NEW Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 MBT - or should we call it Leopard 3?

This channel is only possible because of the support from viewers like you.
=== Support the Channel ===
Bank transfer (in Europe): IBAN: DE81740512300060352457; BIC: BYLADEM1FRG
Paypal: bit.ly/3RTvVR4
Crypto: mgeschichte.com/krypto-crypto/
Affiliate: mgeschichte.com/affiliate/
Amazon Wishlist: amzn.to/3hbBf5d
=== More Channels of mine ===
Telegram: t.me/+n4kN3cuNWo1kZWQ6
Website: mgeschichte.com/
Hoplophile: / @hoplophilepanama
Twitch: bit.ly/3UrIx3Q
Instagram: bit.ly/3QX4kxn
=== My PC Setup ===
PC: amzn.to/3z40n3T
Monitors: amzn.to/3EYOnVf and amzn.to/3TqmFF9
Microphone: amzn.to/3VMhmSb
Webcam: amzn.to/3PaxBp7
Stream Deck: amzn.to/3SpgxvI
Mouse: amzn.to/3gwHrUX
Keyboard: amzn.to/3z2Gj25
Headphones: amzn.to/3F49UMq
UPS: amzn.to/3TkCL38
Monitor Stand: amzn.to/3skBm0J
Maps used by the channel: bit.ly/3ChvREv
Stock Footage: Storyblocks, Envato

[@militaryandhistory]

=== Support the Channel ===

[@juliancate7089]

I am not claiming all unmanned turrets share this design philosophy, but some unmanned turrets are maintaining high-level armor protection because the smaller volume that must be encased allows the turret to maintain the same level of armor protection as a manned turret, but reduces weight simply by being smaller.

[@clausjensen5658]

I never understood this obsession of building the absolute high tech tank. Like this tank and even the T14 for that sake. I mean they look cool and are obvious better! But it seems to me the Ukraine war has shown that it des´nt matter if it´s an abrams or Leopard or a t-72. Everything can and will be killed. And Leopards and Abrams have allready proven that their crew survivability is very good. What should matter more than building a better tank than those two perhaps should be about having a replacement tank that crew can use after the first is disabled. We saw that almost no European country had spare tanks stored they could donate. Perhaps focus should be reducing the production costs of MBT´s so that having a number stored and ready wont be so costly and the fighting capability of an army stays intact longer. If the crew survives but cannot go into another tank , then what use are they really after they loose their tank?

[@justusmetzler191]

It needs 100% a 7.62mm machinegun in a seperate smaller turret or in the autocannon mount. Sometimes you really, really cannot just spam explosive cannon round no matter how fun it is

[@richardlellip.e.m.b.a.7969]

10 years into the war and NATO still wants Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back -- So Sad.

[@arekkusub6877]

This tank could easily be "mission killed" by drones and then it probably would be abandoned by its crew, as we have seen many times in Ukraine happening to western tanks so far (Russian tanks usually just blow up very dramatically and kill the crew). Having said that, against Russians the armour is not a problem at all but the vulnerability of tank's sensors on drone attacks. Self protection system against drone attacks is still questionable and its applicability should be demonstrated. It has to be extraordinary complex (optoelectronics, millimeter wave radar, proximity sensor, actuators etc. ) and would probably cost a million dollars for each vehicle...

[@adhx7506]

Its absolutely better than the KF51 and a way better option for the Bundeswehr.

[@d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.594]

As someone who likes tanks. It's a tank or panzer in German what's not to like, it's "very nice" 😁 🫶

[@simonandfaerk]

So the germans made the Armata before the russians 😂

[@winterdragon007]

That's a good looking tank if they can pull all that off

[@Lost-In-Blank]

Regarding destruction by mines, which is a common way of destroying tanks in Ukraine: Having the crew together in one capsule rather than spread around, and having only 3 crew rather than 4, enables using thicker armour for the same weight because it will enclose a smaller volume. A single capsule for 3 crew requires much less weight of armour than protecting one crew in the hull three in the turrent.

[@danielbaulig]

2:45

[@darrencorrigan8505]

Thanks, Torsten.

[@anonaustria9867]

Looks like a much more thought-out design than the KF-51. No unnecessary bling, bit a clear upgrade into a new generation. I agree that the complete change of the layout and the new capabilities more than constitute a new tank rather than an new variant of Leo 2

[@Private_Joe]

Your english is perfect, Sir! Top-Content!

[@johnhinkey5336]

Very cool looking machine. Hopefully it won't be obsolete by the time it goes into production for the next conflict.

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

IMO it‘s a more interesting and forward thinking concept then Rheinmetall‘s KF51, however if drones are supposed to be controlled from the tank, which would be beneficial for situational awareness, an additional fourth crewman dedicated to drone operation would be sensible.

[@thomasfox5476]

Thanks for the update 👍

[@davidwalk9266]

Thanks again for good information