Belgium is proposing to install new Cockerill 3105 turrets on Ukrainian Leopard 1 tanks.

The Belgians propose modernizing the entire fleet of vehicles currently in service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. tanks Leopard 1 tanks by installing a Belgian company Cockerill 3105 turret on them. This was stated by a company representative.

Last May, Ukraine received its first and, so far, only modernized Leopard 1 tank with a Cockerill 3105 turret for testing, including combat testing. A year later, the Ukrainians finally decided to send it to the front. So, in the near future, a rather unusual-looking Ukrainian tank will appear in one of the front lines.

As the company noted, the upgrade involves installing a new turret in place of the standard one. The Cockerill 3105 turret is equipped with modern optical systems capable of detecting targets up to 18 km away during the day and 15 km at night. The armor provides protection against 25mm sub-caliber projectiles and is equipped with an automatic loader capable of holding 12-16 rounds.

The turret is equipped with a 105mm high-pressure gun, which uses the same ammunition as the Leopard 1 tanks. In addition, it has the ability to use Ukrainian anti-tank rocket The Falarik turret also provides indirect fire capability, something the standard Leopard 1 lacks.

Another design feature is the placement of the commander and gunner in the turret. They sit at the same level as the tank's hull, making the turret relatively "unmanned."

It is worth noting that the Ukrainian Armed Forces practically do not use tanks to break through defenses, especially the Leopard 1, they are now used as self-propelled vehicles artillery.

Comments

[Appraiser]

Who's going to pay for the tank upgrades, and who's going to do it, and where? I'm guessing it's definitely not the bigwigs...

[SAG]

The Belgians don't care who it is... the IMF or German and French taxpayers. Nothing personal, just business!
Another question: what combat value can a riveted turret with a 105mm gun with a lower operational threshold of minus 10 have?
This is a disgrace and a joke all rolled into one.

[Azimutt]

What about armor protection against 25mm sub-caliber projectiles?
Is this really a tank?

[Graz]

Well, the European Union wanted to allocate 90 billion, but Orban is blocking it. So, I think the Belgians wanted to take advantage of this loan and sell their property.

[Alekseev]

This tower was invented by "towers" of those who want to receive a substantial payment for modernization.
This weapon module may have high performance.
But..... Now tanks must be protected not only by high-precision guns, as before.
The turret of a modern tank, and other armored fighting vehicles, must be equipped with a counter-drone system that includes both suppression and destruction of enemy drones.
The armored vehicle must protect not only itself, but also the battle formation of the unit within a radius of 200 - 300 m.
This is possible because an armored vehicle has incomparably greater power capabilities for electronic warfare systems, microwaves, and lasers compared to man-portable systems. Furthermore, it can be equipped with an active protection system or powerful anti-drone canisters, which are incomparable in effectiveness to a 12-gauge shotgun.
Naturally, all this weaponry must be protected by armor, at least from shrapnel and bullets. Otherwise, it's worthless.
These are the kind of turrets that are needed now, especially those already covered from the factory with screens and ERA, and not just with traditional armament, albeit advanced.

[tralflot1832]

The Belgian tower is compatible with "mangles", if not, then the tower is screwed with three PPPs.

[topol717]

This is all bullshit, that's the most important thing

The armor provides protection against 25mm sub-caliber projectiles and is equipped with an automatic loader for 12-16 rounds.

It's not clear at all what kind of automatic loader we're talking about.
Or here's another pearl from the article.

The turret is equipped with a 105mm high-pressure gun, which fires the same projectiles as the Leopard 1 tanks. It is also capable of firing the Ukrainian Falarik anti-tank missile.

The leopard has one rifled fluff, and probably only the Belgians know how to launch a rocket from it.
Well, in conclusion

Another design feature is the placement of the commander and gunner in the turret. They sit at the same level as the tank's hull, making the turret relatively "unmanned."

So are they sitting in the tower or outside the tower? Or does the author himself not know?

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote from: topol717

The armor provides protection against 25mm sub-caliber projectiles and is equipped with an automatic loader for 12-16 rounds.
It's not clear at all what kind of automatic loader we're talking about.
Or here's another pearl from the article.
The turret is equipped with a 105mm high-pressure gun, which fires the same projectiles as the Leopard 1 tanks. It is also capable of firing the Ukrainian Falarik anti-tank missile.
The leopard has one rifled fluff, and probably only the Belgians know how to launch a rocket from it.

The technical description of the turret mentions an automatic loader, but the type is not specified.
Launching ATGMs from a rifled barrel has long been a thing of the past. There's a T-55 modification capable of launching ATGMs through the barrel. Ukraine even supplied such tanks to Syria.
The same ATGM will be fired through a 105mm barrel (with a replacement of the leading band).
The gunner and commander's seats are mounted on the turret floor, below the tank's upper armor plate. This means they are below the turret itself, but rotate with it.

[Cool90]

9K116-1 "Bastion" - a guided weapon system for the 100-mm rifled gun D-10T of the T-55 tank

[Vadim S]

This foreign body certainly looks ugly! The optics are certainly respectable, but the gun is a bit weak. That's just based on the exterior and the numbers. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a trophy in our museums.

