SH_MM

M60AX protoype?

Forecast International's old report on the TH 495 mentions an AGS version in the section "variants": I don't think that they ever made an AGS prototype, but the six-wheeeld TH 495 prototype was fitted with two different medium caliber turrets.

I don't know if this is an actual possibilty, but this is what I think any company with such an advantage (i.e. having already sold a vehicle to Australia using several components that components that can be shared with the LAND 400 phase 3 offer) should try.

The turret of the Griffin 3 was a mock-up, so you are contradicting yourself quite a bit...

I don't think Rheinmetall has released a list of components or a percentage figure, but claimed "high commonality". In general the optics should have common parts (commander's sight is identical, gunner's sight is a modified version of the commander's sight), fire control system parts could be common to both vehicles, the armament is identical and the man-machine interface (displays, controls, etc.) could be similar. The smoke grenade launchers and SAS sensors are also used on both versions of the turret, but in case of the Lance 2.0 turret, they are integrated into the structure rather than being external modules. Regardless what the actual percentage of common parts is, the commonality between the two Lance turret versions will be the highest. Simply because Rheinmetall is making all the key components - ranging from armor panels, coaxial machine gun, main armament, optics, ballistic computer, situational awareness system, acoustic sniper locating system to the smoke grenade launchers. In case the Lynx is not chosen, Rheinmetall should then approach the ADF and offer to integrate its components into the winning design.

Yes, apparently the museum at the Australian army facility at Puckapunyal.

The Brits designed a type of DU armor, where thin depleted uranium plates were used in combation with an interlayer material and probably would have acted as a form of NERA. However the illustration from the French author also makes a lot of sense, because the frontal plate could act as a disruptor, i.e. the high-density in combination with sufficient thickness and hardness might be able to break/shatter incoming penetrators before they hit the NERA, thus enhancing protection performance. APFSDS ammo in general performs worse against unsloped armor, but a slanted plate would increase the probability of penetrator fragments becoming disaligned from the original path of impact. Most likely the straight turret armor face with the DU plate is just a simplification.

Puma not being offered for LAND 400 is a shame, but not surprising given the requirements and preferences of the Australian army. It seems that the Puma is still in the lead for the Czech IFV project, where it has been announced to be the favored solution. Interesting fact: last month Rheinmetall (and its competitors) presented their IFVs at an expo (scale models, drawing and in case of the CV90 an actual vehicle), but Rheinmetall again showcased the KF31 variant of the Lynx, instead of the Lynx KF41. It seems that this is part of Rheinmetall's marketing strategy, giving the Czech army the choice between a cheap and expensive IFV made by Rheinmetall, rather than two (relatively) expensive IFVs. For Australia, where a manned turret has been declared mandatory and the Boxer CRV already has been purchased, the Lynx KF41 seems to make more sense.

So Vietnam's T-90S won't feature the upgraded side skirt armor of the Iraqi model or what is up with the green tank that still has the original skirts?

The German army actually had to upgrade some of the garages for the new Puma IFVs, so that they met the safety regulations for storing explosives...

The German military currently has a lot of issues with the reliability of new equipment, maiinly because quality control and supply with new spare parts is sub-optimal. Last year 97 new large combat systems (vehicles and aircrafts) were delivered to the German army, of which only 38 (aka 39%) are combat ready. The largest number of new vehicles is formed by the Puma IFV, of which 71 were delivered in 2017, but only 27 are combat ready. One factor could be that for some weird reason (budget?) spare parts weren't ordered for all components at the same time, so when certain things break, a longer period of time has to be waited. There are also some teething problems that need to be addressed. Furthermore 4 out of 8 A400M transport aircraft and 1 out of 4 Eurofighters delivered in 2017 were only combat ready, although in case of the Eurofighters that is related to an upgrade of the main computer that started shortly after delivery. 14 new helicopters were delivered in 2017 (seven UHT Tigers and seven NH-90s), but only 6 were combat ready (two Tigers and two NH-90s). That's quite a shame. In the current issue of the InfoBrief Heer, there is an article written by the head of marketing of IBD Deisenroth. According to this, IBD has developed a new armor package for the Boxer, which provides the same protection level at 500 kg weight reduction. @2805662, do you know if the Boxer CRV will use this armor kit? Germany hasn't ordered it, but the Dutch army will make use of it. A new armor package from IBD for the Puma has been qualified by the WTD 91, which would provide protection against RPGs and IEDs. It would replace the ERA kit from Dynamit Nobel Defence and stay more than 400 kg below the weight limit (so I guess that means it is lighter than the ERA?) while being cheap enough to fit into the budget of the German army. Given that Germany did order only 200 ERA kits for ~350 Pumas, this might mean that in the future IFVs will make use of IBD's NERA/NxRA instead. Maybe that explains the differences in skirt armor layout between the different prototypes. Furthermore IBD is marketing the IBD Smart ProTech armor, they suggest that it would fit well to the Puma, the Boxer and the Leopard 2, allowing the base armor to be more optimized against KE rounds. For the MGCS, IBD Smart ProTech could be used, but IBD also wants to provide internal armor arrays and external add-on armor modules for the MGCS. The company has designed its own turret and hull concepts optimized for maximum protection.

