Russia upgrades BMP-2 and BMD-2 IFVs

The Russian Army has contracted the KPB Tula Instrument Design Burea for the upgrade of 540 old BMP-2 and BMD-2 infanty fighting vehicles (IFVs). The complete scope of the upgrade is not known, but it is confirmed that both vehicles will receive upgraded turrets - or "combat modules" in the official Russian military lingo. The BMP-2 will be fitted with the B05Ya01 Berezhok combat module, while the BMD-2 will receive the lighter Bereg combat module.

In theory further improvements could be part of different contracts with other companies, but it seems unlikely that the Russian Army is interested in adopting a heavier armor package or fitting a new engine to these vehicles - it would require large amounts of additional money, which instead can be invested into the development and manufacturing of the next-generation of armored fighting vehicles (AFVs) including the T-14/15 Armata, the Kurganets-25 and the Bumerang wheeled vehicle.

Last year in 2016, the Russian Army contracted the 163rd Armor Repair Plant to overhaul a small quantity of existing BMP-2 IFVs. Overall the company is set to upgrade a total of 327 BMP-2s in the timeframe from 2014 to late-2018. Other comapnies such as the 103rd, 144th, and 560th Armor Repair Plants are also refurbishing existing BMP-2s, boosting the overall number to at least 586, which means that not all of these vehicles will receive the new turret upgrades from KPB Tula.

BMP-2 with combat module "Berezhok" shown in Russian TV

In 2014 the Algerian Army ordered a total of 340 Berezhok turrets for upgrading old BMP-1s and BMP-2s to a more modern standard. These vehicles - apparently designated BMP-1M and BMP-2M, but not to be confused with the Ukranian BMP-1M upgrade - might also feature a larger powerpack such as the UTD-23 engine with 370 horsepower output, aswell as newer types of ammunition. In 2017 a prototype of the 8x8 Bumerang wheeled vehicle fitted with the Berezhok combat module instead of the Bumerang-BM unmanned turret was demonstrated during a military exhibition, although the latter system is commonly believed to be superior.

The Berezhok turret features multiple weapons and a new FCS

The Berezhok turret upgrades retains the 2A42 autocannon - chambered in the 30 x 165 mm calibre - as main armament, but features enhanced secondary armament and a new state-of-the-art fire control system (FCS). This new fire control system enables the IFV to engage targets while being stationary or on-the-move with a high accuracy, it also enhances the capabilities of the IFV against air-targets such as low-flying helicopters.

The FCS now includes two separate optics for commander and gunner. The gunner's sight is fixed to the turret and stabilized in two planes. It offers different magnification levels, which result in a field of view ranging from 20° to 4° depending on zoom level. The sight also includes a thermal imager, but no performance data regarding its sensor resolution or technological generation have been revealed by KBP Tula. Given that most Russian vehicles upgrades make use of optics from the Belarussian manufacturers, which incorporate Catherine thermal imaging modules from the French company Thales, one should expect a rather high quality. KBP Tula's local competitor, Kurganmashzavod is offering BMP-2 and BMP-3 upgrades incorporating thermal imagers from SAGEM, another French company. The integrated laser rangefinder used in the Berezhok's gunner sight has a minimum range of 200 metres and a maximum range of 10,000 metres. The gunner's sight is also used to guide the laser beam-riding Kornet missiles. According to KPB Tula, the RMS error of the sight's stabilization is smaller than 0.1 milliradian. The optic has a boresight laying angle of -15° to +30° in the vertical plain and an angle from -10° to +10° in the horizontal plain.

The upgrade includes new optics, stabilizers, sensors and computer units

The commander is provided with an independent optic, that can traverse 360°. The sight has an elevation up to +60° and maximum depression of -15°. Like the gunner's sight, the new commander's optic includes different magnification levels, a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder with a range of up to 10,000 metres. The RMS stabilization error of the optic is also claimed to be just 0.1 milliradian. The new fire control system also includes digital displays for the operators, a new ballistic computer connected to several sensors - including a cross-wind and a roll sensor - and an automatic target tracker, which has an accuracy of 0.05 to 0.1 milliradians. According to KBP Tula, this is between three to six times the accuracy a human operator can achieve when trying to track a target with the BMP-2's or Berezhok's systems. The new stabilizers fitted to the main gun have a maximum error of 0.3 to 0.5 milliradians and allow a maximum weapon laying speed of 35 to 60 degree per second.

