heretic88

Final Judgement
 
Third place: Carro Armato P.35/105
 
I hate having to place this vehicle third, as it's the most impressive in terms of paper stats and just looks so... right. It looks like exactly the sort of late-war (for them, anyway) prototype that the Italians would have produced, only for it to become forgotten under a fountain of "hurr durr pasta tank" memes. And talk about performance! What @Lord_James has managed to do here is wring a Tiger-analogue out of a 28-tonne pre-war vehicle.
 
Unfortunately, when I try to game this thing out the numbers end up being stark. As something closer to a ground-level rebuild there would never have been more than a handful of these things around by the time that the Allies hit the beaches on Sicily. In combat, of course, this thing is a beast - a fully-equipped force riding in at the right moment would have easily made it to the outskirts of town and perhaps to hitting the beaches beyond. So I gave it its moment in the sun. From there, however, you're left with only a handful of these things pootling around amidst an ever-worsening spares situation. Which is a recipe for expensive bunkers.
 
Second place: T-28/43
 
As with the previous entry, I hate having to place this vehicle second. @heretic88did a great job in terms of coming up with a vehicle that required the absolute minimum amount of fabrication, but still materially added to the effectiveness of the tank. His additions were all well-chosen with the task in mind, and would have resulted in a very workable vehicle for an Italian army and industrial system that was rapidly backpedaling. Unfortunately he also chose the vehicle that I left in as a poison pill - the one which could only ever have been produced in miniscule numbers. I ran the math on all the vehicles captured by the Germans over the course of their first year on Soviet soil, and there's no way that they ever got ahold of more than a hundred T-28s in total. Add in a year and a half of back and forth warfare, neglect, wastage and (most likely) some tanks being fed into steel mills and you're never going to produce a fleet of these things worth talking about. This version of an up-gunned T-28 would, I feel, be destined to become an unfairly-forgotten curiosity that Allied crews chalked up as some sort of lesser-known German tank that somehow ended up being confined to a single island campaign.
 
Winner: Carro Armato BT-5-76/43
 
Yet again I have qualms about this one, not least because N-L-M is my eternal rival (flattering myself). I'm also decidedly leery of the look of the thing and his (admittedly brilliant) solution to up-gunning it. In the end the thing that swung it for me was this: the Germans probably had more BT-5s than they knew what to do with, and once you take away the 76mm autoloader thingy (and maybe the gun-linked HMG) all the changes N-L-M is proposing are eminently sensible. I feel that the BT series of tanks was and is criminally underrated, and its reputation for poor performance probably had more to do with how many of the damn things were captured in depots rather than in fighting. In my mind, the BT-5-76/43, with its horrific (and probably accurate) name, comes the closest to giving the Italians a foreign-derived vehicle that they can actually use effectively and in numbers.
 
To @N-L-M: congratulations and please contact me about your $25 prize! To the rest of the contestants: well done, and damn you for making me work so hard to pick out a winner
 

Carro Armato BT-5-76/43



General specs:
Weight:
15t nominal, 16 t loaded.
Length, gun forwards: 7m
Width: 2.3 m
Height: 2.3 m to turret roof

Crew: Commander, Gunner/loader, Driver.

Armament: 45mm, 75mm or 76mm gun, roof mounted HMG, coax MG, and grenade projectors.

Mobility: Slightly reduced from BT-5 to cope with added weight, but still excellent. 25 HP/T at 16 tons.

Survivability: Excellent against 37mm, acceptable vs 75mm, borderline against 57mm, none against 76mm.
Detailed description:
 

Carro Armato P 35/105
 

 
Length (hull): 7.44m 
Width: 2.87m (3.52m with skirt)
Height: 2.9m 
 
Mass: 31.5 tonnes (+3.4 tonnes with applique) 
 
Armor (additional armor in parenthesis): 
Front Glacis: 45mm @ 53 degrees (+25mm)
Lower Glacis: 30mm @ 23 degrees
Hull Sides: 20mm (+8mm skirt)(+25mm upper hull sides)
Hull Roof: 15mm 
Drivers Front Hatch: 60mm @ 53 degrees (+8mm) 
Drivers Roof Hatch: 15mm 
 
