2805662

More of the elusive Trophy-equiped Abrams of 1BCT/1st Cav in Poland. 
 

 
It’s almost like they don’t want them photographed or something. 

More of the elusive Trophy-equiped Abrams of 1BCT/1st Cav in Poland. 
 

 
It’s almost like they don’t want them photographed or something. 

More of the elusive Trophy-equiped Abrams of 1BCT/1st Cav in Poland. 
 

 
It’s almost like they don’t want them photographed or something. 

No, it should be the 120 mm XM360 tank gun. Look at the low-quality photo from the presentation, the image at the lower right shows 120 mm main gun ammo.
 

Same muzzle break..
 

maybe someone found pdf of this presentation ?

Notice how the hull weight simulators also used to consist of three plates, but on the later US Army tank (with Trophy) only one plate is left (and none is fitted to the USMC's M1A1 tank!). That already tells us that these weight demonstrators are not used solely to simulate additional armor weight, if they simulate armor weight changes at all. The fact that an earlier M1A2 SEP v3 prototype without Trophy is fitted with these weight simulators also doesn't mean that the US engineers didn't add them in expectation of an APS.
 


 
Also note that the steel plates on the USMC's prototype and the US Army's SEP v3 have different sizes. The M1A2 SEP v3 after mounting Trophy is left with three large steel plates and a smaller one moutned ontop, which covers only about half as much surface area.

Yep, the Stabilised Commander’s Weapon Station is another indicator (though there are some National Guard tanks with this, too). 

A USMC M1A1 fitted with Trophy:
 

 
as seen on @Damian twitter account.
 
Also here: http://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-4-Modernization-Technology/Part-3-Ground-Combat-Tactical-Vehicles/M1A1-Vehicle-Protection-System/
 
“The M1A1 Trophy TD phase is complete. The USMC project is partially funded to procure (48) of (56) systems as a special mission kit for four tank companies.”
 

A USMC M1A1 fitted with Trophy:
 

 
as seen on @Damian twitter account.
 
Also here: http://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-4-Modernization-Technology/Part-3-Ground-Combat-Tactical-Vehicles/M1A1-Vehicle-Protection-System/
 
“The M1A1 Trophy TD phase is complete. The USMC project is partially funded to procure (48) of (56) systems as a special mission kit for four tank companies.”
 

A USMC M1A1 fitted with Trophy:
 

 
as seen on @Damian twitter account.
 
Also here: http://www.candp.marines.mil/Programs/Focus-Area-4-Modernization-Technology/Part-3-Ground-Combat-Tactical-Vehicles/M1A1-Vehicle-Protection-System/
 
“The M1A1 Trophy TD phase is complete. The USMC project is partially funded to procure (48) of (56) systems as a special mission kit for four tank companies.”
 

Using Morocco’s 2012 notification for 200 x M1A1 (http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/morocco_12-28_0.pdf) with all equipment listed included as a basis, it equates to $USD5.075 million per tank (£3.4m in 2102 £). I don’t see either an Abrams-turret, or complete Abrams as a CR2 upgrade/replacement as necessarily “more expensive” than 200 x Leopard 2A7V.

Just go to my album; https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy
 

 

From what I can tell it doesn't have the folding mechanism or the 'popped collar' that blocked view from the commanders cupola.
 

 

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/groundrobot/MillsPT1.pdf

Expect to see an Abrams hull with hydro-pneumatic suspension at AUSA today:
 
https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy

Expect to see an Abrams hull with hydro-pneumatic suspension at AUSA today:
 
https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy

Expect to see an Abrams hull with hydro-pneumatic suspension at AUSA today:
 
https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy

At the start of the production of the UAE tanks, the armor packages volumes were similar to the french série 1 :


But at the end, they all ended up with the same armor packages volumes as our série 2 tanks :


Even old ones were retrofitted (as you can see with the apparent gap between the storage boxes) :
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLeT2-6VAAAgSPh.jpg:large

That is correct, although the armored cover is rarely seen in retracted position as it is usually completely removed when the tank's not parked.

In Australian service, the Hunter class will have different radars (Australian phased array radars), missiles (SM2 & ESSM), guns (Mk54, Typhoon, & Mini-Typhoon), combat system (AEGIS), and combat interface (9LV) than the Type 26, as well as being built in an Australian shipyard. I think it’s more accurate to say that the BAE entry was picked, not that the Type 26 was picked. 
 
http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/HunterClassFFGFactSheet-9-9233.pdf
 
http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_18-26.pdf

Looks good, I like the non-slip surface texture. Did you do it yourself, or did it come with the kit?

My conversion of the Tamiya M1A2 into an Australian M1A1:
 
https://imgur.com/gallery/JsGZxjp

Even though the Namer here is closer to the photographer, I think it's safe to say it's noticeably taller than a Merkava 4M.
 
 
Haven't heard any complaints so far. 
Considering how the Namer and Eitan (and the Merkava) are built intentionally with rear sponsons around the exit, I think they prefer the added safety to the troops (sponsons shield them from fire as they exit) over a slightly quicker dismount.

it allows to do even more
photos from Czech magazine Armady. Technika. Militaria (ATM) 2004-12 (made at Eurosatory 2004):