Alzoc

Mantis 4x4 ATV in the under 9 ton category:
 

 
 
EDIT: To be fully unveiled in Eurosatory (mid-June).

Some more infos on the VBMR light (as opposed to the 6x6 VBMR "heavy")
 
http://forcesoperations.com/le-vbmr-leger-sous-les-projecteurs/
 
Among other things:
 
-Hydrogas suspension
-350 hp for 15 to 18t
-Lots of off the shelf civilians components
-Texelis rejected the V shaped hull to use "another concept"
-Antares optical surveillance system by Thales
 
 
-Armor kit available (but they don't give the protection rating nor the basic protection of the vehicle)
-Pilar V acoustic shot detection system
 
 
-NBC protection
-A400M and C-130 transportable
-Connected to the Scorpion BMS
 
 
-10 infantryman with the FELIN system with 24h of combat load
 
The armored patrol vehicle (APV) version will be the first to be developed and shall start qualification in 2021.
There will be 10 kits for the APV version:
 
Basic infantry version 81 and 120 mm mortar Artillery observer Command post Ambulance Combat engineers MMP (AT version) Supply Short range air defense The two other versions will be :
Tactical informations node (NTC) which will basically be a relay in complicated environment. There will be 4 (unknown) sub-versions. Qualification in 2023 Surveillance, Acquisition, Intelligence and Reconnaissance (SA2R), the electronic warfare version with 2 sub-versions. Qualifications in 2022  

Some more infos on the VBMR light (as opposed to the 6x6 VBMR "heavy")
 
http://forcesoperations.com/le-vbmr-leger-sous-les-projecteurs/
 
Among other things:
 
-Hydrogas suspension
-350 hp for 15 to 18t
-Lots of off the shelf civilians components
-Texelis rejected the V shaped hull to use "another concept"
-Antares optical surveillance system by Thales
 
 
-Armor kit available (but they don't give the protection rating nor the basic protection of the vehicle)
-Pilar V acoustic shot detection system
 
 
-NBC protection
-A400M and C-130 transportable
-Connected to the Scorpion BMS
 
 
-10 infantryman with the FELIN system with 24h of combat load
 
The armored patrol vehicle (APV) version will be the first to be developed and shall start qualification in 2021.
There will be 10 kits for the APV version:
 
Basic infantry version 81 and 120 mm mortar Artillery observer Command post Ambulance Combat engineers MMP (AT version) Supply Short range air defense The two other versions will be :
Tactical informations node (NTC) which will basically be a relay in complicated environment. There will be 4 (unknown) sub-versions. Qualification in 2023 Surveillance, Acquisition, Intelligence and Reconnaissance (SA2R), the electronic warfare version with 2 sub-versions. Qualifications in 2022  

Some more infos on the VBMR light (as opposed to the 6x6 VBMR "heavy")
 
http://forcesoperations.com/le-vbmr-leger-sous-les-projecteurs/
 
Among other things:
 
-Hydrogas suspension
-350 hp for 15 to 18t
-Lots of off the shelf civilians components
-Texelis rejected the V shaped hull to use "another concept"
-Antares optical surveillance system by Thales
 
 
-Armor kit available (but they don't give the protection rating nor the basic protection of the vehicle)
-Pilar V acoustic shot detection system
 
 
-NBC protection
-A400M and C-130 transportable
-Connected to the Scorpion BMS
 
 
-10 infantryman with the FELIN system with 24h of combat load
 
The armored patrol vehicle (APV) version will be the first to be developed and shall start qualification in 2021.
There will be 10 kits for the APV version:
 
Basic infantry version 81 and 120 mm mortar Artillery observer Command post Ambulance Combat engineers MMP (AT version) Supply Short range air defense The two other versions will be :
Tactical informations node (NTC) which will basically be a relay in complicated environment. There will be 4 (unknown) sub-versions. Qualification in 2023 Surveillance, Acquisition, Intelligence and Reconnaissance (SA2R), the electronic warfare version with 2 sub-versions. Qualifications in 2022  

well, there was a 3,5 yr old video from DefenseWebTV, and they explained a thing or two about it's capabilities, and around 1:00 this 3d model shown doing what appears to be an change of ground clearance


btw loooking at this photo:

(from link to twitter posted by Ramlaen on previous page)
there:

it seems like that wishbone axle is not parallel to ground, like if it's and adjustable and set in position of shorter-than-normal ground clearance.

I assume Germany would the strongest supporter of such a move. I heard they are planning to double their tank force and service a whole platoon.

Reminds me of when FarmVille was a thing.

Participants of the 2018 Strong Europe Tank Challenge will be;
 
Austria
France
Germany
Poland
Sweden
Ukraine
UK
USA

Remind me of a Black and Mortimer I read when I was a kid.
The action takes place in the 1940, just after WWII they've got a WWIII on their hands but this time with an evil Tibetan empire as the villain.
 
The author invented several planes for his story, and worried than his sketches would be too aliens he apparently showed them to a professional who would have told him that there was no major impossibilities (although it was most likely highly impractical and hard to do with the 1946 tech).
 
Anyway those planes left a strong impression on me at that time.
 
Some kind of long range, high altitude recon plane they use to escape an attack on their base:
 
 
L'aile rouge personal plane of their long time nemesis the colonel Orlik
 
 
The two together:
 
 
Le Requin (shark), main stratospheric fighter-bomber of the evil empire:
 
 
And the secret weapon of the allies l'Espadon (Swordfish) launched from under water
 
 
 
 

If this works, I'm going to have to patiently explain to future generations that, yes, there were two Korean governments, and technically they were at war for over a half-century after the end of the Korean War.
 
However, the plan that ultimately succeeded at bringing peace was:
 
1)  Have a massive corruption scandal in South Korea that abruptly forced a change in government.
2)  Have the United States elect a reality TV star as its president, and have that president make fun of North Korea's leader for being short and fat over Twitter
3)  Have a basketball with a bunch of facial piercings play good cop
 
I think it's perfectly reasonable that this wasn't plan A.

Airbus unveil a 1:1 mock-up of the European MALE RPAS:
 

 
It is supposed to enter service with the French, German, Spanish and Italian army by 2025
 
 

Apparently jihadist ants are a thing:
 
https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/22661/element/8/49209/

Of course you could make that argument. That's an argument that gets touched on once every few years here in the States as well. And it's perfectly viable to do so.
 
However, that's not the issue at hand. The ethical conundrum should be with the parents who are the legal guardians of the child. They can choose "Do we end his suffering? Do we try to save him still?"
 
The issue at hand is the parents, who are legal guardians acting upon the behalf of the stakeholder, are fighting to attempt a different procedure under a different governance. And the current governance is rejecting their request, I surmise out of liability. 
 
If you expand this situation and give it the breadth of potential future precedent, I side with the parents 100%. There is nothing that would stop me from moving my loved one to somewhere else to seek a different procedure or attempt a different cure. ESPECIALLY when the stakeholder is so young (not like we're doing this for 88 year old grandpa) and the alternative is death.
 
My argument is that the parents should have control over their child's life, as well as death and whatever ethical conundrum begets it, at this point. That choice should not depend upon the bureaucracies of a large hospital. 
 
If you are making an argument just for the sake of its edge, then by all means let the child die. 
 
But luckily, you are not the ultimate stakeholder.

Brigitte Macron seemed quite taken:

Airbus unveil a 1:1 mock-up of the European MALE RPAS:
 

 
It is supposed to enter service with the French, German, Spanish and Italian army by 2025
 
 

You previously wrote I would speculate too much on the weight of the tanks, yet you are making even more speculations. Your sources are inconclusive and thus one should be careful with trying to make any statements based on them.
 
First of all, the British document states that the KE protection for the Abrams would reach a level of 320 to 340 mm protection against APFSDS rounds along the protected frontal arc. Given that the hull front has its minimum armor thickness of the frontal hull  is at 0° (while the side armor wasn't altered), it should not have a protection level of "350 mm KE minimum". In fact the M1A2 offered to Sweden has a protection level of 350 mm along the frontal arc of the hull - this tank has no DU armor, but that doesn't matter because only five Abrams tanks were ever created with DU armor protecting the hull. We know that the M1IP  and the M1A1 feature upgraded hull armor, which can be seen by looking at the location of the weight demonstrators. This leads to the conclusion that the M1 Abrams did not have 350 mm KE minimum for the hull, but rather 320 mm.
 
