Karamazov

Supremacy of glorious T-72 over filthy Kharkovite tractor
 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498195.pdf
CIA T-72 breakdown, includes loads of details

Proper, god-fearing Soviet tanks use four-stroke diesel engines.  When the tank is cruising, the engine should be happy and produce very little smoke.  But when the engine is suddenly changing RPM, the fuel/air mix usually isn't quite right, and there will be some un-burned fuel that creates the clouds of black smoke.  If you watch videos of Soviet tanks they usually smoke a bit whenever they turn, because Soviet tank steering mechanisms don't maintain the same average track velocity when the tank turns, which means that the engine changes RPM.  It's the same thing as the puff of smoke you usually see big rig semis produce when they accelerate.

The Kharkov design bureau favored two-stroke diesel engines for their tanks.  The advantage of a two-stroke diesel is that it produces a lot more power for a given size and weight of engine than a four-stroke diesel.  In theory they are also more fuel-efficient, although I am not sure they are in practice.  The disadvantage is... well, there are lots of disadvantages.
 
One other quirk of two-stroke diesels is that they aren't lubricated the same way as four-stroke diesel engines.  A normal four-stroke engine has separate oil and fuel.  You fill up your car with gas, and every once in a while you check the oil and replace the oil.

Two-stroke motors aren't like that.  They don't have separate fuel and lubrication systems.  Think of a chainsaw; the fuel and lubrication oil are mixed together, and the moving parts of the engine are lubricated using this fuel/oil mixture.  This further reduces the size of the engine, but it means that there's a bunch of oil mixed in with the fuel, which tends to produce a blue or white smoke as the motor runs.

If you look at pictures of Chieftains on parade, they're usually surrounded with a blue/white smoke for the same reason.

a lot of smoke
 
 
 
why?

I think it's the CATTB or more specifically the Thumper. The last time the latter was seen (in transit on a freight train in 2010) , its turret had a curious round piece affixed to its back, like an access panel of sorts. It could be a reload hatch for the horizontal autoloader. That system, though it would inevitably mess with the protection scheme (as it creates a weak point in the turret's rear armor) would have had its weight in gold, especially for the 140mm ATACS tests, seeing how big the XM964 round was and it could have been impractical to load them into the turret using the gunner's hatch. 
 

 
Though, I have to say, that grainy tank's turret in the aforeposted picture looks more like the original CATTB's (with turret side appliques) than the later Thumper's (which, as seen here, retains a gas turbine exhaust grille, whereas the CATTB didn't).

It’s for the new DirectTV upgrade package.

https://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/land/training-and-simulation/live-training/vehicle-simulator/cvtess_web.pdf
 
 

Okay that's it @Karamazov! Pants down! You're going to jail!

Umm... Looks normal to me.

PutinAkbar design bureau is sad

Hello, I have been lurking this quality forum for a few months now, and finally got to sign up now. 
 
Can anyone give me any information on this turret? The one on the left has some attachment things and tape(?), while the normal A4 turret on the right doesnt. I can't really make any sense of it. Thanks!
 

Addition to photo Leo 1 with 120mm L44 gun
 

T-80UE-1 Sp2, photo by Marinir, from preparation to TB-2018

 

Carpet.
mine breacher. 

maybe someone found pdf of this presentation ?

MBDA's proposal for the German NNbS program/qualified air-defence system is to use the MPCV turret on either the Boxer or the Dingo 2 6x6:

 
This system will compete against Rheinmetall's self-propelled anti-air gun system wtih a 35 mm gun. Rheinmetall is also planning a variant with the IRIS-T SLS surface-to-air missile and a seperate fire control/radar vehicle, all based on the Boxer (potato quality rendering):
 

 
The 35 mm Millenium gun has a maximal range (when firing AHEAD ammunition) of less than 4,000 metres; the Mistral 3 MANPADS used on the MPCV turret have an effective range of 6,000 metres (against fast moving targets). The IRIS-T SLS missile has a range of more than 10,000 metres. IMO the proposal with the MPCV turret is interesting, if it can be modified to work with larger guns than the currently offered 12.7 mm M2 HMG. The German army is looking to replace the old Stinger models either with the newest production model of the Stinger or the Mistral 3 - although it appears that Stinger will be prefered. In the ideal case, all three systems would be purchased to provide the best possible air defence, but budget reality will probably make sure we'll see only one of them becoming adopted.
 
Here are a few photos from the recent Bundeswehr day:




 

Rear turret of the T-80UE-1 is the same as the T-80BV or many T-80's before UE. 
 

Photo by Vitaly Kuzmin from his personal photoblog https://www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military/Forum-ARMY2016-All-photos/i-bncCnHk

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

Not only this

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.”
 

