Laser Shark

Yep. It looks like they'll get some T-72M1s and BMP-1s (including ex-Swedish Pbv 501s, but they're not seen on the train below), as well as Bushmasters from Australia.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/czech-republic-sends-tanks-ukraine-czech-tv-reports-2022-04-05/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-okays-sale-former-gdr-infantry-fighting-vehicles-ukraine-2022-04-01/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-01/what-is-the-bushmaster/100958322

There’s only four sentences about that, and the rest of the article is actually quite good, but suit yourself...

Ukrainian MiG-29 Pilot's Front-Line Account Of The Air War Against Russia

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/45019/fighting-russia-in-the-sky-mig-29-pilots-in-depth-account-of-the-air-war-over-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR3R1NlJI85W4Up7bhcWwoPUQY2ghE1e8R-ILJasjRm_55LiJ77Gda-dQyY

A long read, but very much worth it IMO. It seems very frank and sober, almost to a shocking degree, so if you were expecting some propagandistic account of glorious air victories, you’ll probably either be disappointed or pleasantly surprised.

K9 Vidar during Cold Response 2022. More photos have been uploaded to the media archive of the Norwegian Armed Forces, but it's down at the moment I'm writing this.

Norwegian MoD also announced today that they were planning on acquiring more K9s and counter battery radars. They did not mention the exact number of systems, except that Norway has an option for 24 more K9s, and that additional SPHs are needed to support the new Porsanger battalion, as well as the planned fourth mechanized battalion in Brigade Nord.

There's also this document from last year, which suggests that this follow up order might include more K10s than K9s, which would make sense since Norway only has 6 of the former and that's below the recomended 2:1 ratio. We'll see, I suppose.

5 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Is this suppose to be museum piece or “trophy” from somewhere, or actually help with training? 

The original uploader (who has since deleted the photo, but you can still access the thread in its entirety here) wrote that it was taken on an air force base in the US, and that he didn’t take many photos because he was unsure if he was allowed to do this. He also mentioned that there was a T-72 there (or more like another since the real identity of this “T-90” is clear), as well as several M60s. Finally there was this interesting quote from him:

“An observation I made there were several pickup trucks Under canopy's adjacent to this tank with similar camera and antenna setups they appear to be to be controlled remotely The tank also had an emergency off button wired and mounted at the rear near the engine deck”

Adding these clues together, it seems to me like he might be talking about vehicles that are intended to be used in the training of air force pilots, allowing them to familiarize themselves with how this stuff looks from above, when on the move etc., but I could be completely wrong.

"T-90" (actually vizmodded T-72M1) in the US:

14 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Anyone know what the "box" is on the gunners side on top of the one of the ERA of the T-80U. Doubled up K-5?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/yuri_pasholok/t-80u/images/t-80u_261_of_342.jpg

 

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/yuri_pasholok/t-80u/images/t-80u_280_of_342.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/tanks/yuri_pasholok/t-80u/images/t-80u_214_of_342.jpg

 

I believe it’s just an ERA box that has been moved to the side to make it easier for the driver to get in and out of the tank. Evidently, this is such a common practice that it’s actually pretty difficult (for me at least) to find a photo that shows this box in its ‘correct’ position, but this photo of a T-80UD in Pakistan should give an idea.

Use 'em if you got 'em

Leopard 2A7V with SAAB Barracuda MCS:

And here's a neat top-down shot from the winter trials, which also brings me to my next question. Do the tanks of the German Army come with this large box on top? I haven't been able to find any photos of this, so I'm guessing it could be a minor addition for the sake of these trials?

A few more photos from the winter trials:

• The first two are definitely from the opening event, but they're nice shots that haven't been posted here before, so why not?
• The third is probably the most interesting shot. At first I thought it was from ADEX, but then I noticed that the RWS is not a Protector Nordic as was displayed there, but a CROWS-LP. In other words, it's probably a more recent shot, and it might also be an indicator that Norway is interested in keeping the profile as low as possible. Well, I don't see any other benefits since it's behind the commander anyway unlike on the Abrams where the normal CROWS got in the way of his vision.

35 minutes ago, Miroslav said:

Hey what kind of rifles do the Ukrainians use? Some variant of ak-74 or did they ever upgrade? Do they have red dots on side mounts or dust cover mounts?

Most seem to use stock AK-74s same as the Russians do, but there are of course more types of rifles (and accessories) in use with their SOF & other elements (Tavor clones, M4 clones, AK bullpups etc.).

That T-80BVM as well as another one that was abandoned around the same time (or perhaps somewhat later) are confirmed to have belonged to the 200th MRB. The one with the popped turret was probably from them as well. So at least 3 confirmed losses, more IF the Ukrainians claims are truthful (in, fact most of their tank company unless their BTG has brought more than one or there is more than one BTG from them).

