Clan_Ghost_Bear

It is not that simple. The official requirement asks for a manned turret, but the previous documents submitted to the industry in 2017 (before the tests of the four IFVs in Libava) actually asked for an unmanned turret (i.e. an unmanned turret was marked as "prefered"). That is why BAE Systems refurbished its old CV90 unmanned turret demonstrator to create the CV9030 CZ r, while General Dynamics integrated the Samson Mk II RWS into the ASCOD 35 hull prototype.
That the Czech army wanted a manned turret was not told the industry beforehand, but without any negoations added to the requirements in April of 2019. That's why a lot of the company officials are angry about the Czech army, they have invested lots of funds into the integration of unmanned turrets, made contracts with potential licence-manufacturers and (in case of the ASCOD 2 & Puma) have taken part of the bidding with only an unmanned turrret.
 
 
Yes.
 
 
Supposedly PSM wants to extend the hull of the Puma by 1 meter or more (incl. a seventh roadwheel pair) and integrate a manned turret.

Just a small additional info the weird looking Czech IFV aquisition tender (less weird than our initial multirole helicopter requirements) from this interview with general Miroslav Hlaváč (deputy chief of staff): https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/nato/hlavac-bvp-obrnen-pasovy-armada-tendr-obrana-nato-aliance.A190530_105753_zpr_nato_inc
 
The requirement for 8 dismounts means that the army wants to have a possibility to have mission-specific squad. One option is 6 soldiers + 2 specialists such as forward air/artilery controlers, drone operators, C4ISTAR specialists or canine officiers. The other is two 4-men squads in one vehicle. They claim that it's part of an infantry-centric doctrine. 
 
The other important point is that Czech army actually has long experience with unmanned turrets (Samson RCWS-30 on Pandur II) and the fact they decided to use manned turrets in the new vehicles mean that they see it as more practical for frontline vehicles (they specifically mention situation awarness or better reliability and serviceability as a reason). 
 
The vehicle can be heavy. The army considers amphibious capability of Pandurs as sufficient for its needs. 
 
More detailed (yet still not very much) requirements:
Number of vehciles: 210
Crew: 3 + 6 soldiers + 2 specialists
7 variants: IFV, command, recon, engineering, ambulance, artilery recon, recovery
Lifetime 30 years (min. 10 000 km to general rebuild)
Programmable ammo for the 30 mm canon
Coaxial MG 7,62 mm
ATGM (2 in container, 1 in the vehicle)
Smoke grenade launchers covering 360°
Sights with min. 4 000/3500 m range day/night
Balistic protection (base vehicle min. K2 + addon min. K5) - does that mean STANAG 4569 II/V? 
APS
Protection against IED (jammer)
Survilance systems: day CCD camera, night IR camera, laser rangefinder
Top speed on the road 65 km/h, in terrain 40 km/h
Range min. 500 km
Air-transportable
Intercom + VKV/UKV radios voice/data (GPS, TACSAT and cypher connection) 
 
Desptite that it looks like none of the bidders withdrew. 

Two countries, it's from Leoben info so I don't want to precise it public. Sorry, not yet.
More or les two 2A6 users "discover" that in LCC  is better idea to buy new 2A7V+ then upgrade old Leos. IMHO it's possbible that 2A7V+ have some major armour changes and it's not possible to upgrade old hull and turret structure to this level - I have no evidence, it's just my thought.

from german magazine Wehrtechnik, issue of 1973-03, -
what appears to be mostly theoretical article (in german) which has two parts. Apparently first 3 pages are about some thoughts on development of tank guns and other weapons. But then it kinda changes topic (at least that's how it looks at first sight), so there are one and a half pages about armored vehicles designs, illustrated with some drawings


some light armored vehicle's turret design
 
and tank:

 
 

Warrior hulls are too worn-out for upgrade so now the plan is to make entirely new ones.

BAE is out of NGCV:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/10/major-combat-vehicle-player-wont-participate-in-us-armys-optionally-manned-fighting-vehicle-competition/
Not very surprising, the CV-90 wasn't a strong bid compared to the other players.

Time for another tank story:
 
This time it is the early '90s, I'm a TC on an M1A1 in the Oregon National Guard, G Trp 82nd Cav. Annual training at Gowen Field, Orchards Training Center, outside of Boise ID. This didn't happen to me, but I witnessed the event. We were down range on the night portion of TT VIII. My buddy Duncan was the gunner on the Platoon Sergeant's tank. This happened during Duncan's run. It was what we called the "Widow Maker": on the move, NBC environment, two targets, a BMP & then a troop target.
 
During this engagement, Duncan's TC gives the fire command "Gunner, HEAT, PC!", the rest of the crew & Duncan react appropriately and service the target. The TC calls cease fire on the PC & gives the fire command of "Gunner, Coax, Troops!", but the loader had already loaded a new round in the main gun and had placed the main gun safety to fire. Not normally a big deal if the gunner had switched from main gun to coax, but on the M1A1 there was a switch for each of the main gun and coax, so it was possible to fire both at the same time if both were set to fire and the loader's safety was set to fire.
 
