Gun Ready

Brand new video on the Danish Leopard 2A7's:
 

Leopard 2 A7v in recent trials at WTD 91 Meppen
 
 
 

This is the version of the Leopard 2A7+ purchased by Qatar, i.e. the Leopard 2A7Q (aka Leopard 2A7 QAT). No idea if this is really identical to the variant ordered by Hungary, but compared to the German Leopard 2A7(V), it has the full armor kit (including additional roof protection), the PERI RTWL-B from the Puma in place of the PERI R17A3, a third generation thermal imager and improved LRF for the gunner's EMES 15 sight, cross wind sesnor and the FLW-200 RWS on top of the turret.
 
It is basically KMW's late Leopard 2A7+ demonstrator with minimum changes. Qatar purchased the best possible configuration, while Germany initially didn't want to spend as much money, only to implement some of the lacking features in the Leopard 2A7V (and possibly in the follow-up variant, because both a LRF for the commander and a RWS are still on the Bundeswehr's tank crews' wish lists...).
 
I don't think the L/55A1 tank gun variant was available at the time of the Qatari purchase, but this is just my speculation.
 
 

Yes, correct!

The development of the E -technology started 2002 as a private initiative of KMW to cover the expected threat of PG's fired from RPG-7. The design covered turret and chassis with add-on armour modules adapted to Leopard 2.
This technology was proved by German Army and sold by KMW to the Canadian Army for their Leopard 2 A4M CAN. A few vehicles were sent in 2010 to Afghanistan and performed pretty well. This technology can also be attached to Leopard 2 A7V as the attachment points have been foreseen at this MBT.

https://earlesspierre.livejournal.com/275281.html
https://earlesspierre.livejournal.com/111253.html
 
and more.
 
 

Now industry as an ARGE (KMW, Nexter, Rheinmetall) signed the contract with BAAINBw today, see https://www.bmvg.de/en/news/contract-concluded-future-decisive-ground-combat-system-258470
 

Hi Gentlemen, good evening. This is a photoshop of the MIG Takom's Armata tank.
 
Best regards,

Hey guys, look, a photo of Armata in Syria was posted!

   Totally real!

Boarding and disboarding from landing ships test for the Griffon and the Jaguar in different conditions
 
 

Not so simple. 
First we bought 30 or 31 T-72 from SU in 1978. In the early 80s, T-72M began to arrive from Poland and Czechslovakia, and a second batch some time after 1985. T-72M1 appeared only in small numbers, in the late 80s (from Poland). Total number: 138
And now comes the crazy part, where most of the confusion originates. In 1996, we bought another 100 tanks, from Belarus. 96 T-72A and 4 AV. And for some stupid reason, these are also called T-72M1 here! 
 
Now the fate of these tanks:
T-72: all destroyed and/or used for parts, except one or two in museums in extremely bad condition.
T-72M and the few M1: In 2004, the liberal regime in power back then donated 77 of these to iraq, for free. (a huge crime against the country, since our economy was about to collapse. What is even worse, that the regime do not only donated these tanks, they even refurbished them to perfect condition)
T-72A: In 2014, government sold 58+22 tanks to Czech republic (to the firm "Excalibur Army"). Most were T-72As, + the remaining few Ms
In the army we still have about 80 tanks, but only 25-30 of them are combat ready. The rest were cannibalized for parts. 

In my opinion @SH_MM was never a KMW employee because he is a Deisenroth and Rheinmetall fan and he believes that KMW has no protection development knowledge. For me he is an old fool telling old stories with little actual background. Guess he is a pensioned BWB or BMVg clerk, more than 70 years old and playing the "protection knowledge" supervisor for this community. Sorry for this rigorous statement!

Couple more shots from that display at Army2019.
 

Now a little bit different. KMW started assembling the refurbished Leopard-2A4s for Hungary. These will be training tanks until the new A7s arrive. According to the article below the turret was installed on the first chassis on 28th february. The plan is to deliver all 12 A4s this year.
 
https://honvedelem.hu/fooldal-kiemelesek/megkezdodott-a-magyar-harckocsik-osszeszerelese-nemetorszagban/?fbclid=IwAR2fOdPLL4CnGWveTUgs10U9NGVUPXks-S8RTsOhMeoLXLpmr0Ab5lGp-1I
 

In my opinion @SH_MM was never a KMW employee because he is a Deisenroth and Rheinmetall fan and he believes that KMW has no protection development knowledge. For me he is an old fool telling old stories with little actual background. Guess he is a pensioned BWB or BMVg clerk, more than 70 years old and playing the "protection knowledge" supervisor for this community. Sorry for this rigorous statement!

@SH_MM
 
 
No, I've made it abundantly clear from the beginning that 45mm is more likely in my opinion. I never once claimed it to be fact, and neither did I simply scuff & brush away anything you said as ridiculous the way you have done it to me.
 
 
On the contrary I have an argument, which is that based on the logic that if immunity to 20mm DM43 was demanded above 700mm height then 30mm of armour wouldn't be enough. That's the main argument from my side.
 
If you have a report that says otherwise, heck even that side armour was decreased then I don't understand why you haven't posted it by now.
 
