BaronTibere

30x173 is also a NATO standard, the only part I could see being incompatible with other manufacturers might be the datalink for the airburst rounds.

Titan and Trojan are on 8A with the Omani style cooling, CRARRV is an older vehicle and is on the 6A standard along with the CR2.

The CRARRV is currently on the 6A so its possible those are being brought to 8A while the CR3 will alone have the 9A. If you consider that contract is from before the CR3 was decided on its entirely possible its been superseded. And afaik the TN-54 was always rated to a max of 1500hp, and the website for it currently says that's an option. I think its best to wait for more specific information on the CR3 but I thought this was an interesting bit of information.

Comments on a facebook group from someone claiming to work for babcock doing engine rebuilds, apparently the CR3 will use the CV12 9a spec, not the 8a previously assumed.

I've seen posted elsewhere that poland is severely lacking in transports for heavier tanks, and garages for even the existing leopard fleet.

He's said in the past that the L94 on the CR2 is slightly longer and posted this image a while back (horrible quality)

I don't particularly trust this source either but he does have access to the actual vehicle so its very possible and i dare say likely that at least some of these numbers are from actual measurements, and not scaled from the drawing. That said I wouldn't trust them without seeing his actual measurements.

This should really shake up UK procurement.

Good to know, I was using Ogorkiewicz who gives the leo 1 and 2 at 1980mm and the M60/M1/Chief/CR1/CR2 at 2159mm.

I'm neither dismissing what he's said (entirely) or making any predictions on how the CR3 will look, but I am actually reading what he writes and identifying the rather obvious errors. There's no evidence that the CR3 turret construction will be based on the Revolution (aside from the bustle ammo storage, which does seem leopard-like), which is an upgrade for a 2A4 turret. If Rh was given the go ahead for a new turret design without constraints to the dimensions like LEP was, you're correct that retaining the CR2 geometry would not be ideal (and I never claimed this) but it would be equally silly to adopt a the geometry and construction from an unrelated tank and it certainly has nothing to do with the turret ring size.

You're giving Drummond far too much credit. Drummond has been repeating this line about the revolution lately and this tweet really drives it home. Now the CR2 inherited its turret ring size from the CR1, who inherited it from Cheiftain. The turret ring size of chieftain is, afaik, identical to that of the M60 because in the 50s and 60s the US and UK thought it would be a great idea if their new tanks could swap turrets. Why they thought that I don't know, however what it means is that the Abrams and CR2 should in theory have the same size turret rings. Both of which are slightly larger than that of Leopard 2, as Leopard 2 inherited it's turret ring size from Leopard 1 - presumably owing to the origins of the Leopard 2 program. So why he thinks that it's smaller is beyond me. I do believe the original LEP requirement was to maintain the existing turret dimensions, as the original requirement didn't call for a new gun or additional armour, which is presumably why Rheinmetall's LEP proposal looks fundamentally the same as a CR2 turret. I think he was told or read something along the lines of Rheinmetall basing it off the revolution and he's taken that at face value and assumed it meant the physical turret. While the rear end of the LEP/CR3 probably shares leopard 2 physical features I don't believe this relation really has anything to do with the turret shell. Have a read over Rh's page on the revolution and you'll see that the entire point was about the guts of the turret, the systems and is described as a modular upgrade suite. If anything on the CR3 is going to be based on the Revolution, my money would be on everything but the turret shell. I think LEP/CR3 is the systems of the Revolution with some adaptation to more agreeable MoD suppliers (namely Thales) and compatibility with the UK's GVA. https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/detail_1408.php

Drummond, works for KMW, and still thinks the leopard 2 turret ring is larger than a Challenger 2's.

Drummond might be the worst possible source for this. I believe the relation to the revolution is about the internal layout and stations (although even then the exact equipment is not the same) including the gun and ammo storage, not the physical turret construction. Drummond is either senile or just spreading misinformation these days.

Doesn't the NRC license for the M1A2 DU mention it being encased in stainless steel? I would assume it needs to be insulated from other metals to avoid any galvanic action. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0605/ML060590665.pdf

I also grabbed the wrong image earlier with the CR2 mantlet description. The side triangles, "envelopes", were described separately: He also gave this description which matches the images seen above: