Molota_477

Their ERA coverage is better than on T-72B3 turret.
 
Also, they still have work to do to reach this level of "let's put all weapons we have on a single tank":
 

From a Japanese magazine PANZER screenshot, it says: 
This is a Type 61 tank with a sort of ad-hoc spaced armour, using for target practice in exercise. 
The armour plates surrounding the turret and side skirts make it looks like a WW2 German Panzer IV. 
The crew tried to pull out a practice round stucking in the side skirt, this round was fired from a recoilless rifle. 
According to the vegetation of the exercise range, the vehicle was painted in a 4-colour camouflage. 

1A3 turret armor btw

SGA made 299 plans of the AMX factory available online.
Ranging from 1936 to 1959 with a few documents on the M4A4 but also the Pz IV (suspension) and the Panther.
 
http://www.memoiredeshommes.sga.defense.gouv.fr/fr/arkotheque/navigation_facette/index.php?f=Blindes&mde_present=mosaique&debut=0

from 2ch.hk/wm/ - photos of pages from some brochure from Army-2018 about RCWS and Derivatsiya-PVO's SPAAG turret

 

https://imgur.com/a/rvwc31g

Well the history of the AMX 10 program is quite complicated (at least for the AMX 10 RC).
At first (1960) it was planned to have an all tracked family with the ERAC (Engin de Reconnaissance Amphibie Chenillé == Tracked Amphibious Reconnaissance Vehicle) as a recce vehicle with a 90mm gun fitted in an oscillating turret. Studies were pushed towards a 105mm gun system with an ongoing competition between the APX and the EFAB engineers teams for the ammunition. The ERAC was dropped when the specifications were more demanding and other weapon systems were considered. The ECA (Engin de Combat Amphibie == Amphibious Fighting Vehicle) did not last long (mid 60s) but was considered with a wide range of weapon systems ranging from conventional 105mm gun to conventional anti-tank missile with the tube launched ACRA missile system inbetween.
In the end, the development of the AMX 10 P seems to be uneventful compared to the AMX 10 RC which ended up being based on the AMX 10 P in order to reduce possession cost and ease of maintenance.

Hi. 
I’m not skilled enough to answer you. I was tank commander on AMX-10RC, but it was a long time ago. And user are not always the best historians. Today, I’m much more sharper on the tactical side of the Force. I now if things are useless or useful. 
 
If you have questions about the deployment and the use, don’t hesitate...
 
Visite this French site :
http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php
It’s no more active but this is the best place ever to find photos of all the French AFV produced (even as prototypes only).
Use Google to search into because pages with the list of AFV per decades. 
Search for :
- AMX10 RTT, C, ACRA, P, PH (improved P).
 
Send MP to @DarkLabor. He’s up to date in French doc. Maybe @Sovngard can help.

A few photos regarding the Boxer's armor:
 
General:


Note that the Boxer is - like the AMV - not protected against RPGs in its basic configuration. Additional armor packs or active protection systems have to be installed.
 
Frontal hull armor:


 
Upper section of the frontal hull / driver's hatch:


 
Side armor:


 
Additional roof armor against artillery bomblets:

Naked:
 

Base Armour (Spaced Steel?):
 

Expanded Armour (Composite?) & Blocks
 

Barracuda camo:
 

Testing Ballast Weights:
 
 

After some talks on Discord, i decided to post some of it here.
 
   I don't understand why Kurganets being developed. There is a BMP-3 version (Dragoon) that have basically same features as Kurganets chassis have like engine in the front and bigger troops compartment.

 
 
   With Boomerang-BM unmanned turret that don't penetrate into the hull, it could be almost as spacious as Kurganets. Armor could be made as add on modules (as on Kurganets) and so what we left is that there is nothing what Kurganets offer over BMP-3M Dragoon, or at least nothing that is visible for me.
 
 

If there was an unmanned version of BMP-3-like turret with 100 mm gun + 30 mm coaxial...
 

IDF uploaded this on its spanish youtube channel
 
Ask me what you want translated to english


Also an interview with a commander about Gaza and the new tank, i will translate from 0:39
"At the same time we are developing a new Merkava model which will enter service in the Armored Corps within the next 3 years called (Merkava) Tank 4 Barak.
This tank will bring many advanced characteristics and will introduce the most advanced technologies a tank can be equipped with. This way the tank will function better on the ground. This enables the crew to operate it during changing situations, be even more lethal and contribute significantly to the Grond Forces of the IDF.
We´ve been working to incorporate this new technologies and adapt our techniques and practices to them. I´m convinced that in case we have to use our Ground Forces, we´ll know how to do it in a focused, pragmatic manner  and we´ll be successful."

