StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was looking through Military-Today earlier today, and came across the NKPz MBT page. The page doesn't have any sources, and googling "Neuer Kampfpanzer"+Contraves only turns up 6 results (10 if the omitted ones are included).

From Military-Today.com

The NKPz or Neuer Kampfpanzer was developed by Contraves company in 1970s. It was a very advanced MBT design at that time. In early 1980s Swiss government decided to produce German Leopard 2 main battle tanks under license, that were 15%-30% cheaper comparing with the NKPz, but also inferior.

Layout of the NKPz was similar to Israeli Merkava. It had a front-mounted engine for better protection. The rear part of the hull was intended for ammunition storage.

Vehicle was armed with Rheinmetall 120-mm smoothbore gun, fitted with an autoloader. It was fitted with a very advanced fire control system. The NKPz carried 44 rounds for the main gun, stored in a compartment, that was separated from the crew.

Secondary armament consisted of two 7.5-mm machine guns. One of them was coaxially mounted with the main gun, while the other was placed on top of the roof.

Vehicle had a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver.

Vehicle was powered by Austrian Sauer 12-cylinder diesel engine, developing 1 400 hp. It also had auxiliary power unit - the VW Golf engine. Tank's hydropneumatic suspension with adjustable ground clearance.

Entered service -
Crew 3 men
Dimensions and weight
Weight 50 t
Length (gun forward) 8.5 m
Chassis length ?
Width 3.63 m
Height 2.57 m
Armament
Main gun 120-mm smoothbore
Machine guns 2 x 7.5-mm
Elevation range ?
Traverse range 360 degrees
Ammunition load
Main gun 44 rounds
Machine guns 5 000 x 7.5-mm rounds
Mobility
Engine Sauer diesel engine
Engine power 1 400 hp
Maximum road speed 60 - 70 km/h
Range 500 km
Maneuverability
Gradient ?
Side slope ?
Vertical step ?
Trench ?
Fording 1.4 m

Would the "hydropneumatic suspension with adjustable ground clearance" have given the tank the ability to "Kneel" (increases elevation range) like the South Korean K2 Black Panther or the Japanese Type 90, or just "Sit" (low profile and better on road handling) and "Stand" (improved ground clearance and off road handling)? Are the similiarities between the Merkava and NKPz because of collaboration between Contraves and Israel Tal?


Posted by "Chrieger" on the Something Awful forums Something Awful forums

Cartridges are stored in 2 magazines which hold 22 shells each (6). Upon extraction they are moved to the center of the bottom of the turret, spun to face the same way as the turret itself does and loaded onto one of the two autonomous loader arms (10). Those two arms allowed the cannon to change ammunitions in a very short amount of time. I don't know if the shells could be reinserted 'backwards' into the magazines.

Because Swiss Military command was not willing to fund a project with a relatively high failure probability, the 'Neuer Kampfpanzer' (New Battle Tank) Project was abandonned in 1979. It never got past fullscale chassis testbed and wooden turret testbed phase.

According to Google Books, in Osprey's "Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979 - 1998, the NKPz comes up on page 37, but said page is not available for preview. Other than the Osprey book, and the websites Google turned up, is there any more (detailed) information about the NKPz out there (armour etc)?

Thanks

The book sadly says nothing beyond a small cursory mention.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:The book sadly says nothing beyond a small cursory mention.

Hmm, too bad. I'm surprised at the lack of information out there about this prototype. There's plenty (compared to the NKPz) of information out there about the MBT-70 which was also in development in the 70s.

[R_H] wrote:I'm surprised at the lack of information out there about this prototype. There's plenty (compared to the NKPz) of information out there about the MBT-70 which was also in development in the 70s.

Simple explanation: the MBT-70 was jointly developed by two VERY IMPORTANT members of NATO (the US and West Germany), both governments invested SIGNIFICANTLY MORE money on features that were supposed to be SIGNIFICANTLY MORE advanced, and prototypes were actually built and tested.

Sidewinder wrote:

[R_H] wrote:I'm surprised at the lack of information out there about this prototype. There's plenty (compared to the NKPz) of information out there about the MBT-70 which was also in development in the 70s.

Simple explanation: the MBT-70 was jointly developed by two VERY IMPORTANT members of NATO (the US and West Germany), both governments invested SIGNIFICANTLY MORE money on features that were supposed to be SIGNIFICANTLY MORE advanced, and prototypes were actually built and tested.