Turret Front: 60mm (+25mm) 
Forward Turret Sides: 30mm (+25mm) 
Rear Turret Sides: 30mm (+8mm)
Turret Rear: 30mm (+8mm)
Turret roof: 15mm 
Commanders copula: 45mm (+25mm)
Gun Mantle: 45mm 
Roof Hatches: 15mm 
 
Armament: 
Cannone Ansaldo da 105/25 (34 rounds) 
8mm Breda mod. 38 machine gun (1008 rounds) 
An additional Breda 38 for anti air purposes can be mounted on the roof, operated by one of the loaders (the pole in the center of the turret)
Azimuth: 360 degrees
Elevation: -13 to +25 degrees 
 
Built in an effort to provide protected, versatile, and heavy firepower for the Regio Esercito, the P 35/105 is a heavily modified T-28 from the Russian army. Removing all previous armament, and widening the turret ring to accommodate a larger, 4 man turret, with commander's copula and radio (a rare luxury in the Italian army) and 105mm howitzer. During trials, it was found that the vehicles armor was far to light to combat the expected Allied tanks that she would be engaging (namely, the M4 Sherman), and an additional ~3.5 tons of spaced armor and armored skirts were added to provide resistance to the 75mm M1 gun. The main armament was the 105mm/25 Ansaldo cannon, the same fitted to the Semovente 105/25 SPG, and serviced by 2 loaders. Additional armament included a 8mm Breda 38 machine gun coaxially mounted with the main gun, and a 2nd 8mm Breda mounted on the roof, for defense against aircraft. The heavy armor and gun caused some stress on the suspension, namely the forward elements, which cause the tank to dip nose first. Regardless, the tank was still fielded in combat, but too late to be used by the Italian army, instead seeing service with the German army. 
 
P 35's in action!
 
 
She's a little heavier than I expected, but that's not a bad thing, because it's mostly all armor, which she'll need fighting M4s. The applique is reminiscent of the very new Pz.3M, while also reinforcing the vulnerable hull sides, similar to the T-28E; after all, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" . Either way, Italy was on the ropes by 1943, so these tanks would have been captured by the Germans soon, anyway, and the company might be in a better situation afterwards if the overlords are impressed, or at least pleased, to see such a vehicle ripe and ready to use. 

Ok, here is my T-28 upgrade.
 
T-28/43
 
Mass: ~30 tons
Crew: 4
 
Protection:
(angles unchanged compared to original tank, except the side of driver's compartment)
 
Lower front hull: 30+50mm
Upper front hull: 30+50mm
Sides: 20mm base, 30mm at driver's compartment, 20+10mm suspension area
Top: 10-15mm
 
Frontal part of turret: 30+50mm
Rear part of turret: 30+30mm
Top: 15mm
Cupola: 100mm 
 
Main armament:
75mm Pak-97/38, 70 rounds (+optional racks on both sides of driver)
Useable ammunition: AP, HEAT, HE
Secondary armament:
1x DT machine gun, modified to use italian 8x59mm ammo. 2000 rounds.
 
Observation/aiming devices:
- telescopic sight TOP
- periscopic sight PT-1
- panoramic sight PTK
- 1x periscope for gunner, aimed to side (replacing the vision slit, now covered by armor)
- commander's cupola with 5 vision ports (Panzer IV type)
 
Engine:
M-17T/43, gasoline, uprated to 550hp.
Power to weight ratio: ~18.3 hp/ton
 
Other improvements:
- the removal of MG turrets resulted in a free space on both sides of the driver. It can be used for storing tools for maintenance, personal gear for crew, or extra ammo.
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

 

Ok, here is my T-28 upgrade.
 