The Berezhok turret carries 300 grenades, 200 rounds of main gun ammo, 8 ATGMs and 2,000 rounds for the MG

Aside of the coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun (MG), a 30 mm automatic grenade launcher (AGL) with vertical stabilization has been added to turret. This weapon is fixed to the turret rear and therefore cannot be turned independently (unlike pintle-mounted weapons or remote weapon stations). The addition of the AGL is rather odd, given that the 2A42 main gun of the Berezhok combat module should provide similar anti-infantry and anti-structure performance, but it seems likely that the AGL was added for some enhanced indirect fire options against infantry. A total of 300 grenades for the grenade launchers and 2,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition are carried inside the vehicle. The 2A42 autocannon is commonly loaded with 160 anti-armor rounds (most likely AP, APDS or APFSDS) and 40 rounds of high-explosive incendiary ammunition.

The Kornet-EM ATGM has a tandem warhead with high armor penetration

On the left and the right side of the turret, dual-launchers for the Kornet anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) have been added. A total of eight missiles are carried inside the upgraded BMP-2 vehicle, four of which are ready to fire. The launcher is compatible with the 9М133-1, 9M133F-1, 9М133M-2 and 9М133FМ-3 Kornet missiles. The 9M133-1 is fitted with tandem shaped charge warhead to combat heavily armored vehicles such as main battle tanks (MBTs) even along the frontal arc. The armor penetration ranges from 1,000 to 1,200 mm into steel, its tandem charge warhead can defeat explosive reactive armor (ERA). The 9M133F-1 is a variant fitted with a thermobaric (fuel-air) HE warhead that is equivalent to a 10 kilogram TNT charge. Both these missiles have an effective range from 100 to 5,500 metres.

The 9M133M-2 is an improved version of the Kornet ATGM, which is also known as Kornet-EM. It has a longer range - capable of reaching targets up to 8,000 metres - and features an improved tandem charge warhead with a penetration of up to 1,300 mm into armor steel. A thermobaric warhead option is also available.

The 9M133FM-3 missile is fitted with a proximity fuze and a larger rocket engine. Its main purpose is to engage aerial targets such as helicopters up to a range of 10,000 metres. A shaped charge warhead option is not available, the missile is always fitted with a slightly smaller thermobaric warhead equal to a 7 kilograms TNT charge. The 9M133FM-3 missile is either fired in a single shot mode or as a salvo of two in an attempt to overcome active protection systems (APS).

The BMD-2 will receive the smaller Bereg turret with only a single missile launcher and without AGL

The BMD-2 will be fitted with the smaller Bereg combat module, which is required to due to the size and weight limitations of the air-mobile vehicle. The Bereg turret has a weight of less than 1.8 metric tons, while the Berezhok turret has a weight of up to 3.25 metric tons. The weight reduction is only possible, because the Bereg is a one-man-turret, the vehicle commander sits in the hull.

Therefore the Bereg doesn't feature an independent optic for the commander, being unable to carry out missions in the hunter-killer mode - otherwise the fire control system seems to be identical, it also features a cross-wind sensor, a roll sensor, modern stabilizers and an automatic tracking unit. The turret is only fitted with a single dual-launcher for Kornet ATGMs and the total missile stowage is reduced from eight to two. The 30 mm 2A42 autocannon remains the main armament, but no 30 mm AGL is added to the turret rear; however the Bereg turret has 300 instead of 200 rounds of main gun ammunition ready to fire.

The latest version of the CV9030 is the only variant with hunter-killer capabilities

The upgrades of the BMP-2 and BMD-2 enhance the capbilities of the obsolete baseline vehicles by a considerable amount. The original vehicles were rather useless against their more modern Western counterparts, which due to their thermal imagers and digital fire control systems had a big advantage over the BMP-2 and BMD-2. In various aspects these upgraded 1980s IFVs can even outperform much more modern vehicles - for example the commander's panoramic sight of the Berezhok turret is an advantage compared to vehicles such as the ASCOD Pizarro/Ulan, the Marder and all currently operational CV90 variants excluding the latest Norwegian models. Its long range, high penetration power and the ability to target helicopters (with the 9M133FM-3 missile) make Kornet a much better missile system than the older missiles used on some NATO IFVs such as MILAN and TOW. The inclusion of an automatic target tracker in the FCS is a further perk of the Berezhok and Bereg turrets.

