SH_MM

There is nothing in this video that has anything to do with the Leopard 2A5 (or the M829A2).

T-72B3's turret side ERA, in front of the seat.

Because the commander's sight also includes a laser rangefinder and an optical daylight sight.

I agree with that, but there apparently is a place for such vehicles - BAE Systems, GDELS and Rheinmetall all have developed such vehicles (using their own funds), because representatives from different militaries have been toying with fielding such a vehicle. The same applies to putting a 105/120 mm gun on a 8x8 vehicle. Norway (considered the CV90120 as replacement for the Leopard 2A4NO), the United Kingdom (wanted an ScoutSV Direct Fire variant before budget cuts came in) and also the Czech Republic have shown intest in "medium tanks". The Czech Republic has specified a maximum weight of 60 tonnes for its next tank (preferably less), so at the early stages of the program (when the Puma IFV was still offered) a "Puma medium tank" was considered a viable alternative by the Czech press/industry. Supposedly the only other offer for the (informal) T-72 replacement was the Israeli Sabra tank. Obviously even a Puma IFV with unmanned turret has a lot more volume to armor than a modern MBT like a Leopard 2 - with a manned turret is is going to be even more. I believe that the new turret fitted to the Lynx 120 is a stand-alone product or meant to also be fielded on a different chassis - Nicholas Drummond mentions that there is a rumored "Lynx KF51" variant, that might be a proper medium tank/MBT (but then again Mr. Drummond has a history of repeating incorrect rumors). If Rheinmetall only wanted to create a "medium tank" based on the Lynx, they would have purchased/leased a HITFACT turret as they already did on two different Marder tanks. Worth noting that the mission module still has hatches for dismounts (though they are blocked if the turret isn't facing towards a 90° angle). I'd assume that this was a cost-cutting measure (i.e. they likely just use existing IFV module, but fitted a different turret)... but there is a tiny chance that the Lynx 120 still has a capacity for dismount. No idea why one would have dismounts in a tank though... Yes and no. Protection is not limited to frontal armor. Un-upgraded T-72M1 tanks do not provide comparable all-round protection to modern IFV-based medium tanks. I have yet to see a T-72 upgrade featuring STANAG 4569 Level 4A/B mine protection and protection against large caliber EFPs and RPGs along the flanks (T-72 tanks in NATO don't have such armor). Obviously the Lynx 120 isn't optimized for conventional warfare. It is a cheap trade-off compared to buying a whole new MBT (and infrastructure for it) in case a country already operates the KF41 Lynx IFV. IMO Lynx 120 competes against the ASCOD 42 MMBT and CV90120 rather than being meant as direct MBT replacement. BAE Systems' advertisement for the CV90120 (fully kitted out at 40 metric tons) might show why these "medium tanks" have gotten so heavy. They are advertised as an alternative for MBTs in urban combat. If you have the choice between 40-50 metric tons IFV-based tank and a 70-80 metric tons MBT (up-armored with mine protection plate and armor for urban combat), then the former options do not appear as heavy anymore. However this niche role has yet to see any success on the market... and probably won't see much. Turret would be a waste of money if it was only offered on Lynx hull. Lynx modularity can be seen here: (IFV being reconfigured to command post variant during the morning of the second day of Eurosatory 2018). Like the Boxer, the Lynx consists of a mission module and a drive module. This allows retrofitting each Lynx IFV from one role to another. The Lynx 120 is a standard Lynx KF41 drive module fitted with a new 120 mm gun turret mission module. There are designs for various other mission modules such as reconnaissance vehicle (with mast-mounted VINTAQS II system), a mortar variant (with Patria NEMO mortar), a recovery variant, a engineering variant, etc. The KF41 Lynx has a reconfigurable torsion bar suspension, which is designed to handle the transistion from 34 to 50 metric tons with ease. To be fair the situation is not really comparable. Like the Boxer, the Lynx can be transported in separate pieces (mission module and drive module) that then can be assembled to a full vehicle at the target destination. Also the Lynx 120 seems to be targeted at (potential) buyers of the whole Lynx eco-system, so there already would be matching logistics. A vehicle weighing (up to) 50 metric tons will have a different impact on logistics and infrastructure than a vehicle weighing 20-30 metric tons - if one has already committed to the former, then the Lynx 120 is not a burden.

