SH_MM

This seems to be RUAG's SidePro-Lasso: Slat armor from McCurdy:

From a youtube video. PS: Hitting the frontal section of the ERA tile = lower efficiency...

In my opinion NORINCO should offer the VT-5's side armor package as upgrade option.

You mean ELAWS (Elbit Laser warning system). ALWACS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system) is a softkill system with IR countermeasure utilizing the ELAWS sensors. Maybe the multi-spectral smooke grenade launchers from the ALWACS are also used, but it is not the full system.

That gun barrel looks oddly long. I guess that is due to lacking a thermal sleeve?

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5a53a86848c85ef3503c96cf/dinamicheskaia-zascita-noj-tanka-bm-bulat-5a53ab5e00b3dd9078274161? The number 15 is showing the detonation cord/charge used to fuze all linear shaped charges. It is also visible in the cut-through Nozh module above. High-speed x-ray of a Nozh module interacting with a shaped charge jet.

The whole reason behind having the breech block moving through the roof is not limiting the gun depression...

The first Spike-LR tests with the Puma were a failure, which kind of reminds me of the very first Spike-LR tests (also failed). The missile is operational with the army since 2012 in small numbers. According to the article on the German Army website (from which Mr. Turnbull copied the photos), four Spike-LR missiles were fired at targets about 4 kilometres away. The first missile (fired in the SACLOS mode, i.e. "fire and steer" as called by Rafael) had a malfunction and didn't properly react to the commands of the gunner. It is not reported wether it hit the target, but it flew too low (so that it wasn't captured by the measuring devices and high-speed cameras) despite the gunner trying to make it fly higher. Second missile, also fired in SACLOS mode hit the target. Third missile (fired in the "fire and forget" mode) had issues during flight, the video in the monitor was wobbling (might in theory also be a problem with the launcher). It is not reported wether it hit the target or not, just like what happened with the fourth missile. If the fourth missile had no issues, this still would only be a 50% success rate... not good. But it is part of a testing and qualification program, so the issues are meant to be mended before the launcher is adopted on the series vehicles. PS: Also the Raketenjagdpanzer video from 1969:

The low-profile turret design from the 1980s would see two men (commander and gunner) sit within the turret. A completely unmanned turret is not possible on the Leopard 2 hull without even more additional work. This proposal takes an unaltered hull (or a shortened hull with a smaller powerpack) and adds a low-profile turret. A tank belonging to the VT-2000 testbed would have a completely unmanned turret with a two men crew (driver and a combined gunner/commander) in the hull. These countries keep using old stuff, because they don't want to invest enough money for upgrades. Finland hasn't upgraded its Leopard 2 tanks in any way, just like Austria. I don't see a reason why they would decide to upgrade the ex-German Leopard 2A7/2A8/2A9 tanks, if they bought these in 2040/2050. Every gun mantlet already has an opening in which rain and dirt could in theory leak. This is not a special feature of a low profile turret with the breech block penetrating the roof. You are seeing the turret profile only regarding being easy to spot, but in reality it is mostly a matter of protection. Optics and a RCWS ontop of the roof won't matter, because there is no internal volume behind them. if you penetrate a RCWS with an ATGM, APFSDS round or RPG, then the crew will remain unharmed. If you penetrate the turret bulge, then the splash from the projectile and spall from the armor is in the crew compartment and will harm/kill the crew. Removing the bulge from the Leclerc would reduce the size of the gun mantlet by ~30%, the area of the turret sides that can be hit by ~40% and the area of the frontal profile with internal volume behind it by ~10-20%. It is the following question: do you want to have a larger turret with more weakspots or a smaller one with essentially none?

VT-4 seems to be surprisingly high-tech.

