Serge

The French considered such system at some time.
 

Kurganets
 
T-15 with ERA/NERA/MERA modules around it 
 
T-14
 

Photos stolen from otvaga. His majesty low-number production [probably just mock up] T-14 arrived at Army 2018.

 
 

 
 
... and his backwards relative - T-15

 
 

Just to clarify @LoooSeR's point; the brick-looking things on Soviet/Russian tanks are the ERA containers.  They're little mild steel boxes with some mounting hardware. 
 

 
The actual explosive elements can be removed and stored elsewhere.  Usually, the explosive sandwiches are stored somewhere else so they don't catch on fire or accidentally detonate or (and this is really the most likely problem) get stolen by bored conscripts who want to make a quick buck.

There was a nasty rumor that a lot of government tanks in the Ukranian Civil War were going into combat with just the containers installed, but no actual ERA inside those containers.  The explosive inserts had long since been misplaced, and the boxes were just for show at that point.
 

Not only can you find Namers with Merkava 3 tracks, some of the early production run of Namers, (I am not talking about prototypes) used modified Merkava 3 hulls rather than that of the Merkava 4.

Hey! Look what UVZ will show at Army 2018. T-15 with new unmanned turret. 57 mm AC, 2 Ataka ATGMs.

 
 

AFAIK backpacks were shown outside of the vehicle on renders and scalemodels of notional designs of FCS and GCV ever since mid-2000s. And although sometimes they were shown with some sort of protective covers, sometimes they were not covered on those renders by anything.
 
Without too much digging I can remember one design which was shown with all backpacks inside the vehcle - and that was wheeled OPC CAMEL demonstrator

Oh, that's interesting:
 
 

and some other design:

https://tardec.army.mil/content/ID2018Slides.pdf

Most NATO-member-made AFVs, especially for marketing, are made to meet a certain protection level described in STANAG 4569. It basically saves the vehicle manufacturers some of the time and money it takes to determine how much protection is required and where. 
So you will usually see designs that are made strictly to meet certain levels. The norm is level 6 on the front and level 4 on sides, plus level 4a/b vs mines as armor technology allows more weight savings. 
But some vehicles do deviate from these standards if the manufacturers are tasked with a requirement above NATO's. The Puma is one example of a vehicle that, as I understand, is marketed with a level 6 protection but can actually go somewhat higher, perhaps even 35mm at short range. Lynx KF41 almost definitely surpasses the STANAG 4569 levels in some areas, in its 50+ ton version.
 
Many MBTs are capable of shrugging off 35mm shells. I believe all can do so on the turret, while on the hull it would take for most tanks an applique if the tank isn't angled.
Leclercs and Leopards were built and sold with passive or the so-called semi-reactive armor that can both take such hits and survive consecutive strikes. Merkava tanks are built since early versions with high protection to the sides, and Abrams tanks pack multi-layered ERA on the sides that is capable of defeating such shells, at the cost of survivability of the armor.
Ariete is an odd one. On one hand, I remember reading it uses large chunks of RAFAEL's ERA, but I don't know how much of the applique is ERA, or whether I read it wrong and it's passive/semi-reactive armor and not ERA. Either way, count it in as a tank that can at least take a couple shots of 35mm.
T-14 seems to be packing a lot of passive and ERA on the sides, so the chances may not be all too great even after you pass the ERA, as the side skirts may have some passive armor behind the ERA plates.
 
So overall, you wouldn't gain much from shooting volleys of 35mm at the sides of modern MBTs.
But what is 99% sure is that no IFV will ever engage an MBT with such a cannon unless it was caught off guard and managed to spot the MBT first but knowing it cannot retreat.
 

For the sake of completeness, here are some details about the CV90's armor:
 
Basic steel structure, armor of UDES 09 and Strf 90 armor:
 
 

 
Never purchased MEXAS kit for the Strf 90 (a similiar kit was bought by Finland, Norway and Switzerland):

 
On the Swiss Schützenpanzer 2000 (CV9030 Mk II), the MEXAS armor panels have a maximum thickness of 70 mm.
 
Armor measurements on the CV9035NL without add-on armor done by @Bronezhilet
 
CV9035 turret during production:

(this seems to be just 20-30 mm thick steel, but it is often fitted with composite armor on top of that)
 
CV9035NL engine bay:

 
CV9035NL add-on armor (SidePRO, RoofPRO and MinePRO from RUAG):
 
RoofPRO composition (thickness might be different depending on application):

 
Might post something regarding ASCOD, Boxer, Puma, BMP, etc. over the next days...

A few photos regarding the Boxer's armor:
 
General:


Note that the Boxer is - like the AMV - not protected against RPGs in its basic configuration. Additional armor packs or active protection systems have to be installed.
 
