Leaderboard

Had the fantastic opportunity to PMCS, boresight, and road test a M1A2 SEPv3 from 4-9 CAV at Ft. Hood today. https://i.imgur.com/X0GEL89.mp4 https://i.imgur.com/h0McxcP.mp4 Many images: I can confirm the photo I posted previously that the turret weight of the SEPv3 31.5 tons (28.6 metric tons). I have a photo of the name plate but I haven't removed the serial numbers to upload it. I also made an extremely rough estimation of the turret armor LOS using my boot and then measuring my boot after (I didn't have a measuring tape on the tank nor did I want to piss off the crew). Using this very rough method I found the armor to be at least 1150mm LOS including the backplate. I may be able to get back on a SEPv3 next Monday.

Regretfully, I have not done a full CAD model on the Leo 2 (yet), so I can not tackle the volume/mass distribution from that angle in any meaningful way. Here are numbers coming from German and Swiss sources/publications (some of them are somewhat contradictory): This is for a Leopard 2 with B-Technology special armor, as far as i know: Total Combat Weight: 55,15 t / max: 55,55 t Hull without ammunition, equipment and crew: 37,80 t / max: 38,16 t Hull Shell: 12,1 t Turret with armament but without ammunition, equipment and crew: 16,0 t / max: 16,99 t Turret Shell: 8,91 t Main gun with breech: 1,97 t (1,995 t is also given) Main gun without gun mantlet: 3,10 t Main Gun Tube: 1,20 t Engine (dry): 2,71 t (with air filters) Transmission with cooling unit (wet): 2,97 t Powerpack including cooling unit (wet/dry): 6,05 / 5,61 t Tracks: 2,70 t Mass of fuel: 1,03 t Mass distribution in %: Electronic Equipment, Equipment, etc: 7% --> 3,86 t Armament and ammunition: 8% --> 4,41 t Powerpack with fuel:15,5 % --> 8,55 t Running gear/Suspension System/ tracks: 21, 5% --> 11,86 t Turret and Hull Shell: 48% -->26,47 t (this is odd) For the Swiss Panzer 87: Combat Weight: 56,5 t Turret weight with gun: 16 t Powerpack (wet/dry): 6,12 / 5,57 t Engine: 2,86 t Transmission (wet/dry): 2,45 / 2,17 t Suspension arm with / without damper: 0,226 t / 0,182 t Torsion bar: 0,059 t Return Roller: 0,025 t Idler Wheel: 0,034 t Idler Wheel arm: 0,11 t Bump Stop: 0,012 t Track link mass: 0,033 t Tracks: 2,75 t More on the gun system: With mantlet: 3,655 t (max 3,8 t) Without mantlet: 3,015 t Mantlet: 0,640 t Gun, Total: 1,905 t Gun Tube: 1,150-1,175 t Gun breech: 0,683 t Gun breech block: 0,110 t Bore Evacuator: 0,0135 t Thermal Shroud Front: 0,0135 t Thermal Shroud Back: 0,0128 t I might find more, but this is it for now.

I have been summoned. Please keep it civil, guys. We like high quality posters spreading their knowledge, and there's a difference between disagreeing and being an ass about it, so please everyone take a moment to read through your posts before pressing that button, k? We've had enough friction here over the years.