No, that doesn't work. The Abrams already has two separate compartments, yet it needs thick bustle armor. Unless the firewall is extremely thick, it is not guaranteed that it will stop a round from penetrating both ammo compartments. Well, they would replace the tank after enough next-generation MBTs are in service. So by 2040-2050; if the Leopard 2 by that time is still acceptable counter to the new tanks that Russia, China, etc. have accepted into service then. The French turret suffers from being a "bulge turret". As the gun is not allowed to move above/through the roof (as in case of the German proposal), there is a "bulge" added to the roof; without this the gun depression would be limited (breech block would hit the roof). This bulge is essentially unarmored and causes the turret to offer no size reduction compared to the Leopard 2 turret - at least not in height. It has a slightly smaller frontal profile, but when seen from the side the bulge is exposed and can be hit. That's why the German design - if a decent NBC protection solution has been found - is better. Alternatively one could accept a really low-profile turret comparable to the Stryker MGS turret or the Falcon II turret from the Jordanian KADDB; these however again would offer lower protection against threats hitting the sides. I am not sure that this is accurate, but it might be close.

Well, if you want to keep the tank around for an additional 42 years, I guess then investing into a deeper modernization of the Leopard 2 makes sense. However by 2030-2035 a proper next-generation main battle tank should be available. There are quite a few options, I just wouldn't consider them to be financially financially sensible for most users. Dipl.-Ing. R. Hilmes suggested - as a fully hypothetical upgrade - to install a low profile turret and a MT883 engine into a Leopard 2 for a major reduction in size and weight. This then would require to add an autoloader (in best case one would eliminate one crew member, but theoretically one also could keep a fourth crew member and give him another role). One also could use a next-generation engine based on the MT890 family as used in the Puma. A V12 variant of the Puma's MT892 would be 50% smaller (in terms of volume) and reduce fuel consumption by 10%. This low-profile turret was designed in the 1980s, but it was never used due to issues with the NBC protection system. I.e. to keep a high gun depression, the gun needed to move through the roof, which would mean that a much stronger NBC protection system is required (a larger opening means more clean air will exit the vehicle, so more air has to be filtered by the NBC protection system and moved into the vehicle to create an overpressure). Leopard 2 hull (shortened, only six roadwheels + MT883 engine and Renk HSWL 295TM) with such a loow profile turret. Same as above, but with Leopard 2A5-style add-on armor. Length of the hull is reduced by ~1 metre, height of the turret by ~20-30%. However the price for such an upgrade would be probably close to buying brand new Leopard 2 tanks. A more radical upgrade would involve using a two-men crew located in the hull - i.e. remove the ammo rack and use this spot for a combined commander/gunner. Then put an unmanned turret with autoloader onto the turret ring. Germany experimented with 2 men crews during the 1980s and 1990s for their next generation MBT (i.e. first the PzKpfW 2000, then the NGP), before the programs were canceled. Tests involved using special containers with three seats (two for the crew, one for a person who observes the tests and documents the results) on a Leopard 2 hull. The crew was assisted by modern optics and electronics, which would automatically detect targets, etc. In theory with more modern technology this also could involve automated driving (setting a waypoint on a GPS map, then letting the tank drive to the coordinates) and automatic target engagement (let the tank detect, aim and fire at enemies all by itself). Last but not least there is the aspect of armor protection. It really depends on what is required for the Leopard 2 in the 2040s, 2050s and 2060s. Rheinmetall claims, that the AMAP armor package used on the Leopard 2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator and the Leopard 2 Evolution provides the same level of frontal protection as the Leopard 2A7(V), while also including roof armor and side armor modules for turret and hull, that are not part of the basic 2A7(V) configuration. So by using this AMAP armor kit without roof and side armor, one could probably already save 1-2 metric tons over the current 2A7(V) tank. More modern armor technology available in the 2030s/2040s/2050s would enable further weight savings while staying at the same level of protection - if a higher level of protection is desired, the weight savings would go away. The United States of America (with the Future Combat Systems) and the IDF (with the Carmel vehicle) both have at least played with the idea of reducing passive armor in favor for active protection systems. So in the future one could remove some ~10-15 metric tons of composite armor and instead install one or multiple types of APS, if this is considered acceptable. No, the Leopard 2 does have extra armor in the frontal section of the hull. However it is less obvious. First of all on the original hull design for the Experimentalentwicklung Keiler (1969) and the Leopard 2K (1972) were designed with a higher level of protection along the whole crew comparment. The frontal section of the Keiler was designed to have 40 mm cast steel armor at the lower section or two sloped plates (10 mm rolled steel at 45.5° + 35 mm cast steel at 30°) at the upper section. Engine compartment armor was only 29 mm rolled steel (lower section) or 12 + 22 mm steel (upper section). Leopard 2K continued this design with changed thickness. Frontal section has 12 + 30 mm spaced armor at 45.45° (upper section) or 10 + 29 mm (lower section), while the engine compartment has only 8 + 10 mm spaced side armor at 45.45° (upper section) or 10 + 19 mm (lower section). I cannot tell if the series production variant of the Leopard 2 (1979) has the same armor scheme, hower it was still present on the Leopard 2AV prototypes (1976-1977). I've heard that the side armor layout has been altered in certain batches, but I cannot confirm that this is true. At least on the Leopard 2A7Q and the Strv 122, the frontal most section of the hull - i.e. the section in which the driver sits and the hull ammo is located - includes a special armor array (some 150-200 mm thick). Note the opening that extends from the front to the center of the turret ring. There composite armor modules will be inserted.

