Serge

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.

From Andrey's blog, BMPT assembly (probably those for Parade, likely to be nearly empty inside)

 

http://groundcombatvehicles.iqpc.com/media/1003099/73672.pdf
 

The cabinet approved this evening (11.03.18) an MoD and IDF plan for strengthening the ground arm, which includes 2 main projects that were decided in the Gideon multi-year plan (2015-2020): The purchase of 'hundreds' of Eitan combat vehicles, and the development of a new self propelled howitzer.
 
Eitan
On the Eitan, it was said it would enter service with the Nahal light infantry brigade in 2019, and will steadily start replacing M113 in 2020. Nahal was chosen to lead the Eitan project by being the first to test it. 
MANTAK say the Eitan will be the world's most advanced and protected wheeled combat vehicle, basing itself on technologies developed for the Merkava and Namer, and being designed with an open architecture to allow easy integration of upgrades in the future.
And its main advantage over the Namer would be its rapid rate of production.
 
MoD and IDF refrained from telling how many vehicles exactly will they need, which may be due to the fact that they have yet to see how much the budget allows them. Ideally, it would replace the M113 in as many roles as possible, while in some roles a light armored vehicle, preferably the JLTV, would replace the M113. 
 
The plan spans a decade, so even if the production rate of the Eitan is similar to the Namer, we can expect at least 300 vehicles. But it won't be, and will likely be twice as fast, which could mean north of 600 vehicles. Of course, many of them will not be frontline vehicles. 
 
MoD's contract with RAFAEL includes ~1,000 Trophy systems, of which ~90 will go to Merkava 3 tanks, ~600 will be evenly split between Merkava 4 and Namer vehicles, which leaves ~300 for the Eitan over the course of a decade. 
Admittedly, the IDF was only supposed to present its recommendations for an APS (Iron Fist or Trophy) in January 2018, which is long after the contract with RAFAEL was signed, so it remains until the 2018 fiscal report to understand how many more Trophy-equipped Eitans will we see.
 
SPH
MoD approves the continued project to develop and produce the next generation howitzer for the IDF, and promises that within the following decade, the IDF ground arm will undergo a revolution. 
Indeed, the howitzers are long overdue, and should have been produced and enter service over a decade ago! But budget cuts happened. Thankfully, the Gideon plan seems to be on track from start to end.
 
Oddly, as opposed to other programs in the IDF, the new howitzer entered prototype stage a while ago and begun test firing as well, without the public knowing the Hebrew name of the system, or seeing a prototype. The Eitan, Namer, Carmel, and Barak, were all named at the very early stages of their program and prototypes/concepts were shown very early on as well.
The fact that the IDF has only very recently concluded it would be best for it to make a first batch of wheeled howitzers shows the development program is still lagging behind, and Elbit's promises to get the system ready within half a year to one and a half years (in the worst case), were broken.
 
It is however important to understand that Elbit is now tasked with 2 development programs - 1 for a wheeled howitzer, 1 for a tracked howitzer. 
 
The news here, are that the project can now proceed as planned. It was previously stalled as the MoD had to review it for fears of corruption, and due to a new law that calls for routine program reviews for deals worth 100 million NIS and 400 million NIS, each with different parameters set for the reviews.
 
Now, considering the fact that they claim a decade will be needed for the full (?) transition, and the facts that today there are ~300 howitzers in service, of which 100 will be cut as the new ones will be able to more than compensate for the lower numbers, we're looking at a production rate of roughly 20 units per year. A more precise figure would likely be 24 howitzers, which would equate to 2 battalions per year, or if there are any plans to produce new dedicated ammo carriers, then 12 howitzers and 6-12 carriers which would equate to 1 battalion.
 
Source:
https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/368213

I've been wondering about the protection difference between the Swedish version and the German version. What I found very odd is the table on the last slide I originally posted, which list the Leopard 2 Improved with Vorsatzmodule of the generation "D-2" and internal armor of the generation "B".
 
I think this might be a reference to which prototype was send to Sweden for tests. The original Leopard 2 Improved prototype was the Komponentenversuchsträger (Leopard 2 KVT; "component test bed"), which was based on the chassis number 20825 (the 825th tank made by Maschinenbau Kiel). Based on this number, it appears that the hull (and turret) were made as part of the 6th Leopard 2 batch (the second batch of 2A4 tanks) made between January of 1988 and May of 1989. The previous batch (batch number 5, first batch of Leopard 2A4 tanks) was produced between December of 1985 and March of 1987, while the last batch of Leopard 2A3 tanks ended with the chassis number 20644 for MaK. Given that 45% of all German Leopard 2s were made by MaK and the 5th batch consisted of 370 tanks; therefore I assume that the 5th batch ended with the chassis number 20810 or 20811. The first 96 tanks of the sixth batch were made with the old armor, therefore the chassis number 20825 would fall into that category.
 