This time at Gowen Field, on the main tank range for TT VIII, the observation tower for that range, they had a TTS thermal sight from an M60A3 rigged up in the tower with a video camera to record it for the evaluation NCO to use during night gunnery, so there was a recording of what happened.
 
Duncan lays on the troop target, gets a range and fires. "On the Way!', BOOOM rattatttattaat! goes the main gun and coax, "Shit!" goes Duncan. 
 
Later in the tower, I was there when the evaluator goes over that engagement with Duncan's crew., along with the video from the tower. You could clearly see the troop target as it rises on the range, hear the fire commands given by Duncan's TC and watch as a 120mm training heat round hits the left most troop target. The troop target just disappears, flies right off the target array, and then you can see the tracers from the coax strike around the troop target as it lowers back down. 
 
The evaluator commented that while that they hit the target & it was suppressed, they engaged with the wrong weapon system, - 30 points. They were impressed that he hit the target. Later someone went down range and retrieved that target, it had a 120mm hole in it at about the level of the heart, nice shot. They later hung it up in the tower briefing room.

M1A2C testing, you can see how the mantlet barely pokes out past the turret face now.
 
https://www.army.mil/article/222100/
 


 

Some sort of SHORAD(?) variant on the XM1200 FCS chassis. Any more info would be appreciated

A few snipplets of information regarding the Puma:
It is expected that Germany needs at least 560 Puma IFVs to fully replace the Marder 1A3/1A5. At least 484 are required by the German army's active units, with the rest being needed for training and practices. Given the plans of the Bundeswehr to increase its size (such as reactivating the PzGrenBtl 908 and 909), it possible that even more Puma IFVs are needed. Therefore a second batch is planned, production start expected at 2023. Currently it seems that the vehicles will be purchased in the Puma S1 configuration. Starting in 2021, all current Puma IFVs are expected to be upgraded to the Puma S1 configration, upgrades to which are currently being purchased (in a slightly different version) for the VJTF 2023. To the features previously reported and showcased at Eurosatory, a mobile camouflage system (like Barracuda MCS) is also planned for the S1 upgrade. PSM plans to create a whole vehicle family based on the Puma, which is meant for export and also (some variants) for the Bundeswehr. There are designs for a high-roof variant for support vehicles like ambulance vehicles, engineer group vehicles and command post vehicles (kind of looks like a Puma without turret, but the upper part of the Boxer's high roof module mounted ontop of the hull) derived from the Puma driver training variant and an armored recovery vehicle (no turret, new cuppola for the commander and gunner, FLW200 RWS, dozer blade and crane) - sorry, not going to post picture due to copyright of the source. MELLS currently still seems to be focused on the Spike LR1 missile only, but the series order has not yet been placed (only the order to equipp the VTJF with MELLS). The softkill APS "MUSS" for the Puma S1 is also "improved", but there are no details on what exact improvements will be made. The turret independent weapon system (TSWA) for the Puma has changed again. After starting as a system with six 76 mm non-lethal grenades, which latter were supplemented by 24 lethal 40 mm grenades, the TWSA was changed to 9 + x 40 mm greandes (lethal and non-lethal). The latest configuration includes 18 lethal and 18 non-lethal 40 mm grenades. The non-lethal grenades can be used 360° and have a limited range of only up to ~60 m. The lethal 40 mm grenades are only meant to be fired within the rear 180° arc and have a range of a maximum range of ca. 400 metres. The TSWA is fully-stabilized (can be fired on the move) and includes a thermal imager, a daylight camera, and a laser rangefinder. The system is designed for compatability with future upgrades such as air-burst munitions and 40 mm MV grenades (which AFAIK should increase the maximum range). Dynamit Nobel Defence is working on ERA with anti-tandem capabilities, which could be offered as future upgrade option. Multiple international cusomers are "interested" in the Puma IFV (I guess that this statement is related to Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic).

Note the old ammunition hatch on the turret. I thought Hungary would get newly built tanks.... Maybe this is a Leopard 2A7V tank for the German army just send to Hungary for showcasing?
 
Edit:
 
Might be Danish, looking at the search light on the gun mantlet...

Also has the same storage boxes on the hull.

Thailand is buying Strykers:
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/1676940/army-seals-deal-to-buy-us-armour

https://www.africanmilitaryblog.com/2019/05/algeria-to-produce-the-boxer-infantry-fighting-vehicle-ifv-locally

I think that the US system is at times too transparent, especially when modern programs are being compared to cold war era programs.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=771&p=28#p1219781
   Object 288 with Rubin ATGMs, mid 60s IIRC. Futher development of missile tank Object 287, 288 was supposed to have gas turbine engine, layered frontal armor, generally based on Object 432 (T-64)

 
 
   Same vehicle, but with "rocket weapon"

 
 