 
"Just as you don't have a clue what you are talking about" - What a way to start a sentence, you for sure aren't emotionally invested in this conversation at all  
 
1) Never claimed that 12mm perforated steel + 30mm base armour is insufficient vs 14.5mm AP (a 12mm perforated steel rubber plate obviously doesn't provide as much protection as a monolithic steel plate though), what I've said is that there's a noticable portion of the Leopard 2's side hull which isn't covered by skirts and hence would likely be vulnerable to even 14.5mm AP if just 30mm thick.
2) Immunity to 20mm APCR was what I remembered as the requirement, you claim it is at 100m above 700mm height (you "informed" me no less, fancy stuff, we'll get back to that), which I completely accepted, but it's a pointless detail to make as it doesn't impact the argument I was making: i.e. 30mm of armour ultra high hardness, high hardness or regular RHA isn't going to be sufficient to guarantee immunity against 20mm DM43 based on the flat penetration figures I've seen for this round. It might just cut it vs 14.5mm if its UHHS, not sure.
3) I didn't "decide" that penetration performance of WW2 20mm APCR matters as reference, I mentioned it to illustrate that performance of modern 20mm APCR certainly wouldn't be worse than this.
4) Slat armour is supposed to break up HEAT warheads, so yes ofcourse it should also work against some ATGMs, it depends entirely on warhead type and hit location. Against a top attack only ATGM system side mounted slat armour obviously doesn't really matter.
 
 
Nope, once again never once said that. I said they were scrapped because failed to meet the requirements that the production version was built for.
 
If the requirement for the 2K & 2AV was for immunity to 20mm DM43 along the entire crew compartment and they fulfilled this requirement, then find me the statement were that is made and we're good. I've read through my own copy of Krapke & Hilmes book and found nothing suggesting this.
 
 
Incorrect, like I've said from the beginning I don't care what thickness the side hull is, and I do care about what is fact, but in case we don't know these facts (which is the case here) then I will concentrate  on what I think is most likely based on the limited information we have. And I can do that without calling anyone with a different opinion clueless or any other derogatory term in the process.
 
You on the other hand seem to only care about having people acknowledge everything you say as fact, and if they don't you will let personal insults rain upon them until they submit to what you deem factual. Which brings me to the obvious question of why you act like this? From where does this sense of authority & entitlement on the subject originate? What's the ethos here? Are you a former KMW employee? Do you work with the Leopard 2 on a daily basis etc? If so then I can understand that you feel you can speak with atleast some elevated authority on the subject (it still doesn't excuse your deplorable habbit of speaking down to people however), but otherwise I don't see how you can expect others to simply abandon their own opinion.
 
 
 
 

For english speakers - 125 mm 3VBM23 shot with 3BM60 APFSDS for 2A46M type cannon. 3BM60 IIRC is Svinets-2
Weight of the shot - 22 kg Weight of the projectile - 8.4 kg Projectile length - 735 mm Height of the propellant charge - 410 mm Muzzle velocity - 1660 m/s Operating temperature range - -40...+40 degr. C. Thickness of homogeneous armor penetrated at 60 degr. angle from normal at 2000m range - 300 mm

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/3vbm23/

Based on what source? Actual penetration values of 25 x 137 mm APFSDS-T rounds are much lower, the Rheinmetall-Oerlikon PBM090 penetrates 35 mm at 60° NATO at 1,000 m distance. Given that these rounds do not loose any significant amount of penetration against sloped plates (more or less, they gain a bit of extra-performance), assuming that the 20 x 139 mm DM63 APDS seems questionable.
 
There is a big difference between something being "supposed" (according to questionable internet sources) to offer a certain level of performance and the actual performance. The M1A2 was supposed to provide protection equal to 960 mm of steel armor according to Paul Lakowski's "estimates", yet its actual protection level at the turret front seems to be just 600 mm steel-equivalent protection based on more recent/reliable sources.
 
 
German Leopard 2A7 also has increased hull side armor:
 

 
Yet the Leopard 2A6M has the no add-on armor at the hull sides:

 
 
You keep saying that. Do you have any proof that the Leopard 2K and Leopard 2AV failed to meet the specified protection requirements? I doubt that.
 
The Leopard 2K/early Leopard 2 PT tanks ceased to exist because of changed protection requirements, not due to the inability to meet the original ones (actually all early Leopard 2 PT models were over-weight to meet the protection requirements). The Leopard 2AV also did not fail to meet the specified protection level. According to Paul-Werner Krapke, the Leopard 2AV met all US-American and all West-German protection requirements after the redesign of the hulll in 1976.
 
The series production model is derived from the Leopard 2AV. The "AV" designation was simply dropped at a later stage, it is not an alternative development to the Leopard 2AV. The designation remained in use until 1977/1978. Paul-Werner Krapke wrote that between US testing and the series production of the Leopard 2, the hull front was re-designed to offer "better" protection compared to the Leopard 2AV (without qualifying the term "better"), he doesn't state anything regarding side armor.
 
 
You can see the add-on armor at the series production model for the German Army here: https://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/in_detail/leo2a7/leo2.htm

This was just posted on facebook: first look at T-14 thermal signature.



What is really interesting is that the frontal Monolith "ERA" and side modules (forward of 2S24 blocks) seem to emit heat.

BMD-4Ms

AFAIK MoD Central Military District 201st RAF military base in Tadjikistan. And here is even more museum-worthy T-72:

 
   Few more photos of different old models of T-72s
 

Museum is ready to fight