The later Leopard 2 Improved prototypes (Truppenversuchsmuster Maximum and Truppenversuchsmuster Minimum, "troops trial model maximum/minimum") were based on the chassis numbers 11156 (TVM max) and 11157, which were made by Krauss-Maffei and belonged to the 8th batch (the last batch of tanks for the German Army) made between January of 1991 and March of 1992.
 

 
This would mean that original KVT (later renamed IVT) used 1st generation composite armor (also confirming that the "B" in the table stands for the original composite armor), while the TVM tanks had 3rd generation armor (believed to be "D-1", "D-2" or "D-3" in the table). The actual Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A6 tanks were made using hulls from the 6th, 7th and 8th batches - so all German tanks with the second and the third generation of composite armor + 22 tanks with the original hull armor package. If the hull armor wasn't altered (although I assume it was), this would mean that there would be some tanks with worse/better hull armor than the others...
 

 
The turrets were all taken from the 1st batch, so they probably replaced the armor inserts and upgraded them to "C" or "D-1/2/3" level. According to the book by Scheibert, the armor modules in the turret were replaced.
 
According to one issue of the Waffen-Arsenal magazine ("Leopard 2 A5 - Euro-Leopard 2" by Michael Scheibert), the Leopard 2 tested in Sweden was either a KVT/TVM mix or they tested both variants (not written clear enough for me to understand what was the case). In theory this might mean, that the higher level of protection of the Swedish variant is just the result of using "C" or "D-1/2/3" level armor inserts with the same Vorsatzmodul.
 
 
Yes, that's true. However I've never seen a cast turret with composite armor in the gun mask and Soviet gun masks tended to be thinner. Also the composite filler of the turret always ends a few centimetres away from the gun mount.

It's interesting.
Presentation (which contains this page) which available now on ontres.se is 110 pages long
about 2-and-a-half years ago i've downloaded on my computer presentation which was 119 pages long. Apparently it's exactly the same as one available now online, except for some pages on tank protection https://cloud.mail.ru/public/FVLe/iUZw87trH 
(according to Chrome history file, which i've backed up in dec.2015 and still have now, this pdf was without a doubt downloaded from ontres.se https://i.imgur.com/ysAJQgr.png)

...
new link https://cloud.mail.ru/public/579x/2Z1Bqxm2m

Are you sure? Is it confirmed to be fake?
 
This is from a presentation by R. Lindström, who works/worked for the Swedish FMV:

 
Except for the values, everything is there (lower left corner). The same set of presentations includes a lot of 100% valid files:
 
So overall the drawing seems to be valid. Maybe the guy photoshopped the drawing into the background of a FMV file and added his own values - but look at the drawing in the left corner of the first slide: this drawing does exist and it does have oddly placed text... maybe because R. Lindström wasn't allowed to post the true version (which would have protection values there?)...
 
 

Maybe, maybe not. There might be aswell an American XM711. Don't forget that the designation "M426" exists in the US inventory (105 mm HEAT-FS round) and the Israeli inventory (105 mm APFSDS-T round, also known as 105 mm DM63); it would be quite a coincidence, but there also might be an American XM711 round. Maybe the M711 was developed as a joint-venture with US companies or based on a contract of the US Army?
 
___
 
Enough of the "heavy" discussions, time to lighten up the mood. French armor protection (some of the other forum users with better French skills should try to fact-check my translation):
 

AMX-32:
frontal armor consists of spaced armor, the outer layer is a dual-hardness steel plate; spaced armor is also used on the turret sides designed to resist 57 mm AP (from the ASU-57) and 75 mm APCBC ammo (from the AMX-13/75) - penetration should be 100-170 at 1,000 m distance a lot better protected than the AMX-30, which was designed to stop 20 mm ammo only roof armor is designed to provide protection against bomblets with 30° impact angle (?)
AMX-40:
frontal arc is protected by composite armor, which is resistant to 76 mm AP ammo - only the PT-76 and M41 Walker Bulldog used this calibre - and the RPG-7 side armor of the turret is spaced and  provides protection against 23 mm AP AMX E4  (modified AMX-40 design offered to Egypt, weight increased from 43.7 metric tons to 50 metric tons):
completely redesigned (composite) armor, offers protection against 105 mm HEAT and APFSDS ammo at the frontal arc heavier versions (53 metric tons) of this design were supposed to have armor protection comparable the Leopard 2(A4)
AMX Leclerc:
unlike Chobham, the Leclerc's armor was always designed to provide higher efficiency against both KE and CE threats (early Chobham was optimized against hollow charge ammunition only) the Leclec has the same weight as the Leopard 2A4, but is 850 mm shorter (hull length). This allows the implementation of a higher protection level. However instead of focusing all armor on the frontal arc (like the Leopard 2), the weight was used to increase protection along a greater area: the heavy ballistic skirts are thicker and cover more surface, while the turret side (and bustle) armor is designed to protect against RPGs.

