Alzoc

And Char Leclerc:
 
https://i.imgur.com/JQw46Ax.png
 
SPz Puma:
 
https://imgur.com/kFavxhH
 
https://i.imgur.com/kFavxhH.mp4
 
 
 
 
 
 

Few more :
 

Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
 
Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
 
Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
 
The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
 
Akatsiya :
 

 
T-72:
 


 
A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
 

 
Stryker:
 

 
Jackal:
 

 
HMMWV:
 

 
Cougar 4x4:
 

 
LAV:
 

AMX 30 (Spynel-C camera):
 
 
AMX 10 RC and VBL (Spynel-X camera):
 
 

That's what is written on it for the least.
 
Found this:
 
http://www.sudouest.fr/2011/10/19/l-avion-banc-d-essais-concu-pour-le-rafale-530438-2918.php
 
http://www.defens-aero.com/2016/01/radar-rbe2-antenne-active-rafale-entame-ameliorations.html
 
Apparently it's a Mirage 2000 (no 501) with a Rafale's nose used to develop it's radar and optronics in the 90s.
It is still used today since the second article is talking about current test aimed at improving the Rafale's radar (RBE2 AESA) by 2022.
 
I don't know much more than general principles on radars, but this page seem quite detailed.
An user on air-defense.net posted this:
 
 
 

Well it's just a certain nuance.
Obviously there is a stabilisation system but it is limited to the stabilisation of the line of sight (within the sights).
The turret itself has no stabilisation system.
A stabilisation system uses a set of gyroscopes located at specific points (hull, turret, armament).
The angular informations gathered by the different gyros is computed by the FCS which gives a set of corrections to the elevation and traverse mechanism (the most early stab systems where the armament remains to the same position no mater how the tank behaves). In addition the FCS adds on top of this another set of corrections related to the ideal LOF (later stab systems that introduces the concept of correction of the position of the tank).

On the Leclerc, the sight being how it is, the number of variables is kept as minimum as possible. You only compute the angular variation between the current LOS and the ideal LOF. The set of values is then dispatched to the "guidance system" (asservissements) which monitors the actual movement of the turret (traverse and elevation) and assess the need to power the electric motors or revert them into generators to brake the movement.
In itself the tank knows on its own the position of the differents elements (hull, turret and armament) with the closed loop elevation and traverse. The sight give the angle of the whole.

Hope it is clear. It's not a whole lot but we make this distinction.

The MRAP is a Cougar 4x4.
 
Pretty sure these are all reposts but since this thread is specifically for thermal pictures.


 
I thought I had one of a Leclerc, but I guess not.

"Soviet SPG" in your post is Akatsiya.

Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
 
Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
 
Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
 
The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
 
Akatsiya :
 

 
T-72:
 


 
A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
 

 
Stryker:
 

 
Jackal:
 

 
HMMWV:
 

 
Cougar 4x4:
 

 
LAV:
 

Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
 
Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
 
Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
 
The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
 
Akatsiya :
 

 
T-72:
 


 
A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
 

 
Stryker:
 

 
Jackal:
 

 
HMMWV:
 

 
Cougar 4x4:
 

 
LAV:
 

Just like any contemporary tank, the mirrors are decoupled from the turret/armament in order to offer a stabilised view.
As long as the gunner pushes the palmswitches, the turret is "active", the mirror will compensate the movement of the tank. When you release the palmswitches, the mirror will return to the mechanical zero. In the case of this happenning during a reload, where the gun is mechanically locked in a certain position; means that the LOS will move to realign with the gun (the LOF will certainly not move since the palmswitches are the elementary security switches for turret movements).
 

Thanks a lot for your answers, and welcome to SH.
 
 
So if I understand well, the gunner sight is normally linked to the gun (as it follow the gun when it move up and down) but the mirror inside it can be decoupled from it to allow to keep the LoS intact when for example the gun elevate to reload?

The specs required a highly mobile tank capable to destroy any Warsaw pact (PAVA) tanks at long range with a high hit probability on first shot. This led to the crafting of highly precise system.
To be honnest with you there is no stabilisation on the Leclerc. The gun is slave to the ballistic computer which computes the ideal LOF from the stabilised LOS.
When reloading, the gun goes to the reloading elevation. Meanwhile the LOS is still stabilised to the direction of observation (in the limits of the mirrors amplitude). Unless you release the palm switches, the mirrors go to their mechanical neutral positions.