The table from the British documents lists a single value for armor protection for the Leopard 2, you are speculating what this value exactly means. First of all, "at [the] normal" can refer to the armor modules - as suggested by you - or to the tanks. Hitting a tank at normal means hitting the "front side" at perpendicular angle (the side of the tank not being affected by the shape of the armor). Against your assumption speaks the fact that the Centurion, Leopard 1 and T-62 are not listed with the respective armor thickness values they'd have when the armor was hit at the normal from within the 60° frontal arc (Leopard 1 for example would have some 50-70 mm thickness, the T-62 some ~150 mm). This implies that "at normal" means "hitting the tank directly from the front".
You are assuming that this values would refer to the turret armor; but there is no proof for this. The document doesn't say anything about the table being limited to the turret, in fact it lists the hull armor of the Centurion, the Leopard 1 and the T-62! So even if this would refer to "hitting the armor modules at normal", it still could be a value for the hull being hit at 0°.
 
Do I think that the Leopard 2 must have a protection level of 400 mm or greater at the turret when hit from a 30° angle? No, I don't think it has to. It might have a protection level in the high-300s; but I think we should find sources before making assumptions. We however know for fact that the Leopard 2 has a protection level of ~430 mm steel against KE rounds at the turret when hit directly from the front, because this value is derived from an official table by the manufacturer. So your "350 at 0" is already a false premise. You seem to be eager to "prove" that the Leopard 2 has worse frontal armor than the M1 Abrams; you are ignoring some facts, which speak for the Leopard 2 having better frontal armor (such as the greater armor weight and thickness alocated to the turret front) and you are basing everything on a single source, which leaves too much room for interpretation. As I previously stated, it seems to refer to the protection of the hull front - this would match the data from the Swedish leaks and the physical armor thickness (the hull armor of Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams has nearly identical thickness) and is supported  by the values of other tanks matching their hull armor thickness.
 
The data from the Swedish leak is inconclusive regarding the protection level of the Leopard 2, when attacked from various angles:  

As you can see, the surface area with a protection level of 400 mm or more is always larger when attacking the tank from angles other than 0°. The only question that remains is: Which places reach this protection level? The document doesn't tell anything about that, it also doesn't specify wether the area (100%) is limited to the crew compartment or not. If the latter is the case, it seems easily possible for the turret frontal section to also to be part of the protected area. Most likely the hull frontal armor reaches a protection level greater than 400 mm when hit at 20° or 30°, if the frontal hull armor is actually included in the relevant surface area.
 
The Leopard 2's turret armor has a frontal armor thickness of about 860 mm at the left turret cheek; given that the turret front is sloped at 34° in the horizontal plane, it will have a greater armor thickness when hit at 30° angle than the hull armor at 0° - overall the armor thickness might be comparable to that of the Abrams of 0° (unfortunately nobody has published proper measurements of the Abrams, but supposedly the early production model had some 700 mm physical thickness when hit at 0°). You should keep in mind that the Leopard 2(AV) was designed to resist the 105 mm smoothbore gun firing APFSDS ammo (i.e. the same projectile as used on the 120 mm DM13 with lower velocity) from unknown range. This round has a slightly higher MV and a longer & thicker tungsten penetrator than the M735 APFSDS, which is claimed to penetrate more than 300 mm steel armor.
 
 
___
 
Moving back from the armor and more to the general topic:
 
Something regarding mobility:
According to the French topic, the Leclerc squeezes 1,143 effective hp out of its 1,500 hp engine. The M1 Abrams reaches a1,232 hp net output of its AGT-1500C gas turbine, also some older discussion suggest that it might have only ~1,000 hp at the sprokets. The Leopard 2 seems to be less efficient in this regard, managing to get only 1,070 hp to the sprockets according to W. Spielberger. Leopard 1 gets 630 out of 830 hp to the sprockets. Maybe that is why the German army wishes for a 1,200 kW engine on future Leopard 2 models; however the published acceleration data suggests that the Leopard 2 beats the Abrams to 32 km/h. 
 
