Gauntlet

Donbass region - for several years UAF was building positions and strongholds. Examples of them:
 
 

 
 
A bit 18+ in the video
https://t.me/izvestia/86654
Destroyed and captured strongholds:

 
 
https://vk.com/video-123538639_456281094
Near Checkpoint 29 in Lugansk region. Shows one of long term position made out of concrete, with thick armored/steel doors.

 
 
18+ in the video
https://vk.com/video-123538639_456281093
Trenches and other positions inside of village and under houses.

 
 

Photos and screengrabs from battle for Mariupol. As it getting near the end, here is bunch of photos done during 2-ish months of combat for this city.

One of roads to Mariupol
 
 

DPR troopers
 
 

 
 

Iliych factory where big number of Ukrainian army soldiers were located for some time during battle for Mariupol. Recently they tried to breakthrough, but failed a little more than 1000 of them surrendered.
 
 
 

VDV got in a bad neighborhood:
 

There is no "clear difference". Current Ukrainian state us viewed by Russian one as terrorist dictatorship, lol.
 
My emblem explains that i am mod of this forum. I'm not one bringing USSR back. President clearly said what he thinks about USSR, current political powers in Russia are anti-communists.

Hello, 21st century will like to remind you that NATO members - Turkey and US have ground troops in Syria despite not being allowed to be there by a country. Also Iraqi. Afghanistan. Karabakh. This is not "insane", but a norm.

RPG rocket that was hit by Arena but did not detonated.

 
   Assymetrical placement of radars - left ones are near gunner sight, right ones are mounted on top of turret "cheek". Also, rear storage box is now fully occupied by Arena subsystems, so strage boxes on the side were added.

Caesar firing Excalibur round at Yuma Proving ground
 
 

Navy Unveils Next-Generation DDG(X) Warship Concept with Hypersonic Missiles, Lasers
Source: https://news.usni.org/2022/01/12/navy-unveils-next-generation-ddgx-warship-concept-with-hypersonic-missiles-lasers

 
"Notionally, the new ship could power up to 600-kilowatt lasers that would be powerful enough to interdict hostile guided missiles."
 
"The current DDG-51s field 96 MK-41 VLS cells and USNI News understands that Navy requirements keep the VLS cells for DDG(X) about the same."
 
"The SPY-6 air search radar could expand from a 14-foot aperture to an 18-foot aperture that would increase the sensitivity of the sensor. The Navy is also planning for a modular payload space for different future missions."

AU-220M turret with 57 mm autocannon in action on Indonesian ship. Same turret was proposed for T-15 HIFV.
 

As posted by David, the boxer did some advertising at DSEI Japan 2019, but was eliminated from the running before the idea even made it off the ground due to the size and weight. The Type 16 MCV at 26t is basically the max limit of having free access to all Japanese infrastructure. Other candidates that didn't make it far and were dropped fairly early on include the Freccia, Stryker, Piranha, SuperAV, and South African RG41. These were all competing back when Komatsu was the primary JP bid. 
Basically everything from that initial program was scrapped. All competitors were basically eliminated. the LAV 6.0 wasn't even in the running then, the AMV in the first bid swapped to the AMV XP in the current program, and Mitsubishi took over Komatsu's spot.

1

Based on what? Did South Korea somehow get access to better CPUs and circuit boards in 2008 than Germany did in 2014? Did they somehow produce better thermals years before Germany? How did they end up with a better BMS?
 
The Leopard 2 doesn't have one BMS, it has nearly a dozen. While the South Korean BMS might be better than 1990s IFIS and the old FüInfoSys Heer, there are many different types of BMS integrated into the Leopard 2. Greece uses Rheinmetall's INCHINOS on the Leopard 2A6 HEL, Sweden has the TCCS (Tank Command and Control System), Spain has LINCE integrated into the Leopardo 2E, the German-Dutch Panzerbataillon 414 has tanks capable of operating either with IFIS or with the Dutch ELIAS, Switzerland has a RUAG-made BMS integrated into the Panzer 87WE, Singapore has integrated an Elbit BMS into its Leopard 2SG... the list is long. For the VJTF 2023, Germany has purchased new software from SitaWare... AFAIK the same system is used on the Leopard 2A7DK.
 