You should look at it relative to its peers; that a newer tank reaches a higher level of protection than an older design is nothing special. IMO one could only say that side armor was prioritized, if more weight was invested into the side armor relative to the frontal armor (meaning the side armor is prioritized over the frontal armor) or greater coverage is demanded: prioritizing would mean to invest more weight into the side armor to either reach a higher protection level (larger frontal arc reaches same protection as the frontal armor) or armor coverage (which one can consider indepedent of timeframe). As we can see by looking at the requirements for the Abrams, it was designed with protection against tank rounds and ATGMs along a 50° arc. 50° is a bit smaller than 60°, which was common on other designs of the time (see German, French & British requirements for their third generation MBTs). If we account for the technology differences, the Stridsvagn 2000 wasn't designed to reach a high level of protection along a greater frontal arc than existing tanks, so side armor wasn't prioritized compared to other tanks. The only reason why one could claim that the Strv 2000 prioritizes side armor compared to the M1 Abrams is the fact that the hull at areas covered by the ballistic skirts is capable to resist certain types of handheld anti-tank weapons (RPG-7, Carl Gustav?) at perpendicular impact angle, but IMO that is only a by-product of the higher protection level required for the frontal arc. It is similar to the Leopard 2A5, where the area covered by ballistic skirts is capable to resist the basic RPG-7 rounds, even though it wasn't nedessarily designed to do so. If you consider that the Stridsvagn 2000 was an unfinished development project and originally meant to enter service around the year 2000, the it would make more sense to compare it to contemporary projects (i.e. the "lost generation" of Cold War prototypes and testbeds made for the 2000s), then the Stridsvagn 2000 doesn't seem to have particular thick side armor/good armor coverage at the hull. The main reason why comparing the M1A2 Abrams' and Stridsvagn 2000's hull armor isn't a good idea, is the lack of upgrades for the (side) hull armor of the former MBT. Based on footage from the production of M1A1s for Egypt and factory footage from the United States, the basic hull armor and side skirts still have the same thickness/layout as used on the original production model of the Abrams in 1980.

New Rheinmetall ADS video. Including tests on Leopard 2, Fuchs, SEP and a mock-up against a (overfly) top-attack threat

Yes, it does. There also seems to be a general difference in armor technology though (ceramic armor + ERA on the Strv 2000 proposals vs NERA on the Abrams). The Strv 2000 should be better protected around the hull, yet if the same armor (or thicker NERA) was added to the M1 design, it would have the same protection level for the crew compartment at a lower weight. The M1's hull side armor layout isn't really optimized for frontal protection, as the side skirts are longer than necessary in order to cover the fuel tanks and the hull ammo rack located behind the turret ring. The additional surface means that for a given weight, less protection can be achieved per surface area. On the right side of the tank, the skirts are actually extended beyond the turret ring, so the overall length is similar to the Strv 2000's in this location. The Strv 122's side skirts provide protection against single-stage shaped charge warheads with 165 mm diameter (1,400 mm penetration into steel) at impact angles up to 25° (covered frontal arc is therefore 50°) and 120 mm APFSDS ammo with 700 mm penetration at impact angles up 17.5° (covered frontal arc is therefore 35°). That is below the required armor coverage for the Stridsvagn 2000, but AFAIK it isn't known what types of APFSDS ammo and ATGMs were used for the Strv 2000's hull (for the Strv 122, the official requirement for the tender was only protection against 105 mm APFSDS and 143 mm shaped charge warheads for the hull).

Threats and simulated weapons during the Abrams' development, giving a rough idea about armor protection. From otvaga, unfortunately the full source wasn't posted.

That is not the correct translation of "Resultaten visade på möjligheten att nå bättre skyddsprestanda om volymen och inte vikten var gränssättande". It should be "The results showed the possibility of better armor performance if volume and not weight ("och inte vikten") was the resrtricting factor". The armor is designed to protect the crew compartment along the 60° arc against ATGMs and APFSDS ammo. Let me illustrate this with a poorly made drawing: Both tanks have the same protection level for the crew compartment (driver's compartment + turret ring), but with a front mounted engine, longer side skirts are required to cover the crew compartment (because it starts behind the enigne). I.e. heavy ballistic skirts and armor modules covering the complete length of the engine compartment have to be added to reach the same level of protection along the frontal arc. This is one of the reasons why Germany and the United States both decided to not build tanks with front-mounted engines, after evaluating the concept and even creating prototypes for testing this interior layout.

Not really. It wasn't prioritized, but the larger coverage was necessary due to the front-mounted engine. Ballistic skirts and armor modules still cover only the frontal 60° arc.

These are some very nice illustrations of possible armor arrays, but they certainly do not reflect the actual products. It is interesting that the author supposed that glass is one of the go-to solutions against shaped charges; even in NERA plate arrays (example 5). While glass has proven to be a possible interlayer material for NERA, it isn't particularly effective; so maybe this is deliberate misinformation or did the original Leclerc use glass as part of its armor? As you can read in the article, these are only illustrations of different armor technologies and concepts, not actual armor arrays. Example 3 is showcasing the T-80U's turret ERA, but at the same time shows a modular construction (ERA and ceramic armor are a detachable module bolted ontop of the steel-titanium armor). Example 4 shows the external wedge-module of the Leopard 2A5 (simplified with just one NERA layer and incorrect mounting mechanism) in combination with base armor optimized for protectiton against KEPs. Example 5 shows a fully modular armor array (a concept used on the Leclerc and Merkava 3 & 4), but at the same time is used to showcase DU armor, which both of these tanks seem to lack, while the Abrams doesn't have fully modular armor. These are interesting illustrations, but rather show concepts of armor design, they certainly do not reflect actual tank armor.

That's a very nice find, but unfortunately it isn't particularly clear what this document is exactly refering to - which is quite different from the earlier two documents. It is dated 2016, so it might refer to the M1A2C variant, which due to the larger combat weight might very well feature DU armor in the hull; earlier variants with no gain in combat weight (or negligible gains, that were mostly related to APU, RWS, air-conditioning, etc.) are very unlikely to feature DU armor in the hull based on the known facts. Alternatively the statement "For possession, use, transportation, and storage of turrets and hulls of Abrams M1 Series Tanks" might put the emphasis on "storage" in regards of the hull armor, as the US military still has at least five prototypes with DU plating inside the armor arrays of the hull since at least 2006. The 2006 document is filed under the category "renewal of licence", while the 2016 document is an amendment (number 10) to this very licence (SUB-1536). A renewal of this licence has been requested in 2017 (where initially the taxpayer's identification was missing), the renewal also included an eleventh amendment made in 2017. Here is an excerpt form a letter from earlier in 2016, before the document posted by you. The text again specifically mentions the turrets, which together with the 2014 licence amendment made for General Dynamics (licence SUB-1564) makes me believe that the DU armor in the hull of Abrams tanks is a new development and older versions of the tank (made prior 2016) did not feature this type of armor. The CBO table is clearly not a reliable source given that it openly admits to be based on a privately run website from a civilian.

