Alzoc

The guns transferred were taken directly from the French army stock so they should have it and it can be seen on the video we have from the Caesar in Ukraine :
 
 
 
As for the the ammunition Ukraine received, unfortunately I have no idea. Though as I said even with plain dumb HE round, the radar should help somewhat with internal ballistics correction for the next shell (by how much though, I have no idea). For comparison the PzH 2000 (155mm L52 as well) apparently achieve a range of 30 to 36 km using DM121 (which should be a basic HE round, @SH_MM?).
 
No matter how you look at it, 22km is far from using the full capability of those guns (even when using regular ammunition). It may be in order to achieve greater accuracy and limiting the exposure time, but with only 6 of those guns for now, that's probably not how they should be used. In my opinion (for the little it's worth^^) they should use their range to surprise the Russians where they think they are safe from regular artillery. Yes shoot & scoot is what the system is designed for, but that's still taking a lot of risks with weapons they have in a very small number. Even if the guns can leave the area before the shells land, Russian UAV are probably looking for enemy artillery at around 20 km from the "frontline". That being said, I obviously don't have all the informations and there may be a very good reason (some already cited here) as to why the Ukrainian are limiting themselves to barely over 20 km.

As far as museum pieces in Ukraine goes this one is my favourite
 

 
Though I guess grapeshot could still be pretty effective at crowd control or to wreck a civilian grade car trying to break through the checkpoint.

Poland apparently transferring 18 Krab SPG (155mm L52) to Ukraine :
 
 

The 70 mm laser-guided missile is made by Forges de Zeebrugge (FZ), a Belgian company 100% owned by Thales. It is designated FZ275 LGR (laser guided rocket).
 
https://fz.be/laser-guided-rocket?lang=en
 
Rheinmetall partnered with FZ to market the system to the German Army, they developed a new "smart" launcher for the Tiger. The Bundeswehr has issued (or planned to issue) a requirement for 70 mm guided rockets, but given the current status of the UHT Tiger, it may not end up being adopted.

Photos of Caesar in Ukraine :
 
Tweet trad :
 
What is surprising in this tweet is that they say that they used the gun at a range of only 22 km (and a previous tweet talked about a range of 20+ km). Either the Ukrainians know exactly what they are shooting at and put themselves just out of range, or they are not using the full range of the gun on purpose (either for greater accuracy or to prolong the live of the barrel by reducing the charge needed).
 
DGA also gave more informations on the Caesar sent to Ukraine. Apparently only 6 were sent (for now?) when the initial rumours talked about 10 or 12. Contrary to what was initially suspected, those guns were not taken from the Moroccan order but directly from French army stock (leaving us with only 70 of them for now). It has been however confirmed that the software of the guns has been adapted in order to make it compatible with the Ukrainian artillery management system (meaning that they were being prepared for shipment long before it was announced by Macron).
 
http://www.opex360.com/2022/05/28/le-delegue-general-pour-larmement-donne-des-precisions-sur-les-caesar-cedes-a-lukraine/

Replacement of the rubber pads on the tracks of an Au F1 SPG, followed by the reinstallation of said track :
 
 

I agree and don't believe that we will buy those 500x launchers. Currently, we are only asking the USA if they would sell us that amount of equipment and for what price. I won't be surprised if, in the final contract, the number of launchers gets reduced. Although the math (number of launchers needed) does add up. We have four divisions each with three brigades. There are also paratroopers and air cavalry but they don't count. Currently, each division has an artillery regiment with two rocket artillery units (24x launchers each) and two SPH units (24x SPH each), and each brigade has one such unit. If we were to lower the number of HIMARS launchers from 24x to 18x (as Americans have), we would get 18x times twelve (brigades) plus 18x time eight (number of rocket artillery units in divisional artillery regiments) which sums up to 396 launchers. What about the rest then, MOD said that we want to buy close to 500x launchers. Well... an educated guess that is currently circulating in Poland offers two explanations. Either we want to form a new separate artillery brigade at an Army level, and the additional launchers are meant for them, or the MOD wants to form a new (fifth) division: three artillery units for each brigade and two for the division itself would bring the total amount of launchers to 486x which is very close to 500x stated by to MOD. If you want my opinion, whatever they are gonna do the whole concept is ludicrous.
 
