Beer

More photos and video. So far all vehicles fulfilled all requirements. What is left is climatic and EMC tests. Also interesting info about criteria for the final selection. 55% weight goes to the contract price. 30% to technical parameters and 15% to the offset offer. 
https://www.novinky.cz/domaci/clanek/strelba-i-jizda-tezkym-terenem-vyrobci-v-libave-predvadeli-sve-obrnence-za-miliardy-40361588
 

More photos and video. So far all vehicles fulfilled all requirements. What is left is climatic and EMC tests. Also interesting info about criteria for the final selection. 55% weight goes to the contract price. 30% to technical parameters and 15% to the offset offer. 
https://www.novinky.cz/domaci/clanek/strelba-i-jizda-tezkym-terenem-vyrobci-v-libave-predvadeli-sve-obrnence-za-miliardy-40361588
 

Well, well...
 

Someone made a book about WWII bombing campaigns
 

 

 
Maybe I should try taking off with tailwinds next time...

@TokyoMorose

The test rig was shown with an exhaust management add-on:

Yep, on the way to Brisbane for Land Forces next week. 
 

 

 
 

Well, well...
 

I found this :

There was also the AMX 30 Au F1 developed in the early 70s as well (first prototype in 1972 and in service in 1979) .
42 rounds stowed at 6 rpm
 
 
Though it use a 155 mm L39 gun, and I don't think there is any intention to modernize them any further.
As of 2019 there is only 32 left of them in reserve IIRC.
There is very little details on how the autoloader work and the only footage I have ever seen of it is only a few seconds long (from 0:48) :
 
 

Not that I would consider it of any importance but for the sake of facts.
 
Dana
- start of development 1969
- first prototype 1972
- first serial delivery 1979
 
Msta-S
- start of development 1980
- first serial delivery 1988 

Well, it depends on the exact armor layout. The problem is that the different slope will affect the effective protection provided by most materials (sloped steel being weaker against APFSDS rounds when sloped, unless sloped very high; NERA being less effective perpendicular to the threat, while ceramics are better in exactly the same situation).
 
If one does not account for these factors, the volume will be used less effectively. In case of the Leopard 2 (at least the Leopard 2AV) and the M1 Abrams, the shape of the hull armor cavities do not correspond to the actual shape/sloping of the armor arry. In case of British tanks, the shape of the armor cavities is less suited for such solution, hence the difference between the shape of turret and hull might be more relevant.
 
 
That is quite possible, though IMO the picture quality is too poor to make an accurate judgement.
 
 
British research on DU armor suggests that thin plates used in a NERA-like configuration are prefered, at least such an array (using very thin DU plates and poly-carbonate inter-layers) was revealed in a British publication:

Note that this armor is optimized for KE and each sandwhich plate is less than two inches thick. Both DU plates amount to less than half of the multi-layered plates thickness.
 
The US Abrams also apparently featured thin DU plates, at least in case of the M1A1 HA and M1A2. There is a 1995 report covering the SMC (Specific Manufacturing Capabilites) located at Idaho National Engineering Laborary, i.e. a facility run by Lockheed-Martin and the US Department of Energy specifically to manufacture DU elements for the M1A1 HA and M1A2 tanks. The reports speciifcally mentions that the shears (shears have to be used to prevent DU dust potentially contaminating the worker's lungs) are rated for DU plate thicknesses of 0.625 and 0.375 inches. This would suggest that at least some parts of the DU armor arrays of the M1A1 HA and M1A2 use DU plates with a thickness as low as 9.525 milimeters.
 

 
 
They are backplates, which is why it is extremely unlikely that they are made out of DU. DU is way to heavy.
 
How thick do you think is the backplate? To me it seems to be in the area of 40 to 50 mm (not accounting for slope).
 
The problem is that given the slope of the hull, you look at as much weight as a 188 to 235 mm thick steel plate (assuming a DU staballoy with a density of 18.5 kg/cm³). 188 mm thick steel weighs ca. 1,500 kilograms per m², a 235 mm steel plates weighs ca. 1,880 kilograms per m² . Given the size of the area covered by the backplate, that would already be more weight for the backplate than the Challenger 1 had for total Burlington armor on the hull front. Basically there would be no weight left for anything else (such as NERA layers required to reach the desired 800 mm protection against shaped charges). Without additional layers, the DU plate with additional steel front and back plates also would fail to reach the desired level of protection.
 
So either the backplate is not made of DU or there has been a massive, currently unexplained weight reduction in hull components and/or the existing steel armor.
 
The problem also exists for the turret. Turret armor slope is not as extreme, but the backplates are also fitted to the turret sides. Basically more than half of the turret armor's weight would be related to the backplates.
 
 
Other materials have to be used, as DU is simply to heavy.
Which other examples of DU being mounted as a plate for armor applications do you know?
 