However just changing the turret doesn't remove all shortcomings of previously obsolete vehicles such as the BMP-2 and BMD-2. Unless Russia also contracted upgrades for armor protection - the basic BMP-2 isn't even protected against 12.7 mm and 14.5 mm heavy machine gun ammunition at the sides - and mobility, these vehicles will still suffer from various drawbacks.

Leopard 2 in Syria - part 2

Yesterday a new video was released by ISIS terrorists showing a bunch of destroyed main battle tanks (MBTs) and armored personnel carriers (APCs) near the Syrian city of Al-Bab. This video however has proven something, that I understimated a certain weapon. Not anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), not improvised explosive devices (IEDs). A much older weapon: propaganda. The same weapon that turned the Tiger heavy tank - a rather mediocre design of it's time - to a supposed super tank, that still is being worshipped by some individuals today. However the propaganda worked, invoking a Tiger-phobia on the side of the allies.

Now, what exaclty has happened? A new video showing the exact same area that the first few videos were showing. The destroyed or damaged tanks are probably all identical to the tanks already shown in earlier videos, that have been covered by numerous news articles and blogs. Still some people start writing articles in a sort of kneejerk reaction, claiming that these are newly defeated tanks and that the Turkish Army is just poorly trained or the Leopard 2 is a poorly designed tank, incapable of competing on the same level as the tanks of other countries (even though this is not tank-vs-tank warfare...). This again leads to people to come and reply or spread the articles, which are pushing for their own agenda. "The T-90 is so much better, only one was penetrated!", "All people who think the Leopard 2 is a good are Nazi-tank fanboys" and "The Abrams/Challenger 2/T-84 is an inpenetratable super tank". People love to ignore the fact that the Turkish Leopard 2A4 is fitted with out-dated armor, possibly still the first generation of armor technology introduced with the original Leopard 2 in 1979. The fact that the Turkish Army was purged after the failed coup attempt - in which most tank units were equipped with Leopard 2A4 tanks - is intentionally ignored.

So what exactly has happened to the Leopard 2 in the past month in Syria? Well, apparently not much in that area. ISIS was only interested in spreading images from already destroyed tanks - this might mean that there are no newer encounters that were video-taped.

Leopard 2 tank wrecks in Syria

The first Leopard 2A4 tanks of the Turkish Army were destroyed or at least disabled in combat already in December. Above are screenshots from one of the very first combat encounters, below are captures from two different propaganda videos - all showing the same two destroyed tanks. Well that's propaganda, pretending (by using different camera positions and filming on different days) to have destroyed six tanks, while in reality only two were destroyed (or rather one was destroyed, while one was apparently rendered immobile and abandoned).

An ATGM penetrated the roof of this tank

The image above shows a tank was hit by an ATGM at the roof. There are at least three different scenes from different videos showing this tank. It actually might be four, but the image quality of one is so bad, that it couldn't be clarified without doubt. This shows again how the terrorists' propaganda tries to inflate kill numbers in an attempt to demoralize the enemy. They supposedly even filmed the tank at different times of the day, so that the mood of light changed.

Blowing up captured tanks

The terrorists are known to have captured up to three tanks, of which one had a track issue. So what to do with a tank that cannot be utilized by the own forces? Blow it up in a propaganda video, pretending that it was an enemy tank destroyed in combat.

Victims of a large explosion: airstrike or blown up after being abandoned

Supposedly at least one captured tank was destroyed by an airstrike from a Turkish F-16. A photo showing a Leopard 2A4 with turret popped of the hull was shared on Twitter in December 2016. While it is not exactly confirmed that this tank is one of the two destroyed tanks above, all vehicles in above photo show damaga typical for airstirkes or large explosive charges being placed inside the vehicle. This can be seen by locking at the front of the Otokar APV (engine compartment blown off) and the excessive damage caused to the frontal Leopard 2.

