Damian90

Two more photos. I am more and more inclining on the conclusion that this is simply a Leopard 2A7V chassis mated with Leclerc S3/SXXI turret.

So what is a true "Leoclerc" made by KNDS... well it's most likely... a Leclerc turret placed on Leopard 2 chassis... yeah. Notice that the gun is Leclerc CN120-26/L52 120mm smoothbore gun, turret profile looks similiar but, the chassis is different, lower front plate looks similiar to Leopard 2 and have 7 road wheels instead of 6.

Yeah, obviously this is more a memorial camo pattern for STCE. But OD yes, is very universal, if we consider that OD is a good backing color when vehicle is covered with dust, mud, tree branches and camouflage nets. Israelis do the same, they do not have a camo pattern, tanks are colored in color similiar to the background, and rest of pattern is created by sand, dust, mud etc. It's a cheap, simple and relatively effective solution.

They look great in OD, wish it would again be standard camo pattern for US vehicles, it's far more universal than desert tan.

Yeah, by the way, if this is not OPSEC, do you know the storage capacity of autoloaders for interceptors of M1's Trophy HV version? I know from Rafael employee that I talked with during one of the MSPO expo's that standard version for Merkava Mk4 have for each module 1 interceptor ready + 4 in the autoloader storage, so 5 for each side, 10 in total. However Trophy HV modules for M1 are definately larger, more boxy, so I wonder if their interceptors storage was increased?

More photos! It's more than just one tank, it seems that US Army version of Trophy HV is in form of addon modules that can be added to any tank perhaps?

One of the M1A2SEPv2's photographed in Poland, it seems they are testing Trophy HV APS in the field during Saber Strike excercises? Hmmm, interesting.

It is possible yes. Truth to be told there was no unification of armor in Soviet tanks and armor package could differ even during the same production year batches. Of course there are more variants, we have T-80U, T-80U (45M), T-80UE, T-80UK, T-80UE-1, T-80UD, then we have T-84 series.

New unmanned turret by CMI and ARDEC. It's meant to be used on Stryker's, upgraded M2's to M2A5 standard and perhaps also new IFV developed within NGCV program. Notice commander CIV from M2A3 Bradley. It's probably based on CMI 3000 series manned turret, to be more precise on 3030 variant.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/all-armored-brigades-to-get-active-protection-systems-gen-milley/ Its official, all AFV's in ABCT's (Armored Brigades) of the US Army will be fitted with Active Protection Systems. This is interesting development and imply that testing went better than expected.

First M1A2SEPv3's are gonna be fielded by US Army in 2019. It's worth to notice serial number on the turret side ending with letter M, meaning vehicle uses new NGAP (Next Generation Armor Package).

M1A1SA and M1A1FEP received improved SCWS (Stabilized Commander Weapon Station), which is fully stabilized in azimuth and elevation, have powered traverse and elevation, and gunner does not need to stop traversing turret when commander uses SCWS. Also USMC plans to upgrade SCWS further so image from it's sights will be displayed on LCD display + controls will be modified, so as far as I understand it, TC will not use SCWS direct controls, but will use his control handle, and SCWS will rotate independently from TC body position.

I would not be so sure that M60A1's and M60A3's did not received gun mount and gun modifications during their service, it is very possible that the last M60A3's in service probably did received such modifications, afterall you don't need factory for such refit, but a military unit workshop.

AFAIK M900 was developed initially for M1/M1IP's M68A1 gun, and simply can be used by M1128's M68A2 gun.

Diagram is a fake. In the FMV documents you have clearly shown protection vs KE on the turret ranging depending on place and angle from 400mm to 700mm vs KE and 500mm to 1800mm vs CE, quiet nice for an M1A2 with export armor package. FMV documents have nothing about hull protection vs KE, but vs CE you have protection ranging from 600mm to 1200mm vs CE. It is also important to note that Swedes made only protection estimations based on the US Export Armor Package and Swedish armor package that was meant to be used in any tank design they decided to purchase.

