a competion modell for the panther xd did you hear about that
Manned tanks ? yes, mostly obsolete. The development in armour penetrating (even hand carried) guided missiles has been so impressive. a tank costs a lot of $, ATGM a fraction. you can learn a soldier to fire a ATGM in a matter of days/week, you need many months/year to train a tank crew.
It’s Ironic that they use Panther on a Tank again. So technically this is a Panther II. Panther: Son. Panther Kf51: Yes Grandpa? Panther: I am proud of you
0:52 I believe that is a lynx 120. Obviously there are certain similarities since both vehicle are from the same company. I understand that there are currently too few pictures of the new tank. Thanks for the video
I think it will be most advanced tank but I doubt it would make it to the battlefield because it would be too expensive to export and Germany has not been on anyone's battlefield for a long time
@@alexincobra7379 Today there is a great opportunity to visit the battlefield. And experimentally find out what the new technology is capable of. Ukraine can gratefully help implement these plans 😎
@@aleksandrprodeus9383 Sir, I am a 13 year Army combat veteran. It takes years to get trained on new type vehicles. The war would be lost way before anyone could actually use these. Also you risk some of them falling into Russian hands and being reversed engineered to exploit weaknesses and to help them better their own platform. You don't just hand over equipment and that would change a war, no. Some US Javeline missile have already fell into Russian hands. All the stupid decisions made by European leaders and US leaders a bringing us to a recession. The governments won't have the extra cash to pay for expensive state of the art platforms, all because they rather blindly throw money at a corrupt Ukraine and have nothing to show for it. What has the money gained? The still losing key cities in the eastern region.
@@alexincobra7379 Sir, don't exaggerate. Long-term training is justified when a specialist is trained from scratch. The retraining of ready-made specialists for new equipment takes several months, if not several weeks. Any technique captured as a trophy is worth nothing without the production technology. Even with advanced reverse engineering, the creation of new samples based on trophies can take decades in the modern realities of the Russian Federation. Money. Money is very good. It helps keep the economy going and helps the civilian population. But you can't buy weapons with money when they refuse to supply them. And what they agree to supply is in insufficient quantities for serious changes on the battlefield. This is the main reason for some retreats.
@@aleksandrprodeus9383 This is what don't understand about combat. To train vehicles you have to train in proficiency and efficiency. The Ukrainian forces are use to Soviet made vehicles which are less technical and designed differently. Just giving vehicles to soldiers who at good some other type of vehicles that are designed the opposite of NATO will just prolong the fight with same result. We handed all kinds of new vehicles in Iraq and give M1A1's and M1A2's to Suadi Arabia to help in Yemeni War. Iraqi army lost a large portion of the vehicle we gave them to ISIS. Saudi Arabia were losing M1 Abrams tanks in battle due to poor tactics and inadequate crew training. The same would happen in Ukraine with sophisticated new tech tank that is more advanced than anything out. Money thrown to a problem never fixes it. The US wasted trillions of dollars in Iraq trying to help build infrastructure and train local officials to take care of area. Instead money was funneled to corrupt officials that pocketed the money and some left the country with millions of dollars unaccounted for.
Abrams would need a completely new turret to mount L51 130mm or even L55 120mm. When the US upgraded abrams to the L44 120mm they changed the stabilisation systems in it from the original hydraulic system to a simpler and cheaper spring system which resulted in the M256a1 120mm gun seen on Abrams ever since. Because of this the M256a1 has a different centre of gravity to the L44 so they can’t mount L55 or L51 without changing the turret completely. Would be a huge upgrade program which would result in M1a3 rather than be included in M1a2 SEPV4 which apparently is already in the works.
The correspondent ammo capacity ia down to 31 rounds (20 ready+11 reserve). The K51 is the Leapard 2A7 with a new turret, with a new generation F/C, gun and defensive system. Hmmm sounds alot like the M1A2 SEP version 4 (SEPv4), minus the 130mm gun. The Army does not see a nees for a gun larger then 120mm, due to their investment in the XM360 CAP, that matches the the kinetic energy of the 140mm XM291 ATAC gun and keeps the current ammo capacity in the present turret. If the Army ever pulls the trigger on drive train upgrades for the M1, there is the new Cummings ACE multifuel engine, Allison 5250 MX transmission, in-arm hydropneumatic suspension and auto track tensioner. The Army has tested a new larger turret on the CAT test bed, if big Army feels the need to go bigger, there are 130 and 140mm versions of the XM360 CAP gun can sustain guns up to 140mm. So we will know what direction the Army goes, when prototypes of the Decisive Lethality Platform (DLP), the M1 replacement are shown later this decade.