Based on what? Did South Korea somehow get access to better CPUs and circuit boards in 2008 than Germany did in 2014? Did they somehow produce better thermals years before Germany? How did they end up with a better BMS? The Leopard 2 doesn't have one BMS, it has nearly a dozen. While the South Korean BMS might be better than 1990s IFIS and the old FüInfoSys Heer, there are many different types of BMS integrated into the Leopard 2. Greece uses Rheinmetall's INCHINOS on the Leopard 2A6 HEL, Sweden has the TCCS (Tank Command and Control System), Spain has LINCE integrated into the Leopardo 2E, the German-Dutch Panzerbataillon 414 has tanks capable of operating either with IFIS or with the Dutch ELIAS, Switzerland has a RUAG-made BMS integrated into the Panzer 87WE, Singapore has integrated an Elbit BMS into its Leopard 2SG... the list is long. For the VJTF 2023, Germany has purchased new software from SitaWare... AFAIK the same system is used on the Leopard 2A7DK. In terms of technology, I don't see how KMW's offer should be inferior to what Hyundai-Rotem can offer. The Leopard 2A7 is fitted with a Centurion i7 and a KommServer by ATM Computer (a subsidiary of KMW)... that's already overkill for a BMS. Combined these two computers have basically 100 times (or more) the computational power found on M1A2 Abrams and Stridsvagn 122 (pre-upgrade), which already had working types of BMS. Given that Norway was one of the backers of NGVA, they probably demand a solution compliant with STANAG 4754; this would mean that both hardware and software of the current Korean BMS would be incompatible with the Norwegian requirements, whereas KMW already has a fully compliant solution. Software-wise I am 90% sure, that Norway will demand the incorpation of its own Kongsberg ISC, that has already been fielded on the recently upgraded Norwegian CV9030s. Two things would need to happen before that: KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter production KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter service with the ROKA While KSTAM sounds cool, neither KSTAM I nor KSTAM II has evolved beyond the prototype stage. KSTAM II btw. was developed in cooperation with Diehl Defence of Germany, which would have offered the solution on the European market, if development had ever finished. In terms of firepower, K2 is at a disadvantage. Four NATO countries have already committed to the improved L/55A1 smoothbore gun (with two having already taken delivery of tanks with it), the older L/55 gun of the K2 won't allow firing the same high pressure ammunition. The K2 also lacks an ammunition data link to fire programmable ammunition; currently the ROKA uses the K280 HEAT-MP-T round, a conceptual copy of the American M830A1 MPAT round. This cannot compete against the DM11 HE-ABM round. That is true, but only if equate "future proofing" with "weight until the GVW is reached". In reality, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Who will pay for the development of upgrades for the K2NO, if it was selected by Norway? Thanks to the LEOBEN community and the shared IP, the Leopard 2 will see upgrade options even once phased out by Germany. Rheinmetall already has showcased a new turret design with 130 mm gun and autoloader, which Germany will not adopt. Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ATD and RUAG Leopard 2 MLU are great examples regarding how there will be upgrade options fo the Leopard 2, that haven't been paid by Germany or any other Leopard 2 user nation. Growth potential will also be dependent on user base (a larger number of user is more likely to fund upgrades or to make the market attractive for third-party upgrade options like the Leopard 2 ATD and MLU) and on compability with the existing architecture. The NGVA is a big improvement for that. In the end the weight will also depend on the configuration selected by Norway. Maybe they'll opt for a Swedish-style configuration with only a few tanks having mine protection kits (for use in peace-keeping missions) and the rest of them being 2-3 tonnes lighter. A lot of claims, but many of them are hardly relevant. Radar/Laser warning systems are available for any tank as retro-fit option, most militaries however do not consider them cost-effective (I'd personally love to see them on every AFV). There are also RWS/LWS available for the Leopard 2. Having a radar integrated into the turret has up- and downsides. A radar actively emitts radio waves that can be detected by the enemy from huge distances (depending on equipment) - that might be less relevant against North Korea, but against Russia Norway might be interested in a less emissive system. The "better placement of the radar" is also a silly argument - then you are comparing a Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy APS to a K2 Black Panther - without any APS. KAPS is immature and unproven; it is still in the prototype stage. It also likely would fail to be fully compliant with NATO STANAG 4822 and STANG 4686. Auto-tracking is being incorporated into the Leopard 2Ax's FCS (it is also already available on the Leopard 2 ATD), it will be available in time of the Norwegian tank procurement program. I doubt that the hydropneumatic suspension of the K2 offers better recoil dampening than the hydraulic shock-absorbers of the Leopard 2, specifically given that the latter tank has greater suspension travel. The funny thing about the EuroPowerPack is that it might have "Euro" in its name, but it is not used in Europe. There are no spare parts for it in Europe, they would be build-to-order. The Merkava 4's EPP is built in the United States (so that it can be paid with the money of American tax payers), the UAE's Leclerc tanks (contract finished more than a decade ago) and the South Korean K2 tanks (contract handled by an Asian MTU subsidiary) do not warrant a production line of the EEP in Europe. The latest K2 batch still keeps a Renk transmission btw. That is not true, electronic systems can have a massive impact on weight and system complexity, specifically given the usually small power budget available in AFVs. The K2 only has a - rather poor - softkill APS. KAPS development has never been finished, the system is not ready for production. Because Trophy is mature and cheap. You cannot simply look at total contract value and then assume that this is identical to vehicle price. Hungary pays a lot more money, because they also want training of their crews (something that would be cheaper when switching from Leopard 2A4 to 2A7+), spare parts (which in some regards already exist in Norway thanks to the Leopard 2A4, Wisent and Leguan Leopard 2), infrastructure (already existing in Norway), ammunition, technical documentation, used tanks for training, etc. The real costs of a tank become apparent through its lifetime. Developing upgrades, ordering spare parts, training and exercies. The Leopard 2 is the king in this regard, specifically for a country like Norway, which is part of NATO and is located next to its closest - Leopard 2 operating - allies. It might not be common in Asia, but NATO countries have very deep cooperation. Spare parts, ammunition and even new vehicles are often ordered either through OCCAR (a NATO agency) or as part of bi-/multi-national procurement programs in order to drive down costs. Training together with foreign soldiers or even in different countries is common, just like exchanging knowledge and - if required - spare parts. Buying the K2 would mean major disadvantages for Norway. Aside of the fact that KSTAM II only exists as showcase models for old expositions, it would not be able to penetrate the roof armor of the T-14. The T-14 does not have "soft ERA" on the roof. SMArt 155 has a 155 mm diameter warhead and can only penetrate 120-150 mm of steel armor; many modern MBTs can be fitted with add-on armor to stop that (including the Leopard 2). KSTAM II with its even smaller warhead is easy to counter. Defeating TOW-2B is possible with light-weight add-on armor (Roof-PRO and AMAP-R). The T-14 is probably the tank with the best roof armor available today.