 
In terms of technology, I don't see how KMW's offer should be inferior to what Hyundai-Rotem can offer. The Leopard 2A7 is fitted with a Centurion i7 and a KommServer by ATM Computer (a subsidiary of KMW)... that's already overkill for a BMS. Combined these two computers have basically 100 times (or more) the computational power found on M1A2 Abrams and Stridsvagn 122 (pre-upgrade), which already had working types of BMS.
 
Given that Norway was one of the backers of NGVA, they probably demand a solution compliant with STANAG 4754; this would mean that both hardware and software of the current Korean BMS would be incompatible with the Norwegian requirements, whereas KMW already has a fully compliant solution. Software-wise I am 90% sure, that Norway will demand the incorpation of its own Kongsberg ISC, that has already been fielded on the recently upgraded Norwegian CV9030s.
 
 
Two things would need to happen before that:
KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter production KSTAM I or KSTAM II would have to enter service with the ROKA While KSTAM sounds cool, neither KSTAM I nor KSTAM II has evolved beyond the prototype stage. KSTAM II btw. was developed in cooperation with Diehl Defence of Germany, which would have offered the solution on the European market, if development had ever finished.
 
In terms of firepower, K2 is at a disadvantage. Four NATO countries have already committed to the improved L/55A1 smoothbore gun (with two having already taken delivery of tanks with it), the older L/55 gun of the K2 won't allow firing the same high pressure ammunition. The K2 also lacks an ammunition data link to fire programmable ammunition; currently the ROKA uses the K280 HEAT-MP-T round, a conceptual copy of the American M830A1 MPAT round. This cannot compete against the DM11 HE-ABM round.
 
 
That is true, but only if equate "future proofing" with "weight until the GVW is reached". In reality, there are a lot of other factors to consider. Who will pay for the development of upgrades for the K2NO, if it was selected by Norway? Thanks to the LEOBEN community and the shared IP, the Leopard 2 will see upgrade options even once phased out by Germany. Rheinmetall already has showcased a new turret design with 130 mm gun and autoloader, which Germany will not adopt. Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ATD and RUAG Leopard 2 MLU are great examples regarding how there will be upgrade options fo the Leopard 2, that haven't been paid by Germany or any other Leopard 2 user nation.
 
Growth potential will also be dependent on user base (a larger number of user is more likely to fund upgrades or to make the market attractive for third-party upgrade options like the Leopard 2 ATD and MLU) and on compability with the existing architecture. The NGVA is a big improvement for that.
 
In the end the weight will also depend on the configuration selected by Norway. Maybe they'll opt for a Swedish-style configuration with only a few tanks having mine protection kits (for use in peace-keeping missions) and the rest of them being 2-3 tonnes lighter.
 
 
A lot of claims, but many of them are hardly relevant. Radar/Laser warning systems are available for any tank as retro-fit option, most militaries however do not consider them cost-effective (I'd personally love to see them on every AFV). There are also RWS/LWS available for the Leopard 2.
 
Having a radar integrated into the turret has up- and downsides. A radar actively emitts radio waves that can be detected by the enemy from huge distances (depending on equipment) - that might be less relevant against North Korea, but against Russia Norway might be interested in a less emissive system.
 
The "better placement of the radar" is also a silly argument - then you are comparing a Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy APS to a K2 Black Panther - without any APS. KAPS is immature and unproven; it is still in the prototype stage. It also likely would fail to be fully compliant with NATO STANAG 4822 and STANG 4686.
 
Auto-tracking is being incorporated into the Leopard 2Ax's FCS (it is also already available on the Leopard 2 ATD), it will be available in time of the Norwegian tank procurement program. I doubt that the hydropneumatic suspension of the K2 offers better recoil dampening than the hydraulic shock-absorbers of the Leopard 2, specifically given that the latter tank has greater suspension travel.
 
The funny thing about the EuroPowerPack is that it might have "Euro" in its name, but it is not used in Europe. There are no spare parts for it in Europe, they would be build-to-order. The Merkava 4's EPP is built in the United States (so that it can be paid with the money of American tax payers), the UAE's Leclerc tanks (contract finished more than a decade ago) and the South Korean K2 tanks (contract handled by an Asian MTU subsidiary) do not warrant a production line of the EEP in Europe. The latest K2 batch still keeps a Renk transmission btw.
 
