A tank, a near-self-propelled gun, and a fire support vehicle all rolled into one: a Belgian Leopard 1A5BE spotted in Ukraine

9 454 14
A tank, a near-self-propelled gun, and a fire support vehicle all rolled into one: a Belgian Leopard 1A5BE spotted in Ukraine


Instead of an introduction


For a long time now, we have been told from every iron and kettle that the zone of the special military operation in Ukraine has become a kind of testing ground, where all indirect and direct participants in the conflict are actively practicing in full-scale tests of their weaponsAnd this, of course, must be agreed with: it's scary to even think about what hasn't been sent into this black hole, and what continues to be sent to this day.



However, it's worth remembering that Ukraine is also an international showcase for arms manufacturers, where they can showcase their wares and demonstrate them in action, attracting the interest of potential buyers. As the saying goes, one man's war is another man's mother.

Unfortunately, we can't bring anything conceptually new to this exploding, blood-soaked counter—the war is on, and there's no time for that now. But our Western "partners," represented by private arms companies, are seizing this opportunity to advertise their products. A prime example of this is the Belgian танк Leopard 1A5BE, which combines the limited functionality of the barrel artillery and fire support vehicles.


There had been talk for a long time—a year ago—that these products would be sent to Ukraine on a trial basis. Now, a photo of one of the samples, taken somewhere in the vast expanses of Nezalezhnaya, has surfaced and quickly spread through Ukrainian media and domestic Telegram channels. This means that the Belgians have finally managed to push their product into a country engulfed in a protracted armed conflict.

And they can hypothetically count on its commercial success, since the machine, as they say, has already passed tests and can be used in combat conditions.

The main thing is the tower


Generally speaking, it's not the tank itself that's of interest in this case, especially since it's based on the chassis of the completely obsolete Leopard 1, which suffers from a significant shortcoming in the form of weak armor. Far more interesting is its Cockerill 3105 turret, developed by the Belgian company John Cockerill. It's this turret that is the main selling point the Belgians want to showcase in Ukraine.


However, "demonstrate" isn't quite the right word, as such turrets have long been advertised by the manufacturer for installation on wheeled and tracked vehicles, and their serial (small series, but still) carriers include, for example, the Turkish-Indonesian Kaplan/Harimau tanks. So we're talking specifically about the potential use of this product in combat situations, not just for fun at the firing range.

So, what makes a turret, as a tank upgrade option, of interest to buyers?

First of all, it's worth noting that a significant number of countries possess obsolete tanks like the German Leopard 1 or the American M60—some in storage, others considered fully combat-ready. Their complete obsolescence makes them extremely difficult to use as fully functional tanks in modern conditions.

However, as the experience of the Central Military District—the largest military conflict in Europe since World War II—has shown, scrapping them isn't entirely rational. Even with a large fleet of modern tanks, in the event of a protracted war, it will likely be necessary to reactivate the old tracked tanks, which, one would think, should have long ago been consigned to storage bins and "recycling."

Another significant factor is the use of tanks in a role not entirely typical for them—namely, the use of this type of combat vehicle as artillery. The need for this perversion (and it is precisely a perversion) arose in the Northern Military District on both sides due to a shortage of field artillery, and especially self-propelled artillery units. Nevertheless, given the opinions of Western military experts, it can be said that the West is also considering the idea of ​​using tanks in this way, at least on a theoretical level.

What John Cockerill is proposing kills two birds with one stone: a new turret could breathe new life into aging tanks and make them fully capable fire support vehicles.

The tower and its equipment


To begin with, it's probably worth mentioning that the Cockerill 3105 turret isn't just about protection. It's constructed of armored aluminum with the ability to be modularly upgraded to STANAG 5 armor. This means it can withstand, at a minimum, frontal hits from 25mm unfinned sub-caliber projectiles at a range of approximately half a kilometer, and also resist fragments from 155mm high-explosive fragmentation projectiles at a range of up to 25 meters at wide angles.

Compared to the steel armor of the M60 chassis, this level of protection, admittedly, seems somewhat comical. However, it should be noted that the armor of the M60, and especially the Leopard 1, itself looks comical when faced with the active use of shaped-charge warheads and kinetic energy rounds from tank guns—they'll penetrate the hull or the aluminum turret, and the difference is negligible.


Moreover, the tank upgrade options with the Cockerill 3105 mount include the optional installation of an active protection system, a laser detection system to counter laser-guided weapons, and an acoustic detection system—a device that can determine the location of the shooter by the sound of a shot (more suitable for counter-terrorism operations than for full-scale combat, where shots and explosions turn into a continuous sonic mess).

Unlike the standard turrets of older Leopard 1 and M60 tanks, the Cockerill 3105 is a two-man turret, with workstations only for the commander and gunner. There is no loader, but the loader's functions are performed by an automatic loader, which holds 12-16 rounds and is located at the rear of the turret.

