Laviduce

Truman with the T41 pilot vehicle.
 

Turret number matches the army's posterboy:

 
Leopard 2 121 Allfader:





 
 

 

 
 
Might have been used to test new armor for the upgrade program:

 

Its from an old file containing lots of armor estimates from Paul L. and others, which were gathered from the early internet. The original source isn't stated.

IDF uploaded this on its spanish youtube channel
 
Ask me what you want translated to english


Also an interview with a commander about Gaza and the new tank, i will translate from 0:39
"At the same time we are developing a new Merkava model which will enter service in the Armored Corps within the next 3 years called (Merkava) Tank 4 Barak.
This tank will bring many advanced characteristics and will introduce the most advanced technologies a tank can be equipped with. This way the tank will function better on the ground. This enables the crew to operate it during changing situations, be even more lethal and contribute significantly to the Grond Forces of the IDF.
We´ve been working to incorporate this new technologies and adapt our techniques and practices to them. I´m convinced that in case we have to use our Ground Forces, we´ll know how to do it in a focused, pragmatic manner  and we´ll be successful."

All in all seems that the Merkava development heads even more in towards asymmetric warfare and further away from "tank dueling". 

 

Soccer ball delivery system in case there's an emergency at the stadium.

This seems relevant to the current discussion.
 

Leopard 2 KWS prototype (AFAIK one of the two TVM tanks, but could also be the IVT) being refurbished and repainted before going into a museum. It will probably go to the Panzermuseum Munster (or maybe is already there?), which has requested a replacement for the old Leopard 2A4 (because children and young adults would be used to the wedge-shaped turret armor of the Leopard 2).
 




Note the layered hatch construction: NERA spaced over the normal steel hatch
 

 
Photos via the otvaga forum.

More British propaganda about the Challenger 2 having better armor than the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 SEP. Nationalistic/biased publications do not help much. I wonder what they were thinking writing this stuff.

More British propaganda about the Challenger 2 having better armor than the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 SEP. Nationalistic/biased publications do not help much. I wonder what they were thinking writing this stuff.

More British propaganda about the Challenger 2 having better armor than the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 SEP. Nationalistic/biased publications do not help much. I wonder what they were thinking writing this stuff.

Altay thx combatmaster @PDF
 

The age of these simulations doesn't change a number of facts:
when seen from an angle, the surface area behind which the crew compartment is located is greater on the Leclerc  the turret bulge, gun mantlet and gunner's sight are weakspots in the armor layout that remain existent even in the more modern Leclerc variants the Leclerc's armor is physicially thinner Yes, the current models of the Leclerc (and also the Leopard 2) use much newer armor inserts than tested in Sweden; however that doesn't guarantee that the Leclerc will reach or exceed the protection level of a modern Leopard 2. Given above points, the Leclerc could even be considered inferior protected, if its armor offered a higher protection level per weight and thickness (which I doubt given that the Leopard 2A7 features new armor inserts).
 
 
That's frankly a lie. Just like the stupid lie from Froggy on the SteelBeasts forum about the Greek military using the AMX-30B2's armor to simulate the Leclerc's protection level. It is stupid to lie just to pretend your favorite tank/toy is perfect, that is not true.
 
Nobody buys a tank without knowing how well its armor will perform. Sweden was supplied with performance data (or protection level estimations) of the tanks and tested armor modules to verify that the data was correct. These tests were not necessarily done in Sweden, for example the M1A2 Abrams' armor was tested in the United States in order to ensure that the exact composition and layout of the armor array remained secret. The Swedes supervised the armor tests in the US and brought their own reference threats (i.e. two types of APFSDS, two large calibre shaped charge warheads to represent ATGMs and one smaller shaped charge to simulate the HEAT rounds fired by the Carl Gustaf recoiless rifle).
 
We know from Swedish sources, that the M1 Abrams with Swedish armor package provides a much higher level of protection than the one seen in the comparison chart:

 
Note that the M1A2 turret is shown with the original armor package!
 
We also know that the Swedish armor was designed to meet the requirements (best possible protection against APFSDS with 700 mm penetration and 165 mm shaped charge warhead along the frontal arc of the turret). The Leclerc shown in the comparison chart clearly fails to meet this requirement, therefore it is not the one with enhanced armor protection. Last but not least we know that the Swedish armor was designed as add-on armor and that the base armor of the tank was kept. Therefore your claim that the comparison chart showed the Leclerc with Swedish armor package would mean that the basic Leclerc's armor would be a lot weaker.
 

The add-on armor would replace the storage boxes at the side of the turret while adding a wedge-shaped module (like used on the Leopard 2A5) to the turret front.
 