One can only speculate about the exact fate of this tanks. Were they abandoned and then destroyed by an airstrike? Were they captured by ISIS and then destroyed by Turkish forces? Did the terrorist blow them up for a propaganda video?

Overview with text by militaysta

That's why speculating about how awful or how good some military unit perform just based on photos of wrecks doesn't make sense. Who knows how many hits the tank took before ending there? Or maybe the tanks didn't even take any damage but broke down before combat. Who would know based on a wreck of a tank?

Snafu Solomon reblogged an interesting article from DieselPunkIsDad on survivability bias. While this term doesn't exactly apply to the topic, it clearly shows the same problem: people are judging the peformance of a combat vehicle, a military unit or even a whole nation based on a biased subset of encounters. The Battle of Crete was a horrible failure from the perspective of the Nazi-German Army, which abandoned the tactics of airborne invasion via paratroopers after it. From the perspective of the Allies, who were unaware of the German losses, the airborne invasion was suddenly a highly effective tool of warfare - that happens when only a subset of data is considered. How many videos out there are showing an Iraqi or a Saudi Abrams tank getting hit by an ATGM, while sitting in the open without (mechanized/motorized) infantry support? Everytime such a video appears, someone comments on how bad said vehicle/persons are doing and how they are essentially getting slaughtered. What is ignored in this context is that the terrorists will only show your successful attacks - that's how propaganda works. But how many times do their attacks fail by missing the target, failing to penetrate the armor or being discovered and killed?

Older informations on Turkish losses via Reddit

So what is the conclusion of this post? Well, probably that one should keep calm and take some time to think about what is shown by a source and what the motivation for showing this is. Based on the videos and earlier reports of Turkish losses, there seem to be no recently destroyed tanks at this specific area near Al-Bab. This could have several different reasons, but speculations without sources won't lead to much.

According to older Turkish sources, a total of ten Leopard 2A4 tanks, one M60T Sabra and four other vehicles were disabled or destroyed in the area around Al-Bab. One Leopard 2 had an issue with the tracks and the situation of one tank is unknown (supposedly this tank is among the ones captured by ISIS). Two tanks were damaged by IEDs, one of them heavily. A further tank was damaged by a mortar attack, while the other five Leopard 2A4 tanks were damaged by ATGMs - back then not a single tank was listed as destroyed by ATGMs. Earlier sources from about a week before the losses were leaked/published via Twitter claim that fifteen M60T Sabra tanks, three M60 tanks and three Leopard 2A4 were hit by ATGMs. One of the M60 tanks and three Sabras were total losses. Supposedly ten soldiers died in Turkish tanks at this time. The fact that no new tank wrecks appeared in the area from Al-Bab doesn't mean that Turkey hasn't lost more tanks since then - but it also doesn't directly confirm any losses at other places.

Turkish sources claim that between the 8th and 18th January 192 air raids and firing 2,196 rounds of artillery, tank and mortar ammunition resulted in the death of 1,362 enemies, a further 168 were wounded. As always these claims haver to be taken with a grain of salt, as there is no proof for any of these claims and kill figures of airstrikes and artillery are known to be exaggerated quite often. Still if true, one shouldn't pretend that the Turkish Army is so bad and the "Arabs are horrible at war" meme applies (not to mention that technically Turks aren't Arabs). Yes, the first Leopard 2 tanks were employed in a horrible way and thus destroyed. But maybe at least some common NATO training standards are met and result in some better performance after the initial shock.

Leopard 2 in Syria

Turkish Leopard 2 tanks are actively operating in the war in Syria. The tanks have been photographed at different locations near the town of Al Bab, which is located about 35 kilometres (21.7 miles) north-eastern of Aleppo. A few photos were shared on Twitter, apparently taken by Turkish soldiers. More detailed photos and video footage was provided by the SMART news agency, which is said to have ties to Syrian rebels.