This is not a low-pressure gun. It fires the full 120 mm suite currently offered by Rheinmetall. As for "less protection": protection is always relative to the threat. It does not matter if you have 200 or 500 mm of steel equivalent armor, if you face only anti-tank weapons capable of defeating 600-1,000 mm of steel. That is one of the reasons why the German Army in its (biased) assessement on the possibility of replacing the Leopard 1A5 by the ex-GDR T-72M1 tanks considered the latter tank's armor thickness advantage as irrelevant for actual protection.

Lynx 120 fire support vehicle, featuring a new 120 mm smoothbore gun derived from the Leopard 2's main armament. Also features a Natter 12.7 RWS and the SEOSS-2P commander's sight.

The military load class is not equivalent with the combat weight, but references the gross vehicle weight. The German Leopard 2A5 also has a MLC 70 rating, despite its combat weight being only 59.5 metric tons. A Leopard 2A4 fitted with IBD's full Evolution kit has a weight of 60 metric tons. It was specifically designed to fit this limit, as the original torsion bars used on the early Leopard 2 tanks can only withstand 60 tons of weight - exceeding that weight requires an expensive change of torsion bars (that most people buying IBD's armor upgrade rather than KMW's more complex upgrades are not willing to pay). Singapore did not buy the full kit (no mine protection plate, no roof add-on armor and no frontal KE/ATGM protection module).

The original side skirts are removed when applying the Evolution armor upgrade, so the total weight of the package is above 4 tons. The Singapore Army did not order the heavy "duel portion" of the Evolution kit (for improved protection against APFSDS rounds and ATGMs along the frontal arc), but only the anti-RPG armor. Such armor systems are not that heavy. The Leopard 2A4M CAN weighs 62.5 tons, but features 3 tons of mine/IED protection that the Singaporean Leopard 2SG lacks. So the weight difference is some 800 kilograms, which is the result of the different armor technologies and protection requirements. I wouldn't be surprised if the 58.7 tons are the misquoted empty weight rather than the actual combat weight. Singapore uses parts of the modular Evolution armor upgrade (with AMAP armor) from IBD. The weights of different tanks fitted with the full kit are known. None of them even scratches the 70 tons mark - even the Leopard 2 ATD with L/55 gun, APU and RWS weighs less. ___________________________________________ The weight of the track skirt armor for the Leopard 2 Evolution is 450 kg/m². Depending on desired protection level, the turret armor can be even lighter.

Would at least make sense. The Evolution package for the Leopard 2 is designed with a weight limit of 60 tons. Singapore only purchased parts of this kit, so a sub-60 tons weight is expected.

It seems to be a calendar showing the month September. Weekends are red

This is from a 2013 even held by the Verein Schweizer Armeemuseum. The man in the photo is Walter Lanz, who some may know from the Lanz-Odermatt formula. https://www.armeemuseum.ch/thuner-schiessplatz-anekdoten-rueckschau/

Then that is a mistake on my end; the captions only said that the photo shows Panzerhaubitze 2000 during the direct fire trials. The text specifically mentions that (some of) the direct firing trials were conducted at 1,400 m range. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 was originally developed with the use of a modular propellant charge system (DM72, DM82, etc.). When the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was originally deployed in Afghanistan, it was discovered that the modular propellant charges used back then had issues with consistency/temperature sensitivity, which resulted in old L8A1 propellant charges being used. The L8A1 is a tubular container/cylinder, into which up to seven propellant bags/sticks are inserted. In Germany, there is a special case of an eight propellant bag/stick being loaded for direct firing (when eight charges are used, they are all loaded at once in a large bag). This was done already with the M109 and is also done with the Panzerhaubitze 2000. According to Hptm Harling, the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was trialed with the L8A1 propellant. No idea why, maybe it was issued by the Norwegian forces or it was used because the temperature sensitivity of the modular propellant charges was not fixed back then. But it was not an ideal solution for the Panzerhaubtize 2000 and according to Harling, direct firing trials were conducted with the L8A1 containing only seven charge bags/sticks. The battlesight of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (and Germany's older M109 after upgrades) were designed for an "overcharge", i.e. L8A1 with eight propellant charge bags/sticks or maximum possible amount of modular charge modules. Sounds like a reasonable theory. As both the L/52 barrels of K9 and PzH 2000 are JBMoU compatible guns, there shouldn't be relevant differences in the construction of barrel and breech, suggesting that other factors - such as the cold gun effect - played a role.