Regarding FCS:
In 1987 the Saudi Arabian Kingdom tested the AMX-40, the Challenger 1, the M1A1 Abrams and the EE-T2 Osorio tank. The EE-T2 Osorio was fitted with a French 120 mm smoothbore gun from GIAT and a fire control system developed by the British company Macroni. It included a 16 bit microcontroller and a SAGEM MVS 580 optic with integrated thermal imager for the commander (the same sight was later fitted to the Challenger 2E, which underwent trials in Greece). According to claims made by a Brazilian source, the Osorio was the only tank capable of hitting a stationary target in 4,000 metres distance. Against moving targets (at distances of 1,500, 2,000 and 2,500 metres), the Osorio supposedly hit eight with twelve shots. The Abrams hit 5 with twelve shots, while both of the other tanks managed to hit only a single target. The fuel consumption of the German engine was 200 g/kWh, which allowed it to travel a distance of 400 kilometres, further than any of the other three tanks.
 

In 1992 the M1A2 Abrams and the Challenger 2 were tested in Kuwait. During the tests numerous results were leaked by American representatives in order to prove that the Challenger 2 was the worse tank. In a statement made to Jane's Defence Weekly, British sources suggested that General Dynamics didn't tell the whole truth. Both tanks failed to climb a 50% slope, because it consisted of loose sand and chalk. The Challenger 2 had to be towed after driving 80 km on flat ground. Maximum speed achieved by the British tank was 50 km/h, while the Abrams managed to reach 65 km/h. The brakes of the Challenger 2 worked too slow in the opinion of the Kuwaiti officials, needing between 50 to 70 metres to come to an halt.
 
When trying to hit a T-55 tank at a distance of 4,000 metres, the M1A2 managed to hit one out of two shots (apparently it used APFSDS rounds); the Challenger 2 fired six HESH rounds at the same target, all missed. Firing at unarmored targets at distances smaller than 4,000 metres was easy for the Abrams. It hit 10 out of 10 targets, while the Challenger 2 hit only 7. Shooting on armored targets, the Challenger 2 hit four out of four shots, while the Abrams hit nine out of nine. General Dynamics' tank was also better at firing on the move; the Abrams hit three targets at a distance of 2,000 metres with three shots, while the Challenger 2 hit one out of three. In hunter-killer operations, the Abrams required 32 seconds to destroy four targets with fourt shoots; the Challenger 2 hit 3 targets out of four in 66 seconds. Accuracy when firing during night and fuel consumption had still to be measured, but Vickers believed to have an advantage there (at least in fuel consumption).
 
http://btvt.info/1inservice/abrams_vs_chelly.htm
 

 
Challenger 2 ARV towing an Abrams, which failed to climb a dune.

Kanye pretty much smears himself.  He married a Kardashian for fuck's sake. How much lower do you get than that?

Might as well repost this from the AW forum.
(Thanks @Laviduce for taking the time to incorporate the label in English directly)
The translations I did back then were quite literal since I'm not really a mechanics guy, so it may sound awkward.
Scans comes mainly from 2 books I have.
 
 
V8X Hyperbar and the ESM500 gearbox:
 
 
Principle scheme of the engine:
 
1) Autoadaptation valve of the turbine
2) Discharge valve
3) Turbine
4) Compressor
5) Air intake regulation valve (secondary combustion chamber)
6) Secondary combustion chamber
7) Cooling unit of air intake
8 Ignition
 
 
Kinematic chain:
Didn't tried to translate that one since I'm not too good are reading this kind of diagram.
Ask if you need me translate something in particular.
 

So various figures.
 
