Serge

I'm anxiously waiting for the Turkey's K2-derived Altay to have all these teething problems which will be denied with as much vigor as the Indians defend the Arjun. 

A schematic of what appears to be an autoloader and redesigned propellant charge storage for the M109A7 (or potentially an A8).
 

 
 

Recovering M113 from the ice:
 

CV90 GIFs from Forsvaret's video:

 

 

 
Source:
 

Elon Musk send cars to orbit, while ISIS jihadmobils are already on a Mars surface

 

AFAIK Qatar didn't buy any second hand gear.
 
___
PS:
 
The Slovenian "medium battlegroups" will have the following composition according to the Slovenian website Obramba.com:
 
- three companies of 13 Boxers with 30 mm gun (apparently in the Rheinmetall Lance Modular Turret system, at least photographs of a Boxer with Lance have been used by Slovenian websites)
- one heavy company of 8 Boxers with 120 mm mortar
- a single scout platoon of four Boxers with 30 mm guns.
 
The already purchased Patria AMVs will apparently be used for other support roles. 24 of the Boxers with 30 mm gun will be fitted with the Spike ATGM. That would put each battlegroup at 51 vehicles each. However Obramba.com claims that the first batch to be ordered by Slovenia is 56 vehicles large, so maybe that includes driver training vehicles. Locally the Boxer will be known as BKV 8x8.
 
 
Meanwhile representatives from the Czech defense news services were invited to KMW's Munich facility to be briefed on the advantages of the Puma (typical marketing event). There are some generic informations regarding the Puma:
 
its protection level is exceeding the current STANAG 4569 level 6 standard against ballistic threats and the STANAG 4569 level 4a/b against mines. The mine protection is formed by (at least) two sandwich-plates, with a space of more than 100 mm between them. the unmanned turret includes blow-out panels  in its roof armor or the armor would act like a blow-out panel. This also seems to be the case with the hull ammo, but maybe Google Translate twisted the words a bit... the elements of the decoupled running-gear supposedly can be swapped out after damage to reduce repair times, making it easier to get the vehicle combat ready after being struck by a mine or an IED Germany considered the ASCOD, the CV90, the M2 Bradley and the Warrior before opting to develop the Puma the ERA by Dynamit Nobel Defence was apparently added, because it offered increased protection over the previous armor layout Czech newspapers claimed that the Puma had a really high fuel consumption, but KMW denies these claims. The range of 550 km on road and 250 km cross-country has been confirmed by the German Army's testing. The Czech sources would exaggerate the values, but the Puma should have slightly higher fuel consumption than the other vehicles, because it was both heavier and faster during the tests. MTU has created a 1,000 kW variant of the MT 892 V10 engine, which does not increase fuel consumption (by a major amount) the Puma's ATGM launcher is dampened, so that the vehicle can drive more than 1,000 km without the vibrations damaging the missiles. This was proven with special tests the United States Army agreed to consider foreign vehicles in the NGCV program (M2 Bradley replacement). KMW seems to be interested in offering the Puma series production in Germany is currently outputting between 66 and 71 vehicles per year people can train repair and maintenance works with VR/AR googles a demonstrator for the first Puma upgrade (including color displays, a 360° day and night surveillance system and maybe also the TWSA) already exists, but during the visit of the Czech writers it was being tested by the German military additional Puma variants (required by the Czech military) could be locally developed in the Czech Republic
 
 
 
 

Gun shield armor module of an Abrams.

SAIC and ST Kinetics' offer for the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program:
 

 

Concurrent Technologies Corporation is collaborating with TARDEC to improve the manufacturing of the U.S. Army’s friction stir-welded HFBC prototype hulls for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle.
 

One of next Voennaya Priemka will be about Boomerang

 

Elaws are useful to collect EW intelligence too.
 
So, as you noted, it’s quitte strange. 

