Nguyen

Object 187s are moved out of their graves. I hope they will repair them at least externally to use them in new "Patriot" museum near/in Kubinka.

T-90Ms with LFP partially covered by Kontakt-1 boxes

 
 

lol
 
Degman is like T-72 that tries to look Western 

SPA 2S35 KOALITSIYA-SV

There is no better bed than a T-34 turret.
 

All of the initial German Leopard 2A7 were once (Dutch) Leopard 2A4 tanks. The Leopard 2A5-2A7 tank upgrades are however a bit more time- and work-consuming, because it requires a lot more work than simply adding external armor modules. Aside of working on the torsion bars, upgrading a 2A4 to a 2A7 also includes cutting open the roof of the armor modules, replacing the armor modules, raising the EMES-15 sight and fitting an armored "doghouse" around it, removing the PERI R17A1 and replacing it with the PERI R17A3, which is moved to a different position. The new mountings for the add-on armor have to be added and the gun mantlet mounting is altered. Then a large number of internal components has to be replaced (incl. the gun) and spall liners will be installed at the interior walls.

 
Wiedzmin from the Otvaga forums has found a document from the Leopard 2AV development on weight reductions.

Accoding to this snipplet, the armor protection is designed against the Milan ATGM (600-650 mm penetration) and a 105 mm APFSDS round with 38 mm "core" (projectile most likely). No 105 mm APFSDS or APDS round with 38 mm core/projectile diameter entered service with the German Army, but there was an APFSDS round with 38 mm diameter for the 105 mm smoothbore gun of the original 10 Leopard 2 prototypes. This APFSDS round might be identical to the 120 mm DM13 APFSDS (same projectile diameter, same weight), but has a lower muzzle velocity. As there is no exact data on range and on which part of the tank is required to have this level of protection (hull front? turret front? 30° frontal arc?), this doesn't tell very much about the actual protection level.

RUAG's Leopard 2 Midlife Upgrade (MLU). An interesting fact is that RUAG (or rather GEKE Schutztechnik GmbH, which was acquired by RUAG in 2009) has delivered the mine protection kits for the Leopard 2A6M/2A7, the Marder 1A5, the Puma IFV and the Boxer. The roof armor of the PzH 2000, the Puma and Boxer is also made by RUAG/GEKE.
This means that at least three companies are contracted for delivering the Puma's armor systems: RUAG for roof and mine protection, IBD Deisenroth with the passive ballistic and shaped charge protection, while the reactive HL-Schutz (formerly CLARA) armor is made by Dynamit Nobel Defence.

Since 2015 an upgrade of the German Leopard 2A6M tanks to the Leopard 2A6M+ configuration is under way. The 2A6M+ designation is not official, but it is being used to distinguish non-upgraded and upgraded 2A6M tanks. The 2A6M+ upgrade includes the improved PERI R17A3 commander's sight (with third generation ATTICA thermal imager and eyesafe laser rangefinder), the SOTAS-IP communcation system (also adopted on the Puma IFV), and using the Deugra fire suppression system with the extinguishing agent DeuGen-N FE36 (the fire suppression system was originally removed on older tanks due to the Halocarbon-based extinguishing agents not meeting environmental protection standards). Furthermore new display panels are installed at the commander's and loader stations. The tank is also fitted with ultracapacitors, which deliver more energy at a faster and more stable rate.
Externally the Leopard 2A6M+ can only be distinguished from the small bulge created by the ultracapacitors and the spaced armor layer above the electronic compartments (afaik the SOTAS-IP is located there).

 
Fifty tanks will be converted from 2A6M to 2A6M+, of which 48 will be operated by the German Army. Meanwhile there are current news on the 103 Leopard 2A4 tanks, which the MoD wanted to buy in since 2015...
While the upgrade of 84 Leopard 2A4 to the Leopard 2A7 configuration (or 2A7V configuration, if the development of the upgrade was finished and funding is possible) is planned for 2017, there is a major issue. The tanks are owned by the industry and no contract has been made yet! The main reason for this is Rheinmetall: the planed contract sees 1/3 of the work/money going to the company; however they want more, which KMW doesn't agree with. So KMW doesn't want any changes in the proposed contract, while Rheinmetall doesn't want to accept the current contrat. Honestly both sides have some arguments speaking for them, at least form a political and historical perspecitve.
KMW was (and still is) the main contractor for the Leopard 2 tank, it consists of the two companies that developed the hull (Krauss-Maffei) and the turret (Wegmann). The Leopard 2 has been the main product of KMW for a while, now with Rheinmetall winning export contracts (Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2RI), the profits are getting smaller. Rheinmetall is a much larger company (about eight times the employees of KMW) and has bought (among many other companies) MaK, which produced 45% of all Leopard 2 tanks.
 