Odd, given that Hptm Harling specifically mentions that they fired over a valley at targets in 1,400 meters distance. Would you say that the gun is more accurate or is it the targeting system or the munition? Harling complained about the L8A1 propellant charges not being matched with the German sights. Well, the Leopard 2A4M CAN is still called 2A4, but it has not much in common with the old tank in terms of electronics, optics and protection. A new "A*" designation will only be awarded to a Leopard 2 variant once the BAAINBw has tested and qualified it. A concept for a low-profile turret seemingly for the Leopard 2 was applied for by Rheinmetall in mid-2020. This seems to be a more refined version of the turret concept developed by Wegmann for the Kampfpanzer 3 tank program of the mid to late 1980s. I am not sure if Krauss-Maffei Wegmann meant this concept when suggesting that a new turret could significantly decrease the weight. Back in the 1980s, Wegmann's concept allowed reducing turret height by circa 20% without sacrificing gun depression. The main focus of Rheinmetall's design is reducing weight by using the turret roof as part of the counter-weight for the gun (relevant regarding recoil & stabilization) while reducing turret volume at the same time.

The wedge-shaped add-on armor is not considered a mission kit (in Germany), but KMW originally suggested that the Leopard 2A7 should have three different fits of armor: the baseline vehicle looking like a Leopard 2A4 (with the latest possible armor inserts) an add-on armor kit for duel operations (akin to the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7V forntal armor) an add-on armor kit for urban and peace-keeping operations (akin to the Leopard 2A4M CAN, which is derived from this concept) Germany considered this solution as too expensive and hence added add-on armor interfaces to the flanks of the hull and turret of the existing (2A5-derived) armor layout. No, but as I previously wrote it is most likely made by DND and/or GST. KMW already cooperated on the Puma IFV's side armor with DND and last year DND announced to have finished the developed of anti-KE/anti-tandem SC ERA. For COIN the integration of Trophy and the existing add-on armor kits are considered sufficient. Definitely, such procurement decisions seldomly are based on a single aspect (unlike maybe you add a weird "mine survivability requirement" to your SPG program like Australia...). Costs, overall weight, dimensions, workshare, firing performance, protection, mobility, maintainability, electronics, leadability, etc. matter. Still German coverage of the trials including the recapitulation by Hptm Harling from the Artillerielehrbattaillon 325, who was part of the Bundeswehr team supporting KMW on the sales pitch, suggests that reliability and performance in firing trials was good (and in somce trials performance was "impressive". KMW used a PzH 2000 from the German Army's inventory for the trials, which is not on par with the current offering. I was mistaken in my last comment; the total amount of snow grousers mounted during trials was 76 (from 20 original) - apparently all SPGs were used with this amount. Teams from the different vendors and the crews from the evaluation teams were not allowed to mix and spend time together. First week of trials was used to gather information on the local conditions and used for preparation of actual tests. Second week started with the Joint Distinguished Visitors Day, where the SPG systems were showcased to visitors from Norway, Finland and Denmark. Which tests were conducted with which SPG was decided by tombola. First trials for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 were logistic trials (measuring load axle load on a wheeled transport vehicle loaden with Panzerhaubitze 2000), followed by trials of the navigation systems. The following day the stowage was evaluated; at first the German team showed how its gear is stored, then it was tested if Norwegian equipment (everything ranging from an additional machine gun to tents and a field toilet) could be stored in the existing stowage boxes, externally and what modifications could be used to store it. This was followed by a session of emergency evacuations (where the time was measured) under different conditions - even with Norwegian body armor, hemlets and breathing air bottles. Such tests are not so commonly trained in Germany. The rest of the second week was used for mobility trials - tactical march, driving on ice and through heavy terrain. At the start of the third week of trials, the crossing of an armored vehicle launched bridge was conducted, followed by trials of the ammunition handling and autoloader. The first firing trials were conducted afteerwards, which then were followed by three days of driving through different prepared tracks in different terrain coniditons (including mountain roads, ice-covered roads, offroad travel and river crossing). Per day up to 120 kilometers were traveled by the Panzerhaubitze 2000. After a series of tests regarding maintenance, documentation and technical servicing, followed by further firing trials (in this case switching between multiple targets in quick succession was the primary goal of the tests). During the next firing trials, direct firing was tested. The supplied ammunition charges (L8A1) were considered poor for the job, but all targets were successfully engaged with direct hits (should be perfect score). This was followed by further mobility trials - long endurance match, driving through 800 mm deep snow, accelerating to maximum speed on a 800 meters long, icy road without (!) snow grousers, towing an armored recovery vehicle, driving slalom through a 200 meters long track with pylons placed every 15 meters and emergency brake tests. The last days of the trials were used again for firing trials, this time the autoloader could showcase itself as a "big