SH_MM

Speaking of the M60... M60 upgrade developed by the Italian company Leonardo.

Not really. These are actually diferent weapon systems. The newly adopted weapon is known as Wirkmittel 90 by the manufacturer. While designated RGW-90 (recoilless grenade weapon) LRMP (long-range multipurpose) in the German Army (MATADOR variants are also known as RGW-90), they are not identical. The RGW-90 LRMP/Wirkmittel 90 is not compatible with current MATADOR ammunition and MATADOR ammo might not work on the RGW-90 LRMP launcher (essentially the LRMP uses a sight with its own fire control system integrated into the unit, while the corresponding ammunition has an electronic interface to set the firing mode). The RGW-90 LRMP has a range of up to 1,200 metres, but above 600 metres distance it is limited to the air-burst mode. Essentially there are only three types of ammunition available (multipurpose round, training round and also IR-illumination, but the latter type might not have been adopted yet). The multipurpose round can be fired either in a HE-fragmentation mode (impact fuze), a special HESH mode and an air-burst mode.

This is just a typical comment from you... "current systems are perfect!!!". Weapons like SMArt 155, BONUS, etc. will strike the tank's roof armor from a nearly vertical angle; the EFP warhead will detonate 50 to 150 metres above the vehicle and strike downwards. There is no way for Trophy or other APS to deal with that. Even dumb artillery/mortar sheels can be easily fitted witha nose section for course-correction/guidance and strike tanks from nearly vertical angles, way above the maximum elevation of current APS. Javelin and Hellfire (and pretty much all top-attack ATGMs launched from helicopters) will most likely have no issue with currently existing systems. (FM 3-21.71 Appendix F, Javelin Employment). AGM-114A Hellfire trajectories. Then there is a big question in functionality of sensors and software. APS are designed to ignore ATGMs/RPGs which would not impact on the vehicle, because otherwise valuable countermeasures are lost. This is a general problem of APS vs top-attack weapons, but it could also mean overfly top-attack systems such as TOW-2B and BILL-2 won't be engaged by them. Your theory about "rotating systems defeat[ing] top attack munitions" because "they dont need to shoot straight up" is wrong for a multitude of reasons. First of all, these system don't know where the top-attack weapons are, because the radar coverage of current system doesn't include the upper sections of the hemisphere. How should the APS intercept a threat that it cannot see? Aside of this issue, not all launchers can be elevated so far, because the There are also issues with the detection range required to spot most types of top-attack missiles and the interception distance required for the APS to properly work. Trophy's launchers cannot be turned enough to cover the roof (thanks to their location and the fixed blast shields), while Iron Fist/AVePS and similar systems require greater standoff to not damage the system when the HE warhead explodes.

AFAIK the current launcher-based active protection system with the highest elevation is SAAB's LEDS-150 (up to 65°). Italy developed an APS similar to AWiSS/AVePS and Iron Fist during the early 2000s, which was called Scudo. It was limited to 30° elevation in the current mock-ups, although they wanted to extend the elevation to 45°. The MUSS softkill APS used on the Puma has an elevation of up to 70°. Iron Fist uses RADA's CHR radar panels, which have a tracking cone of 90° in elevation and 120° in azumith from the radar's axis. This means it is limited to +45° elevation (slightly more if the radar panels are mounted on a sloped surface). This makes modern vehicles with APS still vulnerable to top-attack ammunitions like SMArt 155, KSTAM, BONUS or other weapons fired by artillery or mortars; they cannot be defeated by most/all APS types. The ADS active protection system has special up-wards facing countermeasures and sensor units, although the elevation will also be limited. It would in theory be possible to fit additional ones onto the roof...

Systems like Trophy, Iron Fist, AVePS etc. also cannot shot straight upwards.

It's just like the BMPT in worse.

That and an UAV system jamming.

Seeing the Dragoon: Is it possible to operate the gunner's and commander's hatches when the turret is facing forward?

Well, they never tested a proper tank. They wanted the option of swapping the diesel engine and the AGT-1500 gas turbine whenever required, which proved to be too difficult. Btw. according to Shephardmedia's AUSA coverage, the M1A2 might get a new gun in the future. So much regarding "Abrams doesn't need a new gun, DU is soooo super!"...

Once a linear shaped charge is penetrated by a projecitle, the fuse wire sets off all other LSCs. This is why I think there always be some LCS fused at ideal standoff distance: (i.e. red = not enough standoff, orange = too much standoff distance, green = ideal standoff distance).