T-28/43
 
Mass: ~30 tons
Crew: 4
 
Protection:
(angles unchanged compared to original tank, except the side of driver's compartment)
 
Lower front hull: 30+50mm
Upper front hull: 30+50mm
Sides: 20mm base, 30mm at driver's compartment, 20+10mm suspension area
Top: 10-15mm
 
Frontal part of turret: 30+50mm
Rear part of turret: 30+30mm
Top: 15mm
Cupola: 100mm 
 
Main armament:
75mm Pak-97/38, 70 rounds (+optional racks on both sides of driver)
Useable ammunition: AP, HEAT, HE
Secondary armament:
1x DT machine gun, modified to use italian 8x59mm ammo. 2000 rounds.
 
Observation/aiming devices:
- telescopic sight TOP
- periscopic sight PT-1
- panoramic sight PTK
- 1x periscope for gunner, aimed to side (replacing the vision slit, now covered by armor)
- commander's cupola with 5 vision ports (Panzer IV type)
 
Engine:
M-17T/43, gasoline, uprated to 550hp.
Power to weight ratio: ~18.3 hp/ton
 
Other improvements:
- the removal of MG turrets resulted in a free space on both sides of the driver. It can be used for storing tools for maintenance, personal gear for crew, or extra ammo.
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

 

Ok, here is my T-28 upgrade.
 
T-28/43
 
Mass: ~30 tons
Crew: 4
 
Protection:
(angles unchanged compared to original tank, except the side of driver's compartment)
 
Lower front hull: 30+50mm
Upper front hull: 30+50mm
Sides: 20mm base, 30mm at driver's compartment, 20+10mm suspension area
Top: 10-15mm
 
Frontal part of turret: 30+50mm
Rear part of turret: 30+30mm
Top: 15mm
Cupola: 100mm 
 
Main armament:
75mm Pak-97/38, 70 rounds (+optional racks on both sides of driver)
Useable ammunition: AP, HEAT, HE
Secondary armament:
1x DT machine gun, modified to use italian 8x59mm ammo. 2000 rounds.
 
Observation/aiming devices:
- telescopic sight TOP
- periscopic sight PT-1
- panoramic sight PTK
- 1x periscope for gunner, aimed to side (replacing the vision slit, now covered by armor)
- commander's cupola with 5 vision ports (Panzer IV type)
 
Engine:
M-17T/43, gasoline, uprated to 550hp.
Power to weight ratio: ~18.3 hp/ton
 
Other improvements:
- the removal of MG turrets resulted in a free space on both sides of the driver. It can be used for storing tools for maintenance, personal gear for crew, or extra ammo.
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

 

Note that in this image, there is a steel coverplate at the side of the module. If this is identical in size to the actual armor (or a bit larger) is hard to tell.
 
Subjectively the empty space seems to be quite a bit smaller compared to the image I posted where no coverplate is fitted.
 

 
 
The point is that the Merkava 4 has been described - by media and in articles written by IDF officers - as a new generation of tank with significantly higher level of all-round protection, basically matching what earlier generations achieved along the frontal arc only (stopping all sorts of shaped charge anti-tank missiles).
 
People pretended that only the Kornet ATGM could defeat the Merkava 4 and that the sole reason for the adoption of the Trophy APS was the fact, that one Merkava 4 tank's armor got penetrated by such a missile. However it seems more likely, that the side armor only protects against simple RPGs and very old ATGMs without tandem-charge warhead.
 
The Merkava 4 is specifically designed - unless the various sources including official accounts and literature are wrong - to survive hits from the side and based on the relatively low armor thickness, it seems extremely likely that it will have troubles with any sort of modern handheld anti-tank weapon. Also note that the lower ~25 cm of the turret side have reduced armor thickness as a result of the armor module's shape.
 
While the armor thickness is greater than on the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and other earlier MBTs, it is important to keep the desired protected arc in mind. The M1 Abrams' side armor at the crew compartment was never meant to stop RPGs hitting it perpendicularly, but rather to stop RPGs with 84 mm single-stage warhead up to an angle of 45°.
So the effective thickness to reach the desired level of protection is ~30% higher. Likewise the Leopard 2's side armor is not meant to stop ATGMs or RPGs hitting at 90°, but rather to stop them at 30° impact angle (and hence the effective thickness is ~640 mm). This obviously doesn't nullify the greater armor thickness of the Merkava 4 has compared to these tanks at perpendicular impact, but it provides an idea how the relative side protection might compare, assuming technology is similarly effective for a given thickness.
 