Persson Engineering Solutions and Brewing, Main Battle Tank, MBT-01, "Gigan" FINAL Table of basic statistics: Parameter Value Mass, combat 82 tonnes/180779 lbs Length, combat (transport) Hull 26.25 ft. Total 37.15 ft (to gun crown at 0°) Width, combat (transport) 13.091 ft Height, combat (transport) Turret Roof 7.111 ft. Maximum permanent height 7.718 ft (to highest permanently fixed feature.) Total height 10.281 ft (to top removable feature) Ground Pressure, zero penetration 1967 psf Estimated Speed 40-43 mph Estimated range 470 miles (38 mph on road) Crew, number (roles) 3 (driver, gunner, commander) Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5" L50 rifled gun. 42 rounds total (18 in autoloader, 24 in 4x6 hull storage bins) Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed) 5 machine-guns, 4 being independently moved: 2X.50" HMG (1 coaxial, 1 for commander.) 3X.30" GPMG (1 on commander's periscope, 1 for gunner, 1 on the bustle for dismount troops.) 1000 rounds for each HMG, 2000 rounds for each GPMG Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view. Vehicle feature list: Mobility: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Engine: Turbo Diesel V12, 2904 cu in, similar to the old MB 873 found in the archives of the pre-happening world. Rated for 1500 to 1800 HP. Longitudinally mounted on the rear. Liquid cooled, heat exchangers located under the engine bay cover. 3. Transmission: Double differential, 10 speeds (5 forward, 5 in reverse), neutral steering capable. Similar to the RENK HSWL 295TM found on the archives of the pre-happening world. Transversely mounted on the rear. 4. Fuel: Diesel, or kerosene, jet-fuel or bio sourced analogue, or any high cetane number fuel given correct tuning and adequate lubrication properties. 680.50721 US and A imperial Gallons, in 4 internal tanks. Provision for extra fuel tanks inside the bottom double hull at the user's discretion (normally no installed.) 5. Other neat features in the engine bay. 6. Suspension: "Dumb" hydro-pneumatic suspension, suspension elements located on housing units bolted externally to the sides of the hulls and connected to the suspension arms via a gearing system, this is done in order to reduce the unsprung mass of the suspension as well as to reduce the size of the arms, keep the hydro-pneumatic elements further away from obstacles while still keeping replacement and field service easy. 14 sprung road wheels, 2 idler/track tensioner wheels on the front, 2 driving sprockets on the rear, 14 return rollers. Survivability: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details. 3. Non-specified survivability: a. The rear hull ammo stowage units are located in water tanks, containing 56.5 gallons of water each, those can double as energy replenishment for the heat exchanger of the engine, or for emergency drinking water for the crew. b. The backup shared optical range finder allows for the commander to fire the gun in case the gunner is unable to do so c. Turret features a large cargo rack that allows for more than enough capacity for pioneering equipment, camping equipment, crew belonging, extra equipment like smoke grenade launchers, add-on/ad-hoc spaced armor, spare parts, or a place for dismounted troops to do things. d. Tank is equipped with two long range radios and two large antennas, guaranteeing redundancy and simultaneous communication with other tanks and a base for example. e. The crew compartment in the turret is set up as low as possible in the hull, with the commander and gunner siting in a semi-reclined position. f. Turret crew compartment is separated on the middle by the gun compartment, with armored bulkheads on both side, with a interconnected part on the front of the compartment. This allows for redundancy of the crew and the change that a side penetration will not kill/incapacitate the whole turret crew. g. The diver is surrounded by large fuel tanks on both sides, adding an extra layer of protection. h. The turret is a combination of the "cleft" and "wedge" concepts, it offer a very low silhouette in normal conditions and the angled roof further reduces the silhouette in a hull down position with the front raised. Due to the aforementioned separated gun compartment a dead-on penetration of the mantle, while obviously a mission-kill event, will probably not affect the crew. I. The turret can be rotated electrically or manually by all 3 crew members. This is to extend the fighting endurance in case of the loss of crew and systems, and to allow the possibility of the driver to escape from his main hatch. Firepower: A. Weapons: 1. Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance. 2. Main Weapon: 1X Modified Co-Developed G46 gun a. Type: Rifled, L51 automatic loading. b. Caliber: 5"x33" Texan (127x840mm), unitary, steel non combustible case. Provision for future semi combustible unitary cases. c. ammunition types and performance: APDS (24" of RHA penetration at muzzle), HE (175.45 oz of composition B explosive), HEAT (15.75" of RHA penetration), experimental APFSDS. Above, ballistic data for the APDS round. Above: Detail of the APDS, it's a capped DU penetrator with a ballistic cap and wobble cap (also DU), in an aluminum sabot. Above: Penetration data for the APDS Above: Detail of the HEAT, high pressure. Above, detail of the HE munition. d. Ammo stowage arrangement: 42 rounds total. Primary/ready stowage, 18 rounds in belt type auto-loader on bustle, selectable ammo and capable of changing/unloading rounds, capable of being internally re-stocked from both the commander and gunner postions. Secondary stowage, 24 rounds in 4X6 sealed bins, two in front and to the sides of the turret basket inside the fuel tanks, two on the sides and rear of the turret basket inside water tanks. Primary stowage has blow-off panels on the roof and blast door separation it from the crew compartment. Secondary stowage is in individualized sealed bins surrounded by fluid. e. FCS: Primary FCS: Ballistic computer connected to active 2 axis stabilizer, laser range finder, day gunner sight and IR gunner sight, automatically adjust elevation and point of impact after a range measure is "locked". Secondary FCS: Gun Slaved to backup optical range finder f. Neat features: Muzzle Brake, provision for extra coaxial MG, or optic sight, insulation thermal sleeve, growth potential. 3. Secondary weapon: 3x GPMG, .30 caliber, one on the gunner's cupola track, one in a the rear bustle for dismounted troops, one remote controlled on commander's periscope/panoramic sight. 