strength" of the Panzerhaubtize 2000. Interessting. They had no issues choosing Wisent 2 variants with unproven components and ordering the unproven G5 ACSV. Both the Panzerhaubitze 2000 and K9 have their own set of strength. According to South Korean twitter users, the on-going PIP will bring electronics and autoloader only on par with the current Panzerhaubitze 2000A3 variant. Then again the Netherlands and Germany still use the older A2 standard (which also was used in Australian and Norwegian trials) and are going to skip the A3 standard (going straight to the Panzerhaubitze 2000A4 still in development). Because Norway already had a competition for upgrading the Leopard 2 (Project 5050). This showed that it was too expensive to upgrade the Leopard 2 and the upgrade potential of the old Leopard 2A4 was limited. Hence Norway decided to buy new tanks, which will offer better performance & a longer lifetime at similar costs. Competition can only be beneficial - either by forcing KMW to make a cheaper, better suited offer to Norway or by letting Norway choose a potentially better tank. Why would Norway buy the Leguan 2 and Wisent 2 - both based on the Leopard 2A7 hull - if it was not satisified with the Leopard 2's performance? Because Singapore has so much jungle... As for the Leopard 2RI: They are quite happy with it. Negative. A hypothetical Leopard 2A7V at 61 tons would have 8 tonnes of guaranteed growth potential, as its current drivetrain is designed for and qualified to withstand at least 69 tonnes. The same does not apply with the current K2(NO). Norway would have to pay for the development of the modifications required for the drivetrain to withstand and additional 8 tonnes, it would have to pay for the qualification campaign to show that the modifications actually work and it would have to pay for its K2NO tanks to be actually fitted with such modifications. So there is a clear different in growth potential. You are suggesting that Norway repeats the same "mistake" as with Project 5050. One can upgrade a Leopard 2A4NO tank to a Leopard 2A7V, but it requires extensive modifications to the hull and drivetrain, which Norway didn't want to pay. Why would Norway suddenly want to pay for them in case of the K2NO in a decade or two? Given that neither the 130 mm nor the 140 mm ammunition (nor the respective guns) fit into the K2(NO), suggesting that it has more growth potential in that regard seems a bit silly. When you have to change the gun, the gun mount, the stabilizer, the gun and turret drives and the autoloader, you are making just as many changes to the tank as required on a Leopard 2A7... the big difference is however that the Leopard 2A7 has a much bigger market, the EDA and the LEOBEN community behind it, which are willing to fund the development of such upgrades. Meanwhile Hanwha of South Korea is looking at developing its new tank with little attention being paid to the development of domestic upgrades for the K2 (though it doesn't really need those, given the South Korean geopolitical situation). Trophy APS = Trophy-HV Trophy VPS = Trophy-MV https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/ausa-2019-rafaels-lighter-trophy-system-included-in-omfv-bid That is the current nomenclature as used by Rafael and its partners (such as Leonardo DRS for the United States)... and yes, it is a stupid nomenclature. It likely won't be a flop. But it has at the moment not been fully tested and qualified to government/NATO standards, there is still a (minimal) risk and paying for the testing and qualification campaign is very expensive. Its the same reason why Germany choose Trophy (tested according to NATO standards by the US, actually used in operational environment) over the ADS, even though the ADS has been already integrated into the Leopard 2(SG). Note that it doesn't say anywhere that the Lynx CSV would be exclusively manufactured in Australia if selected by another customer. It is uniquely Australian, as it specifically designed for Australian requirements using Australian industrial partners (which own parts of the IP such as e.g. the crane and winch). Maybe because you don't read paid subscription articles in the German language, and because you don't follow the Lynx development as much. That the Lynx can use rubber band tracks from either DST or Soucy was already stated in 2016 when the KF31 was revealed. Two years later it was also mentioned that the KF41 Lynx is available with rubber band tracks. That the Lynx would be demonstrated with Soucy tracks was stated by Rheinmetall and Soucy two years ago. Why it only was tested in late November? Because there was a time window between tests. That's the same reason why the 130 mm L/47 smoothbore gun and its autoloader were demonstrated on the Challenger 3 prototype - because there was time after tests to integrate them. No, the Lynx continued tests with steel tracks. I wasn't talking about the AS21. Rheinmetall fitted the KF41 Lynx with rubber tracks, proved that it works and then converted it back to steel tracks of use in further tests, as this is their primary offer. But if Australia wants rubber tracks, Rheinmetall already has proven that they are no issues with using Soucy's CRT. If they were playing catch-up, they would have kept the CRT for further tests. 1. I didn't say that. 2. Before bids or trials haven't even started, there is certainly no "mid-program catch-up". 3. I pointed out that there are easy solutions to copy many weight-aspects found on the K2NO (such as removing the mine protection kit and reducing the side armor), but I specifically said that this isn't a good idea (why adopt your competition's weaknesses?) and instead mentioned suggestions made for the German Leopard 2Ax tank. Specifically changing armor packages (which also was done in case of the K2NO, which has heavier and improved armor over the off-the-shelf K2 Black Panther) makes lots of sense.