   Frontal armor consisted of a 90-mm steel splate, two fiberglass (?) plates with a thickness of 130 mm, as well as a pair of steel parts with a thickness of 15 and 30 mm. Inside the armor was supplemented with a special spall liner. Side of the hull had a thickness of 50-56 mm max. Roof plates were 20-mm armor. 
   On test vehicle 2 GDT-350T engines were mounted (400 hp each, but because of heat managment problems power output was decreased and as a result in total ~750 hp output from 2 engines).
   Weapons considered for 288 were ATGMs - Lotos, Rubin, Astra and Garpun (don't know about it much). Lotos ,issile caliber was 160 mm, length - 1720 mm. The maximum flight speed of the rocket was 650 m/s, armor penetration - 250 mm at an angle of 60°. ATGM fire rate -1-2 shots/min. The ammunition for the Lotos ATGM consisted of 12 guided missiles. In the future, it was planned to replace the Lotos ATGM with the Rubin or Astra ATGM with 35 guided missiles carried in the vehicle. I also saw claims about Typhoon ATGM with 15 ATGMs carried be vehicle being considered.

There was this unsubstantiated claim on Facebook.
 
 

1
 
 
 

For the mean time:
 
 
Updated Special Armor Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fuel Tank Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Main Gun Ammunition Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crew Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Armament Locations:
 
 
 
 
 
Powerpack Location:
 
 
 
 
 
 

wednesday i will be there and see by myself

It is quite a mess:
The requirements of the Czech army aren't finished yet. They are still working on them, adding new ones and increasing the overall length of the documents containing the requirments - it has reached more than one hundred pages (DIN A4). Only four pages of requirements were given to the defence industry (BAE Systems, General Dynamics, PSM and Rheinmetall) before they started bidding/show-casing their offers.   Only European companies (and trans-European such as Turkey and Israel) were asked and allowed to bid. South Korea, despite being a large industrial partner, was ignored. The requirements didn't specify a manned or unmanned turret until recently - that's why three our of five IFVs tested in Libava had unmanned turrets. The new requirement for a manned turret was added - according to Czech journalists who asked a spokesperson of the Czech MoD - because Australia demands a manned turret for LAND 400 and the United States have showncased optionally manned turrets on the Stryker. This new requirement invalidates test results and eliminates the Puma, the ASCOD 35 and the CV90 CZr from the competition. All IFVs tested in Libava were configured for nine men (crew of 3 + 6 dismounts) as originally required - but the requriement for crew capacity was changed to eleven men (crew of 3 + 8 dismounts). None of the vehicles tested in Libava is capable of transporting 11 men with a manned turret. The bidding companies have time until some point of time in May to submitt their offers, the rather short time between the changes of requirements and the deadline is a huge problem. The Czech army doesn't want to be the first user of a new infantry fighting vehicle, they want to buy a vehicle that is already in service with at least one user. This effectively eliminates the Lynx KF31, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 35 and Ajax/ASCOD 42. In combination with the manned turret and the dismount requirements, there is no IFV meeting all requirements oof the Czech army.  The Czech government demands that the state-owned company VOP CZ will act as system integrator, manufacturer of components and provider of maintenance services. The army dislikes this, because it will increase the costs of the new IFVs. Side note: while it has been previously reported that the Puma hit 37 out of 40 shots at targets at Libava, the results of the other contenders have been rather unknown. According to the article, the next best result was 19 out of 40 shots hit. A lot of people are really pissed, because quite a lot of money was invested into the development, search for industrial partners and marketing of vehicles that are now eliminated from the tender. The ASCOD 35 with Samson Mk. 2 RWS and the CV90 CZr with Kongsbergt MCT 30 turret were more or less specifcally developed for the Czech tender (well, CV90 CZr already existed earlier, but as unfinished variant), while PSM held multiple expensive conferences to find industrial partners.

50 shades of T-80 - "BMPT-80".
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/gurkhan/leningradskaia-bmpt-s-turbinoi-i-57mm-pushkoi-5cb4cf71e2a3ad00b2464dc5

 
 

 
 

I found this and reposted this on the SB forum.
 
Interested in what others here think..
 
More insight into assumed threats to early 1980s armor. If it is a threat to a IFV it is a threat to tanks that fight with them.
 
So the USA experimented with armor arrays similar to the Xm-1 that could defeat 115mm DU ammo across the frontal arc. So at some point the USA was testing BRL-1 or BRL-1 like armor arrays against not use W, but DU ammo. 
 
Perhaps this is what evolved into BRL-2, or a reformulated version of BRL-1.
 
IIRC Tankograd has evidence that suggests that  BRL-1 on the M1 uses titanium alloys with or in place of steel in the NERA array.  That would increase the ME, but not the TE against KE rounds no?
 

I think it's Textron doing the V-280, Boeing is offering the SB-1.

BAE's MPF
 
-uses the same new hull seen above, but not the M8 turret
-improved underbelly and ballistic protection
-comparable protection to a Bradley
-MTU engine
-same overall dimensions as the M8 so it can fit in a C-130
-19 tons to 26 tons
 
I suspect their MPF includes components of the CV90 MkIV.

T-10M with Malyutkas strapped to it.