Rheinmetall calls this concept "HEL on wheels" (HEL = high energy laser) or in case of the Boxer "Mobile HEL Effector Wheel XX". I reuploaded them to imgur, maybe this works: These stocks are standard on all G36A3s purchased on the German IDZ(-ES) system, which the dismounts of a Puma IFV should have. Obviously something is wrong with the unit in the photograph, because one of the soldiers in the first apparently lacks the IDZ system. Edit: btw. the requirements for the G36 replacement (and earlier contract for a new rifle for the KSK) exclude ITAR regulated (US-made) rifles.

A few photos from Twitter: New version of the Boxer JODAA (digitzed Boxer prototype from Rheinmetall with self-driving option, drive-by-wire technology and included mini-UAV & UGV): Boxer CRV and Leopard 1:

I didn't track you, I just am registered in all the previously mentioned forums. At least in these forums you kept using the same name, hence you are easy to recognize once you are noticed. Assuming the units with the capable AT weaponry are not mobile and the intrusion of (hostile) MBTs is not noticed or tracked before they get to the support elements. Unlikely against a competent enemy. With current armor technology, there is a big difference between protecting against KE penetrators and shaped charge rounds, specifically considering that there are also light-weight tandem-charge RPGs that have a greater efficiency against special armor of all sorts. To reach the same performance as a 130 mm smoothbore gun, the hypothetical HVM following the same design as LOSAT or CKEM would need a very large and very powerful rocket engine - essentially it wouldn't be fitting inside a tank. So the HVMs would need to be carried outside, which increases costs, size and weight (or you accept the option of a firepower kill by some dude with a HMG or by an IFV). Limiting the ability of a tank to fight against only four enemy tanks in the most common situation (statistically tanks are most likely to meet each other within the frontal arc) is a bad idea that no real tank commander would accept for his vehicle. No, because in modern militaries tanks are not used as single vehicles operating completely on their own. For an enemy to get a significant probability to hit outside the frontal 60° arc, the enemy has to be able to outmaneuver your unit. In reality tanks operate in platoons or larger units and never alone - infantry, IFVs and other vehicles are there to support the tank unit. When a tank (or rather a platoon) makes a move, the other elements of the military are meant to provide cover of the flanks. That's basic knowledge that you'll learn in every armor school in NATO. Also the whole concept of "We can't achieve that the frontal arc faces the enemy at all times, so let's give up on trying to protect the area that is most likely hit by the enemy" is just wrong. Why even try to fight a war, when there is a chance of loosing it? They fought against badly organized and in many regards incompetent enemies, which hadn't fully understood how to utilize modern technology (such as the tank, radios, etc.) to their maximum potential. Hilmes didn't state that a 40-50 tons tank is well protected enough for the modern battlefield nor did he claim that any of these tanks would meet your protection requirements. He has mentioned several weight-optimized tanks (usually without a turret or with an un-armored unmanned turret) that can achieve a protection level similar to your requirements. The Type 10 has less a lot armor than required by you. Side armor along the crew compartment is usually not enough to resist 30 mm APFSDS (i.e. Leopard 2's side hull armor was designed to withstand 20 mm DM43 APCR rounds), the Type 10 doesn't have the protection against "lightweight shaped charges" nor is it protected against 10 kg TNT mines (although this requirement - probably based on the NATO STANAG 4569 level 4a/b - is rather bad, because EFP mines have a much bigger potential to destroy MBTs... but NATO has yet to accept a standard for testing vehicles against EFP mines).

He posts in most larger tank related forums, i.e. Tank Net, World of Tanks, Warthunder, WaffenHQ (but AFAIK he was banned there a few years ago), some WW2 specific forums, etc.

In this blog post maybe not, but he seems to think that. The author of the Defense and Freedom blog is a member of differnet discussion forums; I remember him suggesting that there is no need for a tank gun to penetrate the frontal armor of enemy tanks and there is no need for enough armor to survive a direct hit... essentially he wanted some Leopard 1 tank. When asked (by me) how these tanks should stand a chance against modern MBTs, he said that they would always ambush the enemy and never attack the armored frontal arc... essentially his tank would be useless for offensive actions and rely on the enemy being incompetent in defensive actions.

Upper side armor blocks are lacking. This section is usually covered by ERA made by Dynamit Nobel Defence. For some weird reason, PSM (the company that manages the Puma, i.e. 50% Rheinmetall and 50% KMW) has opted to purchase only 200 ERA kits for the initial 350 Pumas and now is negotiating to buy a further 80 ERA kits (if I worked for DND, I'd ask for a higher price now...). The German Army wants the full armor kits for all vehicles... They shouldn't be. All of them are supposed to have the G36A3 for the IDZ-ES soldier system.