In terms of electronics, the Cockerill 3105 tank upgrade offers standard open-architecture solutions, allowing for the seamless integration of new sights, navigation, and computing equipment during subsequent upgrades. These standard solutions also include an automated fire control system, which, admittedly, includes some rather formidable sights.

Overall, they're not much different from other modern products: a commander's panoramic sight/observation device and a gunner-operator sight, which work together to provide a "hunter-gunner" mode, where the commander observes and, having found a target, provides precise target designation to the gunner for engagement. However, their television and thermal imaging channels offer considerable range.

According to the manufacturer, the target detection range in daylight is 18 kilometers (clearly not ground targets). At a range of 9 kilometers in daylight, the electronics can already recognize a target and recognize it as something potentially dangerous, not just a moving, suspicious spot on the display. At a range of 5 kilometers, target identification is ensured, including its model and identity.

The thermal imaging channel (at night) offers slightly more modest results. Target detection occurs at a range of 15 kilometers, recognition at 7 kilometers, and identification at 3,5 kilometers. Moreover, all this richness is complemented by 360-degree cameras, enhancing the tank crew's situational awareness on the battlefield.


weaponry


As an auxiliary armament, the turret has a 7,62 mm machine gun paired with the cannon, as well as (optional) mounts for an open or closed (remotely controlled) machine gun mount, on which a 7,62 mm or 12,7 mm machine gun can be placed, or a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher can be installed on it - a very important thing in modern conditions, without which (as part of the tank's armament) the effective destruction of infantry in trenches is very difficult.

The primary caliber offered by John Cockerill is the 105mm Cockerill HP Gun. It uses the same ammunition as the trusty NATO L7 gun: fin-stabilized discarding sabot (FS-A) rounds, shaped-charge (HEAT) rounds, high-explosive fragmentation (HE-F) rounds, armor-piercing high-explosive rounds, canister shot, and so on.

What is noteworthy is that the gun can fire tandem guided anti-tank missiles. rockets The Falarick 105 is a joint development between Cockerill and the Ukrainian design bureau Luch. In flight, the missile is guided by a semiautomatic laser beam, has a range of 5000 meters, and can penetrate 550 millimeters of steel armor behind reactive armor.

The Cockerill HP gun has several differences from the standard L7. It's slightly shorter—its barrel is 51 calibers long, compared to the L7's 52 calibers—and has a muzzle brake, which reduces recoil and the impact of the gun on the tank's hull and turret when fired. According to the manufacturer, the maximum recoil force of the Cockerill HP does not exceed 150 kilonewtons, making it suitable for mounting on even light platforms, including wheeled ones.

Moreover, thanks to the autofrettage of the barrel and other design features, the gun can withstand 20% more firing pressure than the L7. This means it can fire projectiles with more powerful propellant charges. For example, the M1060A3 fin-stabilized discarding sabot projectile for the L7 penetrates 500 mm of steel armor at a 60-degree angle from 2 km away. A modified version of the M1060CV projectile for the Cockerill HP gun, with a reinforced propellant charge, penetrates 560 mm from the same range.

And perhaps the most important feature of both the gun and the turret as a whole is the wide elevation angles. The manufacturer is tight-lipped about the design features used in its product. Even the Germans and French were more forthcoming, demonstrating the double trunnion mechanism for the Leopard 2 A-RC 3.0 gun, which provides wide elevation angles.

So there is only general information that the gun has less recoil force, the recoil devices are of an original design, the trunnions are of a different design, and so on.


Cockerill 3105 Tower. Image source.

In general, the gun's elevation can be depressed to -10 degrees, which is quite standard and within the realm of reality. However, it can be elevated to a whopping +42 degrees, which is at least twice as much as that of almost all modern production tanks. This means that a tank equipped with such a gun can be much more confident in urban combat, engaging infantry entrenched in buildings.

The tank's high elevation angles also make it much more effective as a surrogate self-propelled gun, engaging targets at long ranges beyond line of sight. The crew doesn't have to struggle to maneuver the tank's nose onto a hill in a prepared position, as is often the case in special military operations on both sides. They simply drive to an unprepared position, raise the barrel to the correct angle for the target's range, fire, and roll away.

True, this doesn't make a tank a full-fledged self-propelled gun. A self-propelled gun has a greater elevation angle and variable propellant charges, which tank rounds don't have. Nevertheless, a fish in a puddle is a fish. A tank with such a turret and gun could be a great asset in areas where artillery is either absent or very limited.

Conclusions


It's worth acknowledging that the Belgians seized the opportunity and shipped the Leopard 1A5BE to Ukraine. And if the vehicle is used in combat, it could actually be beneficial, as many countries still have very old tanks in stock that require modernization. And the modernization proposed by the Belgians could meet many needs.