Turkish Leopard 2A4 in Syria

The Turkish Army is operating the Leopard 2 main battle tank (MBT) since 2005, when an initial batch of 298 Leopard 2 tanks was ordered. A further 56 tanks were purchased in 2010 and 2013. The Turkish military previoulsy tested the Leopard 2 Improved (Leopard 2A5/6 prototype), the Leclerc with additional armor package, the Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan tank (a version of the T-84 fitted with 120 mm gun and bustle-mounted autoloader) aswell as the M1A2 Abrams fitted with the MT883 diesel engine (as the gas turbine proved to be a main issue for potential buyers). The Leopard 2 Improved performed best, however the Turkish government didn't purchase the tanks in the originally planned volume and version (up to a thousand Leopard 2A5 tanks were wanted by the military). Instead the Turkish goverment favored the  local production of MBTs, where the bid by the South-Korean company Hyundai-Rotem was chosen over Krauss-Maffei Wegmann's offer, because it included the full transfer of technology instead being a licence production agreement. This lead to the Altay main battle tank, based on South-Korean technology used on the K2 Black Panther MBT.

The Turkish Army has been operating the M60 tank and the upgraded M60T Sabra in Syria since a few months already. The Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks were held back, despite offering a few key advantages over the other tanks. The reason for this is that the Turkish purchase of the Leopard 2 was very controversial in Germany, Turkey even had to sign an agreement permitting the usage of the tanks for other tasks than pure self-defence. As revealed in an interview with the Turkish journalist and military expert Mete Sohtaoğlu by the German BILD magazine, the agreement on cooperation between the two countries in 2009 gave the Turkish Army the permission to use the Leopard 2 tanks in combat. It seems possible that this permission was still limited to operations in Turkey only and the Turkish Army was allowed to use the Leopard 2 in Syria just a few months ago.

Turkish Leopard 2s after arriving in Syria

The exact number of Leopard 2 tanks being used in combat is currently still unknown. However photographs show that there are at least eleven tanks painted in the new desert camouflage scheme, suggesting that at least a full company of tanks is operational in Syria. It has been claimed that the Turkish tanks operate in platoons of three tanks, which is rather unique as most tank platoons consist of four or even five tanks. According to a Spanish blogger, 18 Leopard 2A4 tanks arrived in Syria at the 8th December 2016, followed by a further 25 tanks arriving two days later. This information is apparently based on various photographs of tanks being transported to the border. If correct, this means that there is most likely a complete Leopard 2 tank battalion deployed in Syria or to the Syrian border region.

Leopard 2 being hit by an ATGM (click to enlarge)

In one incident a tank was apparently hit by an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). The Leopard 2 was in a hull-down position, the hull being located behind a large heap of ground. The missile hit the turret section of the tank, it is not known if it was penetrated or not. The missile that hit the MBT is supposedly an US-made TOW-2A ATGM. Rumors are conflicting on what happened to the tank: some sources claim that the tank's armor was not penetrated, other suggest that the armor was penetrated, but noone died due to the ammunition not being incinerated by the spall.

Two further Leopard 2s being engaged by ATGMs (click to enlarge)

In a further incident two further Leopard 2 MBTs were attacked with ATGMs. The enemies attacked the tanks from behind the Turkish lines, launching the missiles at the sides and rear of the tanks. A first ATGM disabled the tank closest to the camera, but no ammunition was set on fire - this means that even if the ATGM managed to penetrate the tank's armor, there is a rather high probability that not all crew members died, but were only injured. On a tank without separated ammunition storage in the turret, such as the Italian Ariete MBT or different versions of the T-72 and T-80, a penetration at this spot could lead to the death of the whole crew.

The second tank was apparently hit from diagonal from behind, hitting the turret bustle. It was hit after the first tank already took an ATGM to it's turret, the crew apparently was completely ignoring this fact. The tank did not try to secure the flank from which the enemy ATGMs were launched, something that should have been done after the first missile hitting. The missile set either the hydraulic systems or the turret ammunition on fire, leading to a visible blast and flames. In the Leopard 2 the turret hydraulics and the turret ammunition are located in separate compartments, which are isolated from the crew. So in theory there still is no proof that the crew compartment was penetrated - the crew might have survived with no or little injuries only. However when being hit by a powerful ATGM from behind (which could lead to a penetration of the compartment walls/door) or when the door of the ammunition compartment is open, the detonation could also kill the crew. It is not known if any Turkish soldiers died in any of the three Leopard 2 tanks hit by ATGMs.

