DIADES

So somehow it is okay to complain about initial design/components issues of tanks you don't like and bash them all you want, but not to hold other tanks up to the same standard. Okay
 
I brought the objections to the A57 up again, because I was asked to... but next time I will simply make only an original statement and not provide any further clarification or replies when asked again.

The pics you show are the show car version of LYNX, not a real config.  LANCE on BLOCK 1 BOXER has RHS coax, LANCE on RMA LYNX has coax LHS

Its quite sad that it became such a popular trend to bash the Panther. It wasnt a bad tank at all. Recently, more myths were created than in the past half decade. Like the infamous "final drive that lasted for 150 kilometers". Not a single source supports it. On the other hand there is a report of a Bergepanther, (Panzer Tracts 16-1, Jentz & Doyle) with 4200 kilometers in its clock, and with original final drives! Am I saying that the french assessment is useless, contains lies? No, not at all. In my opinion, the 150km is simply a typo. Should be 1500km. Other sources indicate that this is close to the truth. But dont get me wrong, 1500km is still BAD. 
Of course, the Panther had other problems, like being overengineered, costly and time consuming to build, requiring careful maintenance and skilled drivers. In tactical combat it had one design flaw that affected performance, is the lack of unity periscope for gunner. But still, it had many positives, and generally, performed well in combat.
Also, lots of people forget about a very, very important fact, when they talk about the "total unreliability" of the Panther: Sabotage. For example, during the restoration of Littlefield's Panther, it was discovered that the fuel or cooling lines (not remember which) were stuffed with cigarette butts and other junk. And it was a quite common thing. No wonder that things didnt work as expected... 
And frequently, when people bash the Panther, they forget that many other tanks suffered from similar, or even more serious problems. Like the mythical T-34, that is commonly believed to be the best tank of the war. It had its own share of serious defects: very low build quality (but not post ww2), debilitating reliability problems (extremely crude and bad transmission, no functioning air filters, bad cooling system). Its christie suspension is atrociously bad, provided a very rough ride (that I personally experienced. A T-55 is a luxury car compared to it), and took up lots of internal space. And finally, it was an ergonomic nightmare (85mm variants less so for commander and gunner), that greatly affected its performance in combat. 
 
 

Left side for the coax for Lynx. 

KF31 is just a cut and shut MARDER.  PAy no attention to it :)
 

Everybody knows that Abrahamanus is the worst tank in the world, but Challenged 2 is best because it have rifled gun and fire HESH! Very Strong! 

Iron Fist seems pretty integrated in that picture...

Military track (in peacetime) is friendly to all road surfaces simply as load is distributed so well compared to wheeled vehicles.  Exceptions are when the midden intersects the ventilator and we revert to steel track and even rubber pad or band track does rip up bitumen if you pivot turn.  Less damage on dirt as less traction. (less resistance to pivot)

No, they are not. You may not know what the relevant performance metrics are, if you come to this conclusion...

Not a fan of using RWS' optics as independent commander's sight. There should be a noteworthy performance difference compared to using the independent commander's sight as RWS.

That is half a recovery flat tow A frame.  Each vehicle carries half so they have some intrinsic ability to recovery each other.

How is it supposed to work? 
 
 
That's purely secondary property and hardly a reason to carry it. The reason for slat armor existence is increase of surivability for the cost of extra weight, ridiculous dimensions, worse driving performance and harder accessability of most of the vehicle area. However it works only against very old HEAT grenades and only sometimes. It doesn't work against ATGM and newer RPGs at all (even against pretty old ones like RPG-18). When the vehicle is equipped with APS, which can deal with all those threats much better, there is no reason to diminish its performance by adding the cage. 

That is half a recovery flat tow A frame.  Each vehicle carries half so they have some intrinsic ability to recovery each other.

No, it isn't.  This model has features that are actually on delivered vehicles.  Correct mirrors, relocated front camera etc

latest K-rumors
model AS21

Just as a comparison of the mirrors of the AS21s out there.
 
 
Completely useless detail info...

The 3rd AS21 prototype has left Korea and is en route to Australia. It departed from Masan Port on the 18th.
 
According to the press release (machine translated), "prototype 3 will be officially delivered to the Australian Army in the middle of next month along with the 1st and 2nd units sent to Australia in July, and will be used for a full-fledged test evaluation from February." (Link: https://www.news1.kr/articles/?4155699) 
 

 

Thats not up-armour.  Thats the exhaust line treatment.

I've been saying that these are just storage boxes for two years. Thanks for posting the photographic evidence here 

some lynx propaganda
 
 

actual Requirement is FPS-4136 and it reads as you suggest.  But not a Requirement to be met as it is classified as "Advice"  So, no can fail!

That looks like “notes to tenderers” not a requirement per se. I assume it’s importance is “important”. 

Google gave
3.4.4.2.1 Main Weapon - General
...
'The Vehicle is required to suppress enemy vehicles at a distance of 2000 metres for 3 minutes to allow for another friendly unit to position and engage the enemy vehicle. It is assumed that the Vehicle main weapon will fire 9 rounds every 10 seconds during suppression and after three minutes still have ready rounds available.'
 
 

But - where do you put the ammunition?  This is the eternal question in turret design.  30 to 35 does not sound like much but it would result is a drastic drop in stowed kills.  The 35 is bigger in dia and longer and heavier.  These parameters directly impact how many rounds can be carried.  They also indirectly impact.  Heavier, bigger round means more difficulties in stowage and feed and case ejection

For those not familiar - Ph3 roles are divided into two groups.  Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Direct Fire High Survivability Lift (IFV-DFHSL) which is all the turreted roles and Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Specialist Support (IFV-SS)  The IFV-SS spec covers Ambulance, Recovery, Repair etc.
 
DFHSL and SS are two completely separate Specifications.
 
So, when we talk remotes on a turreted vehicle:
The RFT version of the IFV-DFHSL spec has an overarching Requirement:
FPS-2359 3.4.4.4 Lethality - Remote Controlled Weapon.  This has about a dozen child Requirements.  In summary, must have a remotely controlled weapon so a RWS or MSSA.