I don't consider such a large rework of the Leopard 2's design a realistic option. If you shorten the hull, the track area will be reduced and the ground presssure will rise. So it really depends on how much weight can be saved by installing a new powerpack and shortening the hull. Given that the armor at the engine compartment is the thinnest of the hull, the reduction in combat weight would be rather small in relation to the reduction in track contact area. So essentially to negate a potential loss of mobility, the overall weight of the tank also should be reduced at other places. This might mean a ligher armor package (not ideal) or reducing the overall size of the tank, for example by using a new low-profile turret. However then you are changing so much, that you could instead buy a new tank for the same money (specifically if the suspension is also replaced by a decoupled running gear with hydro-struts). Moving the ammunition rack to the rear of the hull will cause more issues. In case of the Abrams, having a small (six rounds) ammo compartment in the rear also required adding two further armored skirt modules to the right side of the hull, which increases weight. Given that the Leopard 2's heavy ballistic skirts are shorter but thicker than the ones used on the Abrams, there need to be added even more; i.e. there is no weight saved by replacing the engine, only a new crew place is added. The Abrams' turret bustle has much thicker side armor than the one of the Leopard 2 - in fact the side armor of the Abrams' turret bustle is even thicker than the side armor of the crew compartment. So the Leopard 2 would need a lot of add-on armor for the turret rear, otherwise a single hit could leave the tank without ammo. The hydraulics are already replaced on later variants, but the place is occupied by more electronics. I.e. on the Leopard 2A7 the SOTAS-IP radios from Thales are located in the old place of the hydraulic pump.

According to the CeramTec, one of the largest manufacturers of industrial and ballistic ceramics, boron carbide is not used in combat vehicles, only in body armor. However silicium carbide is supposedly used in some AFVs including the Puma IFV.

Well, most of them look a little bit different, only some have "wings".