Frontal hull armor:


 
Upper section of the frontal hull / driver's hatch:


 
Side armor:


 
Additional roof armor against artillery bomblets:

Kaplan MT
 

 

Namer IFV as seen today on the Golan during a visit by Defense minister Lieberman
 

 

 
PS: You can see UN force members next the Namer.
 

 

 
The video can be seen at : 
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liberman-warns-assad-planning-to-rebuild-large-syrian-army-after-civil-war/
 
 

General engineering principle for roads is called the 4th power.  Road damage is approximate to axle loads to the 4th power. So 60 tonne over 4 axles is roughly 5 times more damage than 60 tonne over 6 axles.
 
The boxer crv also makes me cringe for road damage. 
 
Maybe israeli roads are tougher than australian roads

I wonder if it's from seeing that Polish Rosomak variant during exercises.
 
From the market survey.
 

For background, each of the three Australian Multi-role Combat Brigades are organised as follows:
- Brigade HQ
- Combat Signals Regiment 
- Armoured Combat Regiment (1 x Sqn MBT [upgraded via L907-2], 2 x Sqn CRV [L400-2 BoxerCRV])
- Mechanised Infantry Battalion (currently M113AS4: replacement will be L400-3 IFV)
- Motorised Infantry Battalion (Bushmaster PMV, to be replaced by L81xx [can’t recall])
- Artillery Regiment (2/3 x Bty of M777A2)
- Combat Engineer Regiment 
- Combat Service Support Battalion
 
As can be seen, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Towed guns, mix of wheeled & tracked AFV, a sub-unit of tanks for the entire brigade, insufficient organic combat engineering, and differing levels of protection & mobility for each of the infantry battalions. 
 
The brigades are almost common/interchangeable by design, but internally, they have no depth for the capabilities offered. The three MCB rotate between three phases of the force generation cycle of “readying” (training, getting new gear, being certified), “ready” (deployable), and “reset” (not rest!). 

Two different tasks : to recon and to scout. 
To recon will reveal the enemy intent by fighting. Scout will do the same just by sneaking. If they have to fight, this is for their self protection. 
So, Recce are heavy with canon. 

Maybe you can conclude some details out of this article
 
THE ARTILLERY BRIGADE THAT CAN SEND MISSILES INTO A LIVING ROOM WINDOW
The David's Sling Brigade was originally created to strike advancing tank formations; Now it is preparing for urban warfare against Israel's asymmetrical enemies.
BY YAAKOV LAPPIN    JUNE 6, 2016 17:10   3 minute read. Share on facebook Share on twitter   The story of the “David’s Sling” Artillery Brigade reflects, in ways few other units do, the radical transformation of Israel’s security environment over the past decades. Today the brigade has the ability to fire a missile through a living-room window.

Originally set up after the 1973 Yom Kippur War to destroy advancing enemy tank formations with antitank missiles, the unit today specializes in precision strikes in urban warfare settings, targeting enemies embedded in Lebanese and Gazan civilian population centers.
  Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.   “The brigade is not an ordinary artillery unit,” Col. M., commander of the brigade, told The Jerusalem Post recently.
He noted its special components, including the Meitar and Moran units that fire guided surface-to-surface missiles, often hitting with pinpoint accuracy targets beyond the line of sight. The brigade also includes the Sky Rider Unit – the only one in the IDF’s ground forces that operates its own tactical drones.

“The challenge today is targeting an enemy in an urban setting, with all of the restrictions.

It is about identifying the enemy and striking it and it only, and not hitting noncombatants. We cannot bring down a whole building because of one suspect who is there. We must be very precise,” Col. M said.

Young officers have to know when to order strikes, and also, “when to stop,” Col.
M added, referring to their responsibility for making life and death decisions under intense pressure.

The brigade has become known as the most air forcelike unit in the ground forces, due to its precision fire capabilities and drones.

“Some in the air force jokingly calls us one of their best squadrons,” the commander said. The unit must forge and maintain close ties to the IAF, to ensure its drones do not collide with the IAF’s platforms. The brigade is also responsible for calling in air strikes to assist ground forces during engagements on the battlefield and in maneuvers.

In the 1970s, the unit was dubbed the “judgment day weapon” due to its role in stopping what was then an existential threat – the conquest of Israel by Syrian or Egyptian armored forces.

Now that this threat has vanished, the brigade faces the 21st century threats of Hezbollah and Hamas, and potentially jihadists in Syria.

These groups could attempt to overwhelm Israel’s home front with rocket barrages, and attack the country’s borders with suicide bombers armed with shoulder-fired missiles.

The brigade incorporated the Sky Rider tactical drone Unit in 2011. Today, the drone has become central to all IDF operations, Col. M. said.

“No battalion commanders will go anywhere without it,” he stated. “We deploy drone crews in every sector.