A prototype hull was built, along with a wooden mock up of the turret (according to the post on Something Awful). It's interesting that in developing the NKPz, the designers opted for an autoloader, instead of a human loader. The tank is fairly short and narrow, its shorter with the cannon forward than the Leclerc or the Type 90. And unlike the LeClerc, the Leopard 2 or the T-xx series, there isn't any ammunition in the hull or around the turret basket.

With regards to the suspension, from what I have heard, the Korean K-2 Black Panther's suspension is a lot more complex than the one in the Leopard 2. The requirements are different afterall, and a lot less flat land.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:With regards to the suspension, from what I have heard, the Korean K-2 Black Panther's suspension is a lot more complex than the one in the Leopard 2. The requirements are different afterall, and a lot less flat land.

I guess hydropneumatic suspension would have been used because the terrain here in Switzerland is mountainous for the most part, unlike say the plains of the Fulda Gap. That being said, as far as I know, Switzerland's tanks operate in the flater parts of the country, not the moutain passes etc. What's interesting is that Contraves went with a three-man crew and an autoloader, but the tank that was eventually bought has four-man crews and a human loader. That, and that the autoloader is in the hull, to the rear of the turret, not in the turret bustle.

The one objection I have with removing the loader and putting an autoloader in his place is that it increases strain on the remaining three crewmembers, who have to do more work in keeping the tank in running shape, though the autoloader usually decreases tank size by providing for a smaller turret.

To be fair, it's not as if the Swiss had a lot of people to begin with.

Pelranius wrote:The one objection I have with removing the loader and putting an autoloader in his place is that it increases strain on the remaining three crewmembers, who have to do more work in keeping the tank in running shape, though the autoloader usually decreases tank size by providing for a smaller turret.

To be fair, it's not as if the Swiss had a lot of people to begin with.

I share your thoughts about the three man crew, but they probably were going to use the extra men which would have been the #4 in a crew to crew another tank. I know that the French have 3 crews for 2 tanks, to (hypothetically) reduce the strain. The extra crews function as motorized infantry (in VABs) when not crewing/maintaining the tanks.

Are there any tanks that have an autoloader (and a 2-man turret) but with a 3-man crew instead of a 4-man crew? The 4th man in the hull with the driver operating the remote weapon stations and helping the TC, for example.

From what a Israeli who was a tanker and was the loader has told me, the loader only did one thing: Load ammunition. A tank round is bloody by the way.

The French Leclerc uses an autoloader as well. These days, even Self-Propelled Artillery Guns are getting autoloaders, so the trend is towards autoloaders.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:From what a Israeli who was a tanker and was the loader has told me, the loader only did one thing: Load ammunition. A tank round is bloody by the way.

The French Leclerc uses an autoloader as well. These days, even Self-Propelled Artillery Guns are getting autoloaders, so the trend is towards autoloaders.

But can't the loader still help with fixing up the tank outside of combat situations?

Additionally, I think some tanks have machine guns for the loaders to use.

A dedicated logistics team for each tank could help maintenance and reduce stress on the crew even further, as well as with refueling/resupply.

Pelranius wrote:But can't the loader still help with fixing up the tank outside of combat situations?

Additionally, I think some tanks have machine guns for the loaders to use.

Like what? These guys aren't trained mechanics. Tanks these days are too complicated for a mere soldier to maintain beyond some cleaning. You get mechanics, and a dedicated tank retrieval vehicle (which is typically a tank chassis with cranes on it), to do the job.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Pelranius wrote:But can't the loader still help with fixing up the tank outside of combat situations?

Additionally, I think some tanks have machine guns for the loaders to use.

Like what? These guys aren't trained mechanics. Tanks these days are too complicated for a mere soldier to maintain beyond some cleaning. You get mechanics, and a dedicated tank retrieval vehicle (which is typically a tank chassis with cranes on it), to do the job.

During unit level maintenance(and sometimes above unit level), crews are required to assist the mechanics. Many times the crews are performing the maintenance themselves, the mechanic supervises and inspects the work. This is necessary because the mechanic performs or supervises other work concurrently.

