Serge

Generaly speaking, I never answer to such a question because it’s the start of unrealistic discussions of technology fanboys unknowing real. But, I can say :
- never forget AMX-10RC is a very 80’s light tank. So, any improvement must be cheap provide. 
- the world famous Serge AFV belief is : an AFV chassis push, carry and tow. 
- having a good AFV is good, but without its environment, it’s useless. 
 
FCS, sights, weapons were good.
 
So, I would have :
- modified the seats to have something more confortable and armored. Maybe an harness to sleep ;
- introduced a new TC hatch with an umbrella opening (my priority) ;
- rearrange external storage to increase them ;
- suppress river crossing (both useless and dangerous) to have more storage ;
- add spall liner and mine proof plates under pilot seat and turret floor. 
 
Considering chassis, I would have add :
- 2 rear fuel drop barrels like the Leclerc ones. Fuel drums are compulsory ;
- front tools connector to push mine rollers...
 
Considering it’s environment, I would have :
- add a fourth 10RC per troop (In France, reccon tanks troops are 3 tanks troops. Leclerc : 4 MBT troops) ;
- adopted AMX-10RTT as command post and ARVs instead of VAB and ARV based on trucks.

 
With diminution of 10RC number, I would have transformed some of them in general purpose vehicles able to carry dedicated teams for special tasks such as EW....
When dimounting the barrel and ammo racks, you have plenty of room. 
 

Generaly speaking, I never answer to such a question because it’s the start of unrealistic discussions of technology fanboys unknowing real. But, I can say :
- never forget AMX-10RC is a very 80’s light tank. So, any improvement must be cheap provide. 
- the world famous Serge AFV belief is : an AFV chassis push, carry and tow. 
- having a good AFV is good, but without its environment, it’s useless. 
 
FCS, sights, weapons were good.
 
So, I would have :
- modified the seats to have something more confortable and armored. Maybe an harness to sleep ;
- introduced a new TC hatch with an umbrella opening (my priority) ;
- rearrange external storage to increase them ;
- suppress river crossing (both useless and dangerous) to have more storage ;
- add spall liner and mine proof plates under pilot seat and turret floor. 
 
Considering chassis, I would have add :
- 2 rear fuel drop barrels like the Leclerc ones. Fuel drums are compulsory ;
- front tools connector to push mine rollers...
 
Considering it’s environment, I would have :
- add a fourth 10RC per troop (In France, reccon tanks troops are 3 tanks troops. Leclerc : 4 MBT troops) ;
- adopted AMX-10RTT as command post and ARVs instead of VAB and ARV based on trucks.

 
With diminution of 10RC number, I would have transformed some of them in general purpose vehicles able to carry dedicated teams for special tasks such as EW....
When dimounting the barrel and ammo racks, you have plenty of room. 
 

First 10 South Korean K9 build in India
 

 

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:
 
 

No. This is the contrary. It’s easier to train because tasks are easier. 
Did you train tank crew ? I did. 
This is why Merkava is a 4 men crew in an outnumbered country ?
It make me laugh to read such a thing when talking about Russian AFV. 
Russian tanks are 3 men crew and... are zippo too. With a big ammo rack in the middle of the crew compartment. 
So, your analyses are funny. When a Txx is hit, it’s « earth, wind and fire ». 
 
BMPT have no big ammos in the crew compartment. It’s far safer than any other Russian AFV today. 
So, survivability of its crew is better, far better. 
 
Decreasing the crew increases tiring. 
Did you fight in urban area ? I was trained to and I trained too. Your logic is an internet one. 
BMPT was designed for this purpose and, considering Russian standards, it works. 
No. 
BMPTs are complementary to tanks. They are no supposed to replace them. 
How Shilkas performed in Grozny ?
Just a question. 
This is is not the question here. 
Because BMPTs with tanks can manœuvre with infantry too. 
 
BMPTs are the only AFV to watch in 5 directions and to fire at 3 of them. 
 

