SH_MM

A few more photos. I didn't know that the armored vehicle restoration group of the German tank museum has its own facebook page. The tank is in driving condition.

Maybe it's the processing unit? Other APS also make use of only a single central computer system to deal with multiple launchers and sensors.

About Trophy on the Merkava IV (via otvaga forum): Note that the APS does indeed replace some of the side armor (which can be seen in the lack of bolts required to hold the NERA panels and also the hatch that is visible at the bottom). On the armor modules, there are normally lots of small bolts in that location: I guess that explains to some extend why Trophy on the M1 Abrams seems to be so much larger...

Prototype IFV RU 361 developed by Henschel for the Marder program. You should have removed the number on the hull before posting...

http://www.janes.com/article/81952/zvs-completes-125-mm-tapna-ammunition-development

Okay, that makes it harder to find out any details. It could be that for some reason one of Panzer 87 WE prototypes' turrets ended up in Norway (maybe for cold weather trials or they later sold the prototype without add-on armor for conversion into support vehicles like ARVs, bridge-layers or engineering vehicles). Alternatively it could be a Norwegian prototype; Norway tested the SAAB Barracuda camouflage on at least two tanks. Maybe Norway wanted to test mounting slat armor to the Leopard 2A4 turret and hence added the mounting points. The Leopard 2A6M CAN uses a different arrangement of mounting points (i.e. only two rows of rectangular mounting points each with two holes for bolts), but the difference might be a result of different supplier for the slat armor and/or the different shape of the tanks.

Do you happen to know where said turret is located? The number painted on white to the turret is common for Swiss Leopard 2 tanks: That should imply the turret was actually used for one of the Panzer 87 WE prototypes, which featured add-on armor (that was not purchased for production vehicles). One of the Panzer 87 WE prototypes was used to test SAAB's Barracuda (again not purchased): However I am not sure how the lack of camouflage painting and mounting points for some of the equipment (RWS, Galix smoke grenade launching system) can be explained...

Probably a Leopard 2A4M CAN turret without add-on armor modules. AFAIK the "tape" are velcro attachments for the SAAB Barracuda camouflage system.

Sorry, I forgot to explain that correctly: the diagram shows the armor of the Marder before the 1A3 upgrade. Source for the values is the book "Schützenpanzer Marder: Die technische Dokumentation des Waffensystems" by Lohmann and Hilmes. The listed thickness of the front plate is the engine cover thickness. The engine cover has a lid around the edges, that make it look a bit thicker when seen from the side: # The actual steel plate is less than half as thick as it seems from the side, due to the lid around the edges.

As far as I know, the M829A3's tip is designed to work against more than just Kontakt-5 ERA. It is meant to also deal with other types of ERA, i.e. improved types that Russia, China and other countries could've adopted (Kontakt-5 is very old, even the Soviets worked on replacement systems). The German APFSDS ammo (which is believed to have a segmented rod) is designed to defeat double-layered heavy ERA, a type of ERA that Germany believed might be fielded on future Russian tanks (but apparently they were wrong). In 2003, the US Army bought a number of T-84/T-80UD tanks from the Ukraine, maybe these were fitted with Nozh or some other ERA, which might have affected the M829A3's design.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/Modern_Armor_IV.pdf It's on page 8, but there is nothing more. The text in the file by itself is mostly worhtless...

The support of higher pressures is mentionled for the XM360E1 only; the basic lightweight XM360 seems to be designed to deliver the same performance as the existing M256, but in a vehicle at half the Abrams' weight.

Its from an old file containing lots of armor estimates from Paul L. and others, which were gathered from the early internet. The original source isn't stated.

Lynx as APC The Russian Pantsir system is a lot more bulky and complex than what is realistically possible to be fielded on the Boxer in the near future ( at least without major modifications). The concept is good, but the Pantsir itself is already dated; missiles, radar systems and guns aren't up to date. It is/was certainly a great solution, but is not very practical for the current sitatution of the German military. The NNbS program is not necessarily limited to a single system, although only one will probably meant to provide protection against fast, low-flying drones. I guess the problem with the currently proposed options is that Rheinmetall doesn't make missiles, while MBDA doesn't make guns. Originally both companies cooperated to develop the MPCV turret, but that was unrelated to the NNbS program (not started back then) and mostly was meant as an alternative to Rheinmetall's Skyarcher turret/ASRAD. In theory both options could be improved. Here is Rheinmetall's proposal for the SysFla based on the Gefas. Note that they added six surface-to-air missiles to the Skyranger turret, so the Boxer also should be able to receive SAMs as secondary armament. MBDA claims that the MPCV turret also can accept other guns than just the M2 HMG. What type of guns exactly is not mentioned, but when fitted with a 27 mm Mauser BK-27 gun or an autocannon chambered in 30 x 113 mm (M230LF or Venom gun), I think it would be a bit more useful. The LFK NG, an IRIS-T variant meant to replace the Stinger missile on the Eurocopter Tiger and the Wiesel 2 Ozelot SAM carrier, was apparently canceled with no replacement. The IRIS-T SLS is too large to be added as secondary weapon system to a gun turret and is also not containerized. That means it is either going to be MANPADS or Germany has to buy a new SAM system from a foreign supplier.