Autonomy:
 
150 km on road/dry dirt at 50 km/h : Fuel consumption of 200L (2 external fuel drums)
450 km on road/dry dirt at 50 km/h with the internal fuel (1300L)
Total refuelling time: 10 minutes
 
Engine power repartition:
 
Gross: 1500 hp
Forced air intake: 200 hp
APU (turret, FCS, NBC, air-conditioning): 27 hp
Lubrication pumps: 80 hp
Heat loss through mechanical friction: 50 hp
Which leave about 1100 hp available for the propulsion itself.
 
Engine:
 
Diesel: 4 times, 8 cylinders V shaped at 90°
Overfeed rate (turbo): 7,5
Volume: 16,47 L
Compression rate: 7,8/1
Gross power: 1500 hp at 2500 rpm
Maximal torque: 4500 Nm at 2000 rpm
weight: 2100 kg
Total volume: 1,87 m3
 
 
Turbine: TM 307B
Use: Turbo and driving a 9kW generator (there is another one of 20 kW normally driven by the diesel), and heating the engine when it's too cold.
 
Transmission:
 
ESM500 automatic
Direction: hydrostatic 1200 hp
Braking: hydrokinetic (?)
Gears: 5 fwd 2 rwd
 
General performances:
 
Max speed: 72 km/h
Max reverse speed: 38 km/h
0-32 km/h: 5,5 s (and not 5 as said previously apparently)
 
 
 
 

British Army Warrior infantry fighting vehicle fitted with Soucy Defense composite rubber tracks during trials in the UK. Source: Soucy Defense/Defence Photography A British Army Warrior infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) fitted with Soucy Defense composite rubber tracks (CRT) has completed a 5,000 km trial, Jane’s has learned.

More from that video:
Pantsir

 
Armata 
 
BMP-3

 
 
Arctic version of Pantsir on Vityaz chassis

 
 
BTR-82s. Second one is strange, something wrong with one of the wheels and frontal part

 
BUK-M2

 
Iskander

 
 
Kurganets-25 IFV

 
Msta-S SPG

 
Koalitsiya-SV SPG

 
S-400 TEL

 
 
Tor

 
T-72B3 UBKh

 
Tigr with Arbalet RCWS

 
Standart Tigr
 
Tigr with Kornet ATGMs
 
Typhoon-K (thermal signature on driver window is a reflection)

 
Typhoon-U

 
 

Might as well repost this from the AW forum.
(Thanks @Laviduce for taking the time to incorporate the label in English directly)
The translations I did back then were quite literal since I'm not really a mechanics guy, so it may sound awkward.
Scans comes mainly from 2 books I have.
 
 
V8X Hyperbar and the ESM500 gearbox:
 
 
Principle scheme of the engine:
 
1) Autoadaptation valve of the turbine
2) Discharge valve
3) Turbine
4) Compressor
5) Air intake regulation valve (secondary combustion chamber)
6) Secondary combustion chamber
7) Cooling unit of air intake
8 Ignition
 
 
Kinematic chain:
Didn't tried to translate that one since I'm not too good are reading this kind of diagram.
Ask if you need me translate something in particular.
 

Might as well repost this from the AW forum.
(Thanks @Laviduce for taking the time to incorporate the label in English directly)
The translations I did back then were quite literal since I'm not really a mechanics guy, so it may sound awkward.
Scans comes mainly from 2 books I have.
 
 
V8X Hyperbar and the ESM500 gearbox:
 
 
Principle scheme of the engine:
 
1) Autoadaptation valve of the turbine
2) Discharge valve
3) Turbine
4) Compressor
5) Air intake regulation valve (secondary combustion chamber)
6) Secondary combustion chamber
7) Cooling unit of air intake
8 Ignition
 
 
Kinematic chain:
Didn't tried to translate that one since I'm not too good are reading this kind of diagram.
Ask if you need me translate something in particular.
 

WBG-X in 2A4 and dozen of targets - BMP-2, M113, T-72M1, M2,  etc:
hope links will work:
 
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617304508320050/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617306768319824/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617307538319747/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617307884986379/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617307918319709/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617307981653036/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617308018319699/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310461652788/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310528319448/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310638319437/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310688319432/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310741652760/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310794986088/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617310928319408/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617311951652639/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617312021652632/
 
https://www.facebook.com/wolskijaroslaw/videos/1617312088319292/