The longer L/55A1 is only required to defeat the latest Russian armor, i.e. the T-14 Armata and potentially the T-80BVM/T-90M. Against other targets such as infantry, structures, lightly armored vehicles and most other tanks (including modernized T-72s), the L/44 gun is considered enough. Due to its shorter barrel, a Leopard 2A7 tank with the L/44 is better suited for peace-keeping missions, because it fits easily into aircrafts and a longer barrel could cause problems when operating in tight spaces (such as the narrow streets of some African and Middle Eastern cities).
 
My understanding is that the 16 Leopard 2A7V tanks with L/55A1 gun will be used only for home defence, i.e. kept in Denmark and be used in NATO show-of-force missions in the Baltics, while the other tanks also would be used in peace-keeping missions like ISAF in Afghanistan.
 
 
According to the same article from The Independent that you linked to, the Challenger 2 LEP is budgeted with up to £700 million. If the British army decides to upgrade all of its 227 Challenger 2 tanks currently in service (which has been questioned), this would be (up to) £3 million per tank; still a Challenger 2 after LEP probably remains less capable and more expensive to operate than a Leopard 2A7(V) (unless the issues with armor, powerpack and gun are also addressed).
 
I don't think that the article from The Independent is entirely correct. First of all - based on other British newspapers/tabloids - the 200 Leopard 2 tanks offered for £2.5 million per tank (£3.5 million after upgrade) were Leopard 2A6 tanks. Upgrading a Leopard 2A4 to the Leopard 2A7V costs a lot more than just £1 million. Germany is paying €760 million to buy 104 Leopard 2A4s, 32 hulls and upgrade 68 Leopard 2A4s, 16 Leopard 2A6 and 20 Leopard 2A7 tanks to the 2A7V configuration!
Unfortunately only British newspapers have reported on KMW's offer to the UK MoD, but reading some of the articles makes me think that this is an older offer, which unlike claimed by The Independent might not be on the table anymore. Furthermore other articles mention that the upgrade was offered to the 2A7 standard instead the newer 2A7V, which again would imply that this is an older offer.
 
 
Germany sold its Cold War stocks, but not only to other countries - the industry (in particular Rheinmetall and KMW) also bought a few tanks. KMW also seems to have contracts for the resale (or arranging the resale) and refurbishment of used tanks with different countries (which makes sense, given that KMW is one of a few companies that has the equipment to properly refurbish a Leopard 2 to mint condition).
 
If my understanding is correct and the mentioned offer by KMW is not current, but was made a few years ago, then one could assume that these 200 Leopard 2A6 tanks included the 100  Leopard 2A6NL tanks that were sold to Finland for an average unit price of $2.66 million according to Army Guide (which is reasonable close to £2 million per tank + £500.000 for refurbishment). The Dutch Army upgraded 180 out of its original 445 Leopard 2 tanks to the Leopard 2A6 standard. These 180 Leopard 2 tanks were sold to Canada (20 tanks that were given to Germany as replacement for the 20 leased Leopard 2A6M tanks, they were directly upgraded to the 2A7 model), Portugal (37 tanks) and Finland (100 tanks). 16 Leopard 2A6NL tanks remain in service (as part of the Dutch contingent of the German Panzerbataillon 414).
 
Depending on when the offer was made, it might have included some of the 105 Leopard 2A5 tanks sold to Poland in 2013 (turning these into the 2A6s just requires switching the gun barrel). Aside of that, there are still a lot of 2A4 tanks available, but I doubt that these could be modernized to the Leopard 2A7(V) configuration and could be sold for £3.5 million without a loss. Spain's Leopard 2A4 tanks are as far as I know out of service - they are at least available for sale, but in a very bad condition (more money and time would be required for refurbishment). The situation of other tanks is not entirely clear, because some of them are converted into support vehicles or cannibalized for spare parts.
 
 
I am not sure if that makes sense. First of all the 2012 contract never was finalized, the official order for the M1A1 SA was made in 2015 - General Dynamics reported that it was contracted to refurbish and upgrade 150 tanks to the corresponding version for a budget of only $358 million USD, but as the US government apparently acts as a seller, this would be excluding the price of the tanks per se, which Morocco would pay to the United States of America. Didn't Morocco get a rebate on the tanks for political reasons?
 
You also need to consider that the M1A1 SA is hardly a cutting edge tank, buying this variant would require further upgrades. The US is paying $2.6 billion to upgrade up to 786 M1A1 (AIM SA) tanks to the M1A2 SEP v3 configuration, which would be somewhat less (due to the fixed price contract also including upgrades to Saudi tanks) than an additional $3.3 million USD (currently about £2.5 million) over the purchase of the M1A1 AIM SA.
 
I don't think the 200 Leopard 2 tanks are being offered anymore.