Of course, it doesn't transform the tank into a fully modern vehicle: no matter how you look at it, the flaw of steel homogeneous armor—a feature of all older tracked vehicles of this type—can't be overcome. However, the Belgian proposal is quite capable of turning the tank into a fully capable fire support vehicle, operating at a distance from the enemy or in areas where the enemy lacks heavy weapons.
14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. IVZ
    +8
    24 March 2026 06: 31
    It certainly doesn't transform the tank into a fully modern machine: no matter how you look at it, the disadvantage of steel homogeneous armor—the companion of all old tracked vehicles of this type—can't be corrected in any way.
    Recently, a class of so-called "light tanks" has emerged, but they're actually medium tanks weighing up to 40 tons. The Leopard 1 originally weighed exactly that much, and its armor protection against kinetic energy rounds is hardly inferior to modern vehicles in its weight class. The new turret, in addition to the advantages described in the article, improves crew survivability by positioning the commander and gunner below the gunner's ring. Furthermore, its lighter weight allows for the hull to be reinforced with add-on modules, providing protection against shaped-charge rounds. The bottom line is that we have a trendy "light" tank with very good performance (the powertrain is also being improved, and cleverly—I forget where I read this information) and is significantly cheaper than a newly developed one. Moreover, it's combat-tested. Of course, PR is a must.
    1. +7
      24 March 2026 07: 02
      It's a versatile vehicle, meaning it has limitations as both a tank and a self-propelled gun. But it can certainly find its niche.
      1. +2
        24 March 2026 09: 11
        Quote: Civil
        It's a versatile vehicle, meaning it has limitations as both a tank and a self-propelled gun. But it can certainly find its niche.

        The issue is price, and here they will have competitors, including the Chinese. Europeans, a priori, do not know how to make more or less cheap combat systems, and this machine is a bunch of compromises, although it has some advantages, but in the end, everything is decided by the price/quality ratio.
        1. +3
          24 March 2026 12: 11
          That's right, as long as this new gun, turret, equipment, installation and setup costs don't exceed the cost of a conventional new T-90 off the assembly line.
          1. IVZ
            +2
            24 March 2026 12: 18
            That's right, like this new gun, turret, equipment, installation costs,
            But if you add to this the cost of development, debugging, preparation for production and the actual manufacture of the new chassis, the result will be even more surprising.
        2. +2
          24 March 2026 12: 48
          European goods have always been expensive. And with current raw material and energy prices, they will be even higher. There can be no talk of any competition with China.
      2. +3
        24 March 2026 12: 46
        I've said many times that versatility is good up to a certain point. Beyond that, the opposite situation occurs: a tank is useless because it doesn't have enough armor, and a self-propelled gun has the wrong caliber and gun elevation. And for fire support on the battlefield, more powerful armor is required.
  2. -4
    24 March 2026 08: 12
    This is the direction the T-55 and T-62 should be modernized in. The turret and gun from the PAT-S should be used.
    1. +2
      24 March 2026 17: 05
      "In this direction..."
      Doubtful?
      It is slightly shorter—the barrel length is 51 calibers versus 52 calibers for the L7—and has a muzzle brake, which reduces the recoil force and the impact of the gun on the tank’s hull and turret when fired.

      The muzzle brake significantly unmasks the combat vehicle when fired.
      The T-62 has a 115mm smoothbore gun. Both tanks also have guided missiles launched through the barrel. If they are upgraded to self-propelled guns, it would be easier to consider installing a Sprut turret with a 125mm gun and an automatic loader.
      And so the Leopard 1's performance characteristics were brought up to those of the post-war AMX-Corsair.
      Only the self-propelled guns are causing a stir. However, 18 km, observations with a firing range of 12 km…)))?
      1. +2
        24 March 2026 21: 12
        The Sprut is a specialized anti-tank self-propelled gun—a light tank, with all the inherent drawbacks. Its gun has a shallow elevation angle and less powerful ammunition compared to the PAT-S. It's often said that tanks don't fight tanks, especially in the air defense zone. T-55s are often used as ersatz self-propelled guns, shelling enemy positions. So wouldn't it be better to upgrade the existing chassis with a gun more suited to the army's modern needs? In Syria, tank guns were found to be insufficiently powerful for destroying buildings, and the Akatsiya self-propelled gun was used as an assault gun.
  3. +1
    24 March 2026 13: 28
    The result is a slightly more advanced tank destroyer thanks to the addition of sights and observation aids. It apparently has certain limitations when it comes to indirect fire, given the specifics of the 105mm gun. So, it seems the remaining role is as an ambush tank destroyer with a "long reach," perhaps as a support vehicle or observation vehicle. Much like the newfangled "light tanks."
  4. -1
    25 March 2026 00: 20
    I claim that in the future...there will be projectiles similar to machine gun bullets, and they will inflict destructive energy and destruction like modern projectiles. I claim that scientists in the future will direct particles that, when gathered together in a specific location, will carry destructive energy greater than a nuclear explosion...I had this dream...a long, long time ago, around 1999.
  5. 0
    25 March 2026 11: 29
    Essentially a light tank, but is it needed on the battlefield?
  6. 0
    26 March 2026 10: 51
    A good option for converting a tank into a self-propelled gun. Relatively inexpensive. We could also consider converting a T-62 in this way.