SH_MM

17 hours ago, Cheburashka said:

1. Is APSs effective against stuff like RPG 30 which uses a smaller diameter precursor round?

That depends on the exact type of APS. Some can be likely fooled by double-firing (with either a single RPG-30 or multiple rounds from the same or different angles), others cannot.

17 hours ago, Cheburashka said:

2. Having learned just before that detonating the MEFP warhead would damage other countermeasures, does a two barreled setup have one or two shots? (does it shot both charges against a single projectile, or do you have 2 separete shots for two separate threats?)

Trophy uses a MEFP (multiple explosively formed penetrator) countermeasure, i.e. a small explosive charge turning a specifically formed metal plate into multiple EFPs. Other active protection systems such as Iron Fist (as pictured by you) utilize other countermeasures. Iron Fist fire small HE blast grenades, which contain a time fuze that is set by the APS before firing. Trophy is a much simpler system - and thus less likely of a technical failure - but its design has other drawbacks (such as requiring protective shields and having only one countermeasure ready-to-fire, as the detonation of the MEFP creates lots of nasty metal fragments).

9 minutes ago, Cheburashka said:

So what is meant by the autoloader part? 

So the APS launcher is reloading itself? How does this work,how many reloads are there? 

It is an autoloader. As detonating the MEFP warhead would damage other countermeasures, only one can be in a ready-to-fire state at a time. The autoader hence is required to reload the system, so that it can engage the next threat. Each launcher has its own autoloader with space for three countermeasures inside the mechanism (in case of the Trophy-HV variant as fitted to Merkava and Abrams).

Chilean fascine carrier variant of the Leopard 1, conversion done by FFG.

That combo is about 750 kg heavier than the EuroPowerPack while taking up one cubic metre more space...

Leopard 2A4M CAN

Yes, the KEW-A3 already used a TIPS, i.e. Rheinmetall's SCDB propellant. Given that Defense Munitions International (the short-lived Rheinmetall-GD joint-venture for tank ammo) doesn't seem to exist anymore, GD might have opted to use its own propellant instead.

KEW-A4 doesn't use the M829A3/A4 penetrator. They are from different manufacturers; the KEW series is from GD, the M829A3 is from Northrop-Grumman gun/ammo business (formerly ATK). Northrop-Grumman has advertised an export round known as KE-T (Kinetic Energy Tungsten, a tungsten version of M829A3), but nobody is known to have purchased that.

German and Dutch Leguan 2 bridge-layers are usually equipped with add-on armor. Interesting to see Norway not fielding it.

A bit late, but OCCAR has contracted ARTEC to develop and produce prototypes of the new JFSTsw (Joint Fire Support Team schwer) variant of the Boxer for the German Army. The equipment is a bit odd, common German parts (FLW 200 RWS, BAA II sight by Hensoldt) have been replaced by foreign ones (Kongsberg's M153 Protector RWS and Thales' PAAG sight) - suggesting that there might be a plan to export it:

Older concept version with FLW 200 and BAA II sight:

Meanwhile Rheinmetall and the Bundeswehr are celebrating the Marder's 50th birthday (quite bit later than they should have).

The Puma there is equipped with the TSWA, which the German Army plans to field with the Puma S2 upgrade:

1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

 

so...i found M60A1 mantlet cutaway blueprint, as all can see a lot of cavities inside...

But some guy on the War Thunder forums said it is solid steel

On 9/28/2021 at 5:38 PM, Korvette said:

This module looks like the test armor counterweights found on old photos, is document indicating that the piece is for service? 

This solution is in service.

On 9/24/2021 at 12:47 PM, holoween said:

The RPG catchers are cage armour that can be attached to the sides not the extra armour plate on the side.

No, that is incorrect. According to KMW, the RPG catchers are the additional side plates mounted on the lower hull. The slat armor is not part of the 2A7 configuration.

7 hours ago, Sheffield said:

As you say, in theory 2A7 could have received new armour, but my question is here whether the weight increase is really representive of it, as far as I know IBD has shown off ceramics that weight 1/5th of RHA but offer twice the protection. Hull add-on could in theory nowdays be much lighter than 1 ton (i'm assuming that's the weight of 122s add-on) due to material improvements, same with the internal package.

The weight differential between Leopard 2A7 and Leopard 2A7V suggests that the add-on armor for the hull (and the new internal armor) is not lighter. The new armor package from the former IBD is not used.

7 hours ago, Sheffield said:

As far as i know, SEPv3 weights only 1.6 tons more than SEPv2 yet it greatly improves on protection of the hull and turret (and also extends the turret by some +/- 15cm).

The M1A2 SEP v2 has a combat weight of 62.8 metric tons without add-on kits (i.e. TUSK or Trophy). The M1A2 SEP v3 has a combat weight of 66.6 metric tons without add-on kits (part of this might be result of the improved mine protection, if this is not part of the new TUSK version).

As far as I can tell, the situation is a bit more complex. According to KMW, Leopard 2 tanks made in/after 2001 (i.e. the Leopard 2A6 tanks made for Greece and Spain) have a higher protection level than Leopard 2 tanks made in 1996 (i.e. the Stridsvagn 122). This means that either there are different versions of "Panzerung in D-Technologie" or that my informations about the "Panzerung in E-Technologie" are incorrect. KMW also suggests that the Leopard 2A7 has an even higher level of protection, but the slide showing that uses a very abstract measure for protection; it might be simply a reference to the add-on armor improving protection against EFP-IEDs and RPGs.