The text just says 𝕾𝖕𝖊𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖎𝖓𝖘𝖆𝖙𝖟𝖐𝖔𝖒𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖔 𝕾𝖆𝖈𝖍𝖘𝖊𝖓 (Spezialeinsatzkommando Sachsen, "(police) special force unit of Saxony"). The problem is not the text itself, but how it is presented. First of all the Fraktur (old German scripture, also used in Norway for some time) has not been used since the Third Reich, although aesthetically pleasing (at least better than Comic Sans MS), most of the times it is being used by neo-Nazis. The Fraktur script was officially abandoned during the WW2, because people in occupied/conquered countries had a hard time reading it (and one of the most popular fronts apparently was designed by a jew). Given that the state of Saxony has the highest amount of Nazis relative to its size (at least the neo-Nazi party has gotten the best results in Saxony), people are worried about the special forces (i.e. the Saxon equivalent of SWAT) using text commonly associated with Nazis. The logo only supports the worries, because it consists of three parts: the center part is a variant of the coat of arms of the Kindgom of Saxony, which is not being used anymore. The new coat of arms was adopted in 1990, before that were 45 years of socialist/communist rule, where such evil imperialistic signs weren't used. So the last time a similar coat of arms was used was... during the Nazi reign, before Hitler decided to restructure Germany and remove all states in favor of a Gau-based system. the center is surrounded by oak leaves (Eichenlaub). While today still in use with the German government (for example on several Euro cent coins imprinted in Germany, aswell as the beret insignia of the German military), it was even more common during the Nazi rule of Germany. E.g. most military decorations such as the Iron Cross included oak leaves in the higher versions. for some people the "wings" are too reminiscent of the Nazi variant of the Reichsadler Please note that this is not the official logo, neither is it common within the police to use Fraktur script. So essentially a lot of people are accusing the "SWAT of Saxony" to either be Nazis or to support them. The Ministry of Interior of Saxony has released a statement, claiming that this is an internal logo created in 1991 by a West-German police officer who switched to Saxony, while the font for the text wasn't officially approved (originally there was no text planned, but Rheinmetall offered to stitch a text of the police unit's choice onto the seats free of charge). Overall it is hard to say what is the truth. There have been cases of Nazis getting suprisingly far within the German police, specifically in the state police (resulting in a police special forces member being fired for having Nazi tatoos, who then sued the corresponding state but failed). On the other hand it could be a lot of (random) incidents; none of the criticized aspects is actually a proof of them being Nazis.

The police/state of Saxony is being accused of tolerating policemen with Nazi ideology based on the stitching on the seats of their survivor:

The Leopard 2A6EX was fitted with the MTU 883 engine. As already said, Germany is interested in adopting a 1,200 kW engine on a follow-up upgrade to the Leopard 2A7V. In theory this could be a MTU 883 or an even more compact 893 engine.

Danish Leopard 2A7: Note the applique armor plate at the lower hull front. This is new compared to the original tank:

additional armor module on the hull front improved torsion bars with a maximum qualified weight of 70 metric tons L55A1 gun (only some tanks) changed final drive ratio (slightly lower top speed, but higher acceleration) third gen thermal imager with high resolution integrated into the gunner's sight improved laser rangefinder with greater range new air conditioning system with integrated NBC protection system (the air conditioning adopted with the 2A7 upgrade requires a separate NBC protection system; however the old NBC protection system is kept to serve as air conditioning system for the driver) new ammo racks to hold the heavier DM11 HE-ABM ammo (on 2A7 this ammo could only be stored in certain racks) total refurbishment of all engines

No idea, but it might be the same ammo already in use with the PT-91. The old T-72 tanks might still be fitted with the old 2A46(-1) gun, which has a lower pressure limit than the 2A46M(S) (e.g. 5,100 bar vs 6,500 bar according to Fofanov). However the development/introduction of a newer APFSDS type should also be an option.

Jordan is getting a second batch of 25 Marders according to Jane's Defence Weekly: Regarding last deal - https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2016/12/marders-to-jordan.html

http://www.janes.com/article/76333/poland-to-upgrade-t-72-tanks-and-dana-sphs Seems like PT-16 and PT-17 demonstrattors are not liked by the Polish military, instead the PT-91M2 will be introduced (as upgrade of old T-72 tanks).

It is part of the combat simulation system for training. The system has the odd name "GAMER" and is made by SAAB. On the other side of the main gun is the Xtruder LED searchlight from WiseLED.