The statement regarding the hull armor package can mean anything and is hardly relevant. The armor package of the Abrams has been upgraded several times - like the adoption of first, second and third generation DU armor in the turret - but this was always limited in scope due the limits set on weight and budget. This is why I mentioned that the M1A1HA (from 1988) had the same turret bustle armor array as the M1 Abrams from 1980 - maybe the materials were improved, but any gain in protection purely by material changes is likely very limited when looking at NERA's performance vs KE) - and even modern Abrams' tanks have the same side hull armor as the original production model (at least in terms of thickness and layering, again small adjustments could have been made to the materials). Likewise "new hull armor" might be identical to that of the previous model with slight changes in material composition; it could be different, but weight and size impose limits. These factors also make it rather unlikely, if not flat-out impossible for the Abrams to resist 125 mm APFSDS rounds at the hull (specifically when looking at the frontal arc rather than just the frontal surface; 65 mm skirt armor + 60 mm hull armor is not going to stop much). The design of ammunition can be altered at any time of a product life; before, during and after initial introduction. Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt might be very different in terms of internal construction or material composition since then. You keep relying on baseless speculations. First of all it is extremely unlikely that any modern APFSDS performs worse against sloped targets than against flat armor; sloped armor is easier to penetrate and perforate - by as much as 20% in case of 60° sloped armor according to the work of W. Lanz and W. Odermatt (depending on penetrator geometry). The performance of APFSDS ammo against steel armor is also completely irrelevant to their abilities to penetrate composite armor; research has shown that the ability to penetrate special armor is highly dependent on the exact interactions between armor and projecitle; two rounds with the same penetration against steel armor can have very different performance against the same type of special armor, which was demonstrated in the German tests during the LKE program (two rounds with the same penetration against RHA had a difference of 110 mm in penetration power after defeating a special armor array). This also means that all figures in regards to armor protection (and penetration) have to be taken in the context of the munitions or simulation used to come up with the values: an armor providing 500 mm protection against a BM-22 APFSDS won't provide 500 mm protectioon against something like the M829A3 APFSDS round. You also cannot simply say "this armor is newer, so it has to provide significantly more protection". You want the armor of the later models of the M1A2 Abrams to provide 50% more protection, while staying in the same physical volume, retaining the same basic steel shell (as old tanks are rebuilt and the interior and exterior steel plates are apparently not changed unless necessary), roughly the same weight limit (may or may not be different for the M1A2C), being affordable and providing decent multi-hit capability. Specifically given that supposedly (assuming the front and back plates of the turret have the same thickness as on hull) more than 150 mm of the "600 mm" protection that the M1A2 (HAP/EAP) provided against older types of APFSDS ammo are the result of the steel structure, you are asking for an improbable, if not impossible, improvement in performance. Armor doesn't grow on trees, neither does it come from the clouds of imagination. MBTs achieve higher levels of protection by adding weight and/or volume to the armor. Improvements from superior materials are often negligible and come with another issue (large increases in costs!). The M1A1 HA's much higher protection than the M1A1's (using inaccurate RHA values apparently an increase from 380-400 mm to 600 mm) came in combination with an increase in armor weight by roughly 3 tons. The Leopard 2's massive gains in protection came with an increase in armor thickness by up to ~80% and a weight increase of 5 to 7 tons depending on model. The M1A2 SEP series doesn't seem to offer similar increases, although there are still some open questions regarding the M1A2C (How much of the increased weight is related to armor? Does the listed figure include TUSK or Trophy?). The Russians claim that Relikt provides a reduction of APFSDS penetration by 50% even against APFSDS rounds designed to defeat Kontakt-5. You should note that your quote doesn't mention Relikt or the ability to defeat a T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM anyhwere, which is relevant. The ability to defeat ERA is not a binary metric; improving the performance of an APFSDS round agains a certain type of ERA can mean anything from "We managed to reduce the performance penality caused by ERA by 5%" to "The penetration performance of the APFSDS is essentially unaffected by the ERA". The text speaks of third-generation explosive reactive armor, which is a very broad term and may have absolutely nothing to do with the exact layout of Relikt. How would the US Army know about the exact working mechanism, layout and performance of Relikt? Super-spies like an American version of James Bond? Did the US Army simply call Putin and asked them about these things? Or did they go to Amazon.ru and order a bunch of Relikt ERA tiles? Most likely the US Army uses a self-developed ERA system as representation of future/current ERA arrays; Germany did something like this during the LKE II program. The USA might have by pure coincidence developed a perfect clone of Relikt, which could perfectly replicate the behaviour of Relikt - but that is extremely unlikely. The US' third-generation ERA might look and work completely different from Relikt, for example it could be based on Nozh (a third-generation ERA to which the US military actually has access, because it was installed on a number of T-80UD/T-84 tanks purchased by the US Army). Nozh and Relikt use completely different working mechanisms, so a performance gain against one type of ERA doesn't automatically render the other type obsolete. Threat vehicles is likewise a very broad term. It could mean that the US expects the M829A4 to defeat a T-90M, but it also could mean a dozen other things. Being able to overcome third-generation ERA potentially without a major reduction in penetration performance doesn't automatically mean that all tanks equipped with this ERA can be defeated; there still is some hefty amount of base armor, which supposedly has been improved on the T-90M/T-90MS/T-90SM, that needs to be penetrated aswell. Being able to defeat threat vehicles with third-generatrion ERA also could refer to upgraded last-generation tanks fitted with Relikt (or Nozh/Duplet), which might be immune to the current M829A3 (they should be immune, if the Russian performance claims were true). For example it might refer to the T-72BM or the initial model of the T-84, which should have inferior base armor compared to the T-90M. We don't know if the M829A4 is capable to defeat the T-90M with Relikt ERA, we don't know if the current M1A2's armor is capable of resisting hits with Svinets-1/Svinets-2 - yet you keep making generalizing statements based on nothing but speculation. That is not good. No, we don't know anything about the hull armor being improved. CBO reports are mostly based on unclassified data and use publicly available sources. Damian just likes to ignore any weak links in his sources as long as they fit his narrative. Just look what's under the table that Damian considers a confirmation of his theories: Yes, another unclassified CBO report from 1993 and a privately-run website run by Gary W. Cooke... Unless the United States decided to change the definition of heavy armor two times (before and after the AIM upgrade), the M1A1 AIM doesn't feature heavy armor in the hull. First M1A1 AIM tanks were made in 2000, but in 2006 only five prototypes of the M1 Abrams featured heavy armor in the hull. As of 2014 General Dynamics was only granted the licence to install DU armor in the turret of the Abrams, but not the turret. The CBO report simply doesn't have the same degrees of quality and reliability than the documents from the NRC. Unless the CBO report is using the term heavy armor to refer to one of the five prototypes with DU armor in the hull or has changed the definition of heavy armor (which also seems unlikely given that the M1A1 AIM weighs 62 metric tons vs the M1A1 HA's 61.3 metric tons), it is simply incorrect. The only variant that theoretically could have heavy armor in the hull - and that depends on the weight distribution - seems to be the M1A2C Abrams.