These seems to be closer to truth.

Export Armor Package always is in a single standard. No changes there, only exception was Australia that got modified Heavy Armor Package that had DU replaced with something else, perhaps Tungsten on request of Australian MoD. In general this drawing is indeed fake.

This is a modified hull for CATTB, and I have an extremely strong suspicion there is not a lot of truth here, both upper glacis and hull sides over crew compartment are too thin compared to... khem khem... I seen and touched myself. Also heavy side skirts are often too thin in various estimations.

Meanwhile US Army is testing another component of vehicles active protection, this time it's soft kill system. System is made from Laser Warning System and ROSY smoke granades dischargers. This system will be a part of larger MAPS or Modular Active Protection System, which will also include a dazzler to jamm guidance system of the ATGM's, and a hard kill component, in case of the M1 it will be of course Trophy HV. From the photos of both systems installed we can see that LWS, ROSY and Trophy HV can be all quiet easy integrated together, and they won't interfere with one another. Video from LWS and ROSY tests can be seen in the link below.

And so, US Army resterted the MRM-CE 120mm long range GLATGM for 120mm smoothbore tank guns program, under a different name, but then again, XM1111 MRM-CE was working, it only went in to a development limbo after Future Combat Systems program was cancelled. Good to see it is back on track.

Technically it's immposible to isolate hull ammo storage of the Leopard 2 from the crew, because there is no space for sliding blast doors there. You would need to redesign ammo rack in to some sort of a drum, so a blast proof bulkhead with small ammo port could be used, but then again, this would most likely reduce number of stored rounds. I know American when M1 was still XM1 and in early development stage, were thinking about placing two mechanized ammo drums around the driver station, these drums would be isolated and equipped with blow off panels. In the end tough, more practical was to move main ammo storage to the turret bustle, and have a small ammo storage in the hull between turret and hull compartment. The advantage of moving ammunition closer to the rear of the tank is that you can, if you have compact enough powerpack, build two large, isolated magazines with blow off panels and mechanized ammo racks like for example that of the Meggitt Defense. Both magazines can store 34-40 120mm rounds, in case of turret bustle magazine it can either be loaded by loader, or by compact autoloader mechanism, so using such solution you can optimize vehicle design and increase it's main gun ammo capacity while still increasing survivability because ammo is still in isolated ammo magazines with blow off panels, and because of the design, instead of large sliding doors, you have a solid bulkhead with a small ammo port with small sliding door covering it, thus structural integrity of such protection feature is greater. So a perfect tank with manned turret would perhaps look like a downsized CATTB "Thumper" technology demonstrator, downsized for 120mm gun and with a more optimized hull and turret design, so addon armor, APS could be installed + more modern optics, electronics, RWS etc. Something to read about Meggitt Defense Systems compact autoloader and mechanized ammo magazine. https://www.meggittdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/120mmCompactMagazine.pdf https://www.meggittdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/120mmCompactAutoLoader.pdf But in case of Leopard 2, I do not see any technical feasibility to solve the problem of it's hull ammo rack, without redesigning the vehicle, and redesigning it, means designing a new tank really.

This is model of the new turret for M109A7 armed with next generation howitzer XM907 ERCA with L52 gun barrel. With new HE ammo the XM1113 and new propelant charges, the range of this thing will increase up to 70km! Small correction, XM907 is not an L52, it's an L55! https://www.army.mil/article/182638/picatinny_engineers_double_range_with_modified_m777a2_extended_range_howitzer

Interesting, a second more advanced CATTB turret, but mounted on original M1 hull and not CATTB modified hull.

Without a problem, in Poland during Armed Forces Day parade we have plenty of tracked heavy armored vehicles and nothing especially bad with road happens. Heck we guested in 2016 also US troops with M1A2SEPv2's and no problems were noticed, most likely US troops will again participated in our Armed Forces Day parade this year, also with their M1's.