The Leclerc at 54.5 metric tons was designed to reach a similar level of frontal protection than the Leopard 2A4 (pre-1991: 55.15 metric tons) and the M1A1 (57 metric tons). It did so, while being lighter, having a bigger gun and having more side armor. To expect that a 54.5 tonnes tank would reach a protection level even broadly similar to MBTs with a weight of 62.5 tonnes (M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 prototype) is silly.
 
 
You are misinterpreting the news. The contract between France and Germany only decided that the MGCS, the CIFS, EuroMALE and the SCAF will be developed. For the first three programs, German companies will be primary contractors, while the development of the SCAF will be headed by a French company.
 
Which company will be chosen has yet to be decided. Germany's anti-corruption laws mean there has to be a bidding process, rather than the government dictating that KDNS will get the contract. The official press statements from the French and the German ministries of defence do not say that KDNS will be responsible for the MGCS, because they cannot make the decision yet. The press releases from KMW and Nexter pretty much say "we are cooperating, please choose us".
 
As a matter of fact, Rheinmetall is also bidding to become the primary contractor for the MGCS. The rumor mill suggest that they are in a better position and might be prefered over KMW. Back when Krauss-Maffei was chosen for the Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 programs, it was the largest defence contractor with the capacity to manufacture MBTs in (West-)Germany. MaK, the second-largest, was chosen as a secondary contractor (making 45% of all tanks, while Krauss-Maffei made 55%). However in the past decades Rheinmetall has become a gigantic company that has swallowed roughly a dozen of smaller German & European defence vehicles and arms manufacturers (among them MaK, Thyssen-Henschel, Oerlikon, KuKa, Chempro, MAN military, etc.),: currently Rheinmetall has more than 23,000 employes, while KMW has just 2,700. The larger company also invests more into research and development (even without an official government requirement), while KMW over the past years has been satisfied with only becoming active once a requirement has been published.  Finally there is a difference in structure: Rheinmetall is easier to work with, as it is not a family-owned company (like KMW). Only the future will show wether KMW's move to join sides with Nexter to form KDNS was a way to win the MGCS contract or not.
 
Rheinmetall has announced that they will show "something" in regards to the MGCS in December of this year. Probably just some 3D models or testbed, because the exact concept of the MGCS has yet to be revealed by the governments. Rheinmetall is already working on its own idea of a next-generation tank (might become independent of the the MGCS) in their own secret facilities. Interesting note is that Ben Hudson from Rheinmetall asked "How do you defeat a tank that has four active defense systems on it?"...
 
General Dynamics will apparently not bid for the MGCS, as they think their ASCOD 2 might be enough for the tank market of the future.
 
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/25/tank-makers-steel-themselves-for-europes-next-big-land-weapon-contest/
 
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/14/when-does-industry-expect-france-and-germany-to-set-its-future-tank-requirements/

Euh... being himself?
 
Correction to my previous statement:
Leoboo vs Clercoo vs Hebroo
 
Fight!

Leoboo vs Clercoo
 
Fight!

Hello Laviduce, 
Disappointingly the people I were able to talk to when there simply didnt know the information you requested, and taking any measurements was rendered impossible by all the military personnel around. 
However I found out that there's a tank musuem nearby with a Leopard 2A4 on exhibition that I might be able to get access to and there are likely to be experts on the tank there too. 

Oldie but goodie




 

That was a bad angle so here's a better one:
M270 with 122mm guided rockets called Romach. Puma CEV (oddly they didn't show the Namer CEV which is already in service). Eitan APC. Merkava 4M MBT. Namer IFV w/30mm. Ofek APC. D9 bulldozer.
 
The Namer is definitely taller than the Merkava, and the Eitan seems to be only slightly lower.

This is how the ammo storage looked in the Leopard 2AV or early T14 mod. (before the turret was used to test an autoloader). Drawings from 1975.
 

take off gif:
 
 

B-Baka! Don't you know T-34 is most advanced tank in the union? 
 
 

More footage of Iraqi T-90S.
The Iraqi 35th Brigade of the 9th Division is rearmed from the M1A1M Abrams tanks to the T-90S tanks
 

 
 

Final scores on the SETC 2018:
 
For now it's a bit all over the places (and no source to be seen anywhere)
 
Wikipedia gives this:
 

 
Opex 360 and 4Chan gives this:
 

 
Edit: Apparently those numbers pops up on (or were taken from) the site of @Andrei_bt

Latest armor upgrade offer from IBD Deisenroth Engineering (the company behind AMAP and the Leopard 2 Evolution):
 

 
IMO a combination of AMAP and ADS (maybe as a "less active" protection system, which operates similar to ERA, as it only detects the projectile on impact).
 
Edit: Article on Jane's:
http://www.janes.com/article/80769/smart-solution-against-tandem-warheads-es18d1