Ever try and get a tank mechanic to change track for you? Won't ever ever happen. You would get laughed at. Thats a crew job, and its a bitch for two people, impossible for one person.

Loaders also help with occupation recon, security teams, assists in quartering party activities, are reassigned to replace casualties as necessary, act as air guard, does radio watch and monitors additional nets on command tanks, replacement driver, helps the TC with land navigation, ground guid, Listening/observation post manning and many many more tasks.

Every tank crewman in a combat environment is a busy soldier. Each crewman in a four-man crew does not have a single-skill task. A crewman does not just shoot the target, drive the tank or load the gun.

If a crewman is removed, each funtion of that crewman must be completely replaced by a technology enhancement or diverted to another crewman.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

Pelranius wrote:But can't the loader still help with fixing up the tank outside of combat situations?

Additionally, I think some tanks have machine guns for the loaders to use.

Like what? These guys aren't trained mechanics. Tanks these days are too complicated for a mere soldier to maintain beyond some cleaning. You get mechanics, and a dedicated tank retrieval vehicle (which is typically a tank chassis with cranes on it), to do the job.

I concur wholeheartedly with Dargos. Tanks these days are not really that complicated, at least the Abrams isn't. I have been a tank driver for the last two years and have performed all sorts of maintenance to include chaging track, replacing track pads, changing hub seals on roadwheels, pulling and inserting engine pack, dropping the gun breech, punching the gun tube, and everything I can't remember offhand . The driver is the day to day maintenance caretaker on that tank and he'll get a hand from the loader whenever possible. Even when tank mechanics work on something beyond crew level is it expected that the junior tank crewman(drivers and loaders) be there to learn and do most of the grunt work. Unit maintenance simply doesn't have time to do all the work on vehicles, they are constantly stretched to the limitsduring deployments and in garrison.

I shall concede on the need for the fourth tanker then.

Found some info. about the NKPz in "Jane's - The Technology of Tanks" on pages 65 to 67, written by Richard M Ogorkiewicz

"In contrast to Sweden, no tanks were built in Switzerland until the late 1950s.
The construction of the first Swiss tank followed studies begun in 1951 by the
Technical Section of the Swiss General Staff of the possibility of designing and
producing a tank in Switzerland. The outcome of these studies was positive and
the task of developing a tank was entrusted to the Federal Construction Works in
Thun. the principal Swiss ordnance establishment, which completed the first two
prototypes in 1958. They were followed by a pre-production series often tanks,
called Pz.58. which were built by 1961 and which were aimed with a modified
version of a Swiss 90mm anti-aircraft gun. However, by then the 105mm L7 tank
gun had appeared in Britain and the Swiss Army decided not to produce the Pz.58
but a version of it armed with the British gun. which was designated Pz.61
(2.39).
A production order for 150 Pz.61s was placed in 1961 and the first was
completed in 1964. Very sensibly for a first attempt at tank design, the Swiss Army
adopted a conventional configuration for the Pz.61. However, its design incorporated
a number of novel or unique features, which included an independent
suspension sprung by means of stacks of conical discs, or Belleville washers, and a
double-differential steering system with a hydrostatic steering drive. The Pz.61
was only the second tank ever to be produced with such a steering system - the
first being the French Char B - and was ahead of its general adoption during the
1970s.
After the last of the Pz.61 was completed the Swiss Army decided to acquire
more tanks of its type but in an improved form, which was designated Pz.68 and
which weighed 39.7 tons, compared with 38 tons of the Pz.61. The first of the
Pz.68 was built in 1971 and the last in 1984, by which time a total of 390 had been
produced.
During the 1970s the Swiss Army began to study a possible successor to the
Pz.61 and Pz.68 and by 1979 Contraves produced an advanced design of a 50 ton
tank which was designated NKPz. This was to be a front-engined vehicle with a
crew of three and a turret-mounted 120mm smooth-bore gun fed automatically
from a magazine at the rear of the hull. In several respects the NKPz was
comparable to the German Leopard 2 but it would have been an advance on it by
having an automatic loading system, an ammunition magazine separated from the
crew and a hydropneumatic suspension. However, the Swiss military authorities
decided not to develop the NKPz, mainly because Switzerland was considered to
lack the infrastructure necessary for the development of such a sophisticated tank.
Instead, the Swiss Government decided to produce the Leopard 2 under licence,
as already mentioned."