sadly america just cant build tanks.. it not even has a new version of the m109. They never were able to delvelop something better, while we since 20 years have the pzh2000. give it up, Just stay at your aircraft and aircraft carrier and buy your tanks from us. by the way thanks for buying 4000 lynx tanks.(its not officially yet but which other vehicle could be a competion for our lynx)
@@wolflarsen1900 I gues you overlooked the XM2001 Crusader. Originally it was a 60 ton vehicle with 2-30 rounds in the auto loader. The production proof of concept, was reduced to 43 tons with 2-25 rounds in the auto loader. Both 3 man crew, 12 rpm fire rate, hydropneumatic suspension. Now the Crusader was canned by that Idiot Donald Rumsfeld, becouse he considered not to be mobile enough. The Crusader was replaced by the XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), 2-man crew, 27 tons, 155mm/38 gun with 30,000 meter range with standard ammo, rate of fire 10rpm with 24 ready to fire rounds. But this system part of the FCS was canned by Gates In 2009. So the Army came up with the The M109A7 that shares common chassis components with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) such as the engine, transmission, and tracks. This creates commonality with other systems and maximizes cost-savings in production, parts inventory, and maintenance personnel. The M109A7's uses technologies originally developed for the XM1203 Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon, such as the turret electric drive system, automatic rammer and FCS. It features a 600-volt onboard power system to accommodate additional armor and future networking technologies as they become ready. The M109A7 weights in at 70,000 lb (35,000 kg) with growth capacity to 110,000 lb (50,000 kg). This leads to the M1299, new ERCA 155 mm L/58 XM907 gun, 10 rpm, ready 23 rnds in the auto loader, 39 on board rounds, 4-man crew. The M1299A1 or A2 will switch to the common chassis with the OMFV chassis, and this is likely to be the Griffin lll, that will allow weight growth to 55 tons.
I just wanted to ask, did Germany always dominate tank technology? I want to know whether Germany dominated tanks in WW2? Or was it the USSR and Western allies?
It innovated effective tank tactics which to some degree included effective tank design. France and USSR had better engineered tanks but didn't employ them effectively. Germans just had a knack of hitting a certain sweet spot between tech and tactics which proved to be a nightmare! They are not the king of tanks but they are horrifying opponents, they make a mean machine
Germany was technology leader throughout the first half of the last century, also a major scientific hub. Papers published in science often were in german language, and german was close to becoming the no.1 science language. Add that to a highly developed civic infrastructure, education system and engineering tradition (industrialization) germany was set up to be in a good spot for a strong industrial performance in a war that required good mobility, equipment and tactics. However, after WW2 germany was in ruins and the military sector nowadays is rather small compared to those times back then.
Germany had the best tanks towards the end of the war. Tiger I and Tiger II, they dominated battlegrounds with Shermans and had better engines and better armor than Russian tanks, the "problem" was over-engineering and lack of resources, this lead to low production output. Compare that to Russia yeeting thousands of T-34 at Germany. German aviation was the most advanced as well, I.e first military jet Messerschmitt Me 262, V-2 was the first rocket to go into space.. Allies took a lot of knowledge from German aviation, the US put a lot of effort into getting a hold of the Horten Ho 229, a stealth bomber, such that the Russians wouldn't get it. IIRC it even had influence on the F-117. We are very lucky that Germany lacked natural resources.
I love this update l hope it still has the Auxiliary Power Unit integrated into the tank . It also looks like a new turrent is fitted that combined with a new 130mm gun and fully automatic electric rotating dual drum auto-loader should let the new gun punch through all known armour. Airburst capability is a great feature as it means only two or three types of ammunition should be needed . The through life maintenance costs should also be the lowest in it's class . I would say the auto-loader would be very similar to the Leclerc system but with twin rotating drums instead of the Leclerc system . Both ammunition drums rotate in both directions and move from side to side in tandem so a single pusher mechanism can be used . Keeping the GVW around the 60 metric tonne mark so a similar weight to the current leopard 2A7 would mean it will be compatible with all the current equipment in service. Hard kill active protection systems can be fitted if they keep the weight at a reasonable level . I hope the RWS works as good as it looks . 😎
Yes , New Panzer F51, is the Best MBT in the world today . If it remains the best MBT depenpeds on weather the Chinese are able to Duplicate it or not , but for sure , they will try . The Chinese are not capable of inventing anything on thier own . So they steal it from everyone else. DML
The time that elapses when something new comes onto the market, the Chinese copy it and then sell it themselves, is in turn the time they lack to further develop and improve the product. The Chinese are always years behind in development ;-)
Not even leopard 2a4s can be sent in Ukraine. Apparently infrastructure like roads and bridges, self propelled deployable bridges and floating bridges in Ukraine cannot take the weight. The video seems to say that an almost 60ton vehicle is lightweight. Soviet equipment operated in Ukraine has a mass limit of 40 tons, this includes mbts. Bridges were constructed with this standard mass limit.
Denmark has to buy a battalion of these. Unless, that is, another producer comes up with an even better concept. Also, cannot wait for this tank to appear in Warthunder. Loitering munition in collaboration with gun delivered munition is gong to be fun. You can literally combat several opponents now, simultaneously. However, an MBT like this, will also create a greater demand on crew training and educational level.
