Leaderboard

Some K1A1 with an ammo carrying turret bustle concepts for a presentation by GDLS on the "K1 Compartmentation Of All 120mm Ammo". Document is undated.

side panels of arjun external fuel cells, 10mm ceramic plate on 10mm FRP backing(aramid fibers based) - IV by NIJ 0108.01 engine hatches, same thing, ceramic on FRP, how they planing NOT to damage ceramic tiles during daily maintenance of tank i have no idea thanks to KR15T0F for help

the final version of Arjun's calculations, all the thicknesses of the plates correspond to the real ones according to the nomenclature of the armor plates (those that existed), the dimensions of the special armor of the turret may not be accurate because there is nothing to check them with, 2 fuel tanks inside the engine bay have been added to the diagram which were not previously visible, more accurate estimates only possible if someone undertakes to build 3D... *pink plate - pure frp

mantlet

Some new photos of the XK1 Pilot Vehicles.

https://disk.yandex.ru/d/kh72XfFbWlGDVg https://disk.yandex.ru/i/kUCWvlQOfs8QJA british report on trophied iranian chieftains in Iraq

update on turret

something like that, can't tell more accurately

interesting design changes in gun rotor, from M1 to IPM1(PV11 XM1 seems already had IPM1 type of rotor) and to M1A1 IPM1 had similar structure of rotor as M1A1, but lesser thickness

10x10s are back on the menu boys. They made one up with the RCH-155.

Another video detailing ROK armored vehicles, this time the K9. The video itself is pretty neat, detailing what looks to be an XK9. But there are two larger points of interest, being the footage of the XK9 prototypes firing at the beginning of the video, and the XK9 developmental model.

Since twitter only embeds the first post of a thread for non-registered users, here's something from the Swiss evaluation of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 (1981):

the other side

CR2 rotor, hollow

A video showing a ROK T-80U at the ROK Army Armor School. Sadly no interior shots for this video, but still nice to get a dedicated video for the T-80U.

XM360 and the XM291 with the 120mm L/56 gun tube in the background

@Wiedzmin I'll go out on a limb here and say it's the EX35 that was used in the CCVL turret. Bore evacuator is missing, but you can see where it was originally fitted on the barrel.

Sŏn'gun-915 tanks. The grenade launchers were replaced by a KPVT again. MANPADS and ATGM launchers are missing as well.

not sure, maybe M35 for M10 XM360

Full-scale serial production of GTD-1250 tank engines has been resumed in Russia https://tehnoomsk.ru/archives/12339

105mm HEAT pened turret side ?

Pz58 firing trials https://www.recherche.bar.admin.ch/recherche/#/en/archive/unit/29378223 and a lot of others in swiss archives

Merkava 4. driver side of the hull with part of side armor removed. And just random a pic of Merk 4 during exercises.

turret LOS, don't know how accurate this is, but this all i can do possible error for this overall- 20-25% in plus

Glorious Arjun's frontal hull armor via @Wiedzmin on Otvaga. Very T-72M1-esque.