Here are two quotes from Rickard's O. Lindström's article on the development of the Strv 2000, which might be relevant to the protection level of NATO tanks in the 1990s:
 
 
The above statement is made regarding the development of the Soviet 125 mm APFSDS ammo: NATO tanks of the 1980s doesn't seem to be protected against the weapons/ammo used by Warsaw Pact tanks. This probably meant that the protection of the tanks tested in Sweden wasn't necessarily as high as usually estimated on the internet...
 
 
Inspired by the M1A1 HA, the Swedes tested DU as possible armor material for the Strv 2000 tank project. It showed that the usage of DU increased protection, but only if the volume was the limiting factor. If the weight was the limit, other materials could reach similar (or higher) protection.

The side armor at the turret bustle (the section providing 380 mm protection at 90° impact angle) is thicker than the armor at the crew compartment:

 
So it seems the side armor has a thickness of about 300 mm at the crew compartment, while the thickness at the bustle is about 400 mm. The armor seems to have different composition depending on location:

The bustle armor consists of many sloped NERA plates, while the NERA plates at the side armor of the crew compartment are flat (so they require an angle to achieve a higher level of protection):
 

Never seen before :

Another picture of the SAIC/STK/CMI MPF.
 

AFAIK the MPF has no airdrop requirement, maybe they decided to upgrade the base armor package?
 
also here's a larger version from BAEs twitter
 

Three men crew for the Armor FMBT contest winner.
 
 

BAE Systems has submitted its proposal to the U.S. Army to build and test the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle for use by the Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT).
 

Regarding the earlier discussion about the XM1 and the British MBT-80's armor protection, posted by Wiedzmin on Tank-Net: "Why the Brits didn't like the protection of the XM1 tank".
 

 
Interesting is the protection of protecting the roof only against artillery fragments and the crew compartment against 81 mm HEAT warheads at 45° angle. I guess the latter might be a reference to the Carl Gustav recoiless rifle (which has 84 mm diameter, so 81 mm warhead diameter seems to be likely). The intervall for the range at which protection against APFSDS shall be provided might suggest, that this is either different for turret and hull (i.e. turret resistant against APFSDS fired from 800 m distance, hull resistant to APFSDS fired from 1,200 m distance) or depends on angle (impact angle 0° = armor resisting APFSDS fired from 800 m; impact angle 20-30° = armor resisting against APFSDS fired from 1,200 m).
 
That leaves us with the following (is there any easy way to add tables?):
Tank type T-72 Leopard 2K Leopard 2AV (X)M1 Abrams MBT-80 Weight 41 tonnes up to 47.5 tonnes 56.935 tonnes 52.6 tonnes (?) KE threat 105 mm "next-generation" AP(FS)DS from 500 m along ±30° from the centerline
14.5 mm - 20 mm AP allround (?) 105 mm APDS from 800 m along ±15° from the centerline (turret only),
90 mm AP(DS) from 1,500 m along ±15° from the centerline (hull),
20 mm AP from 100 m (upper portions of the hull sides) or from 500 m at 20° (lower portion)
14.5 mm AP from 100 m (engine comparment) 105 mm APFSDS with 38 mm core diameter (ammo for the smoothbore gun?) along ±30° from the centerline,
7.62 mm AP at 30 m (engine vents),
14.5 mm AP all-round (20 mm AP at crew compartment?) 115 mm APFSDS from 800 - 1,200 m range,
14.5 mm AP all-round (?) 125 mm APFSDS from 1,000 m range,
14.5 mm AP all-round CE threat 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) at ±30° from the centerline None MILAN warhead 127 mm HEAT warhead (TOW-1?) at ±25° from the centerline,
81 mm HEAT at 45° (crew compartment) (?) Artillery threat (?) 155 mm artillery fragments at 10 m 155 mm artillery fragments at 10-15 m,
155 mm artillery fragments at 25 m (vehicle rear),
no protection required (cover above the tracks at the engine compartment) 95% protection against 155 mm splinters at 15 m (crew compartment),
57% protection elsewhere 155 mm splinters at 10 m

Strykers are being evaluated for towing M777 howitzers.
 

POrteur LEger

Yes
 
I don’t know. 
The purpose of the POLE was (not only) to test the firing of 120mm from a wheeled platforme but to test indirect tank firing. The accuracy achieved was very good. 
 
Indirect fire was lost with the Leclerc MBT introduction. Until the AMX-30, tank crew were trained to this capability. Into each AMX-30 turret, you can put a level to use the balistic table. There is a special support on the cradle.
With the AMX-10RC, there is only one level per troop and tank crew were not trained to this (even if it was to be known).
 
Indirect firing capability will come back with the next tank generation. 

A video of the VEXTRA during it's development (I don't think there are much images left of it)
Those of you who consult the AW forum may have already seen it.