 
That is not true, electronic systems can have a massive impact on weight and system complexity, specifically given the usually small power budget available in AFVs. The K2 only has a - rather poor - softkill APS. KAPS development has never been finished, the system is not ready for production.
 
 
Because Trophy is mature and cheap.
 
 
You cannot simply look at total contract value and then assume that this is identical to vehicle price. Hungary pays a lot more money, because they also want training of their crews (something that would be cheaper when switching from Leopard 2A4 to 2A7+), spare parts (which in some regards already exist in Norway thanks to the Leopard 2A4, Wisent and Leguan Leopard 2), infrastructure (already existing in Norway), ammunition, technical documentation, used tanks for training, etc.
 
The real costs of a tank become apparent through its lifetime. Developing upgrades, ordering spare parts, training and exercies. The Leopard 2 is the king in this regard, specifically for a country like Norway, which is part of NATO and is located next to its closest - Leopard 2 operating - allies. It might not be common in Asia, but NATO countries have very deep cooperation. Spare parts, ammunition and even new vehicles are often ordered either through OCCAR (a NATO agency) or as part of bi-/multi-national procurement programs in order to drive down costs. Training together with foreign soldiers or even in different countries is common, just like exchanging knowledge and - if required - spare parts.
 
Buying the K2 would mean major disadvantages for Norway.
 
 
Aside of the fact that KSTAM II only exists as showcase models for old expositions, it would not be able to penetrate the roof armor of the T-14. The T-14 does not have "soft ERA" on the roof. SMArt 155 has a 155 mm diameter warhead and can only penetrate 120-150 mm of steel armor; many modern MBTs can be fitted with add-on armor to stop that (including the Leopard 2). KSTAM II with its even smaller warhead is easy to counter. Defeating TOW-2B is possible with light-weight add-on armor (Roof-PRO and AMAP-R).
 
The T-14 is probably the tank with the best roof armor available today.

Interesting article on the Leopard 2's future published by the European Defence Review (EDR) magazine:
 
Source: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/krauss-maffei-wegmann-the-ever-lasting-leopard-2
(Underlined text = emphasis added by me)
 
 

Omsk Proj 949A

I am just joking.

I am guessing the practical limit is 40 ton, since more than 4 axles are rare on AFVs.
 
 
 
@Sturgeon

 
I am going to laugh my ass off if this ends up being the winning submisson, just replace the crane with a cannon.

Crazy footage from recent mass rocket barages over Israel which managed to saturate the Iron Dome defence and cause damage on the ground including a hit into a powerplant, oil pipe and an oil storage. 
 

Quite a lot of similarities with the dutch MLU.
 

Quite a lot of similarities with the dutch MLU.
 

Quite a lot of similarities with the dutch MLU.
 

Quite a lot of similarities with the dutch MLU.
 

Quite a lot of similarities with the dutch MLU.
 

Alleged footage of super-low bombing run of an Armenian Su-25 during the war.
 

I covered Kamaz chassis that was used for Pantsir, there is an interview somewhere on this forum with soldiers that drive that truck. They drive it carefully, because it have noticeable height and not wide enough, with heavy components on top of the vehicle. Originally Pantsir system was mounted and tested on BAZ-produced truck, which had wider base and lower height of SHORAD module.
 
   Perfomance of this system depend on target type, integration in AA network and used counter-measure against it. System wasn't really designed to take out certain types of drones, although i remember there were claims that at short range in automatic mode it have probability to take out ATGM-sized missiles.
 
   About half or even majority of destroyed Pantsirs were inactive (In Libya mostly). In the same time there are several Pantsirs that were taken out when they were clearly active, although we don't know if it was under EW attack, or what was happening inside of crew cabin, what intel they had on possible threats,  how much targets they engaged before getting hit, etc. Because Pantsirs were basically most of AA that UAE supplied to Libya, it is obviously is going to be most frequent in list of destroyed AA systems.
   Lostarmour site have a list of drones in Libya that were shot down with photos, most of those drones (a lot of TB2s) were killed by Pantsir, so system showed ability to do its job. 
 
   Another point is that no other system of same type on the planet had this level and amount of combat experience so far. Will be interesting what was learned from its use in Syria and Libya. First visible change was addition of small-sized AA missiles so multiply missiles could be mounted inside of standart missile container. What else was changed is unknown, software, radars, sights, etc.