Spot the difference!

So apparently only 68 tanks will receive the newer L55A1 gun, the other ones retain the original L55 gun. https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/latest_news/index_14912.php Btw: Danish upgrade plans

Unfortunately the whole situation regarding this APS is a bit confusing. There in only one single paragraph of the document from where the photo is taken, which describes a hypothetical new APS. Now my understanding is that not a single prototype of this APS was built - or at least not at the time of writing the description of this APS - so all images (besides some of the drawings) in the article are showing other types of APS with similar/the same mechanism to illustrate how the new APS would work. Essentially Dr. Manfred Held theorized a type of APS with the aim to provide 1.5 times the space efficiency and 2 to 4 times the weight efficiency (vs KE and HEAT respectively) in relation to the Leopard 2A5's frontal turret armor. The photo from earlier shows an APFSDS rod hit by three "impactors" without any further statement on how these impactors will look like. These could be metal plates/bars, composite plates or ERA tiles as mentioned in an older document from Manfred Held, where he provided a drawing with ERA/NERA plates. The APS theorized by Dr. Held combines multiple different approaches and systems. The outermost "layer" is formed by shaped charge countermeasures linked to a high-precision sensor units to defeat RPGs and ATGMs - such an APS was designed by Dr. Held and tested in Germany during the late-1960s already. If this system fails, the pre-cursor warhead (in case it's a tandem warhead) will be stopped by a relatively thick steel plate (which can be reinforced by a layer of ERA or other reactive armor), then the other APS might start to work. The second shaped charge warhead will be defeated by a layer of heavy integral ERA, which has a thick enough cover plate to stop any sort of remaining jet fragments of the first/pre-cursor warhead. Behind the front of the armor plate, there are trigger mechanisms (either a electric cicuit that will be shortened by the APFSDS or an explosive charge that will be detonated), which then sets of an explosive charge to launch the anti-KE impactors. These impactors consists of metal bars, but in one of the drawing they are located in the center of an ERA tile, thus implying that the whole ERA tile with the bar was fired. However the text mentions that there remains back-up heavy ERA in case the APS fails to defeat the APFSDS (and to counter more advanced APFSDS with telescopic rods or greater L/D ratio), which is a bit in conflict with the drawing. In the end there the drawing could represent another APS type/variant; there is no complete overview showcasing the whole system. The concept of throwing ERA (or NERA) into the path of a penetrator is made for enhancing the effects. The penetrator will have more time to tilt and its fragments will have more time to spread along a larger surface, significantly reducing the penetration. Throwing steel plates into the path of a penetrator at a larger stand-off distance already provides better efficiency than ERA, so using NERA/ERA or composite armor panels instead is supposed to be even more effective.

Well, there are videos and photographs of Nozh/Duplet defeating tandem charge RPGs (i.e. PG-7VR/PG-29V) and older APFSDS rounds, it's hard to discard this evidence. Maybe the common description about the crescent-shaped reactive elements is wrong or they use different/fake models of Nozh for presentations, but the ERA has a lot of potential. Btw. maybe it's in-flight shape might be more similar to an EFP. PS: In tests a linear shaped charge similar in size to what one could expect from Duplet can penetrate 20-26 mm (mild) steel at 19 mm stand-off. Above 76 mm stand-off penetration starts to decrease. At optimum (19 - 32 mm) stand-off commercial LCS' can penetrate 38 - 51 mm steel. That seems to be in line with Nozh/Duplet. Multiple LCS hts the KE penetrator and weaken it by creating notches, so it might break during travel or when impacting the armor. Initation of the LCS is obviously tricky, but it might be possible. Images from http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/2/3/629/htm Seems like 15 is a "fuze cable" located in the center of the module?

Isn't that a Centurion without sideskirts?

This is a Strv 122 (Leopard 2A5).

Doesn't make a difference, internally the armor blocks end at the same places. The first photo shows a Polish Leopard 2A5 (ex-German). The second photo is taken from a factory, when 2A4 turrets were upgraded to the 2A5 standard. This turret upgrade in this case is pretty much finished. Do you mean something like this?

Here one can see the different thickness of the two turret cheeks: Note. The left cheek armor module (840-860 mm thickness) is nearly flush with the gun trunion. The right cheek armor module is about 200-300 mm thicker! Different view. The upper armor is part of the 640-660 mm thick armor block behind the gunner's sight. M1 Abrams turret provides protection equal to 400 mm steel armor vs APFSDS ammunition according to declassified documents. The protection against shaped charges is 750 mm.