Graduation video:
 
 

 

 
Part of a recent propaganda series to educate people on the role of the armored corps due to its decline in recent years. This time they show a live operational firing on 3 targets in a Hamas outpost. 
You can see them exiting the tank after firing and celebrating with the bunch, but that's just editing for the sake of smooth transitioning.
 
https://he-il.facebook.com/2055812101320752/videos/2085466998355262/
 
 

Namer CEV (Combat Engineering Vehicle), also known in Hebrew as Namera, did its first exercise with the 7th brigade.
 
Unfortunately with only 30 units produced per year, of Namer in all variants, it's going to take a long while.
 
Meanwhile, here's footage of that exercise:
 
https://a7.org/media/a7radio/misc/video/18/jan/WhatsApp0901.mp4
 

More:

 

No, that doesn't work. The Abrams already has two separate compartments, yet it needs thick bustle armor. Unless the firewall is extremely thick, it is not guaranteed that it will stop a round from penetrating both ammo compartments.
 
 
Well, they would replace the tank after enough next-generation MBTs are in service. So by 2040-2050; if the Leopard 2 by that time is still acceptable counter to the new tanks that Russia, China, etc. have accepted into service then.
 
 
The French turret suffers from being a "bulge turret". As the gun is not allowed to move above/through the roof (as in case of the German proposal), there is a "bulge" added to the roof; without this the gun depression would be limited (breech block would hit the roof). This bulge is essentially unarmored and causes the turret to offer no size reduction compared to the Leopard 2 turret - at least not in height. It has a slightly smaller frontal profile, but when seen from the side the bulge is exposed and can be hit.
 

 
That's why the German design - if a decent NBC protection solution has been found - is better. Alternatively one could accept a really low-profile turret comparable to the Stryker MGS turret or the Falcon II turret from the Jordanian KADDB; these however again would offer lower protection against threats hitting the sides.
 


 
 
I am not sure that this is accurate, but it might be close.

@Serge: GDLS did more than just add "special armor" skirt to protect that hull area. They thickened the hull sides, and that extra thick slab of steel is noticeably longer on the right side, to cover the hull ammo compartment.
 

 
I thought I had on my HDD a pic of the right-hand side of the hull but I can't seem to find it, so I'm afraid I'll have to make do with the next two pictures, which are comparisons of Abrams hulls by different model kit makers (I have the 1/35th M1A2 SEP TUSK v2 by Meng, btw).
 
   
 
You'll note that the hull armor is longer on the right side, by two torsion bars, so to speak.
 

Leo doesn't seem to have this extra hull protection - thickness appears rather uniform.
 

 

 
 
EDIT: why the fuck did the forum software decide to post this without my permission? I wasn't done typing...

I don't consider such a large rework of the Leopard 2's design a realistic option.
 
If you shorten the hull, the track area will be reduced and the ground presssure will rise. So it really depends on how much weight can be saved by installing a new powerpack and shortening the hull. Given that the armor at the engine compartment is the thinnest of the hull, the reduction in combat weight would be rather small in relation to the reduction in track contact area.
So essentially to negate a potential loss of mobility, the overall weight of the tank also should be reduced at other places. This might mean a ligher armor package (not ideal) or reducing the overall size of the tank, for example by using a new low-profile turret. However then you are changing so much, that you could instead buy a new tank for the same money (specifically if the suspension is also replaced by a decoupled running gear with hydro-struts).
 
 
Moving the ammunition rack to the rear of the hull will cause more issues. In case of the Abrams, having a small (six rounds) ammo compartment in the rear also required adding two further armored skirt modules to the right side of the hull, which increases weight. Given that the Leopard 2's heavy ballistic skirts are shorter but thicker than the ones used on the Abrams, there need to be added even more; i.e. there is no weight saved by replacing the engine, only a new crew place is added.
 
 
The Abrams' turret bustle has much thicker side armor than the one of the Leopard 2 - in fact the side armor of the Abrams' turret bustle is even thicker than the side armor of the crew compartment. So the Leopard 2 would need a lot of add-on armor for the turret rear, otherwise a single hit could leave the tank without ammo.

 
 
The hydraulics are already replaced on later variants, but the place is occupied by more electronics. I.e. on the Leopard 2A7 the SOTAS-IP radios from Thales are located in the old place of the hydraulic pump.