As young as it is, this unit is already highly valued.”

Drone unit soldiers carry the Sky Rider and its mobile command equipment on their backs, meaning they must navigate terrain carrying 50 percent of their body weight.

Today, drone-equipped soldiers can be found on all the country’s borders and in the West Bank, providing overthe- hill reconnaissance assistance to infantry and armored corps.

In 2014, the IDF revealed that Meitar Unit is responsible for firing the Tamuz, known outside of Israel as the Spike. The fourth generation man-portable fire-and-forget anti-tank guided missile and anti-personnel missile, which has a tandem-charged HEAT warhead, is manufactured by the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Most details on the brigade’s missile capabilities remain classified.

The missile units are composed of personnel “who work with their brains, less with their muscles,” Col. M.

said.

He declined to provide additional details, saying only that “They leave no stone unturned to generate new techniques. They are creating the next battle doctrine, and using their [combat] systems in ways that the system designers did not think of.”  
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/The-artillery-brigade-that-can-send-missiles-into-a-living-room-window-456065
 
 
 

Puma is too small... (in German):
 
http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/start/aktuell/nachrichten/jahr2018/august2018/!ut/p/z1/hY9PC4JAEMW_kbP-t-NKJBJaaFnuJRZdbMN2ZdmkQx--XQJv0hwezHszv2GAwBWIoDMfqOZS0NH0LYlu0SbIM69GReadMcJNddo3RelmhwAauPwbISZGK4UR1D2D1jDidYYPNRAgPXM6KZi2qpnQ3OigqJbKmaTSo01eSpnE4T20yN2mKFxOuZ_UT3AcBUG0zdPKAh90pu9ll3b2aWjvVPQjO8oO_4zpuUvKMhy-m8qbQg!!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/#Z7_694IG2S0MG2UA0AVRTKVMN1GO3
 
Depending on seat location, the height limit for soldiers in the Puma is either 1.91 metres (equal to somehwere between 90-95 percentil of the height of a German man) or 1.84 metres (equal to only ~75 percentil of the height of a German man). This design decision was originally accepted in 2003, because not caring much about taller soldiers allowed to increase the level of protection for a given weight. In 2013 the German army requested to change the Puma's design to incorporate taller soldiers (probably because the end of conscription lead to a smaller pool of soldiers being available). Before 2013 the army didn't asked for the changes, because investigating the internal ergonomics (which limit the soldiers' height) was only seen as reasonable on vehicles close to the series production configuration.
 
Apparently the decoupled seats and other security related factors are main factors limiting the maximum soldier height in the Puma's rear compartment, so improvements to them could allow taller soldiers to fit into the specified height range.
 

A few more photos. I didn't know that the armored vehicle restoration group of the German tank museum has its own facebook page.
 


 
The tank is in driving condition.
 
 
 
 

Chrysler XM1 

The limitations of 8x8s, issusess that come from mixing tracks and wheels are well known about and discussed within the Army. However Gen. Carter, former Chief of the General Staff and current Chief of the Defence Staff is obsessed with acquiring an 8x8. Believing it necessary for any expeditionary force and inspired by the French intervention in Mali (despite most of the vehicles being VABs).
He is the architect of the much maligned "Army 2020", a scheme so bad that practically everything has either been changed, cancelled or reversed multiple times.
The original plan saw the main war-fighting division made up of 3 Armoured Brigades consisting of:

1 x Recce (CVRT > Ajax)
1 x MBT (CR2 mk.1 > mk.2)
2 x IFV (Warrior > WCSP)
1 x Heavy Protected Mobility (Mastiff > 8x8/Boxer)

To justify an 8x8 purchase and a budget cut looming this was changed to 2 Armoured Brigades of:

1 x MBT (CR2 mk.1 > mk.2)
2 x IFV (Warrior > WCSP)
2 x Light Infantry

and 2 "Strike Brigades":

1 x Recce (Ajax)
1 x Direct Fire (Ajax acting as a "Medium Tank)
2 x Mechanised Infantry (Boxer APC)
 

Simply a mess. Early feedback is not good:



Recently, the acknowledgement of Russia rearming and politicising of military cuts has resulted in the cancelling of any further cuts and a pledge for more funding from the Government. However the UK Gov. is an even bigger disaster so no one really knows what's going on.

Basically, yes - hydraulic pressure is used to vary piston height to change compression as RPM and boost pressures change. The AVCR-1360 was a really nifty engine and if it was not for the Army's then-obsession with turbine power it really should have been the Abrams' engine. In the spoiler pop-out is a picture of the Continental AVCR-series piston head. It was however complicated, and nobody has over the decades of effort put a variable compression engine into mass production until that just-introduced Nissan KR (and they must be feeling confident in it, they are planning to build over 100k of them per year, for a total run in millions).