This is a page from Assessment of foreign armour developments, dated 9th April of 1970. Re-reading the snipplet, "double acting warhead" also could imply a HEAT warhead with enough KE performance to penetrate several NERA plates before detonating, but IIRC there are also some other doucments that talk in detail about several ways of countering Burlington/Chobham armor, one of them is increasing the number of shaped charge warheads per missile. My understanding is that the Swedish 120 mm APFSDS used to test the armor apparently already included a special tip to improve performance against heavy ERA. At least the APFSDS projectile has a small notch in the tip and the Swedes found that Kontakt-5 doesn't work that well against modern APFSDS anymore. In general special tip constructions and segmented penetrators can improve the armor penetration against layered and composite armor arrays. The German company Rheinmetall announced that it doesn't want to test its ammunition against RHA targets anymore, because these won't reflect the behaviour/performance of the projectiles when used against special armor arrays. Patents and certain documents, that unfortunately aren't approved for public release, also suggest that the segmented penetrators developed in Germany were optimized to defeat next-generation main battle tanks making use of ERA and layered ceramic-steel-armor (i.e. the same type of armor as used on the T-80UD prototype and on the Object 477 prototype). It depends on how the NERA looks. Heavy ERA and heavy NERA seem to follow different design trends, i.e. Kontakt-5 is rather thin and only single layered (sometimes two reactive insert elements are used, but they would detonate at the same time). The wedge-shaped armor of the Leopard 2 meanwhile uses multiple NERA layers with much thicker steel plates that are also claimed to be made of high-hardness steel. Therefore the interactions between penetrator and armor could be quite a bit different.

The seller can regulate the delivery of spare parts.

Some pics of the Marder 1A3's spaced armor: Tested against 30 mm AP from 400 m distance; no penetration UFP after shot by 35 mm PELE (at least that was claimed on a German forum once); no penetration of the base armor (lower vehicle is BMP) It depends on the ammunition and range, but in general yes. Even an old 35 mm APFSDS round from the late 1980s/early 1990s can penetrate 100 mm steel armor at 2,000 m distance. A more modern design with longer penetrator should be able to deal with quite a bit more armor. Modern IFVs are often designed with very limited amounts of additional protection over the demanded/desired protection level due to the large physical size and the relatively low weight spend on armor. The CV90 Mk II and CV90 Mk III for example are both designed to resist 30 mm APFSDS ammo (from 1,000 m distance), but they are not meeting the NATO STANAG 4569 level 6 standard (protection against modern 30 mm AP, APDS and APFSDS ammunition from 500 m distance along the frontal arc). The difference in armor penetration of a 30 mm APFSDS between 500 m and 1,000 m is probably just about 5-10 mm steel. So a 35 mm gun, a 40 mm or a 57 mm gun would probably cause quite a lot of trouble for some of the lighter IFV types that are designed to just reach protection against 25 mm/30 mm rounds. Sounds like a good reason to post the photos again . Doesn't bother to paint the armor on the inside, but then gets angry when someone takes a photo...

30 mm is the most common calibre size for modern IFVs. It is considered the perfect balance between firepower and ammo storage by most users. Only a handful of IFVs are using larger guns (i.e. the Type 89 from Japan, the CV9035NL and CV9035DK, the CV9040, the K21 and the Warrior, if the WLIP is no canceled). Autocannons chambered in 30 x 173 mm and 30 x 170 mm are used as main armament of the IFVs operated by Austria, Germany, Norway, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, the UK and others. The Australia , the Czech Republic, Poland and the US Army are all considering to buy/upgrade their IFVs with 30 mm guns. The Stryker Dragoon and the Boxer CRV, while not being IFVs, also make use of 30 mm guns.

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/900675.html#cutid1 Chieftain: 250 mm vs KE on turret and hull Challenger 1: 500 mm vs KE on turret and at least 275 mm vs KE on hull. Challenger 2 (1980s project): at least 500 mm vs KE on turret and hull More from same source (WT forums): According to British documents on the development of Chobham armor, tandem charges provide superior penetration against it (and other types of special armor). That means the protection levels in Sweden are exaggerated against modern ATGMs.

No, it should be the 120 mm XM360 tank gun. Look at the low-quality photo from the presentation, the image at the lower right shows 120 mm main gun ammo. Same muzzle break..

They just haven't finished replacing ADS with RAP at all places (or they replaced ADS too often). Take a look at the menu titles on the product page: "RAP functional principle", "RAP development" and "RAP series production".