The weight difference between the Leopard 2A6M and the Leopard 2A7 is likely not related to changes in the main armor array; if there was any weight added by the improved armor arrays, then it was only a few hundred kilograms at most. The Leopard 2A7 adds quite a few things to the tank, which all affect the weight. First of all, the hull rear deck is raised on the side, where an APU from Vincorion (formerly part of Jenoptik) is added. The APU alone weighs 270 kilograms. Then there is the addition of a 6 kW air conditioning system from MKK. Displays for IFIS, the controls/programming unit and interface for the DM11 HE-ABM round, UltraCaps for turret and hull and the upgraded firefighting system also will add a few dozen kilograms each.

The hull of the Leopard 2A7 has been prepared for the installation of the add-on armor (i.e. the "Panzerung in E-Technologie"), which includes the installation of the "RPG catchers" and interfaces along the sides of hull and turret. The lowermost section of the hull also was fitted with interface for additional IED/mine protection.

The RPG catcher are (steel) armor plates on the hull side section along the crew compartment, which are required to stop the tip of the shaped charge jets. You can see them here.

The Leopard 2A7 could in theory have received the same internal arrays as the Leopardo 2E/Leopard 2HEL or a newer version.

The Leopard 2A7 NO does not exist yet, only proposals made by the Norwegian officer's club (and probably some proposals made by KMW). The Leopard2A7.no website contains questionable informations; i.e. the hull add-on armor of the Leopard 2 weighs more than one metric ton by itself. The weight figure is likely not valid for the shown variants.

9 hours ago, Sheffield said:

How is the weight 66.5 tons when the (supposedely) identical Leopard 2A7 NO weights only 64.3 tons, am I not aware of something?

I don't believe any official data on KMW's offer (if there already is a definitive offer) have been revealed yet. The website Leopard2A7.no was made by the Norwegian officer's club and is likely not correct.

However the Leopard 2A7V and Leopard 2A7 NO definetly won't be identical, simply because Project 5050 - i.e. the Leopard 2 upgrade program which lead to the requirement for new built tanks - demanded a laser rangefinder for the independent commander's sight.

On 9/14/2021 at 6:35 PM, DrPlop said:

Wait, there is no RCWS nor SA camera's at the latest version of the Leopard2?

Yes, you can read more about that here:https://below-the-turret-ring.com/armored-vehicles/bundeswehr-introduces-leopard-2a7v-into-service/

That is not a MIV Boxer in the photo, but FFG's recovery module. So at least four Boxers will be displayed.

9 hours ago, David Moyes said:

I'm guessing the awkward placement is because it's being built around a new turret shape. E.g:

I doubt that. There is no reason to assume the Trophy integration will be influenced by the possiblity to mount a 130 mm gun that the UK has no official plans to adopt. IMO it is more likely that the British Army wants the option to mount add-on armor on the turret sides without having large weakspots thanks to Trophy.

4 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Looks like better integration into turret than on Abrams.

That is a Leopard 2A4 tank used for internal tests by KMW. The EDR coverage on the Leopard 2 from a few pages earlier mentions it.

KMW has done quite some work after that; i.e. they developed their own blast/fragmentation shield (that apparently can be folded up and down without leaving the tank), and integrated two of their smoke grenade launchers (physically at least, not sure about software) into the Trophy module.

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Only available on 17, specifically modified tanks, whereas the Abrams kit is modular + appliqué, similar in concept to TUSK. 

As far as I can tell, the Trophy system still is a modular appliqué solution on the Leopard 2A7A1; the turrets of the Leopard 2A6A3 are re-used (with minor modifications); the power delivery is a bigger issue (as the Leopard 2A6A3 has no APU) and hence new hulls are produced. There is little reason to assume that the Leopard 2A7(V) could not be fitted with Trophy if desired.

18 hours ago, Lord_James said:

What’s new with the M1 over the base model? 

Not much, there are only minor improvements, many of which were part of the Leopard 2A5 already 25 years earlier:

• the FCS can now read multiple echoes of the LRF, which is required to engage aerial targets
• the commander can press a button to automatically turn the turret to face the front (0° rotation) or the back (180° rotation)
• a fire extinguishing system was installed/connected to the APU
• the ability for cold starting the engine without restarting the electronics was added
• cooling systems for the electronics were improved
• batteries were improved
• "fitted for but not with" an IFF system

The Trophy is fake, btw. This is an Abrams tank borrowed from an US Army unit, the Trophy APS is a plastic mock-up, hence its odd mounting (attached to the storage racks) and the lack of a counter-weight at the turret front.

The same tank a few hours before the photo with "Trophy" was taken:

WW2 Sherman had a manual umbrella.

Round #2 was won by Leclerc:

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

NIOA’s Benalla plant isn’t up & running yet. “30mm” listed on the MMC doesn’t specify whether it’s 30x113mm (for Tiger or the soon-to-come AH-64E) or 30x173mm, nor does it specify the nature (service, practice etc.), nor does it specify who’s ammunition is being made. 

https://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnioa-selected-as-ammunition-supplier-for-australias-land-400-phase-ii-programme-5804837/

1 hour ago, mr.T said:

Valhalla turret? LOL Valhalla turrets is literally  a guy in his garage and lots of concepts and renders but little in way of actual turrets.

It is not. It is an engineering office with no own production capacity. IIRC they even managed to get some small scale production contract for a RWS or one-man turret a few years back.

Quite some work done by that one guy in his garage