Laviduce

They buy also 9 Buffalo ARV. 

ATTICA thermal imager video from Leopard 2:
https://streamable.com/q3jiau
 
SPECTUS driver camera:
https://streamable.com/jhqvek
 
(I don't know how to embed videos on here)
 

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:
 
Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.
Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc.
 
 
 
Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme:
 

 

Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front!   IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional  turret design.  
 
Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts:
 
3-man full turret:
 

 
and the 2 man flat turret:
 

 
TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went.
 
The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !
 
I hope this clears things up a bit!
 
P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.

some of my estimations on M1(M1 105mm) left turret frontal part, used all known and available data at the moment and some photogrammetry of real M1 from museum...

Thank you for your reply. Here is my rebuttal:
 
Lets focus on KE protection. The Leclerc Series 1 turret frontal arc protection is rated around 550 mm RHAe against KE projectiles. Where as the Leopard 2A4 equipped with C-Technology armor is rated at around 420 mm RHAe against KE projectiles.  The Leopard 2A4 (C) front hull is rated around 400-450 mm RHAe against KE projectiles, where as the Leclerc's seems to be around 500 mm RHAe for the same threat.
Sources: Lindström Presentation (Leclerc protection and Leo 2 protection) and declassified British Documents (Leo 2 protection). Marc Chassilan and DarkLabor's book mention that the compact design allowed for the use of the freed up mass to enhance the protection of the hull and turret of the Leclerc.
 
 
 
Here is a graphical explanation of the flat turret design concept protection scheme:
 

 

Although both turret concepts have the same volume (mass) the 2 man flat turret design increases its constructive depth (protection) from 600 mm to 850 mm at the front!   IMHO, against a generic frontal 700 mm RHAe KE threat I rather be in the flat turret design than the conventional  turret design.  
 
Here are the early EPC (Leclerc) design concepts:
 
3-man full turret:
 

 
and the 2 man flat turret:
 

 
TC3 has a projected mass of 58 metric tons where as the TC2 has a projected mass of 53 metric tons. These 5 metric tons (or less) could be allocated to increase the vehicles protection. That is the route the French went.
 
The K2 went to extremes it seems where the side turret protection was sacrificed to improve the frontal protection even more!  This would also partially explain how a 55 ton vehicle can actually stop a K279 APFSDS round fired from the Rh L55. Using the generic turret concept I was able to allocate the new volume to improve the frontal protection by around 73% from 600 mm to 1040 mm !
 
I hope this clears things up a bit!
 
P.S.: This would also make make the rumor more plausible that the K1 and K1A1 turret (cheeks) have a KE resistance of around 450 mm and 600 mm RHAe respectively while having a relative low overall vehicle mass of just around 51-53 tons.

BVs also being prepared for Parade, in snow camo.

Updated tank destroyers
 

 
 
 

https://twitter.com/Militarium/status/1303364818972401669
 

 

photos of K2PL scalemodel from various twitter users

THICC
 

Looks like this is K2 version for Poland, possibly will be shown this year at MSPO.
 

New Leopard 2A4 upgrade from Roketsan
Twitter Video

Al Khalid turret parts, and as far as i can see... they even showed special armour block...
 


 
 

Nice photos
https://www.dishmodels.ru/wshow.htm?p=3828
 
https://www.dishmodels.ru/wshow.htm?p=3827
 
 

MOD orders more than 50 T-80BVM
 
https://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/08/80_26.html
 

Walkaround T-80BVM tank.

T-72(Object 172 Series) protection?
 

Some views through the CITV on an Abrams SEPv2 I got to use today.
Incredibly smooth and easy to use, really fun to see which cadets on campus today were a little sweaty. 
 

 

The Fire Control Computer is the CDC model that the Abrams uses (or near the same), however the entire system was contracted to Marconi and afaik Vickers and Marconi wrote the software. This is my understanding from the Hanyes Manual and the Vickers Tanks Landships to Challenger 2 book, as well as reading the relevant parts of the Jane's AFV Retrofit book referenced by SH_MM.