[Same lech]

The Cockerill 3105 turret is equipped with modern optical systems that allow it to detect targets at a distance of up to 18 km during the day and 15 km at night.

A serious contraption...but at such distances the tank should be on high ground...where it can be easily tracked.

[Pavel57]

If the Leopard 1 is used as a self-propelled gun, is it worth changing the turret?

[RuAbel]

It mentions the possibility of "indirect fire." The gun's elevation angle is probably greater than that of a standard Leopard.

[Cool90]

There's probably no point in changing them, but the managers of the factory where these towers are made want to make money.

[tralflot1832]

Quote: The same Lech

The Cockerill 3105 turret is equipped with modern optical systems that allow it to detect targets at a distance of up to 18 km during the day and 15 km at night.

A serious contraption...but at such distances the tank should be on high ground...where it can be easily tracked.

I think the target will be camouflaged by the terrain and will approach as close as possible to tear that Belgian head off the German body. It's funny sometimes reading advertising data.

[ABC-schutze]

The former "Ukraine" is a free experimental testing ground for the "Europeans" and the United States, testing their "prototypes" in real combat conditions. With virtually zero risk to their own developers and manufacturers. Why would they give this up while they're still living solely on the "Eurobucks" at Bankova Street?

But if we're going to discuss the topic on a more concrete and conceptual level (like "grown-ups" should be...), I'd like to remind you that all of Hitler's "cat-like" tanks - "Tigers" (including the "Royal" ones...), "Panthers", "Ferdinands", etc. - were, in terms of sighting "optics", stabilization of guidance while moving, armor, "habitat" for the crew, etc., much more sophisticated than, say, the T-34...
But it was the latter that became the most widespread and successful serial tank of the Second World War... It was precisely this kind of serial tank, widespread, technologically advanced, and inexpensive to produce, quickly replenished after losses, that was needed by the troops at the front, as the main striking force of the ground forces in the offensive and an "element" integrating "around itself" all the other components of the forward combat formations... That is, I am talking about the tank and its role in a REAL, BIG WAR with the mobilization of MASSIVE armies (which, I remind you, no one has yet "canceled"...), and not about a tank as a "gadget" for solving local, pinpoint tasks in the LBS (with all due respect to the crews...), during albeit intensive and lengthy operations (even "special-military"), but "operations", and not wars...

Let's say a mass-produced tank, during a real major war, conducting massive offensives and breakthroughs, doesn't necessarily need a gun capable of accurate fire at 18 km... A mass-produced tank simply doesn't need such an expensive gadget. Artillery (including self-propelled guns) and ground forces' missile forces are wisely designed to detect and destroy targets at such ranges, including low-hovering helicopters... Not tanks at all... Tanks would be better off with a sophisticated active defense system for UAVs and fiber-optic warheads, as well as a sophisticated firepower suite for engaging enemy tanks and their ATGM crews, etc.

[ABC-schutze]

Sorry, I missed the preposition... It should read:

"It would be better for tanks to have a sophisticated active defense system against UAVs and warheads using fiber optics..."

[Normann]

Sorry, you're stuck somewhere out there, tanks, let's say, aren't really needed right now, unless you're fighting against the Papuans.

[ABC-schutze]

In a special operation against the "Papuans" (long classified as so-called "expeditionary" wars or "military-police" operations), the so-called "Stryker Brigades" designated for this purpose are quite sufficient. They are quickly deployed to the operational area and quickly withdrawn once a "loyal" puppet regime has established itself in the territory. Heavy armored vehicles are not particularly needed there. At least not in significant numbers...

And in the "now" you mentioned, there is NO real, major war yet. I emphasize once again, no matter how "seditious" this may seem, given the four-year-long ongoing Russian Air Defense Forces...

In Russia, there is no mobilization of the population, no martial law, no "war" economy, no "military" organs of state administration (headquarters, "military" cabinet...) and many other things that would be created in any sane state, in the event of a REAL, BIG WAR...

So, even if I wanted to, I simply couldn't get stuck. But I'm not inclined to indulge in the precocious illusions of all those armchair "theorists" who jump to "broad" generalizations based on momentary, albeit seemingly vivid and illustrative, "experience."

Once again, tanks, as I believe and historical experience demonstrates and proves, are a relevant and sought-after "tool" in large-scale (in terms of space and the number of directly involved parties) CONTINENTAL wars. I'd add, wars between opponents of relatively comparable technological development. And such wars simply HAVE NOT EXISTED since World War II (the Great Patriotic War).

The infamous "Desert Storm" and NATO aggression in the Balkans were waged by countries with overwhelming technological superiority over their adversaries (who attempted to use tank units or more or less significant formations)... Specifically, in precision weapons, aviation, air defense/missile defense, and electronic warfare/electronic countermeasures...

But whether all this will work in the event of a war with a powerful and technologically advanced adversary is a matter of debate... The arsenals of long-range and operational-tactical precision weapons will be exhausted very quickly, as will the ECM/EW systems and all the sophisticated reconnaissance and control systems – space (electronic, imaging, etc.) in particular – be knocked out...