2x HMG, .50 caliber, one coaxial on the main gun mantled, one on the commander's cupola track. Exact gun type and total number installed varies and is up to the user. This is more to exemplify the total installation points. a. Type: HMG DShk or M2 or similar. GPMG M240 or similar type. b. Caliber: HMG .50 BMG or similar. GPMG .308/7.62x51mm NATO or similar. c. AP, API, tracer, etc... d. Ammo is stored internally from a single stowage of 1000 rounds belt for the coaxial gun and 2000 rounds belt for the panoramic sight gun. Other guns are fed from externally mounted boxes/pouches contained belts of 100 to 200 rounds. Other boxes/pouches stored internally on the crew compartment on the turret next to the blast wall. e. Coaxial gun is slaved to the main gun and its FCS. Commander's periscope/panoramic-sight gun is remote controlled and stabilized on 2 axis. Other guns are manually controlled and non stabilized. Possible provisions for remote control weapon stations are possible in the future. f. Dismounted troops have access to their own gun on the bustle. Commander has two gun options, one allowing him to fire from a closed hatch. HMG coaxial offers better anti material capability than the usual .30 coaxial on most tanks. Has grow potential for more remote controlled weapon stations an extra coaxial if so desired. 4. Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached. B. Optics: 1. Primary gunsight: Gunner has access to a daytime stabilized optic with a 0-10 magnification, a stabilized IR night sight with IR floodlight (located on top of the mantled) with a 0-10 magnification, a laser range finder and a back-up optical rangefinder located on the rear of the turret and shared with the commander. Commander has access to it's own panoramic sight/periscope with day time and IR modes, 0-8 magnification, and the shared backup range finder. 2. Other optics: Gunner and Commander have access to an array of fixed periscopes on their hatches giving a 360° field of view (not counting obstacles.) Driver has access to 3 periscopes giving a wide field of view. C. FCS: 1. List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture. a. Gunner primary sight, located on the left side of the turret rooftop, enters the crew compartment via a hole behind the armor modules. Daytime optic, connected to ballistic computer, laser range finder and backup optic rangefinder. Stabilized on 1 axis b. Gunner secondary sight, located on the same housing as "a", IR, same functions. c. Commander panoramic sight. Optic and IR combo on same rotating and extensible housing, on the same location as the gunner's sights, but on the right side. Not connected to the FCS per-se, but it's able to "lock" a direction and then command the turret to rotate to that position. Stabilized 2 axis d. Laser range finder and IR illumination unit, located above the mantle, parallel to the gun bore. IR and Visible laser receptors/emitters, 2 IR floodlight on the sides. Permanently fixed to mantle and passively stabilized vs the gun stabilization. e. Backup optical rangefinder. Mounted on the back of the crew compartment, above the blast door and extending to the sides of the turret, outside. Slaved to the gun and its stabilizer. f. Ballistic computer. Based on the electronics of the flight computer of the new crop of guided missiles. Provides adjustment and coordination of the above components, depending on vehicle speed, distance, ballistic behavior of ammo type, vehicle inclination, activelly tries to compensate or dampen vehicle movement, updates reticle for adequate POI and adjust gun and turret position for a "point and shoot". Can be manually overridden. Currently the R&D department is investigating the feasibility of accounting wind and thermal mirages. Computer is located under the gun compartment in the front of the turret basket. 2. Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system. Fightability: 1. Very low profile, smaller target, less change of not only hitting the vehicle but also hitting a vital component. 2. Even lower profile in a hull-down, inclined position with basically no vital components exposed. 3. Great ride quality, guarantees crew comfort, less stress on sensible equipment, less work of the stabilizers and better control of the vehicle in rough terrain. 4. Hunter-Killer capability allows for more efficiency of the crew, better situational awareness and quicker reaction times. 5. Good crew survivability, guarantees the safety of investment in terms of money and money spent on training a professional crew as well as safeguarding the data they collected even in the case of a defeat. 6. Good offensive capability and flexibility when dealing with multiple unarmored targets. 7. Good serviceability/repairability on the shop or on the field. Even complex to repair or single-use systems can be replaced on the field as a "Plug and play" affair. 8. Great endurance in terms of crew livability and ammo/fuel/supplies. Guarantees longer top-performance period for the crew as well as increased survival changes in case of being removed from the logistical supply chain. 9. Multi fuel capability in a known and well understood engine format, features that facilitate logistics and possibly foraging. 10. While not a currently widespread threat, laser guided ATM are a possibility and the design team considered prudent to not just rely on passive defenses but take a more pro-active aproach and include a IR dazzle feature in the two IR flood lights. 11. The auto-loader design allows for the replenishment of the ammo supply from an external source without the need for the crew to leave the interior of the vehicle. While not ideal, and somewhat cumbersome it offers the possibility to do so while the crew remains in a near-ready condition. Additional Features: 1. As previously mentioned the modular nature of the composite armor modules allow not only for easier repairs and potentially avoiding the need to refurbish a whole macro component (turret and hull), but also allows to tailor the protection to the needs faced on the theater of operation. For example the arrays can be changed from light NERA to heavy NERA, a combination of both, or a combination with ERA. This also means that long range transport can be facilitated as the tank can be broken down into the tank proper and some armor modules in case there is a weight limitation. 2. The vehicle has growth potential as one of its mission goals. The modular armor, the multi-fuel system, the large caliber gun, etc. There have been some interesting researches into smooth bores and APFSDS, semi combustible cases, higher operating pressures and exotic materials, and while the design team felt those new technologies aren't mature enough to be incorporated into the current entry, nothing stops the user to request a upgrade of the weapon's system's in the future, without major changes to the rest of the vehicle. The same goes for the Free expression zone: This project is dedicated to one of our best engineers that passed away recently due to "circumstances". The project is also dedicated to our chief engineers Dr. Eneas PS: If necessary the blueprints for the vehicle or any component can be provided to the competition judges.