So there are a few things to talk about. In many areas our armed forces are outdated, and the gaps that need to be filled are more than 30 years old, there is no denying that. But, our politicians are running rampant, trying to prove to their voters that they take defence seriously, so they are buying everything they can get their hands on. This is very bad, and many people see this, but that is the case with populists they don't care about the long run, what will be in 15/20 years, so arguments about logistics, maintenance and life cycle costs are not something that is being taken into account by our civil administration that is running the army. You are not rude to Poland, you are speaking rationally, and I fully agree with you. Rationality is simply not a trait that is highly valued ;). Adding to our politicians, there are our generals. To put it simply, our armed forces don't care and don't think about the cost of equipment or (generally speaking) economy and industry. They only want to get good equipment and as fast as possible, that's why we chose Abrams, because (simplification) one of our generals, that has good relations with current Defence Minister, wanted to field them in his division. 
 
Your arguments are valid. We would be better of by buying weapons that benefit our economy. But to do so, you first need to convince our MOD and Army that this is in their interest. And remember what i said at the beginning, they are populists, ask yourself, what makes the stronger impression on a mind of a voter, acquisition of brand new, amazing and super-duper American F-35/HIMARS - that you as a politician can pose with for a newspaper/TV reporter and maybe get a photo with American Secretary of Defence/American Ambassador, or acquisition of Polish-made MLRS and a photo of some polish-company chairman. 

Well MLRS (and artillery in general) have once again proved that they are key in modern warfare, so I expect everybody to strengthen their artillery forces. 500 of them though... that's at least €2.6 billions (just a rough estimate based on the unitary cost for the US).
 
Where the hell will Poland find that money? The EU emergency fund will help but it's only €500 millions for 2023-2024 (to be divided amongst the 27). Then there is the EDF which is €8 billions for 2021-2027 but unlike emergency funds, it is only aimed toward collaborative long term European projects, not for off the shelf purchases. I'm probably forgetting other available funds (more will likely be made available anyway) and Poland can reasonably argue that they are now the first line of defense. But still, that would be a lot of money to dump in only one country (one that already receive a large share of EU funds in normal time).

Story on how Russia needed to dig T-62 out of storage seems to be confirmed.
T-62M spotted at Melitopol train station :
 
 
Will probably either be used by occupation units or handed-over to separatists. Either way, it probably mean that there aren't many better machines left in storage and that they must keep them for the main forces. Which raise the question on how many tanks among the many thousands in storage are still in reasonable working order or can be refurbished.
 
Regardless on the way this war will end, it seem that reconstituting Russian forces will be a tall order (especially without access to modern semi-conductors and other parts).

Their overall design rationale reminds me a lot of the conceptual studies in British tank guns that led up to the 120mm L11.  Lower breech pressure means that the breech, ceteris paribus can be narrower and thus take up less room in the turret because the breech ring and barrel don't need to be as thick.  This also makes stabilization a little easier because there's less steel for the stabilizer to have to wrestle with.  Lower peak pressure also makes life a little easier for the ammunition designers because the interface between the sabot and the dart is experiencing less peak force.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's really hard to get the raw performance.  Kinetic energy of the projectile is the integral of the pressure at the base of the projectile swept along the volume of the bore.  For a given mass of propellant, higher pressure guns have better thermodynamic utilization of the propellant.  In small arms, higher peak pressure also gives more consistent internal ballistics and thus accuracy, but I am not sure if this is a major factor in tank guns.

The Rheinmetall 130mm has the same cartridge base dimensions as the 120mm:



So the increase in breech thrust against the breech block and the stress in the firing chamber and breech ring should only be greater by (approximately) the percentage increase in pressure.  On top of that, the breech designs Rheinmetall has shown have a more sophisticated wedge design that existing 120mm guns which should provide better distribution of the firing loads and thus lower peak stress:



There may also have been metallurgical improvements in gun breech materials in the... what, half century since the 120mm smoothbore was invented?

So the width increase of the 130mm vs. the 120mm may be very small.  The gun will probably need greater recoil travel and may need to be mounted further back in the turret, so it is not space-neutral or anything like that.  However, with the current manned tank turret design of placing the gunner, gun, and commander abreast (or loader, gun and gunner in designs with a flesh loader), the width of the gun breech is dividing the turret right down the center and determines to a large degree how much elbow room is left for the crew for a given turret ring diameter.

So, given that the Rheinmetall design is more mature, more powerful, and shouldn't be too much wider than the existing 120mm smoothbore, the advantages the Ascalon offers seem poor by comparison.