@@wudruffwildcard252 The Kf51 is a whole new tier. It's a revolution. This tank has a self-defense-mechanism, against anti-tank missiles. It also carries four Hero drones and then it has its 130 smooth barrel gun. So in theory it is capable to engage a minimum of six hard targets, at the same time. Then we got the machine guns, they can in theory engage two soft targets as well. The Panther Kf51 in the best of best situations, can engage 8 targets simultaneously. In other words, it has changed everything. Anything in stock, not capable of engaging 8 targets, is already out-dated; meaning your whole land component.
@@ThePRCommander how would this tank work in War Thunder though? The Panther is a brand-new, next-gen tank. It would probably be ridiculously op without other new, next-gen tanks to go up against.
Its going to sell very well. Not because of its combat capabilities (propably bit better than Leopard 2), but because it looks awesome. They should have called it Leopard 3, since one can see, what family it belongs to.
Russia is already using unmanmed tanks, they need to up their tech, the drones are very efficient on destroying ground vehicles, leo2,m777 and anti air defense assets are being knocked out on the battlefield.
i feel very safe knowing this tank is in existance and how much it will be able to counter chinese expantion of deployed and manufactured on a large scale.
What's up with this channels English grammar? Does know one who works for this channel have enough expertise in the English language to edit the video so that the English makes more sense? 🤔
modern tanks like the KF51 Panther (STANAG 4569 4A+/4B MRAP protected) main battle tank & Leopard 2 A6 could seriously do without the co-axial gun in the frontal centre section of the turret adjacent to the 130 MM main gun . . . besides fixed co-axial guns always had limited field of fire & all the more limited freedom of movement, therefore swift & fast retaliation against an active enemy is out of the question . . . a turret top mounted 25 MM GAU-12/U six-barrel rotary gun or a 13.5 MM HMG on a 360° deg rotating RWS is a much more effective piece of kit . . .
This Panther can be equipped with the Natter RCWS (2:54 in the video) which is basically what you are talking about. RCWS: Remote Controlled Weapon System, 360 degree FOV, thermal imageing etc.
tank with bigger gun than the others, the natter system seems awesome, bigger coaxial mg than the older tanks is good too, and then this tank can launch 4 hero loitering munitons and 2 rec drones......seems all very good but i fear the 51 means its ready 2051....
No shit that tank is completely new it just came out what did you expect that in the first day they already have 500 of them also It's not completely finished just like the lynx it will have many new changes
What's the benefit of having a bigger caliber when the main munition is a sabot? Wouldn't it be a better move to stay on 120mm and have a bigger shell behind? The penetrators already exist.
A larger sabot area allows to transfer more energy to the shot at a lower pressure (or more energy at the same pressure). Also the 130 mm projectile is significantly longer than a 120 mm projectile so the penetrators can be longer.
It has a longer range and 50% more penetration than the 120mm cannon. The grenades are also about 30% larger and heavier, which is why the Panther also has an autoloader because they are too heavy for a soldier to reload. The autoloader in the Panther can also unload the cannon when changing ammo type.
Thanks for the review 👍. There is not a Franco-German joint program for a new tank - MGCS (Main Ground Combat System). Yes, the 120mm potential has reached its high end. But ... Why 130 mm? For this, a new 140 mm tank gun of the French company Nexter ASCALON (Autoloaded and SCALable Outperforming guN) was created. More like a modernized Leopard 2 than a new European tank. It looks like Reinmetall wants to sell the old tank in new packaging.
Well Germany is not on board with a 140mm gun, because it sacrifices to much ammo space for too little penetrating advantage over a 130mm cartridge. A 140mm gun is huge a waste in every single way. Also only Nexter would produce that ammunition and only in France! So Germany would become dependant on France just like the last time France killed off Germanys aviation industry which is called Airbus, while keeping Dassault in the pocket!
@@wudruffwildcard252 It will be interesting to see how France responds. But my position is that within the framework of one military alliance, ammunition for heavy weapons should be unified. It is strange that military industrialists do not understand this.
The 140 mm ASCALON gun uses telescoped ammunition and operates at lower pressure than the 130 mm. The 130 mm has higher muzzle energy. However the lower pressure (and thus lower recoil) of the ASCALON allows it to be fitted to lighter vehicles.
@Gorilla maybe.. even national develeopements dont work properly nowadays but international cooperations are totall mess. look if rheinmetall is allowed to do it for their own they develope stuff LIKE THAT within a few years without anybody even know about the project at all. and meanwhile the franco-german main battle tank is develeoped since 10 years without any succes at all. just let the millitary companies do it for their own and just decide afterwards wheather to buy it or not. it just works better as they prove with the lynx against the puma mess the panther against the leopard 3 mess and again and again and again (ok only the national pzh2000 that went fine.. but thats 20 years ago and today its different)
I truly believe.. That all tank turrets have to be crewless !! T 14 i felt was the right step in that direction!, This is just prolonging the old ideology forward!!