And the warring parties will have to switch to "traditional" methods and means of waging war, at the level of so-called "4th generation" wars... That is, mass, mobilization armies, large tank formations on the battlefield...

And whoever can take care of this IN ADVANCE will ultimately be "on top" and will pay the least amount of blood for "progressive" illusions...

But taking care of all this in advance is both very "expensive" and very politically "unpopular"... You have to SYSTEMATICALLY work with the population, explaining why "such expenses" when "there is no war"... Well, in a word, I'm "mistaken" so...

The rest can err as they please...

[IVZ]

In a special operation against the "Papuans" (which has long been classified as a so-called "expeditionary" war...

Excellent commentary and excellent analysis. Much respect.

[rocket757]

What will happen? Will it shoot further, more powerfully, more accurately?
How are they going to protect a tank from drones?
So, off the top of my head, the Belgians want to make some extra money...

[Graz]

This turret seems to have either originally been mounted on a wheeled tank or was designed for a similar vehicle.

[rocket757]

And yet, what advantages will the old tank receive by receiving such a knob?
Installing new electronics, by today's standards, seems to be inexpensive... but, as for anything to be inexpensive abroad, that doesn't happen AT ALL.

[Graz]

They just want to make some money by lending money to the Ukrainians.

[Normann]

It's intended for MZKT or KAMAZ.

[Graz]

The Belgians have tried to foist this pornography on everyone, but no one takes it

[Amateur]

A company representative stated this.

Not the state of Belgium, but one Belgian company that decided to make money. As they say, there's a big difference.

[Wildcat]

The turret is equipped with a 105mm high-pressure gun, which fires the same ammunition as the Leopard 1 tanks. It is also capable of firing the Ukrainian Falarik anti-tank missile. The turret also provides indirect fire capability, something the standard Leopard 1 lacks.

They will then try to sell it to Greece or Turkey for modernization.
For most tasks, 105 mm is quite sufficient.

[Dedok]

For most tasks, 105 mm is quite sufficient.

And if you separate the crew from the turret with an armor plate, it's almost like an Armata...

[Wildcat]

This is a controversial decision, as it will eliminate the ability to service the gun and refill the ammunition without leaving the hull.
And the big advantage of the 105mm is its large ammo count. The Leo 1 carries 60 rounds, the Leo 2 42.

[Normann]

And what can a 105mm shell from an MBT do?

[Wildcat]

Excellent question. The frontal armor plate and the frontal part of the main battle tank may be problematic (not with all main battle tanks), but the side armor is permeable.
But for MBTs, which are not the most numerous target on the battlefield, there are already specialized anti-tank weapons, up to and including Javelins/Spikes/Akerons.
Other targets for 105mm are available.
Even in the US Army—Booker, MGS—the 105mm's "renaissance" was driven by the fact that the target was often in built-up areas behind a barrier, like a concrete slab or a two-brick wall. For such targets, the 105mm (especially the APAM type) is sufficient and very inexpensive. The 25mm Bradley and even the 30mm Dragoon/Stryker are insufficient.

[Normann]

What will 125mm do to it?

[Wildcat]

120/125 mm is more expensive and fits less into the tank.

[Normann]

Wow, compared to the cost of foreign tanks, what percentage is that, 5?

[Horon]

The armor provides protection against 25mm sub-caliber projectiles.

Is this really a tank turret?

[Graz]

This tower was originally made for the wheelwright

[Normann]

Maybe for a craft from France.

[Voenoboz]

I don’t understand the meaning of the 15 km detection visibility, and what is the cannon’s range?

[Normann]

You see it, but you can't reach it, run...

[Same lech]

Quote: ABC-schütze

"It would be better for tanks to have a sophisticated active defense system against UAVs and warheads using fiber optics..."

This was proposed by forum members on VO even before SVO...to make it standard equipment for the tank.

[pin_code]

Belgium needs to change the minds of its leaders and expel the EU "government" from its territory. Otherwise, it will be too late and only Belgium will remain in the EU. Well, maybe even the half-baked ones...

[Normann]

Is it high enough to fly further after an RPG hit?

[Nikolaevich I]

So, the Leopard-1 is used as a self-propelled artillery unit, thanks to its 105mm rifled gun! Just like our T-55! It's a shame they abandoned the plan to arm T-72 tanks with both a 125mm smoothbore gun and a 122mm rifled gun! The guns should be interchangeable! How useful that would be in the Air Defense Forces! Currently, both self-propelled artillery units and tanks with smoothbore guns are used, but that's based on the principle: "When there's no fish, even a crayfish is a fish!"

[Mapping]

There's just one question. Could Putin strike the factories producing weapons that are killing our soldiers? Let that VKG answer us. Stop patting children on the head.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

First thought: The last time there was a turret-to-turret turret snafu was because of Hitler, it was with Anders and Porsche's Tiger tanks. Well, the result is already known... /laughs mockingly/ :))))