The full name of this combat vehicle is: TCV-47 "Brahman" (Tracked Combat Vehicle) No, it's not done, i took a very long break; burned myself out. But since then, I have added commander's and loaders cupolas', vision slits, drivers hatch, turret roof applique, 12.4 tons of hull armor, and 7 tons of turret armor plus a 4.6 ton turret wedge a la Leopard 2A5. Still needs turret storage boxes, hull roof applique, and side skirts. Ammunition and velocity is going to be similar to that used on the M551 of yore, including a gun launched ATGM based on the BGM-71.

Elbit's new SPH replacement finally breaks cover. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/elbit-systems-progressing-new-sigma-155-mm-artillery-system

New plane will be showed at upcoming expo

Well, it is now official; https://www.gov.pl/web/obrona-narodowa/czolgi-abrams-dla-sil-zbrojnych-rp. Poland will acquire M1A2 Sepv3. Abrams tanks, more information is to be given by the Minister of National Defence, tomorrow morning. I wasn't sure if this info should be posted here or in the "United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines" thread.

New image of the LuWa demonstrator design:

Brownsville Armour Engineering Systems FV601 “Cossack” for Main Battle Tank 2247 [FINAL] Isometric, left side, front and top view of the FV601. On the right is the base configuration, on the left the FIBUA configuration 3D model freely available at https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/9907c803-fb6e-434f-be49-4eb79f7b9c6b/FV601-Cossack Parameter Base configuration FIBUA configuration Mass, combat 126600 lbs 143000 lbs Mass, armour 53200 lbs (42 %) 70500 lbs (49.5%) Length, combat 38’1” 31’7” Length, transport 32’3” 26’6” Length, hull 22’6” (without drop tank) 24’8” (with drop tanks) 24’11” Width 12’2” 13’5” Height (at minimum ride height) 7’8” (turret roof) 8’3” (top of periscope) 9’7” (top of machine gun) Ground clearance Adjustable between 18” and 22” Ground pressure (psf) 1746 NGP, 4295 MMP 1972 NGP, 4834 MMP Speed 45 mph on road 30 mph off road Range 558 mi on internal fuel 658 mi with drop tanks 558 mi on internal fuel Crew 4: commander, gunner, driver, radio operator Main armament 5” L/55 smoothbore gun, 5x24” unitary cartridge 16 rounds autoloader + 16 rounds stowed 5” L/40 smoothbore gun, 5x24” unitary cartridge 16 rounds autoloader + 16 rounds stowed Secondary armament (1) coaxial 0.30cal Medium machine gun (900 rounds) (1) 0.30cal Medium machine gun (450 rounds) on gunner’s skate mount (1) 0.50cal Heavy machine gun (100 rounds) + (1) 0.30cal Medium machine gun (450 rounds) on commander’s ring mount (1) 0.50cal Heavy machine gun (100 rounds) on auxiliary mount (900) 0.50 rounds stowed (8100) 0.30 rounds stowed BAE Systems’ FV601 “Cossack” is a fighting vehicle intended to not only meet all the requirement, but also exceed them, especially mobility requirements. The design also emphasises ease of maintenance and upgradability, making it the ideal vehicle for the current as well as the next fight. The FV601 is offered in two configurations: a base configuration, which was designed to achieve every requirement and counter the current threats of the battlefield while offering ample room for upgrades; an add-on FIBUA (Fighting In Built Up Areas) kit, to be installed on vehicles deployed in an area of operation where heavy urban fighting is to be expected. The FIBUA kit can be added