Can you propose a simple design which won’t interfere with turret and RWS ?
What is the most important sector for an AFV ? What are you doing with this sector in the fight, even in defensive manœuvre ?
Which one ?
Remind : AFV are working at least as pair team, a « patrol » for some of us.
Which is very good because they can work faster and better when it comes to resuply, to watch at night, to repair, to rescue a wonded crewman...
Which is worst with a classical MBT. It don’t have 2 grenades launchers keeping a 120deg arc under suppressive fire. 
Can you describe the fight in Grozny Russians lived ? Did you heard about where anti-tank firing where coming from ?
When you are on the left of the hull, are-you keeping the left field of the tank ? Is there a trick in the streets ?
No, definitely NO. 
BMPT is maybe the most important innovation for the Russian armored units. 

M46

Hi,
I don't understand what you mean by the Merkava 3 was not fitted with additional, heavy applique armour kits in the same manner as the Merkava 2D. A major portion of the Merkava 3 production run were fitted with just such armour modules as the Merkava Siman 3 Daled (Mk. 3D). As well as those produced as new with the modules from the beginning, Merkava 3 Baz models were retro-fitted with the applique modules. Only a minority of the Merkava 3 fleet are left without the additional armour.
 
If you are talking about only hull and side-skirt armour, then that would make more sense. However, there are different styles and weights of side-skirts available, some with better protection than the ones you see routinely fitted. There is also the matter of cost. Only a small portion of the Merkava 2 fleet were up-armoured to the Merkava 2 D Batash standard. Even then, the armour configuration  and other changes used for the 2D Batash was not as extensive as the projected Merkava 2 "Tafnookim " which would have been too expensive.
 
I could be mistaken, but I think the Merkava 3 in the bottom photo, was a developmental one used for the Merkava 4 programme, where new systems, armour modules, etc. were experimented with.

More info on the new VBCI for Qatar:
 
 
MCT-30 has been redesigned, and it now includes a dual launcher for MMP missiles in the rear. Looks a hell of a lot better than previous attempts at integrating ATMGs into this turret IMO.

If I have time, I will post modular part of the hull tomorrow.
At the front, you only have 4 modular blocks. The LFP can’t be modified. 

Hi,
It was explained to me by people in MANTAK, that the Merkava 1 was rushed into service before it was ready.  The Merkava 2, if there would not have been such pressure to introduce the tank into the order of battle,  would have been the first model accepted for service. The intent was  that by telescoping the evolution of the Merkava and learning from combat lessons, what was in essence a developmental vehicle, could be rapidly modified into a fully fledged MBT. 
 

@Mighty_Zuk
 
Well, with all these information, you should write an article on the Mk. 3 armor right now.

Boxer with CT40 turret and ATGM launcher.
 
The UK wants a total of ~800 Boxers (but supposedly currently plans with only ~500, because money is limited), which could make it the largest single Boxer contract yet. Saudia-Arabia was close to order a total of 928 Boxers including some very exotic variants, but the contract was never signed due to politics. It was apparently very close to be signed - Rheinmetall even requested an export licence for an initial 200 vehicles, but it was denied. The Saudi deal would have included 119 anti-tank Boxers with 105 mm main gun in a turret, 100 Boxers with dozer blades to break through barricades and 60 Boxers to transport up to four VIPs each (probably to evacuate the Saudi-Arabian royal family in case of a revolt/war) incorporating sinks, fridges and safes. The German government didn't want to approve such a deal and an attempt to circumvent this (by selling the licence for the Boxer to some Spanish company and making the vehicles there) failed. This is why Saudi-Arabia ordered the LAV 700.
 
The UK wants 10 variants for the MIV:
armored personnel carrier command and control vehicle armored recovery vehicle mortar carrier ambulance armored engineering vehicle joint fire control vehicle infantry fighting/reconnaissance vehicle 155 mm self-propelled gun carrier short-range air-defence vehicle Apparently this makes the Boxer the best option, because all variants are either (to be) ordered or fielded already. Germany is interesting in a SHORAD system based on the Boxer (NNbS;  Nah- und Nächstbereichsschutz), an artillery variant with RCH 155 turret, a Boxer for the JFST and a fire-support variant with 30 mm gun. Slovenia wants to buy IFV/recce vehicles and mortar carriers, Lithunia ordered IFVs and scout vehicles with the Samson Mk II RWS, Australia buys turreted CRVs and apparently some ARVs. The 155 mm artillery variant seems to currently be an unique selling point of the Boxer, because other 8x8 wheeled vehicles have not been demonstrated in such a variant.
 
