Letter to Online Defense: in addition to the letters sent to the editorial staff on the new vehicles for the Army ...


Dear director, I am speaking as an enthusiast of the military world, and in response to the letters sent to the editorial staff regarding the subject reported in the subject. I would like to point out that I have followed the various "single use" sections with passion and I am grateful for the details which enrich me.

Returning to the focus of the present, I am thrilled by how many do not understand that the national industry in the terrestrial field is suffering (I would add historically) in terms of new products. In particular, in the field of heavy vehicles.
I want to underline how the costs to develop weapons that are decidedly more complex than an excellent Lynx are not within our reach (wallet).

I don't understand how one can miss out on the possibility of acquiring the currently most performing vehicle, namely the Leopard 2 A7+. 
We are not joking, Germany was and remains the only manufacturer of tanks and armored vehicles of the highest level.
Germany produced military materials whose solutions inspired (and inspire) the tanks and armored vehicles we know today.
Furthermore, it is the only nation in the world that can boast of being able to produce two MBTs. The aforementioned Leopard 2 and the brand new KF-51 Panther, without entering the ambit of IFVs.

I would add, does anyone want to point out that the much-vaunted MBT Abrams cannon is nothing more than a licensed production (outdated) of the Rheinmetall L44?
Today, in fact, there is already the L55 and a 130mm is on the launch pad which will set new standards.
It is useless to approach any discussion on an outdated MBT Challenger 2/3. The British will have regretted having, in fact, re-engined and inserted the German armament from Rheinmetall and MTU into the Challenger. In fact, this decision was made before the war in Ukraine. Today, probably, they would have opted directly for a new MBT.

This passage wants to highlight that the solution of a German product appears to be the only credible one, in my opinion, to reverse a disastrous course undertaken with Aries.
I allow myself to dream, we already produce the Pzh 2000 under license, we do the same with the KF-51 Panther! Perhaps our national companies will acquire the know-how necessary to produce something valid in the future, I would add, in combination with the Lynx for which the same argument applies.
A solution of this kind would allow us to have, on the one hand and in a short time, much higher means than the current ones and on the other, respond to the needs of the heavy component of the EI.

Hoping to have grasped an interesting argument, I send you my most cordial greetings and invite you to continue to treat these topics with emphasis, above all in a historical period where the army is resuming its role of deterrence. I would also add some columns on the current war going on in Ukraine.

Thanks for any response,

Mark Albanian


Dear reader, I basically agree with you.

One note. The Pzh 2000 that we produce under license has seen the national redesign of a part of the systems, the result (observed directly and confirmed by several sources) is that ours jam quite frequently, the originals don't.

As already written: the Lord protect us! From ourselves...

Andrea Cucco