to any base configuration “Cossack” in the field in a few hours, not requiring more than hand tools (except the installations of the barrel, requiring light engineering support). I Mobility 1) Link appendix 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gc4sadYGZEAemXzOxyERPgLGvRF2rgSr/view?usp=sharing II Survivability 1) Link appendix 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gc4sadYGZEAemXzOxyERPgLGvRF2rgSr/view?usp=sharing 2) Link appendix 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wSJriDjGY9EeamhG7TuZ2EJRvt5aVtg9/view?usp=sharing Summary table: Unless specified otherwise, protection angles are given in degrees from centerline “elev” = elevation Base configuration FIBUA configuration Threat Estimated penetration Turret Hull Turret Hull 6in HEAT projector 8” 180°, 10° elev 90°, 10° elev 180°, 10° elev 180°, 10° elev 4in/54 HVAP 12” @1200yd 50° 47° 61° 62° 8” @2000yd 63.75° 57° 79° 80° 3.6in RPG 14.4” 60°, 45° at 10° elev 40°, up to 10° elev 90°, up to 10° elev 90°, up to 10° elev 4in/54 APFSDS (*) 12” @ 2000yd 34° 32° 50° 53° 5in APFSDS (*) 20” @ 1000 yd 23° N/A 30° 33° 18” @ 2000 yd 26° 23° 33° 36° 2in/4in tandem RPG 10”/20” N/A N/A 25° 41° NUB tandem missile (*) 10.8”/26.4” N/A N/A 16° N/A (*) estimated future threats (*) estimated future threat III Firepower View of firepower elements: main gun, autoloader, optics, fire control systems, secondary weapon stations, ammunition storage 1) Link appendix 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gc4sadYGZEAemXzOxyERPgLGvRF2rgSr/view?usp=sharing 2) Main weapon: L1 Gun (L1A1 Gun for FIBUA configuration) 3) Secondary weapons: 4) Optics and fire control system 5) Link to appendix 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_t4XFbeko5CRqf4QwJDEQIdXiBQM3sMh/view?usp=sharing IV Fightability 1) Ergonomics a. Comfortable and adjustable crew seats b. Every tasks can be accomplished seating c. Fume extractor 2) Communications 3) Crew sustainment 4) Other a. Self-recovery kit with tow bar and tools b. Frontally removable gun for easy maintenance, as well as easily removeable powerpack c. Possibility to fix a dozer blade for clearing operations or self-entrenching d. Infantry telephone for better coordination in combined arms operations e. White light and IR headlight for night driving + possibility to mount IR spotlight over barrel f. Ammunition loading hatch in turret rear to ease reloading the autoloader from the outside, in addition to the ability to reload the autoloader from the inside through the reloading hatch by elevating the barrel g. (4) crew members for easier maintenance and day-to-day operations V Upgradability

Regarding the MAN HX3 10x10 artillery variant: Apparently the reason why Rheinmetall has not shown it firing yet is the fact, that it will be offered with the new 155 mm L/60 gun (the old L/52 gun can be fitted on customer request). It carries forty rounds of ammunition (projectiles + corresponding propellant charges) and has still 5 tonnes of growth potential. It can be operated remotely and (semi-)autonomous if desired. The turret can be fired at the whole 360° horizontal azimuth. A very interesting offer. Rheinmetall seems to push for the HX3 as an alternative to the Boxer RCH155, but at the moment Germany is still expecting to field the old L/52 gun on the new wheeled SPG, mainly due to development schedules.

Looks like last of the Moroccan Abrams are done.