All in all seems that the Merkava development heads even more in towards asymmetric warfare and further away from "tank dueling". 

 

The age of these simulations doesn't change a number of facts:
when seen from an angle, the surface area behind which the crew compartment is located is greater on the Leclerc  the turret bulge, gun mantlet and gunner's sight are weakspots in the armor layout that remain existent even in the more modern Leclerc variants the Leclerc's armor is physicially thinner Yes, the current models of the Leclerc (and also the Leopard 2) use much newer armor inserts than tested in Sweden; however that doesn't guarantee that the Leclerc will reach or exceed the protection level of a modern Leopard 2. Given above points, the Leclerc could even be considered inferior protected, if its armor offered a higher protection level per weight and thickness (which I doubt given that the Leopard 2A7 features new armor inserts).
 
 
That's frankly a lie. Just like the stupid lie from Froggy on the SteelBeasts forum about the Greek military using the AMX-30B2's armor to simulate the Leclerc's protection level. It is stupid to lie just to pretend your favorite tank/toy is perfect, that is not true.
 
Nobody buys a tank without knowing how well its armor will perform. Sweden was supplied with performance data (or protection level estimations) of the tanks and tested armor modules to verify that the data was correct. These tests were not necessarily done in Sweden, for example the M1A2 Abrams' armor was tested in the United States in order to ensure that the exact composition and layout of the armor array remained secret. The Swedes supervised the armor tests in the US and brought their own reference threats (i.e. two types of APFSDS, two large calibre shaped charge warheads to represent ATGMs and one smaller shaped charge to simulate the HEAT rounds fired by the Carl Gustaf recoiless rifle).
 
We know from Swedish sources, that the M1 Abrams with Swedish armor package provides a much higher level of protection than the one seen in the comparison chart:

 
Note that the M1A2 turret is shown with the original armor package!
 
We also know that the Swedish armor was designed to meet the requirements (best possible protection against APFSDS with 700 mm penetration and 165 mm shaped charge warhead along the frontal arc of the turret). The Leclerc shown in the comparison chart clearly fails to meet this requirement, therefore it is not the one with enhanced armor protection. Last but not least we know that the Swedish armor was designed as add-on armor and that the base armor of the tank was kept. Therefore your claim that the comparison chart showed the Leclerc with Swedish armor package would mean that the basic Leclerc's armor would be a lot weaker.
 

The add-on armor would replace the storage boxes at the side of the turret while adding a wedge-shaped module (like used on the Leopard 2A5) to the turret front.
 
The Leclerc at 54.5 metric tons was designed to reach a similar level of frontal protection than the Leopard 2A4 (pre-1991: 55.15 metric tons) and the M1A1 (57 metric tons). It did so, while being lighter, having a bigger gun and having more side armor. To expect that a 54.5 tonnes tank would reach a protection level even broadly similar to MBTs with a weight of 62.5 tonnes (M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 prototype) is silly.
 
 
You are misinterpreting the news. The contract between France and Germany only decided that the MGCS, the CIFS, EuroMALE and the SCAF will be developed. For the first three programs, German companies will be primary contractors, while the development of the SCAF will be headed by a French company.
 
Which company will be chosen has yet to be decided. Germany's anti-corruption laws mean there has to be a bidding process, rather than the government dictating that KDNS will get the contract. The official press statements from the French and the German ministries of defence do not say that KDNS will be responsible for the MGCS, because they cannot make the decision yet. The press releases from KMW and Nexter pretty much say "we are cooperating, please choose us".
 
As a matter of fact, Rheinmetall is also bidding to become the primary contractor for the MGCS. The rumor mill suggest that they are in a better position and might be prefered over KMW. Back when Krauss-Maffei was chosen for the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 programs, it was the largest defence contractor with the capacity to manufacture MBTs in (West-)Germany. MaK, the second-largest, was chosen as a secondary contractor (making 45% of all tanks, while Krauss-Maffei made 55%). However in the past decades Rheinmetall has become a gigantic company that has swallowed roughly a dozen of smaller German & European defence vehicles and arms manufacturers (among them MaK, Thyssen-Henschel, Oerlikon, KuKa, Chempro, MAN military, etc.),: currently Rheinmetall has more than 23,000 employes, while KMW has just 2,700. The larger company also invests more into research and development (even without an official government requirement), while KMW over the past years has been satisfied with only becoming active once a requirement has been published.  Finally there is a difference in structure: Rheinmetall is easier to work with, as it is not a family-owned company (like KMW). Only the future will show wether KMW's move to join sides with Nexter to form KDNS was a way to win the MGCS contract or not.
 