The armament of the APC variant is supposed to be a a Kongsberg Protector with Javeling ATGM. This is why the Dutch variants (already fitted with the Protector RWS) are meant to be the basis for the British variants. According to Nicholas Drummond on Twitter, the ambulance variant of the Boxer was well-received (although he doesn't specify which ambulance variant - Germany and the Netherlands use different ones).
 
 
 
 

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese):
Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》（The basic technology of armor protection）, and others are come from this issue： http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BQZS200108004.htm
The main author of these two sources is one of the chief tank designers in China. Mr.Zhang has presided over a design of front-engine tank scheme under the frame of Chinese 3rd gen MBT, but there was little info refer to these history)

Photo of Mr.Zhang and General Tal.

The cast turret base and weld frame.

Special armor covered, those colored parts most likely are heavy NERA or Built-in-ERA structure modules, while others are lighter module I guess.

T-3/4 module before shooting by a HEAT warhead of HOT missile. According to previous picture, it should be the side armor of the turret. So we can assume that the front arc of Merkava III's turret, looks likely ±30°，which can withstand more than 700mm even 800mm penetration from CE threat.

Still the T-3/4 module,before hitting by a RPG warhead. 
I am confused this number as T-9/4 at my first look, but it is more likely a distorted "3". There are some reasons: (1) Its thickness doesn't seem to fit on top of the turret. (2) In this pic the threat is RPG warhead, moreover, its incidence normal angle is smaller than the previous HOT warhead, which can be used as a useful basis for judging.

Built-in ERA structure, the left side is Israeli scheme, and Russian scheme at right side.




The armor layout of tank Merkava Mk III. The solid line is base steel armor's equivalent thickness, including spaced armor array inside the hull( The table above shows the thickness and inclination of the base steel armor,  unfortunately many  notes are missing in the PDF) and the dotted line is the special armor's protection capability against KE ammunition, up to 450mm RHA on turret front and 350-400mm on the UFP.
 
 
Hope you guys will enjoy this post

The UK will re-join the Boxer programme and explore options to equip the Army with the 8x8 troop carriers to modernise its vehicle fleet and meet the Army’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle requirement.

Israel's artillery-oriented magazine shared an interesting article by Lt Col Rafi Almagor that shares insights from the past development of the Sholef, that could be implemented in the development of the new, yet-unnamed howitzer in development.
Lt Col Rafi Almagor was one of the heads of the Sholef program.
 
The article is in Hebrew and translated to English by me:
 

 

Hi Xoon,
 
I do not have all the information you requested but this might be of interest. According to Krapke:  For the Leopard 2(A0-A4) the gun laying system or Waffennachführanlage (WNA) is known as H22.  It is a electric-hydraulic retarder control eqipped hydrostatic motor where an electric motor powers a coaxial piston pump which pumps the hydraulic fluid out of the reservoir into hydro storage cell.
 
Here is the diagram of the WNA H22:
 
 

Here :
 
 

That is indeed the argument that the Israeli's make in regards to the 1200hp engine in the Merkava 3.  And it's true that the Renk transmission is more efficient than the Allison transmission in the M1.  I suspect that when they claim to have similar power "at the drive sprocket", they are exaggerating a bit.  Not all the power loss is in the transmission, there is also power loss from cooling systems and other engine accessories, so even a powerpack with a 100% efficient transmission will not produce it's stated gross HP at the sprocket.  In case anyone ever wondered why the Merkava 1 has an engine with 908HP,  that figure was intentional on the part of Teledyne Continental.  The Israelis specified that they wanted a specific power output at the sprocket (I forget the number, but it was a round figure like 600 or 650) and the Teledyne engineers calculated they needed 908hp gross to get to that figure.  

More info to come soon.
 
EDIT: Just posted it without reading so I don't get ninja'd. This appears to be a demonstrator turret for the automatic loading system.