Nexter is offering a 140 mm gun which is, obviously, more powerful than the current 120 mm ones while not having the drawbacks of the envisioned 130-140 mm tank guns, such as the recoil forces (thanks to its muzzle brake) and bulky ammunition (140 mm cased telescoped ammo will have a length equal to or less than 130 cm).
Those two characteristics allow ASCALON to be integrated on tracked vehicles weighing less than 50 t, thus more potential customers.

Nexter's Ascalon concept undergoing live fire trials at Alcochete (Portugal) :
 
Sadly, no public images available yet.
Ascalon is a 140 mm gun using telescoped ammunition (meaning potentially longer APFSDS rods and more ammunitions onboard) and is the main competitor of Rheinmetal's 130 mm for the MGCS.
 
The energy at the muzzle, is not overly impressive at 10MJ (with a goal of 13MJ by 2025) compared to the 9-12MJ of current 120mm but Nexter claim to reach those energy at a lower chamber pressure than current guns.
 
So we have two concepts going in opposite directions. Rheinmetal's 130mm will have a much higher muzzle energy than the current generation of guns (50% more according to Rheinmetal) which mean that the platform using it will have to be sturdy enough to withstand the recoil, while Nexter is going toward a lower energy gun (compensated by longer kinetic penetrators) which could theoretically be mounted on lighter platforms. That might show opposite visions for the MGCS which lines up somewhat with the operational culture of both country. A heavier tank geared more toward territorial defense for Germany, and a lighter more deployable platform for France.
 
The 130 mm is also using mature and proven technological solutions, while a 140 mm CTA is (as far as I know) something new which may lead to hurdles during the development process. So the maturity of the technology (which will be somewhat linked to the cost) will also be a factor.

Nexter's Ascalon concept undergoing live fire trials at Alcochete (Portugal) :
 
Sadly, no public images available yet.
Ascalon is a 140 mm gun using telescoped ammunition (meaning potentially longer APFSDS rods and more ammunitions onboard) and is the main competitor of Rheinmetal's 130 mm for the MGCS.
 
The energy at the muzzle, is not overly impressive at 10MJ (with a goal of 13MJ by 2025) compared to the 9-12MJ of current 120mm but Nexter claim to reach those energy at a lower chamber pressure than current guns.
 
So we have two concepts going in opposite directions. Rheinmetal's 130mm will have a much higher muzzle energy than the current generation of guns (50% more according to Rheinmetal) which mean that the platform using it will have to be sturdy enough to withstand the recoil, while Nexter is going toward a lower energy gun (compensated by longer kinetic penetrators) which could theoretically be mounted on lighter platforms. That might show opposite visions for the MGCS which lines up somewhat with the operational culture of both country. A heavier tank geared more toward territorial defense for Germany, and a lighter more deployable platform for France.
 
The 130 mm is also using mature and proven technological solutions, while a 140 mm CTA is (as far as I know) something new which may lead to hurdles during the development process. So the maturity of the technology (which will be somewhat linked to the cost) will also be a factor.

1996 video showing the famous Russian log in use (most likely at training):
 
First time I saw a video with the complete procedure shown actually.

Sorry, I originally wrote "... mass * v²", then deleted it and wrote "muzzle velocity" as I was talking about the muzzle velocity specifically. I must have accidentally deleted the "²" as well.
 
Yes, obviously the reduction in kinetic energy while be greater when a 5 kilogram projectile moving at 2,000 m/s is reduced by 50 m/s than for a 10 kilogram projectile having its velocity reduced from 1,650 to 1,600 m/s... but there is no indication that the difference will be as pronounced and as relevant.
 
I.e. let me give you an example for which I have data. According to the Swiss firing tables, the Pfeil Pat 87 Lsp (Cart flèche 87 lum) aka the DM23 APFSDS has an in-flight weight of 4.6 kilograms and a muzzle velocity of 1,640 m/s. At 2,000 metres distance, a velocity of 1,529 m/s is reached.  The M829A1 in-flight projectile has a weight of 4.88 kilograms and a muzzle velocity of 1,575 m/s. After travelling 2,000 metres, the velocity is only 1,440 m/s.
 