The armor generations of the original Leopard 2 production models

A big issue with the Turkish Leopard 2 tanks is the fact that they are outdated, they are not designed to resist currently available ATGMs and their armor is completely focused on protecting the frontal arc. It is not clear which armor package is fitted to the Turkish Leopard 2A4. While the late production Leopard 2A4 tanks received stronger armor inserts, all older production models were converted to the Leopard 2A4 configuration - without changing the armor composition! In fact even a few of the newly built Leopard 2A4 tanks were built with one of the older armor packages. Between 1979 and 1992 (the time were the Leopard 2 tank was series produced in Germany) three different generations of armor were used. It is not known if these are identical with single armor packages or mutliple different armor packages were used within a "technology generation". The first generation armor was introduced in 1979, while the second generation armor (1988) and third generation armor (1991) were exlusively used on Leopard 2A4 tanks.

Leopard 2A7 prototype fitted with additional armor to protect against RPGs and ATGMs

More modern armor packages were introduced in the German Army variants in the late 1990s with the Leopard 2A5/2A6 and in 2014 with the Leopard 2A7. Furthermore a number of companies such as Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), Rheinmetall/IBD Deisenroth and RUAG are offering armor upgrades beyond the current Leopard 2A7, usually by mounting external armor modules at the front, sides, rear and roof. The protection can also be enhanced by adding a new softkill or hardkill active protection systems (APS). The MUSS softkill system has been tested on the Leopard 2 in 2003 and has been fielded on the Puma IFV. It is capable of jamming most missile systems and automatically hiding the tank behind a multi-spectral cloud of smoke, generated by firing special smoke grenade dischargers.

Why does this matter? Because the Turkish Leopard 2 tanks are older models upgraded to the 2A4 variant (easy to identify thanks to the old ammunition hatch) and not newer production vehicles, which were built with better armor packages. While KMW does offer upgrading the armor inserts to a newer generation - or at least the company did offer this option in the past - there are no reports about the Turkish Leopard 2A4 tanks being upgraded. As the Turkish Army wanted and tested the Leopard 2 Improved, it seems most likely that the original plan saw the upgrade of all purchased Leopard 2A4s to the Leopard 2A6 configuration at a later point of time, a plan probably stopped in favour of the Altay development.

The AMAP armor modules installed on the Leopard 2NG

Turkey might attempt to push the Leopard 2NG into service. The Leopard 2NG (Next Generation) is an upgrade developed as a private venture by the Turkish company Aselsan with a number of partners. While this upgrade replaces the optroncis and fire control system, it also includes new electric gun and turret drives, a remote wepaon station (RWS) and a new fire supression system. The Leopard 2NG is also using IBD's AMAP armor package for enhanced protection against anti-tank ammunition, missiles, mines and improvised explosive devices.

More important than the technology used on a tank might be the tactics on how the tank is being used. The Turkish Leopard 2 tanks seem to be poorly employed, sitting always behind heaps of ground in a hull-down position. While a hull-down position is favourable in certain situations -  such as symmetric warfare when the direction from which the enemy will approach is known - it is not a good idea for the tanks to remain in a static position without proper protection, when they can be attacked from the side and rear aswell. In the incident where two tanks were hit, the crew of the second tank was apparently not reacting at all - they simply ignored that the other Leopard 2 has been hit by an ATGM some time ago, the crew apparetnly didn't care about taking out the enemy ATGM team. 

When using tanks in a static emplacement just for fire support, one should expect them to be used in a secured perimeter. If the tanks are not capable of securing the area by themselves, then infantry or other combat vehicles should take over the task. Surveillance and reconnaisance vehicles with thermal imagers should have no issues detecting enemy ATGM teams and infantry even at long distances. The Turkish Army doesn't seem to employ the tanks as part of a combined arms doctrine - tanks are always seen operating alone and not together with (mechanized or motorized) infantry. Instead the Leopard 2 tanks seem to play sitting ducks and serve as more expensive artillery replacement... a cheap 120 mm mortar carrier vehicle would probably be better suited for this job.