Rheinmetall has announced that they will show "something" in regards to the MGCS in December of this year. Probably just some 3D models or testbed, because the exact concept of the MGCS has yet to be revealed by the governments. Rheinmetall is already working on its own idea of a next-generation tank (might become independent of the the MGCS) in their own secret facilities. Interesting note is that Ben Hudson from Rheinmetall asked "How do you defeat a tank that has four active defense systems on it?"...
 
General Dynamics will apparently not bid for the MGCS, as they think their ASCOD 2 might be enough for the tank market of the future.
 
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/25/tank-makers-steel-themselves-for-europes-next-big-land-weapon-contest/
 
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/14/when-does-industry-expect-france-and-germany-to-set-its-future-tank-requirements/

That presentation also speak about Uran-9 combat use in Syria.

 
Well, not that surprising taking into account that company behind Uran-9 have no experience with robots and combat vehicles. Uran-9 is kind of POS. 
 
Conclusions
 
 

Nimda posted their brochure in a recent magazine which shows a few interesting details:
 

 
Eitan uses an Allison SP4800 transmission. You can read about it here. Also produces complete powerpacks for the T-72 and Indian FRCV program. Offers the Achzarit APC based on the T-72 (existing Achzarit are redesigned captured T-55).  
Acquisition updates:
401st brigade prepares to receive new Merkava 4 tanks with improved FCS. Note: The 401st was the first brigade to receive Merkava 4 tanks in 2003, and was also the first to get the Trophy system in 2009. 179th brigade will get new Keshet mortars, probably on the basis of HMMWV instead of M113 but that's not confirmed. Preparations being made to phase out the 105mm gun, as there are only 2 and a half brigades remaining with that gun, and will soon be replaced with Merkava 4 tanks. Replacement may be completed within 7-8 years.  
 
 

Lynx KF41 
some photos (originally posted in twitter):



pictures from that pdf:












Rheinmetall press-release 
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/latest_news/index_17408.php
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/pressemitteilungen/2018/2018-06-12_Rheinmetall_Eurosatory_Lynx_KF_41_en.pdf
and some more pics from twitter:




video:
some screenshots:







....
Question: is it a correct thread for this vehicle? Or i should've been posting this in German vehicles thread like @2805662 did with his photos of this vehicle http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/11-stug-iii-thread-and-also-other-german-vehicles-i-guess/?page=49&tab=comments#comment-133254
?
 
...
UPD:19-12-2018
With words "pictures from that pdf" there should've been this link https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ebe687fe800f7d0f2f28fa168/files/cd7abd56-13d7-4921-8eb5-aa4eee834446/Lynx_KF41_Special_Supplement_final.01.pdf 
whicn wasn't - I guess it was lost in process of editing this post severall times to add more pictures.
 

supplement.

Not stacked with technical documentations on the AMX 10 RC but maybe that one will help you :

Whuuuut?
There is no rework regarding the armor.
It's just the turret of a tropicalised Leclerc on a Léopard 2A7 hull with an adaptator and a rework of how the two communicate together...


 
 
The later prototype was labelled as "standard european tank - french version" dunno about that one...

That's an AMX 30 prototype(1961)

direct ancestor of EMBT

The design of the Leclerc allows a more convenient gun balance (on or very close to the trunnions axis).
This allows the minimize momentums.
The turret is balanced as well to control any momentum to achieve the same controls over momentums.
Turret traverse and gun elevation have high acceleration rate (~45°/s²) dispite the 30°/s max speed.
The autoloader allows a constant rate of fire whatever the tank is doing.
I'll stop here, I'll skip FCS and suspension because, they have proven their values.

The thing is none of the persons here can judge the value of any tanks because the hardware hasn't been shown into their worst conditions. Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Léopard 2 and others have just fired at worst on bumpy dirt roads with the crews doing all the SOP requirements to ensure a steady speed and minimise the vibrations.
No matter what the competitions or tests have shown, people always forget that there is a huge piece of meatware that seats between the seat and the handelbar that can f**k things up...
 
I won't hide that I consider the human loader as a risk at high speed high bumpiness. But in real combat, the pace of engagement is much slower than we think.