That's pretty much baseless speculation. The penetration capabilities of the Svinets-1/Svinets-2 rounds and the M1A2C's armor protection is classified and unknown to the public. The internal construction of both armor and penetrators matters a lot. Generalizing statements make no sense in this regard. The hull armor of all models of the M1 Abrams that have seen service seems to contain no DU at all based on the licences requested by the US Army and by General Dynamics from the NRC. The M1A2's hull armor was designed to provide protecting equal to 350 mm steel along a 50° frontal arc. That's not enough to stop even the oldest types of 125 mm APFSDS rounds reliably at combat ranges. While the hull armor composition might have been altered in the past*, there are still limits to what can be achieved when staying at the same weight and thickness. There is less than 500 mm space for armor inserts at the hull front, so it is impossible to make this section of the tank resistant to modern rounds like M829A2/A3/A4, Svinets-1/2, DM43/53/63, etc. * (Or it might not have been altered; photographs from a damaged M1A1 HA tank in the Gulf War show that at least the turret bustle armor of this version has the same layout as on the original model from 1980. The thickness and composition of the side skirts of all Abrams tanks seems to be identical regardless of version). Given that Svinets-1, Svinets-2 and Relikt have only recently entered service in Russia and weren't yet exported to other countries, it seems very unreasonable to assume that the United States has proper knowledge of the internal construction and performance of these things; they probably have to rely on rough estimations for protection and lethality assessments. In the end there is no reason to believe that Russia didn't bother to make any (smaller) changes since thee first reveal of Relikt and its series adoption. The T-90M also might feature the new armor inserts developed for the T-90MS, given that it is factory rebuiilt and based on it. Likewise it doesn't mean that Russia knows much about the armor protection and penetration capabilities of the M1A2C and the M829A4 APFSDS. I have not found any statements from ATK regarding claims that the M829A4 is capable of or designed to defeat a T-90 wiith Relikt ERA. However it is stated in official documents that it has the same velocity, weight and dimensions as the M829A3, so it mostly seems to differ by propellant (now temperature independent), combustible cartridge case and potentially internal construction of the penetrator; given that the M829A3 is often overrated and wouldn't actually seem to be superior to Svinets-1 (at least if both rounds wouldn't make use of exotic tip and internal constructions), I don't think that there is any clear edge for the M1A2C; in fact the T-90MS seems to have overall better armor thanks to the improved coverage and apparently stronger hull armor.

Seeing that Damian still keeps posting his crazy theories about the M1A1 AIM/M1A2 SEP having DU armor in the hull, here is a rather recent document (answer by the NRC to a licence request for storing and using DU armor by General Dynamics): www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1505/ML15057A184.pdf Note that there is no mention of the hull, but the turret is specifically mentioned. Applied for the renewal of the licence on 13th of June 2014, letter dated 16th of December 2014, fully approved on 25th of February 2015.