The gunner sight is mechanically mounted to the main armament. When the gun goes up and down; the sight bows up and down.
Since the both move along with the exact same angle, boresighting can be done automatically with a deviation measurement laser (AMX 10 RC being the first french AFV to be equiped with such device).
Crews do some alignments (what we call "harmonisation" where we keep the parallax in check), but that's not the bullshit stated by Sergei Suvorov where crews were forced to boresight everytime they move their tanks...
 
At the time engineers were open minded on what could replace the classical tank. Once they defined that their platform was still an AFV, they assessed every kind of compromise to take what was the most favorable and compatible to their specs guideline.
 
 
Fun fact regarding the tracks. They spent quite some time to switch to steel tracks. They initially used the same arrangement as the aluminum alloy tracks (the shape of the rubber trackpads were supposed to reduce the stomping effect). Surprise, surprise, the vibrations at high speed were strong enough to be a handicap. This explains why we transition from V2 (alloy) to V5 (steel). Apparently V4 was also a disappointment.

Even with V5 or DST 840 the vibration is quite awkward compared to V2.

There was a shitload of concept for the Leclerc (same for any 3rd gen MBT I guess).
Take your pick:
 
 

There was a shitload of concept for the Leclerc (same for any 3rd gen MBT I guess).
Take your pick:
 
 

On the mass balance topic, here's a citation of a book I (and probably other French speaking members) own.
Even if you don't speak French it's quite a nice book to have with plenty of pictures (all those pictures of the various early EPC concept comes from here), though you have the impression that nobody ever proofread it (screw grammar and the orthograph^^).
 
P58:
 
Comme pour la fonction mobilité, une mécanique de haute technologie est requise pour la fonction feu. Celle-ci est entièrement conçue pour faire du tir en roulant le mode normal d'engagement des cibles.
La précision de la stabilisation est donc au cœur des performances du système. Stabiliser un objet dans l'espace (en l’occurrence la tourelle et son canon) est un défi technique qui requiert de la part de l'ingénieur en mécanique le respect des trois règles d'or:
 
-La recherche des équilibres ;
-Le contrôle des élasticités et des déformations dynamiques ;
-La chasse au jeu entre les pièces.
 
Ces équilibres sont obtenus par conception du canon de 120mm et de la tourelle dont les centres de gravité sont respectivement situés sur les axes de rotation site et gisement.
 
Canon et tourelle sont mis en mouvement à l'aide de moteurs électriques transmettant leur puissance à des boîtes mécaniques de pointage dont les élasticité sont contrôlées en permanence grâce à un montage utilisant des barres de torsion.
Enfin des roulements à billes sans jeu assistent le mouvement du canon dans l'axe vertical.
Sans ces technologies mécaniques particulières, la meilleure électronique du monde ne saurait conserver le canon en direction de la cible sans une débauche de puissance peu compatible avec les contraintes d'emport dans une tourelle.
 
Google trad doesn't make too bad of a job translating it but the main points are:
 
-The gun center of gravity lay on the level of the trunnion
-The turret center of gravity is on the axis of rotation of said turret
-The elasticity of the mechanical parts driving the gun and the turret are monitered in real time using torsion bars (don't know exactly how)
-Ball bearings with minimal backlash (and same apply for most moving parts) are used.
-No hydraulics, everything is electrically driven.

There was a shitload of concept for the Leclerc (same for any 3rd gen MBT I guess).
Take your pick:
 
 

Yes.
The Leclerc MBT barrel is very rearward compared the manualy loaded turret. This way, artillery is naturally balanced. 
 
Yes.
Leclerc MBT was the first tank designed to achieve fire on the move at hight speed. Firing off road at 40km/h to a mobile target is basic.
Maybe Type-10 and K2 are better today. Maybe. 
 
Yes. 
Aluminium tracks can’t last as long as classical steel ones. They were found too much expensive to support for peace time. 
 
You have such a mechanical link. I don’t know the exact purpose. 
 
I was AMX-10RC tank commander. I never served with Leclerc MBT. So, I can’t help for very detailed data. 
In France, you have Leclerc, Darklabor, Totochez, Rescator. They are not bullshiting. 

There was a shitload of concept for the Leclerc (same for any 3rd gen MBT I guess).
Take your pick:
 
 

It might be that the bottleneck in the CTA is designed to be disposable.  The portion of the bore closest to the burning propellant usually takes the most damage, so if the cartridge case takes some of the damage instead of the bore throat, it could allow higher propellant burn temperatures without sacrificing barrel life.
 