There is also footage of another two T-80BVMs, but they do not match the tactical markings of previous ones/200th MRB, so they are probably from a different unit (64th MRB maybe).

2 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

BAE is out of MPF. Kind of shocking.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/us-army-eliminates-bae-systems-from-light-tank-competition

4 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

Has somebody information on the Leopard 2 / K2 winter trials in Norway and how long they are going?

The trials should be over by now. No info other than that I'm afraid, well, apart from the fact that around the 19th they had to bring a couple of the tanks to Steinkjer in Central Norway due to too little snow at Rena...

Michael Kofman's thread from yesterday is worth a read IMO:

4 minutes ago, RobertV said:

 

 

Yeah, they should have had Medvedev. Much more decisive  and not afraid to play the western way.

 

 

Oh, wait you probably didn't mean that  ? did you ?

Norwegian-Russian relations actually improved substantially under his presidency, but who knows how much of it was down to his own initiative or if Putin was still pulling the strings behind the curtain. In any case, we're probably straying from the topic at hand.

10 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

On this forum we are PROUD supporters of VLADIMIR PUTIN

Not me, I'm afraid. Russia and its peoples deserve better.

3 hours ago, Laviduce said:

I sincerely hope you said the same thing about the US, UK when they decided to invade  Iraq, bombed Syria, funded "moderate rebels" in Syria, toppled of the government of Ukraine, destroyed Libya, etc. in the 21st century.

These previous western endeavours were ill thought out and costly mistakes, even if they got rid of some truly despicable people in the process (and whose faith was way less than they deserved). This move by Russia, however, could easily turn out to be an even greater mistake than all of them put together.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

  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.

In mechanized units that already field the Lynx family, sure, it wouldn’t be too much of a burden, but there’s still the question of what's its role is going to be. It doesn't have the protection required to replace MBTs in tank units. There’s also cavalry units, but even these would be better off with MBTs imo (if you’re in a tank on a recce by force mission you’d want the better protection). That leaves tank destroyer units, where they actually make some sense even if they are on the heavier side, but this is also the sort of niche role that most countries won’t be able to afford. In other words, I doubt the Lynx 120 will be any more successful than the CV90120 before it.

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

I too am confused as to what the point of a 50+ tonne TFV tonk is supposed to be. They're not achieving a meaningful increase in any strategic mobility, are there bridges they think they'll be able to cross that a proper MBT wouldn't?

There was an interesting thread by Ronkainen on Twitter that looked into the support capabilities (trailers, bridging, recovery etc.) that US Army Infantry Divisions would need to operate the two MPF candidates, but unfortunately I can’t seem to dig it up because I don’t have (never had) a Twitter profile. Anyway, the gist of it was that the equipment required to support BAE’s candidate already existed in these divisions (if not in the quantities necessary), while for GD’s candidate it would have to be beefed up substantially, and to a point where it started to resemble that of an Abrams unit.

Edit: I finally found it

17 hours ago, 2805662 said:

I’d say “less efficient protection”, not less protection. Common to all IFV-based light tanks/tank destroyers/insert your semantic preference here, Lynx 120 has protected volume it doesn’t need for its role. 
As the volume to be protected is high, relative to that needed by a purpose designed tank or light tank. the overall level of protection is lower.

Yeah, I never quite understood the hype surrounding light tanks based on IFV hulls. if you want a tank in the 40-50 tonnes range, there are modernized T-72s, and the Type-10 looks like the better Western option. If you want an actual proper light tank, there is BAE’s MPF proposal and Sprut-SD/SDM1. If you want your tanks and IFVs to be on the same chassis, you either go heavy or you go home imo. The medium weight concept is not going to work out very well (this concept was looked at by the Norwegian Army a few years ago, and ultimately rejected in favour of acquiring new MBTs).

Here’s another source with a bit more info. I can't read Korean so please correct me if the following info is incorrect, but from the google translation, it seems the SK MoD was informed about the status of the ongoing tank trials, and also got to observe one of the firepower tests where multiple targets had to be identified and engaged at the same time. Here the K2 was able to hit all of its targets with the minimal amount of shots fired. It also says that the K2 has shown excellent performance during the mobility and firepower tests that have been carried out so far (60% done).

6 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

Any news from the Norwegian trial?

Nope, sorry, but it’s only been a couple of days since the trials began, and they will last until the end of the month. If nothing else, I expect that we'll at least get some more footage once the firepower and mobility tests are underway, so there's that to look forward to!

Just like how Leo 2A7NO is going to differ from the Leo 2A7V that are currently in Norway, the two K2s are also not identical to what they're actually proposing:

This looks like the same enchanced armour package that we've seen on K2PL & K2M models, but unlike those two, there's a standard K2 under it (6 vs 7 roadwheels).

Some photos of Leo 2A7V in Norway: