Read an article yesterday regarding Germany's interest in developing a Leopard III within the next 5-10 years. It's supposed to have a 130mm gun and some new/updated survival capabilities. The article claimed the idea was in response to the Russians fielding their T-14 Armata. Anyone else heard about this?

Not heard of a "Leopard 3" in the planning. Currently, plan are underway to "re-field" some Leopard 2 A6(possibly converted in Leopard 2 A7), planning to hold 325 in service. All I knew is that our Mistress of Defence, Mrs. von der Leyen, plan to develop a new fighter plane within the next 10(!) years.

I saw an article a while back as well.
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-france-to-jointly-develop-leopard-3-tank/a-18468270

http://www.popsci.com/russian-invasion-ukraine-spurs-new-german-tank-design-0

Not sure about their sources or anything, though. Sounds like it is in the very very early stages

Its interesting to see a few specific Leopard 2s go from Germany to Canada to the Netherlands and then back to Germany. Those A6s seem to have gone full circle.

I did hear that with the 120 mm calibre rounds they're reaching the kinetic energy limit, so the only way to improve is go for a bigger gun.

Germany and France to develop a new tank together? Isn't this how we got the AMX-30 and the Leopard 1?

Never heard of such a common project from this side of the Rhine.
The Leclerc fleet will be upgraded in the coming years and there is no intent to replace it so far.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann of Germany and Nexter Systems of France
currently joint up to a new defense company.

http://www.nexter-group.fr/

So maybe this time they are working together, not against each other.

Take a look at this: http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html

The size/calibre of a main gun on any western tank (especially NATO) is governed by the size of the turret ring, this ring takes the recoil of the main gun, the size of the turret ring is governed by the size of the hull that carries the turret ring and the size of the hull is governed by the size of the flatbed railway wagon.... because this is how they move MBTs in Europe.

Israel and Turkey and Russia are not in this equation as Israel and Turkey do not use rail to move AFVs and Russia have a totally different gauge on their rail system (it is a much wider gauge)

Yes the designers can use muzzle breaks, but that goes only so far.

I think the new main guns will use fire and forget anti tank missiles like the BILLS and Javelin encased in a round so it can be fired like a main tank round. It would be cheaper and make more sense then developing a new tank, new gun and new ammunition.

The biggest threat on the battlefield today is not the new Russian tank it is the new Russian and western anti-tank missile systems that are slicing through any and all tanks on the battlefield, not some mythical new gun on the Arcata...

Anto

Actually, the gun size is limited by the NATO standard requirements, as mostly we use the 120mm canons, it would hit the supply chain and the requirement for interchange possibility of facilities within allies partners. There is also no need to implement a larger size canon, it's all about physics. There is a maximal effectiveness point given for operating the canon. With larger ammunition, the performance of the ammunition starts to decline. The 120mm is still a good size, the modern high velocity NATO ammunition has enough power to break any significant armor of any modern tank.

However, the new KMW-Nexter tank project isn't caused by the T-14, the intention to go that joint-venture was given since many years now. There have been political topics on the leadership and know how transfer, which caused a long delay on the decision in the past.