In worst case this means that the Leopard 2A7 contract will be delayed so much, that the German elections in September will cause a time out (government might not want to approve it close to the elections) - depending on the outcome of the elections, it might be reduced or canceled.
 

The hatch receded a bit. The blue line you photoshopped is the top of the add-on modules, so the hatch takes about 2 cm from the total thickness, so that mechanism would be ~45 mm. The white line in the next picture is the edge of the side armour modules, which stay straight (this picture also shows the receding hatch).

 
Luckily I took a photo of the actual add-on modules on the same day:

With the very scientific method of measuring my thumb nail I can determine that the modules are 65-70 mm thick.
 
The side modules in this picture are 40-45mm thick.

What is the source for the US estimations? Is this a document from CIA and can it be accessed online?
But in general good to know that we were correct. That the Leopard 2 has supposedly better frontal armor has been claimed by German sources since the US tests of the Leopard 2AV in 1976.
 
I cannot download the document, the website always reloads with a new advertisment in a pop-up window.
 
 
___
 
I have been trying to figure out the thickness of the Leopard 2 optional hull add-on armor (MEXAS-H/AMAP).
 
I am not a 100% sure, but it seems that the height of the glacis plate is the same in front and behind the mounting mechanism for the sliding hatch of the Leopard 2A5/2A6:

(that's what seems to be the most likely assumption)
 
Bronezhilet measured the height of the Leopard 2A6 hatch mechanism in August.

So assuming above theory is correct, the hatch sliding mechanism extrudes over the glacis by ~65 mm. I am a bit puzzled by the "lower level" of the hatch sliding mechanism... is the lower edge of the Leopard 2A5/2A6/2A7 hatch located below the glaics? I am not sure, I think it is not. But to be sure I noted that that this might inflate the measurement by ~20 mm if that's the case.
 
Now let's take a look at the Leopard 2A7V demonstrator from Eurosatory 2016. In general the hull armor seems to have the same thickness as on the Strv 122, Leopard 2A6HEL, Leopard 2DK and Leopardo 2E (however the armor composition was most likely altered, the position and size of the bolts is different):

The hatch sliding mechansim seems to be flush with the armor, so the armor is most likely 65 mm (also possible 45 mm). If we take the slope and thickness of the glacis into account (40 mm at 7° from the horizontal) this leads to 85 mm or 105 mm at 7° from the horizontal - line of sight this is equal to 697 mm or (more likely) 861 mm. That's as thick as the turret of a Leopard 2A4!

Leopard 2NG, maybe in Syria?

Nano-ceramic armor has better thickness efficiency than steel against AP ammunitions:

RHA - blue; armor using conventional ceramic materials - grey: armor using nano-ceramics - light blue.
 
For this application (armor protection meeting the STANAG 4569 level 3 requirements) the thickness efficiency seems to be two or more, tthe mass efficiency is five!

Reminds me of the T-54M model 1953

Father of the year.jpg
 

BMPT for Kazakhstan. Note that BMPT hull have number of features, that you can *sort of* find in Armata like bigger hull with 3 crew members in frontal part of vehicle, bigger sponsons and unmanned turret.
 

 

 

 

 
Driver and 2 grenade luanchers operators with their own sets of day and night optics. inside of frontal part of vehicle, driver slightly "ahead" of other two soldiers.

You spin me right round, baby, right round
 

Forget the Armata, new Russian experimental armour stands head and shoulders over anything we've seen so far!
 

Here's what 400 mm of glorious Izhor Steel looks like.
 

Russia stronk! 

Every man and beast rises to defeat fascist invader!  

Top secret data on the project retrieved by the CIA.
 

No, this appears to be something entirely new. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the loading mechanism used that as well.