So in this specific case, the total energy loss is greater for the heavier, slower projectile. Why? Because of the higher drag and higher weight of the M829A1 APFSDS. Only after a longer distance, the DM23 will loose more kinetic energy than the M829A1. How big is the weight/velocity difference between ASCALON and Rheinmetall's 130 mm APFSDS (if there is any)? When the heavier projectile ends up being better after 4-8 kilometers, then it is irrelevant.
 
Regarding your original statement, I can only assume that it is speculation. Apparently Nexter's ASCALON concept as originally announced in April 2021, had a total catridge size of at most 130 cm. Rheinmetall has not revealed the dimensions of its projectile yet, but it seems to be more than 130 cm. So the ASCALON's ammunition - if Nexter did not change the dimensions - is smaller and would rely on Rheinmetall using a smaller projectile/penetrator than physically possible despite potentially having a larger propellant charge in their catridge.
 
The Nexter article also mentions that the ASCALON round will start with a muzzle energy of 10 MJ, suggesting that this is either the in-flight projectile or the penetrator. For the sake of comparison, the OFL F1 should have some 6.3 MJ (penetrator only) and the German DM53 fired from the L/55 should have slightly more than 7 MJ muzzle energy (penetrator only). So ASCALON would be a significant step-up in terms of lethality, but the new KE2020 Neo (in development for the L/55A1) with 20% more muzzle energy and a new composite sabot than DM53/DM63 could come rather close. The 13 MJ are projected growth potential.

Nexter's Ascalon concept undergoing live fire trials at Alcochete (Portugal) :
 
Sadly, no public images available yet.
Ascalon is a 140 mm gun using telescoped ammunition (meaning potentially longer APFSDS rods and more ammunitions onboard) and is the main competitor of Rheinmetal's 130 mm for the MGCS.
 
The energy at the muzzle, is not overly impressive at 10MJ (with a goal of 13MJ by 2025) compared to the 9-12MJ of current 120mm but Nexter claim to reach those energy at a lower chamber pressure than current guns.
 
So we have two concepts going in opposite directions. Rheinmetal's 130mm will have a much higher muzzle energy than the current generation of guns (50% more according to Rheinmetal) which mean that the platform using it will have to be sturdy enough to withstand the recoil, while Nexter is going toward a lower energy gun (compensated by longer kinetic penetrators) which could theoretically be mounted on lighter platforms. That might show opposite visions for the MGCS which lines up somewhat with the operational culture of both country. A heavier tank geared more toward territorial defense for Germany, and a lighter more deployable platform for France.
 
The 130 mm is also using mature and proven technological solutions, while a 140 mm CTA is (as far as I know) something new which may lead to hurdles during the development process. So the maturity of the technology (which will be somewhat linked to the cost) will also be a factor.

Today our MOD released an official statement about the deal. You can find it here in Czech. In short it differs from the previously posted rumors only in details. The deal shall be signed this summer. 
 
- 14 Leopard 2A4 + 1 Buffel for free, to be deliverd in half a year, to be modernized to 2A7+ level later
- up to 50 new Leopard 2A7+ (including specialized variants) on commercial contract, to be delivered "shortly afterwards"
 
All tanks to be ordered in cooperation with German MOD under the same or very similar conditions (including price) with Czech industry involvement in deliveries of both Czech and German tanks (new production line?). Details of that are not available atm. 
 
 
The MOD also commented on the option to buy Abrams. They said they were interested but the US offered a delivery date only after 2030. 

Replacement of the rubber pads on the tracks of an Au F1 SPG, followed by the reinstallation of said track :
 
 

Replacement of the rubber pads on the tracks of an Au F1 SPG, followed by the reinstallation of said track :
 
 

Replacement of the rubber pads on the tracks of an Au F1 SPG, followed by the reinstallation of said track :
 
 

From our side this time only helis including the quie famous Alien Tiger. 

French army is apparently also changing it's infantry camo (delivery in 2024) with an (almost) omni-environment pattern. Base camo will be used for woodland/grass/urban/desert/mountain and a variant of the same pattern will be used for an all snow environment. Apparently they focused a lot on how a change in lightning will modify how the eye perceive the pattern :
 
 
Same base color as the new Scorpion camo for the vehicles with the possibility to add active camo on top of it in the future (for infantry that may be a bit optimistic) :
 
Seems everybody is going toward an unique camouflage pattern.

First fours Serval (VBMR light) delivered to the army :
 

 
https://www.forcesoperations.com/le-ministere-des-armees-receptionne-les-quatre-premiers-serval/