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/army-inks-iron-fist-buy-for-bradley-fleet-after-years-of-budget-delays/ Army inks Iron Fist buy for Bradley fleet, after years of budget delays “We were able to find some efficiencies [in the supplemental] that allowed us to buy small quantities of Iron Fist,” Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, the service’s Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems told Breaking Defense. By ASHLEY ROQUE on March 26, 2024 at 5:05 PM GLOBAL FORCE 2024 — The US Army quietly inked a deal for a new active protection system for M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, despite having previously saying it was unable to afford them, a two-star general told Breaking Defense today. Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, the service’s Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems, said that the Army managed to move money around that will allow the service to finally equip the Elbit Systems-produced Iron Fist Light Decoupled (IF-LD) onto a handful of Bradleys, but cautioned that the total procurement is more in the “dozens” than fleet-wide. “I can say that we have gone into production on APS for Bradley in limited quantities,” Dean said in a brief interview from the show floor of the AUSA Global Force conference. “We were able to find some efficiencies [in the supplemental] that allowed us to buy small quantities of Iron Fist. The service is still nailing down the fielding plan but as it buys new Bradleys to replace those sent to Ukraine, they will come off the production line ready to accept Iron Fist APS. What isn’t clear yet, according to Dean, is if the APS will be integrated immediately or if it will be kept in reserve until a unit deploys, an avenue the Army is using for its Abrams fleet. For years the service has been hunting for APS’ to integrate onto M1 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradleys and Strykers to protect soldiers inside from incoming threats like rocket propelled grenades and one-way attack drones. It eventually selected two systems from Israeli firms: Buying Rafael’s Trophy APS for the M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Package version 3 (SEPv3) and picking Elbit Systems’ Iron Fist Light Decoupled for its Bradley line. While service leaders began purchasing the Trophy systems, funding shortfalls prevented them from acquiring Iron Fist (a position they reasserted as recently as December 2023). But at a time when the wars inside Ukraine and Gaza showcase combat vehicle vulnerabilities to such aerial threats, something shifted for the Army, and in late-January the service posted a presolicitation notice seeking qualified sources that could provide Iron Fist to the Army as part of an eight-year deal for its Bradley vehicle upgrade initiative. Although some Abrams and, soon, some Bradleys will have APS protection, Strykers remain without a candidate. Last year the service completed limited characterization testing with a possible candidate called StrikeShield, a hybrid hard-kill and armor solution by Rheinmetall and its US partner Unified Business Technologies, but that didn’t prove to be the right solution. “We don’t have a suitable solution,” Dean said today. ----- https://www.ausa.org/news/rainey-army-needs-industrys-help-transform RAINEY: ARMY NEEDS INDUSTRY’S HELP TO TRANSFORM Wed, 03/27/2024 - 12:33 From off-the-shelf technology that can help soldiers today to next-generation autonomous vehicles and command-and-control capabilities, Army Futures Command is looking to its industry teammates for help. “Indisputably, the amount of technology disruption in the character of war is unprecedented, and it just keeps getting faster and faster,” said Gen. James Rainey, commanding general of Futures Command. During a keynote presentation March 27 at the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium and Exposition in Huntsville, Alabama, Rainey said the Army is “trying to do continuous transformation,” and it is “not going to succeed” without help from “industry teammates, big, little and small.” “We don’t really have a technology problem in the Army,” Rainey said. “What we have is a technology adoption problem. The American industrial base is such a huge advantage we have in our country. How do we bring that to bear?” As it works to deliver the capabilities soldiers need, Futures Command is approaching the service’s transformation in three periods of time. Over the next 18 to 24 months, “we have to look at what’s happening in the world and adapt faster,” Rainey said, citing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George’s “transforming in contact” initiative. “The term ‘transforming in contact’ confuses some people,” Rainey said. “What we’re saying is the great brigade combat teams and divisions we have right now that are rotating forward into [the U.S. Central Command region], into Europe, into the Indo-Pacific and other places, that’s the best place for us to work on transformation.” George has challenged leaders to look at what capabilities the Army can put in soldiers’ hands “so they can experiment with it and learn with it and provide feedback … so we can get better next year and get better every year after that.” Some key capabilities the Army is seeking in the near-term include loitering munitions, ground-based rockets and missiles and counter-unmanned aerial systems that would work alongside an armored company or a light infantry company, he said. The Army also is working “very hard” on human-machine integrated formations that blend soldiers with robotic and autonomous vehicles, Rainey said. “We’re never going to replace humans with machines,” he said. “It’s about putting those two things together in an optimal way that makes the Army better.” Over the next two to seven years, the Army is looking to work on launched effects, the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft and the Extended Range Cannon Artillery, also known as ERCA. “ERCA is a requirement, not a thing,” Rainey said. “We did a rapid prototyping effort, and we watched what’s going on in Ukraine and adjusted what we’re doing with ERCA.” This includes focusing on the round instead of the platform. “Just by focusing on the round, we had a significant amount of success in extending the range,” Rainey said. Futures Command also is pursuing a “better armored howitzer” and mobile indirect fires, and Rainey said he’s “very interested” in an autonomous robotic cannon solution for the Army’s joint forcible entry formations, such as the 82nd Airborne Division. The service also must “relook our suite of mortars,” he said. The network is another priority, Rainey said. By developing what he termed “next-generation command and control,” Rainey said, “commanders can make more, better and faster decisions.” The Army’s systems can’t be just a little bit better than its adversaries’ systems, Rainey said. “It has to be 10 [times] better,” he said. “We can’t be a little bit faster; we’ve got to be way faster.” Finally, the Army is looking out to 2030 and beyond. “There are real opportunities for us to transform and make bigger adjustments than we can make in the next five to seven years,” Rainey said about the long-term window. This includes advances in robotics and force protection but also updates to how soldiers fight. “We exist to dominate the land, and the land domain isn’t going out of business,” Rainey said. In the future, the fight will be long, Rainey said. “I do not believe in the short, sharp war idea,” he said. “Nuclear-equipped superpowers, if they got into an existential fight, I believe it’ll be a long, tough, nasty fight. We … need to be clear-eyed about that, and we need to make sure we have the endurance.” This includes endurance within the defense industrial base, magazine depth and making sure “we recruit and train humans who will be able to withstand the horrors of what will be the next war we fight,” he said. The Army also must look at how it can improve the lethality and survivability of its light infantry formations and its casualty evacuation and medical treatment capabilities on the battlefield, Rainey said. “We have to never forget that this is about close-combat dominance,” and the men and women who are on the front lines, he said. ...also Gen. Rainey: https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/towed-artillery-has-reached-end-of-the-effectiveness-army-four-star-declares/ “I personally believe that we have witnessed the end of the effectiveness of towed artillery: The future is not bright for towed artillery,” Rainey told an audience today at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force symposium. Looking at large scale operations against threats like China, the US Army instead needs mobile, indirect fires, especially in its lighter Stryker formations, he added. Rainey, and other Army leaders, have been working on the tactical fires study that grapples with just what mix of artillery capabilities the future arsenal needs. While the four-star general did not provide an in-depth readout of all the options and recommendations included in that document, an ample number of towed cannons appears to be out. What’s in, then? Rainey called out the desire to build and field autonomous, robotic cannons that soldiers and special operators can use for entry operations, and, for now, the service “is not wed to any caliber.” Edit: - ninja'ed by @Ramlaen in the APS thread. Didn't see he already posted it there.