 

It is an article published in the 372 issue of the Greek magazine Ptisi & Diastima ("Aviation and Space"), which despite its name covers also military technology and news in the land and naval sectors. It was published in May 2017.
 
I don't speak Greek, so I used the summary of Scout-TheDeadDistrict.blogspot.com (now defunct) as mentioned by Laviduce. I did however bother to fact check it as good as possible - for someone who doesn't speak Greek and found several references on the Ptisi & Diastima website (including the table of contents of the 327th issue of Ptisi & Diastima), an teaser article for the Leopard 2 HEL program coverage. When I originally checked Ptisi & Diastima, their website was still different and I found several (low quality) preview pages from the relevant article ("Η αλήθεια για το πρόγραμμα Leopard 2HEL· μια 20ετής αναζήτηση…") - unfortunately I cannot find them at the moment.
 
The original article is 26 pages long and contains (based on the preview images) quite a bit of additional info (lots of texts, but also tables and photos) that didn't make it into The Dead District's blog article.

frontal packs of turret much smaller with huge weak zones + there is no proves that any real improvement was made for front hull armour since CR1 
 
  
and what you expect from mantlet ? 
 

 

 
 
 
 

Norway ditches the MLU of the current ARTHUR counter battery radars in favour of buying new Thales GM200 MM/C multi mission radars, which will be placed on the ACSV G5.
 
Source: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/group/journalist/press_release/norway-and-netherlands-partner-thales-multi-mission-radar-ground 
 
 

Sadly there are no eng subs (only if you turn on auto translated ones, which are so-so), very informative video on Rys'-T helmet (Altyn's cheaper brother, made out of titanium as well).
   Guy shows real helmets and even helmets that were tested by NII Stali (Google translated NII Stali as "her steel", lol), plenty of close ups and so on.
 
   Protection provided by 3.8 mm of titanium, aramid backing, rated against steel core 7.62x25 mm bullets from Tokarev. Glass is rated for 2 shots of 9x18 from Makarov. Glass section is 2 layered, frame for glass is made out of worse metal alloy.  
   Compared to Altyn, Rys'-T is less repairable (use of rivets vs screws on some small components like clamps for fixing faceshield in open/closed positions), and overall somewhat cheaper (rubber on helmet titanuim plate edges was changed to cloth tape, for example).
   In 2014 rubles helmet costed more than 100 000. 4 years warranty, heh, 1.5 for radio. Rys'-T is no longer in production.
 

Not realy breaking news but this is visualisation of Sabrah light tanks which were recently ordered by Philipines (their exact configuration may be different). They ordered 18 vehicles on ASCOD 2 chassis and 10 on Pandur II chassis (plus command and recovery vehicles on ASCOD 2 chassis). The main armament is Elbit 105 mm/L52 gun. The contract is to be delivered by Elbit, GDLS and CSG (Excalibur Army). It is likely that another contract will follow because the initial one was cut down from original 114 vehicles as a part of Covid measures. 

Not realy breaking news but this is visualisation of Sabrah light tanks which were recently ordered by Philipines (their exact configuration may be different). They ordered 18 vehicles on ASCOD 2 chassis and 10 on Pandur II chassis (plus command and recovery vehicles on ASCOD 2 chassis). The main armament is Elbit 105 mm/L52 gun. The contract is to be delivered by Elbit, GDLS and CSG (Excalibur Army). It is likely that another contract will follow because the initial one was cut down from original 114 vehicles as a part of Covid measures. 

New short video from the Czech trials. There isn't anything really interesting in the talk. 
 

A very nice photo of the K21-105
 

How fast does this tank move, that it requires a spoiler on the back 

I don't know but I don't think so. 
 
The infantry used the UK-59 but armoured vehicles used PK (even infantry version on external mounts on some Soviet vehicles), later they used PKM also in door-mounts of Mi-17, on land Rovers or HMMWW, MaxxPro in Afghanistan and Iraq. The UK-59 isn't the best weapon around and the troops going into combat zones often selected other weapons and the special forces used basically whatever they wanted. I would say they have been used to have mess in ammo and belts... 
 
Today the army uses a really wild mess of UK-59 (being phased out), PKM/T (except for the PKT in T-72M4CZ it will be replaced too), Minimi, M240, M60E4, few MG3 (on Dingo) and even M134 in Mi-17... Nowadays they buy only Minimi in both 7,62 and 5,56 (much less of them) for the infantry. 

PKT. 
 
The letter T in UK vz.59T doesn't mean the same as for PK. It's not "Tank" but "Těžký" which means "heavy". It's a variant with heavy and longer barrel, a tripod and a larger ammo case (for 250 rounds). AFAIK it was used only on extrenal vehicle mounts in rather distant past (OT-810, OT-62 or various light vehicles but not on tanks). 

You are wrong. It is deliberately as wide as the tank itself, i.e. its width is maximum possible. Look at the tank from the top and you may realize why.