 
Yes, that is true. Physical thickness and effective armor protection can drastically differ, depending on the chosen protection solution. In case of the Merkava 4 tank, it also seems unlikely that much
 
Still the actual armor thickness isn't impressive; it will be below that of an existing tank with urban combat armor kit...
 
 
There is no indication that the armor is exactly following the layout as described in the patent. There are explosives in the side armor of the turret, but that's all we know. The claim "we have invented some type of reactive armor that performs as good as ERA, but has no drawbacks" is old marketing talk. That also was said when MEXAS was introduced in the 1990s...
 
If Rafael's SLERA would perform as good as ERA without any drawbacks, they would end up shutting down their ERA business. However instead they (Rafael and partners) keep making ERA, they are developing new types and ERA has even been integrated in newer AFVs of the IDF such as the Namer and the Eitan.
 
 
Assuming that your measurements are completely perfect and the armor thickness stays identical despite the slope changing. That is rather questionable, given the photographs posted by Wiedzmin.
 
 
You are using an old and faulty image to validate your own estimates. You should not use this kind of bias as argument.
 
 
In the table with the protection levels, you are comparing values based on different criteria and arcs.
 
For example the RARDE report accessing the protection of the Leopard 2 (Type B) as equivalent to 350/700 mm steel is focused on the frontal 60° arc, which is also achieved on the turret sides and hull sides at this angle. Meanwhile the Merkava 1's turret side armor at the crew compartment consists of two thin steel plates. Earlier estimates/claims put them at 50-70 mm, but they seem to be both just ~40 mm thick.

 
The Merkava 1 and 2 are built more like the Leopard 1A3 - full armor protection is achieved on a very, very narrow arc (10-20°) only. So despite the huge combat weight of the Merkava 1, armor protection fell well short of all other contemporaries.

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing
 
So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.
French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.
 
The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.
Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.
 
Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.
 
Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 
 
Other improvements:
- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing
 
So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.
French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.
 
The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.
Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.
 
Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.
 
Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 
 
Other improvements:
- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing
 
So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.
French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.
 
The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.
Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.
 
Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.
 
Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 
 
Other improvements:
- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing
 
So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.
French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.
 
The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.
Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.
 
Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.
 
Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 
 
Other improvements:
- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

I do not have much time for 3d modeling or professional image editing, so I made a rather primitive photoshopped line drawing
 
So, my choice was the T-28, despite its limited availability.
French stuff werent considered at all, they are hopeless junk. Panzer II is a nice tank with lots of good properties, but its crew compartment is too compact for a bigger gun. So only the soviet tanks left. Sadly both the BT-5 and T-26 are too lightly armored, and the BT is also too narrow inside thanks to christie suspension, so I chose the T-28.
 
The first thing I did, is to get rid of the stupid mini turrets. Then, I reshaped the area near the driver's position, added two sharply angled, 30mm thick plates where the turrets were. This also created more space for the driver, and also optionally more ammo/stuff for crew/maintenance tools can be stored in the new free space.
Next, I improved the armor protection. The nearly vertical surfaces of the front hull (upper & lower) received 50mm add-on plates. Turret front and frontal part of side also received an 50mm add-on, rear part got a thinner 30mm plate, but this was just to keep the whole turret (somewhat) balanced. Frontally, the tank became immune to 37 and 40mm guns, and resistant to 6pdr.
 
Firepower: Both L-10 and KT-28 guns had to go, first because the poor performance, and second, the not guaranteed supply of ammo. The replacement is the 7.5cm Pak 97/38. The reasons of this decision: this gun is still quite compact, will not make the life of the crew miserable inside. It is also already in service in the army, so ammo supply is secured. Muzzle velocity isnt much better than the L-10, but the performance of AP shells are better, and good HEAT rounds are also available.
 
