Serge

Perhaps I can shed some light on this...
 
That 250 figure might have been correct if the government had opted for alternative A of the Chief of Defence's advice on the future structure of the armed forces, but to no one’s real surprise, they ended up choosing the least ambitious alternative instead, which means that there will likely be a total of 4 mechanized battalions and 1 partially mechanized cavalry battalion in the future Norwegian Army.
 
Now, currently, a Norwegian mechanized battalion only has a single tank squadron of about 14-18 tanks, but even if they decide to bring back the second squadron in these units to match the number of mechanized infantry squadrons (generally agreed upon to be the optimal ratio), that’s still a lot less tanks than the 250 figure.
 
Finally, the Inpector General for the Army, Eirik Krisoffersen, actually stated that he had been promised 84 tanks in an interview last year, but it's uncertain if he was aware that the army would receive a fourth mechanized battalion at that point.
 
Also, for those who are interested there has been some debate on what will be the best tank for Norway in the last issue of Offisersbladet. It starts on page 52, where Christoffer Westermoen, who was assigned to the earlier Leopard 2 upgrade project, takes the Leopard 2A7V in defence after the editor of Offisersbladed wrote an article that seemed to favour the K2 as the more modern and interesting alternative. Then on page 54, Mogens Rasmus Mogenssen, the representative of various South Korean defence companies in Scandinavia, argues against some of the points Westermoen made, while also directing some criticism towards the Norwegian Army for apparently being too focused on the German alternative. There is also a contribution by Major general (retired) Terje Antonsen and Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Lars J Sølvberg on page 58.
 
 

Norway plans to purchase 250 new tanks starting in 2025.

Hi Wiedzmin,
 
Both the Merk 3 and Merk 4 have rolling programmes to upgrade armour packages. A process assisted by the modular nature of the armour. The Israelis have the technical and scientific capability  to frequently improve and match the armour to current threats. However, their financial and industrial capacity to introduce upgrades, on a large scale, is relatively limited.  In the case of the Merkava improvements are introduced regularly, but on small batches at a time. Thus even in a battalion of Merkavas, there can be tanks with upgraded modular armour of different generations.
Cheers
Marsh

Looks like MPF & OMFV from GDLS:
 
 

3D visualisation of the new TITUS variants for Czech army can be seen in this article: https://www.armadninoviny.cz/titus-novinka-pro-ceskou-armadu-ziskava-konkretni-podobu.html
 
62 pieces will be delivered by Eldis - chassis, final assembly and except first few pieces also the cabins will come from Tatra Defence, electronics from Retia and the first few cabins will come from Nexter. 
 
TITUS KOVS (command post)


 
 
TITUS MKPP (artillery support coordination center) 

 
General schematics of the drivetrain

Hey guys, look, a photo of Armata in Syria was posted!

   Totally real!

One of the Kampfpanzer 3 proposals, this one is from Maschninenbau Kiel. IMO it was the best one:
 

 
Three men crew, autoloaded gun in overhead installation (this concept was tested on the VTS1 testbed based on the Marder hull), frontal protection against 120 mm KE (DM13 prototype at the time) and 120 mm HEAT-FS rounds along a 60° arc.
 

 
Like on the VTS1, the gun cannot be rotated by 360°, instead traverse is limited to 120° (-60° to +60° from the hull centerline). This was seen as sufficient by the West-German military, as this allowed a single tank to cover an area of 3,640 meters in 1,000 meters distance.
 

 
As Burlington-type composite armor wasn't adopted at the time, the all three KPz 3 proposals relied on spaced armor.
 

 
There were different exact configurations of the proposed vehicle with different crew and engine arrangements. But AFAIK all were designed with the same protectiion level and main gun (120 mm smoothbore gun prototype from Rheinmetall).



Source: Object-477's weibo blog.
 
The VTS1 ("Versuchsträger Scheitellafette 1" - testbed overhead gun mount 1):
 

 
At the same time Sweden created a similar prototype based on a Marder leased from Germany as part of the UDES-19 project.
 

 
 
 
 
 

During this period, the Leclerc MBT was not mature enough. 
But, French engineers who followed the Swedish tests came to the conclusion they were unfair. 
Swedish army tried to « destroyed » the tank. 
When you look at the mobility results, it’s tricky. It’s not possible to argue the Leopard’s got a good mobility. 

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/army-revamps-omfv-bradley-replacement-for-russian-front/
 
The revised requirement priority for the Bradley replacement / OMFV. Turreted Namer I choose you!
 

 
 

Boarding and disboarding from landing ships test for the Griffon and the Jaguar in different conditions
 
 

so, my bad again, 81 no used against hull, 127 and 107
 
127mm-600-636mm pen
107mm-480mm pen


 
 
as far as i understand, because of this hull front failure they later made this hull 
 

 
and only after this version get to 2A0/4 style hull, but i don't know is 2A0/4 a capable of stoping 127mm warhead or not...
 
and there is a scheme of firings of 2AV in US, without any good details, only that tank have 39 hits, of which 16 germans consider to be "good", of which 3 actually was penetration in turret front and mantlet by 127mm warhead, remaining 23 hits, they didn't  mention...
 


 
penetration was hit 6, 5 and 13, which version of hull front was used in US trials i don't know
 
 

p.s scheme of US trials seem to match trials i previosly posted here, so it's seems that they used improved hul, or germans repeat all hits that they recieved during US trials later at home with improved hull front
 
 

140mm barrel test. 
 

Epokha! Epokha combat modules for every Kurganets out there!

 

 
   Heh, they are on scedule

First Kaplan ATGM Carrier delivered

 
and Pars 4x4 ATGM carrier

 

Regarding the presence of composite armor in the hull of the Mk. 3 (the production Block is not specified) :

 
 
 
 
And also inside the double bottom.
 
 
According to Marc Chassillan, the two fuel tanks at the back of the Merkava Mk. 3 can be purged through dump valves.
 
 
 
In real life, there are only 4 rounds (in their fireproof canisters) between the turret basket and the engine bulkhead.
 
The number of rounds carried in the aft compartment is also incorrect :
 

 

I don’t talk about sponsons. 
 
The first Merkava generation hull (Siman 2) was designed with batteries and CBRN filters compartment at the rear. Both compartments were integrated into the hull. There were fuel tanks into the rear sponsons. 
With the Siman 3, a main change occurred. The crew compartment was more designed as a survival cell. So, fuel tanks were moved at the rear under separated armored boxes. Some sources explaine that the rear fuel tanks are not only self sealing, they can be ejected under certain conditions to avoid fire propagation.
This design got more avantages. With rear baskets, it makes very hard to achieve direct hits on the rear clamshell door.
 
It was too heavy. 
They had to make choices.

On You Tube there is a lengthy series of clips of Turkish airstrikes on Syrian AFVs, transporters the odd bridge etc. Mainly tanks being taken out. The video is of an exceptionally high standard high. I don't recollect anything as clear as this being released by other air forces.
 
See -
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3f0N-mJsbI&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1bwjJLqL9AJOpo9dGiVbZDXK5iXeUXMSZZqoWbSKArDc8ROQzKzL7dNqQ
 
 
Cheers
Marsh

The first two CAESAR 8x8 have arrived at the garrison of the Danish Artillery Regiment in Oksbøl:
 
 

More K9 VIDAR footage. The .50 on top is also interesting as its one of the new M2A2N.
 

 

 
 
"Oh shit" at 1:16?

140mm barrel test. 
 

140mm barrel test. 
 

140mm barrel test. 
 

140mm barrel test.