Also, in the picture with the M256 there are two unicorns hiding at the very top behind the GBU-28 Paveway (which, as we know, was partially built out of decommissioned 203mm howitzer barrels from the now-retired M110A2 - hence its presence in the room) and the orange scissor lift: - Either the 58-caliber XM282 or the 39-caliber XM283 (based on the M198's M199) that were trialed in 1985 for the Howitzer Improvement Program (HIP); there were three guns proposed as part of the Advanced Armament System (AAS): the XM282, the XM283 (both 282 and 283 were fitted onto five M109A3E3 testbeds) and the XM284 (fitted onto four M109A3E2 testbeds). They eventually selected the XM284 for what ultimately became the M109A5. The howitzer gun on this picture looks like the XM283, but with the barrel length, it's more like a L58 XM282 (which had a chamber volume of 27.8L/1,700 cubic inches and could lob M549A1 HERA projectiles up to 45km with the XM224 propellant charge). Also note that they also cut a XM282's barrel down to 52 calibers to test liquid propellants; that L52 could also be the one seen here. - Right next to it is the L56 XM297 (chamber volume of 1,400 cubic inches) that was installed on the Crusader (which also, at one point, dabbled with liquid props before switching back to solid MACS propellant charges). Easily recognizable with its pepperpot muzzle brake.

Before North Korea - T-10M with ATGMs. First is with Malyutka missiles, second - Falanga.