Interesting article on the Leopard 2's future published by the European Defence Review (EDR) magazine: Source: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/krauss-maffei-wegmann-the-ever-lasting-leopard-2 (Underlined text = emphasis added by me)

I'm not sure where the "racism" came from, unless Nazi's are a race? Highly doubt it, but if you think any of us are being racist towards Germans, we're not. Anyway, I added pictures and some more data on the Brahman. She's overweight and underpowered, but the armor is amazing. Dont know how much I can get done: never got this far so I dont know what I'm doing and I am disorganized.

french will restore ARL-44

Well, Rheinmetall is a profit-oriented business... so not really surprising. I think however this is mainly related to the fact that KMW (as part of KNDS) now helps marketing Nexter's truck-based CAESAR howitzer and Rheinmetall wants to compete against that. KNDS basically decides beforehand which of its two entities (KMW or Nexter) will offer their solutions to potential customers. This means the Boxer RCH 155 (a KMW product, despite being based on the Boxer hull) might not be offered to certain customers, if KNDS believes that the CAESAR is more likely to gain a contract. In such a case, Rheinmetall would end up seeing no dime. In theory KMW also offers the AGM on Iveco trucks, but due to the cost and maturity of CAESAR, the latter option seems to be KNDS' first choice. So Rheinmetall's HX3-based artillery is IMO mostly aimed to compete against ATMOS, ARCHER, CAESAR, DANA, and the likes. It is being offered to Germany, as Germany's requirements for the future wheeled SPG at the current stage are still were open, though supposedly the people at the Bundeswehr's artillery school in Idar-Oberstein already have declared the Boxer RCH 155 as their favored option. KMW is also working on a new IFV to compete with the KF31/KF41 Lynx on the international market. The forced withdrawal from the Czech IFV program seems to have killed faith in any export success of the Puma, even though feedback was generally positive until their last minute requirement changes.

How much Ajax has costed since 2010/11 source: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-06-04/10609

Stolen from otvaga, tankoff did a summary post on Arena systems. Arena (1993) patent: 1 are countermunitions in their launchers, placed around turret. 2 is radar station on top of the turret. Arena-M APS with correctable trajectory countermunitions: Compared to previous version much less countermunitions and launchers are used, subsystems are more compact. Less weight, statistically less vulnerable to fragmentation damage. Countermunition schematics. CM is connected to launcher with a wire, BTW. Patent for BMP-3 equipped with Arena, pic showing possible use of APS as a system to automatically turn turret of AFV in the direction from which AFV was shot at. Looks like Arena was offered to Germans in 90s. Pics from Wehrtechnisches Symposium, 1995. One of first article about Arena, 1996. 2012 - model of Arena-M (or Arena with correctable countermunitions) was shown. At RAE-2013 T-72 with shown with similar system, but with some additional changes. Arena-E with correctable countermunitions, video by KBM. 50m detection range, minimal reaction time - 0.04s, same direction is covered by at least 2 countermunitions, can intercept incoming projectiles with speeds of 70 to 1000 m/s. Can work of 8 hours without stops, weight - up to 900kg. Laser sensors (same as on Shtora) can be part of Arena. APS can be intergrated into BMS. Countermunition launch. Small holes just under cap/cover probably are impulse jets to rotate countermunition after launch. Upper schematics proably shows those impulse jets. Launch. Question if it is actually capable of intercepting top attack threats in configurations shown to public is still open. Max detection range is 50 meters, but how much radars can see "up" is question that i don't know answer for. Vertically aimed launchers suggest that at least ATGM that "overfly" target (like Bill 2 or TOW-2B) are covered by modernised system. Original Arena (at least in 1995 config) was not capable of intercepting overfly ATGMs. Another question without answer is how much "correction" measures can change facing of countermunition. Against top attack threats there were ideas to place CMs nearly horizontaly and aim them upwards.

Some detail on the hull faults on AJAX: - inconsistent lengths - hull sides not being parallel - substandard welding - etc

i'm only about turret, mantlet is simple 50mm RHA(or even less) + rotor(cradle) which can't be much thciker than 200-250mm those "v" shaped weldments on mantlet also strange...

At the Bastille day, today, in front of the Paris city hall, display of the new range of medium force AFV : Griffon, Serval and Jaguar.

Sources:

K239 Chunmoo and the K239T Ammunition Carrier

Comments on a facebook group from someone claiming to work for babcock doing engine rebuilds, apparently the CR3 will use the CV12 9a spec, not the 8a previously assumed.

HAAIP is now in full swing http://des.mod.uk/challenger-2-vehicles-upgrade-programme/

http://j-tecassociates.com/military-tank-crosswind-sensor/

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/07/27/2269516/0/en/United-States-Army-Contracting-Command-Detroit-Arsenal-has-awarded-Point-Blank-Enterprises-Inc-Contract-for-Concept-Design-for-the-U-S-Army-s-Optionally-Manned-Fighting-Vehicle-OMF.html Looks remarkably similar to the Israeli Carmel project.

Here is 15's turret without composite armor module: https://imgur.com/Qbtseue For comparison, here is 99A's turret with out composite armor module https://imgur.com/JcPJiMa You can clearly see that 15 has a pretty pathetic armor, mainly due to the fact that it is not deigned to engage tanks such as T-90S. The amour (composite plus era) was intended to defeat hand held anti tank weapons and medium caliber auto cannon rounds.

https://diana-mihailova.livejournal.com/6752408.html

One more video from Czech IFV trials.