Panzerhaubitze 2000 was eliminated from the Norwegian SPG competition for not mobile enough (and according to rumors for being too expensive). Initial trials with the vehicle revealed an issue while driving on frozen roads/ice. KMW's solution was to increase the number of snow grousers from 8 to something like 48. Installation took less than an hour and fixed the problems, but that's obviously only a workaround at the expense of the crew's time. Driving in deep snow revealed the downsides of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 greater weight & combat load. The fact that the Leopard 2 hull is already used in various applications by the Norwegian Army suggests that its performance is considered adequate, once the weight is reduced to similar levels. KMW has proposed building new turrets for the German Leopard 2Ax project to reduce weight. Better materials and construction techniques allow reducing the weight of the turret without compromising protection. They also proposed replacing the optical gunner's sight with a purely electronic solution (akin to the Puma's WAO), again reducing weight and improving protection. If the Bundeswehr is really interesting in picking that up, it might enable KMW to make a very attractive offer to Norway aswell. E-Technologie is used on the Leopard 2A4M CAN, their Kodiaks seem to use a different armor solution also designed by KMW (containers fillable with bulk material). At the "recent" interview with the EDR Magazine, KMW's spokesperson suggested interest mostly in anti-KE ERA solutions (likely from DND or GST). It is greater growth potential for the adoption of mission kits. The Norwegian ministry of transportation (that as far as I've heard indirectly set the weight limit) has nothing to say when tanks get deployed abroad. The Norwegian Army used add-on armor solutions in Afghanistan (e.g. on the CV90) that are not used domestically. The K2NO was showcased with the size-reduced Trophy VPS, not the Trophy APS. The VPS does not have the same "combat proven" and "fully qualified and tested by other NATO members" labels as the full size APS. Rheinmetall is not offering exclusive production to Australia in the LAND 400 Phase 3 program and they are also not playing "mid program catch-up". The test integration of the Soucy tracks were planned before testing was started and the trials are all conducted with steel tracks, which is the primary offer by Rheinmetall. They did the same with the LAND 400 Phase 2 program, where different options were showcased on the Boxer CRV (including the Wotan 35 gun and the ADS), while the primary offer remained the initial Boxer CRV prototype with Mauser MK 30/2-ABM. At the time the AMV-35 had a 35 mm Bushmaster III gun. Basically Rheinmetall is saying "if you like any features of our competition, we can add them to our offer". They have done that more than once and will keep doing so.

That's a weird prototype of the Leopard 2A7DK.

With all the add-on armor Kodiak 3 becomes quite the chonky boy.

Chile

All offers in the Czech IFV program are incompatible with the requirements (lacking documentation, not revealing required performance parameters or not offering enough local workshare). Apparently program is paused, now a decision has to be made how the program should advance.

Rheinmetall is offering a the widest range of 120 mm smoothbore gun of all manufacturers, including completely redesigned cannon. Aside of the standard L/44 and L/55 guns, the L/44A1, the L/55A1, the L/47LR and the L/47LLR are currently offered. The latter two provide more performance than the original L/44 gun (both by having slightly longer barrels and by supporting higher pressures), while being lighter and having a reduced recoil impulse. However for Leopard 2 users, there is little gain in adopting the L/47LR or L/47LLR over something like the L/44A1 or L/55A1. The weight difference isn't really worth redesigning the turret, while improved performance can already be achieved with a change to the L/44A1 or L/55A1 gun at a lower cost. Assuming that Japan's domestic 120 mm gun meets equals the performance of a L/55 or even a L/55A1 is a bit of stretch; them changing plans to adopt the L/55 might be solely related to their reference targets against which their gun might have already provided satisfactory results.

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. 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).

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.