ADS, formerly known as AMAP-ADS, has apparently be renamed to RAP (Rheinmetall Active Protection): http://www.ads-protection.org/

MBDA's proposal for the German NNbS program/qualified air-defence system is to use the MPCV turret on either the Boxer or the Dingo 2 6x6: This system will compete against Rheinmetall's self-propelled anti-air gun system wtih a 35 mm gun. Rheinmetall is also planning a variant with the IRIS-T SLS surface-to-air missile and a seperate fire control/radar vehicle, all based on the Boxer (potato quality rendering): The 35 mm Millenium gun has a maximal range (when firing AHEAD ammunition) of less than 4,000 metres; the Mistral 3 MANPADS used on the MPCV turret have an effective range of 6,000 metres (against fast moving targets). The IRIS-T SLS missile has a range of more than 10,000 metres. IMO the proposal with the MPCV turret is interesting, if it can be modified to work with larger guns than the currently offered 12.7 mm M2 HMG. The German army is looking to replace the old Stinger models either with the newest production model of the Stinger or the Mistral 3 - although it appears that Stinger will be prefered. In the ideal case, all three systems would be purchased to provide the best possible air defence, but budget reality will probably make sure we'll see only one of them becoming adopted. Here are a few photos from the recent Bundeswehr day:

Notice how the hull weight simulators also used to consist of three plates, but on the later US Army tank (with Trophy) only one plate is left (and none is fitted to the USMC's M1A1 tank!). That already tells us that these weight demonstrators are not used solely to simulate additional armor weight, if they simulate armor weight changes at all. The fact that an earlier M1A2 SEP v3 prototype without Trophy is fitted with these weight simulators also doesn't mean that the US engineers didn't add them in expectation of an APS. Also note that the steel plates on the USMC's prototype and the US Army's SEP v3 have different sizes. The M1A2 SEP v3 after mounting Trophy is left with three large steel plates and a smaller one moutned ontop, which covers only about half as much surface area.

Suspension travel is the total vertical distance that the roadwheel can move in the vertical direction; that is why it is a metric to measure suspension performance independent of the suspension type. It would make more sense to differentiate between bump and rebound values, but unfortunately I haven't found these separated values for tanks with hydropneumatic suspensions like the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2. Yes, you can make hydropneumatic suspensions with more travel than currently achieved on tanks like the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams (and that is actually easier than making a better torsion bar suspension), but these systems always have issues. The MBT-70 had 600 mm total suspension travel (but the design was unreliable), the 1980s German design (that was never adopted due to the 250 kg weight of each suspension element) provided even 650 mm travel. In case of tanks like the Challenger 2 and Leclerc, the total wheel travel is limited to 450 mm. The in-arm suspension offered for the M1 Abrams has a total travel of 21 inches (533 mm), the earlier hydropneumatic suspension of the T95 medium tank had a travel of 19 inches (482 mm). I don't know anything about the performance data of the Japanese and South Korean HSUs, but the Arjun's suspension is slightly better than the Leopard 2's in terms of suspension travel (535 mm vs 526 mm. Then again the Arjun's suspension is claimed to be extremely unreliable... No, I am saying that one has to make a trade-off. If a hydropneumatic suspension would be the perfect solution, every tank since the 1950s (the T95 and the Leopard 1 prototype of work group "B" had HSUs) would have been fitted with such as a system. It is not possible, to make a hydropneumatic suspension that performs better than a current torsion bar design, while being lighter and equally/more reliable. You can make a lighter and reliable hydropneumatic suspension, but this won't offer more performance than a torsion bar suspension (which was done on the Challenger tanks, the Leclerc and the hybrid systems adopted on K1 Type 88 and the Type 90 tanks) You can make a HSU with greater suspension travel and low weight, but this system will then be less reliable than a torsion bar suspension (see MBT-70, XM803 and Arjun) You can make a reliable hydropneumatic suspension with greater travel, but this will then be heavier than a torsion bar suspension (like the rejected West-German design of the 1980s) It would be possible, but increases the complexity of the system. You answered your own question; faster wear, higher localized pressure, etc. The Merkava's springs seem to be rather heavy in order to be sturdy and reliable enough. That depends on the exact implementation. While torsion bars are indeed an additional hazard in case of a mine strike, the in-arm suspension offered for the M1 Abrams and the hydrogas systems used on the Challenger tanks and the Leclerc are not optimized for increasing underbelly protection. These systems make use of external elements, that are bolted ontop of pre-cut holes on the hull sides, thus they still require a ballistic hole (a detonation of an IED or mine will simply tear the connection apart, this also happened on a VBCI in Mali). For future AFVs designed with mine protection in mind, hydropneumatic suspensions (ideally with a fully decoupled running gear) are the way to go. That is indeed true, Hilmes for example mentioned that the Leopard 2's torsion bar system was only possible due to advancements in metalurgy; but I think that these types of high-grade steel alloys had more possible applications in industry and therefore were an expected evolution in the 1950s-1990s. Hydropneumatic suspensions capable of dealing with a 50-70 ton vehicle were however not very practical outside of military vehicles, as simpler HSUs didn't necessarily suffer from the same issues (although early hydropneumatic systems in civilian cars were often leaky). Note that it also got these "weight simulators" on the turret front. I've never read about the USMC also planning to upgrade their tanks with the new armor package within the next decade, so maybe these are just counterweights for Trophy and have nothing to do with simulating the increased weight of a new armor package?