But it's hard to say for sure from the information that I have if that's what they're trying to do.
 
 
I would need to see more of the exact design of the firing chamber to say for sure.
 

 
The design does have the advantage that it has no exposed case material, while the rimless ammunition used in small arms has a fair amount of exposed area.  The rimmed ammo used in tank guns has close to no exposure though, so the so-called "cased telescoped" ammunition only enjoys an advantage vs. small arms ammunition in that respect.
 
The CT ammunition has the disadvantage that the cartridge case is completely cylindrical with, so far as I can tell, no taper to aid in extraction.  That could make getting the rounds out of the chamber at higher pressures harder.  On the other hand though, they are being pushed out of the chamber rather than pulled, and that may be a more positive way to get the spent case out.
 
From what I've read about the development of the British 110mm gun, the extremely high pressures required by tank guns necessitate a caseless or semi-caseless ammunition design.  The peak pressure is simply so high (120mm APFSDS peak pressure is about double that of rifle ammunition) that a conventional metal case will try to weld itself inside the chamber, and extraction becomes too unreliable.

I remember reading that they payed a particular attention on mass balance around the trunnion for the Leclerc's gun, so that the strain on the electric drive of the gun would be as limited as possible.
 
Don't know the final performance level they reached, but Nexter/GIAT commonly marketed the Leclerc as the only tank with a true fire on the move capability (describing the M1, Leo 2 and Challenger 2 as tanks that have merely acquired this capacity at limited speed and only in the frontal arc).
 
When reading on the history of it's development one have the really distinct feeling that they went full retarted on having the best stabilization possible.
The initial aluminum tracks that had awful service life were chosen for their light weight but mostly because they generated less vibrations, for example.
 
Dunno if the M1, Challenger 2 and Leo 2 still use an hydraulic drive for their guns or if their most recent versions switched to electric.
 
 
A sort of mechanical arm that would measure the angular difference?
Well that's a question for a crewman for once. Does the gunner lose the target when the gun is reloading?
@Serge Aren't you the one who knows an ex Leclerc TC?
Or was it @Laviduce?
 

It is, and AFAIK it was done to eliminate any alignment issue with the gun.
The designers went to great length to have an extremely stable gun so why not link the gunner sight to it? (Should be stable as well right?)
 
The problem it cause is obviously the infamous gunner sight weakspot.
 
Nowadays electronics and informatics have come a long way (Remember that when the Leclerc came out, having a tank fully digitalized and not relying on analogical devices at all was kinda rare) so I doubt they would bother with all those mechanical parts if they had to remake it.

Why not have a bustle loader like the Leclerc or T-84 Yatagan? Would allow for a roof mounted turret and a long bustle over the crew capsule. 
 
 
Also, first post from a ~2 month lurker. Hey Xoon, Alzoc, Ramlaen and Zuk  

It seem that so far it was more or less the same reason you gave above.
To remind that if chemical weapons are used there will be retaliations.
 
By Jean-Yves Le Drian (French minister of foreign affairs):
 
 
Meaning:
 
The goal of this operation was to destroy the clandestine chemical weapons  facility of the Bachar Al-Assad's regime, the objective have been met. A good part of his chemical arsenal have been destroyed, many by the strikes of this night.
Bachar Al-Assad and his allies will need to remember that. If the red line was crossed again, there would be another intervention, but I think they'll understand the lesson.
 
Appart from the political point of view, I think the strikes also served as training.
Apparently the 3 MdCN were fired by 3 different frigates, so it will serve as a validation of the capability and to label the missile as combat proven.
 
Same for the Air strikes.
The Rafales carrying the missiles are two seaters and flew from Saint-Dizier which mean that they are the strategic squadron 1/4 Gascogne:
 
The SCALP they fired this time is almost identical the ASMPA (300 kt warhead) they would fire for nuclear dissuasion.
So it most likely served as a demonstration of nuclear dissuasion capability.
In the French doctrine those missiles, supposed to be aimed at a threatening military force, are the last warning before full retaliation with SLBM.
 
Apparently the aerial strike force was composed of 5 Rafale (firing 9 SCALP), covered by 4 Mirage 2000 and 2 E3-F SDCA AWACS and refuelled by 5 C-135FR.

Just started playing that.