Well someone from the show crew leaked photos of the plane. It looks quite interesting imho.

Block 1 Boxer with Lance 1.0 turret cleared for static firing of practice 30mm natures as part of the introduction into service. Turret conversion continues. Photo credit: LAC Solomon & PTE Hilton.

Interesting discussion regarding K2/L2 but too much techical arguments. You need to see it that way. K2 is challenging L2 so it needs to be >way better< than L2 to win (not just a bit). Which is not the case Whereas - Leo 2A7V is available in numbers which has proven its capability. - K2NO isn't existing in hardware right now which is a very high risk (now that Poland left) to go with for a "small" user nation. - Topics like 130mm and APU are future music so far. -> Big point - K2 is not NATO whereas all neighbours are using Leo 2A7 or 2A6. -> Industry cooperation is the game winner in that acquisition (as Laser Shark already wrote -which KMW has already shown in Stridsvogn 122 project). = So as long as Leo 2A7 fulfills the requested requirements there is 0% chance for the K2 to win except K2 offeres extraordinary industry cooperation.

Contract for Challenger 2 armour trials: https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:358117-2021:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0 Source:

The VBCI Philoctete. https://www.edrmagazine.eu/nexters-vbci-philoctetes-unveiled-at-defea

some update 105mm m900 m833 m774 m735 m900 - penetrator length 603 mm, volume 206344,9906mm³ (density 18,6/~3,830kg/real 3,830kg) m833 - penetrator length 427 mm, volume 196634,2908mm³ (density 18,6/~3,657kg/real 3,668kg) m774 - penetrator length 345 mm, volume 178942,0578mm³ (density 18,6/~3,328kg/real 3,364kg) m735 - core length 309,5 mm, volume 119354,6819mm³ (density 18,5/~2,208kg/real 2,210kg)

Few words about the let's say hottest issue about Czech IFV tender which got to public at the end of April. As I wrote here already at that time the minister of industry and trade (who is a deputy prime minister) suddenly went on public with a request to change the offset criteria. Two weeks later it was revealed by media that Rheinmetall offered basically what the minister asked for in a letter addressed to the prime minister on 9th December 2020. In short in the original requirements the MOD (both ministers are from the same party btw.) requested the final assembly and the service of the vehicles to be done under a licence in a full state-owned company VOP (for which MOD has little use now) and the total amount of the offset programme not to be under 40% of the total price of the deal. Rheinmetall on the other hand offered to build a new facility within its own Ústí nad Labem (right at the German border) automotive plant which would be owned by a company shared by Rheinmetall and Czech Republic (51/49%). This company would be responsible for R&D and production of medium calibre turret systems (for any Rheinmetall vehicles or contracts) and a final assembly of Czech vehicles (at least). It would be also a licence holder for the vehicle. The complete hulls would be produced in Hungary while Hungary would get turrets from Czech Republic and do the final assembly in Hungary. Rheinmetall offered to add potential future contracts such as for Slovakia in the future portfolio. Rheinmetall also confirmed in the letter that it already signed contracts with some Czech subcontractors related to the Hungarian deal and that they intend to enlarge Czech subdeliveries to armor components, APS components and electro-optical devices. From Rheinmetall side all is very logical. They would optimize their production chain in Europe and also the product price which would likely allow them to grow their sales to another countries. The total offset value for Czech republic would be likely higher as well but the state-owned enterprise VOP would be put aside and Rheinmetall would keep control over the production facility. Most likely very little would change for the local subcontractors who often already supply Rheinmetall anyway. It's not publically known what other competitors offered but it is reasonable to consider this situation to be a primary reason why they reqested to prolong the deadline for the final offer. In any case now it is clear that this government won't put the final stamp on the contract and it is very likely that neither of the two current ministers will have a word in the final decision... The Rheinmetall letter (in Czech) is here (scan): https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/bojova-vozidla-pechtoy-havlicek-metnar_2105101112_pj

Excalibur Kapa, amphibious transport for Indonesian competition to replace PTS-10 (54 to be bough): https://www.armadninoviny.cz/kapa-cesky-obojzivelny-transporter-pro-indonesii.html

Another Military Acceptance show episode about Armatas. T-15 looks like is equipped with Epokha turret in this footage.

I haven't sen any such reports. All latest reports are related only to the fact at this moment it's impossible to sign the final contract before parlamentary elections which means everything will be again delayed (if no other issues come with the new government). Before there was a lot of fuss related to Rheinmetall lobbying but there were basically no reports about any technical issues of any of the contenders (which doesn't mean none issues appeared).

K9A1s during a mobility demonstration at the Mun-hae Ri Range in Cheolwon, Gangwon Province on the the 24th of June.

Ajax situation is ramping up. Trials have been suspended for a second time and Ministers now believe that senior officers hid the extent of problems so that it would not get cancelled during the integrated review. Tricking Ministers will likely be Ajax's death knell.

3 shots in approx 30 seconds, K9 155mm artillery