Mobility: I didnt change much. The original M-17T engine is barely more than a slightly modified BMW VI, so nothing wrong here. I only tuned it a bit, so performance increased by 50hp, I think it is enough, and also do not cause problems with reliability and service life. 
 
Other improvements:
- Panzer IV style commander's cupola, for good vision. 
- added fume extractor fan on turret top
- replaced soviet radios
- add-on armor now covers side vision slits, so the gunner received a replacement periscope
- modified, smaller hatch for loader, since the commander's cupola is quite big.
- turret became quite heavy (and probbly imbalanced to a degree) with add-on armor, so a reinforced traverse mechanism is added.
- old radio antenna rails retained, useful for attaching camouflage. 
 

A quick reminder:

Germany should really consider reinventing their designation systems... it is getting idiotic. Again. They did the same thing in cold war. Now what is next? Leo-2A6A4A3A8V??? What is the point of stacking these stupid "A" numbers on each other? Americans did it right now with the new Abrams designation system. 

Some of you probably already watched this but if not, give it a few minutes. There is also some great helmetcam footage inside.
 

If I remember well, that is because of the rotor wash. So this doesnt add to the reduction of accuracy from a ground platform

Unfortunately, the Stryker is the platform in consideration. Would be a VERY bad idea... Not just the chassis. I think the whole IM-SHORAD is a mess. Jack of all trades, master of none. Almost if the designers would have no idea about the real purpose of the system, just different weapons cobbled together.
Well, this is one of the disadvantages of NATO membership. Russia has the exact AA system we need, the Pantsir, and we arent allowed to buy it. 

Unfortunately, the Stryker is the platform in consideration. Would be a VERY bad idea... Not just the chassis. I think the whole IM-SHORAD is a mess. Jack of all trades, master of none. Almost if the designers would have no idea about the real purpose of the system, just different weapons cobbled together.
Well, this is one of the disadvantages of NATO membership. Russia has the exact AA system we need, the Pantsir, and we arent allowed to buy it. 

Unfortunately, the Stryker is the platform in consideration. Would be a VERY bad idea... Not just the chassis. I think the whole IM-SHORAD is a mess. Jack of all trades, master of none. Almost if the designers would have no idea about the real purpose of the system, just different weapons cobbled together.
Well, this is one of the disadvantages of NATO membership. Russia has the exact AA system we need, the Pantsir, and we arent allowed to buy it. 

Hungarian Leopard-2 training began. Video is in hungarian, but basically what they say, is that first impression is Leopard-2 is far superior to T-72A in every imaginable way.
 

Hungarian Leopard-2 training began. Video is in hungarian, but basically what they say, is that first impression is Leopard-2 is far superior to T-72A in every imaginable way.
 

We also agreed upon the place of the factory, near Zalaegerszeg (western part of the country). Additionally, it will include an R&D department too. The whole complex will create about 500 jobs, total cost will be around 168,000,000 EUR.
Source (hungarian gibberish, but I'll include it anyway)
https://honvedelem.hu/hirek/lynx-magyar-gyartas-magyar-fejlesztes.html

Well, I work in the construction industry, and here Liebherr means quality. Top quality. Generally, construction machines need to work reliably in harsh conditions, under heavy loads, sometimes without stopping for even a minute in a work shift (mining especially), and sometimes without proper maintenance. Military engines, even the MTU are completely unsuitable in such environments. Liebherr has lots of experience designing engines that are able to work reliably for thousands of hours in such applications. They have engines ranging from 300 to 6000hp. 
The engine for the Lynx will be probably the D9512 model, used by not cranes, but by the ~70 ton PR776 dozer, and the ~140 ton R 9150 mining excavator for example. 

Basically, this:
West: Lets build few high quality tanks, and continuously upgrade them
Soviet: Lets build lots of low quality trash, and be satisfied with them
+ lots of errors about T-54/55, how to differentiate them, etc. 

This is pretty low from the tank museum. Sooo many BS, myths and misconceptions... Why do they keep repeating these over and over and over?