@Ramlaen The one next to the M256 is definitely a XM360. Note that wire/cable running alongside and over the breech and the three pistons (for, IIRC, a two-stage recoil) on top. However, the two guns in the group pictures are most likely M35s for the M10. There are bore evacuators (the M35 should also have an internal evacuator fan to resolve that toxic fumes issue the M10 suffered from during trials) and there are barrel shroud clamp assemblies (I assume they're clamps) right behind the muzzles. The XM360 features a pepperpot muzzle brake (even on the AbramsX, which should've been using a XM360E1 since most of the technical legwork for its installation should've already been done, but they still went with the original XM360), but the Booker's M35 doesn't.

The DRDO Light Tank will weigh about 25 tons and have a crew of three. The tank is planned to sport a 105mm rifled bore gun. This will be capable of firing FSAPDS rounds with 500mm of penetration, HEAT, HESH and ATGMs among others. The planned gun elevation is between -10° and +42° controlled by an electrically powered gun control system. An autoloader will be provided for the main gun. Secondary armament includes a 7.62mm coaxial gun and a 12.7mm RCWS. Surveillance drones will be integrated with the tank. A diesel engine would be provided which DRDO claims would provide up to 32hp/ton at sea level. The amphibious tank can ford depths of 1.5m. The tank can attain a maximum speed of over 65kmph and will use rubber tracks.

https://t.me/bayraktar1070/2081 https://t.me/rybar/59313 I just leave this here

and one more addition to scheme GPS area 50mm is strange, and can be another 80mm one...

OmskTransMash T-80BVM line.

K1A2s of the 30th Armored Brigade participating in a recent live fire exercise.

if there was any details i've already posted, but all that was inside report is these pages sadly(if you need i can post full report), but i think threats is same as Leo2AV(cause both standartized around it) even that report claim "120 APFSDS and 105mm heat" A - 5’’ brl precision shaped charge B - 4,2’’ brl precision shaped charge C - 3,2’’ brl precision shaped charge D - 105mm APFSDS xm579e4 at striking velocity of 4858 ft/sec E - apc-m.(br412d mod) at striking velocity 3150 ft/sec

"Between Jan and Dec 2001, 45 Abrams tanks suffered fires during training, some were damaged, some were destroyed entirely. Over the tank's life at that point (22 yrs), there had been >600 fires - that's almost 10% of the fleet had..." https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/el/fire_research/Finnerty-Fires-Experienced-and-Halon-1310-Fire-suppression-systems-in-current-weapon-Systems.pdf An examination of data from peacetime fire incidents experienced by ground vehicles reveals several facets pertinent to this study. In Table 1, peacetime fire incident data for the M1/M1A1 tank for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and the fires six months of 1991 have been summarized. These data show that the AFES system was only activated 71 percent of the time for M1/M1A1 fires and was adequate to extinguish the fire by itself only 34 percent of the time. so how many tanks actually burned ?

T72B3 , with cope cage ,slat armor , Jammer and thermal camo

https://imgur.com/a/ArZok0p Pics sent to me by a 12 years old who went to Kubinka with his mom

AN-94s in Dagestan, OMD of the FSB Border guards.

Along with the XM291 there's 3 photos, the first one is of the gun itself, the 2nd one is the XM8 with the XM291? and the 3rd photo is of the ATAC System Demonstrator aka Thumper, perhaps indicating that the gun tube which the Thumper is armed on the photo is the 120mm L/56 gun tube.

ATAC System demonstrator also known as "THUMPER" remotely firing the 140mm gun tube which got installed in 1992.

Rare pic of NK tank launching ATGMs Already broke fenders and ERA

For those days when you're not sure if your advancing or retreating...

Serbian M20 MRAP

M16 "Miloš" 4x4 armored vehicle of the "Special Anti-Terrorism Unit" ("SAJ", also known as "Sajevci") of Serbia with an M134D "Minigun" in 7.62x51 mm.

5th Armored Brigade K1E1 receiving maintenance on it's worn roadwheels. The 17th Infantry Division conducting an exercise with the K55A1 and K105A1 at a range in the area of Paju-si, Gyeonggi-do.