Boxer prototype for Lithuania being tested

In December 2015 the Lithuanian Ministry of Defence announced, that they were favouring the Dutch-German Boxer multi-role armored vehicle (MRAV) over numerous other offers from international armored vehicle manufacturers such as General Dynamics (offering a version of the ex-MOWAG Piranha/Stryker), Patria (which offered a version of the AMV), Nexter (offering the VBCI), Iveco, Otokar, and FNSS. Subsequently they ordered the Boxer in an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) configuration.

However the Lithuanian Army did not go for the original offered Boxer variant, which mounted the unmanned turret of the German Puma IFV on a special Boxer mission module. Instead the Lithuanian Army prefered to fit a Samson Mk II remote weapon station (RWS) from the Israeli company Rafael. A number of photographs from the trials of a Boxer with the Samson Mk II RWS have been released by the Lithuanian MoD.

Compared to the Puma's turret, the Samson Mk II RWS is in many aspects a downgrade. It is understood that the choice to opt for the Israeli weapon station is related to the high costs of the German offer. The Boxer with Puma turret was criticized by the Lithuanian government for being considerable more expensive than all other offers.

The Puma turret however offers a much higher level of protection to begin with: The Samson Mk II RWS is not protected at all, but can be fitted with additional armor modules for protection in accordance to the STANAG 4569 levels 1 to 4, which essentially means protection from assault rifles to 14.5 mm armor-piercing (AP) ammunition from heavy machine guns (HMGs) depending on armor package. The Puma´s turret offers the same STANAG 4569 level 4 protection in it's basic configuration, but can be fitted with additional armor for an even higher level of protection (protection against 30 mm ammunition). This armor package also includes hedgehog armor against anti-tank bomblets from artillery and mortar shells aswell as an armored flap to protect the gunner's main optics.

Furthermore the Puma's turret has the option to fit the German MUSS softkill active protection system (APS), which has already been fully integrated into the turret for the German Army. This system offers protection against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), by using jammers and multi-spectral countermeasures.

The Puma's turret offers better optics and for the commander's sight, there is a fibre-optical channel to directly guide the image to the commander's oculars, instead of only providing a digitized (and thus pixelated) image at the display.

While in theory able to accept other guns, the Samson Mk 2 RWS on the Boxer module for the Lithuanian Army has apparently been fitted with the very common Mk 44 Bushmaster II gun from ATK (chambered in the same 30 x 173 mm calibre as the Puma's MK 30-2/ABM). This gun has two drawbacks compared to the MK 30-2/ABM originally offered on the Boxer with Puma turret: the dispersion of the Bushmaster gun is higher (at least when firing APFSDS ammunition from NAMMO) and it has no or only limited air-burst capabilities. The MK 30-2/ABM is fitted with a magnetic coil to measure the ammunition's velocity at the muzzle and to then program the fuze of airburst ammunition accordingly. The Mk 44 Bushmaster II lacks such a coil, instead airburst capability is only optional (and this has not been chosen by a customer to this day) with programming being done at the chamber - this system is less accurate, as it has to rely on estimated (or pre-programmed) data for the muzzle velocity.

The Samson Mk 2 RWS has a weight of about 1.5 metric tons. It includes two MINIPOP optics (one each for commander and gunner) from IAI with daylight camera, laser rangefinder, and thermal imager; it thus can be used in a hunter/killer mode of operation. Ammunition storage is provided for 200 rounds of 30 x 173 mm ammunition and 230 rounds of 7.62 mm machine gun ammo. The RWS also includes a retractable dual-launcher for the Spike ATGM. Gun depression up to 20° and elevation up to 70° are possible with the Samson Mk 2 RWS.

A benefit of the Samson Mk 2 RWS is the ability to reload the turret from inside of the vehicle. This can be beneficial when the gun runs out of ammo during combat - under other circumstances reloading form the exterior is better, because one does not have to move through the rather cramped exterior of the vehicle, which enables faster restocking of ammunition.

The Boxer's modular design allows a faster and easier integration of new systems and mission modules compared to other vehicles. By separating the mission module (which here includes the RWS and seats for the gunner, commander, and dismounts) from the chassis, engine and driver's place, only a new mission module has to be developed. The mission module just needs to have the same interfaces as required by the chassis. This allowed testing the new module for the Lithuanian Boxers on an already existing German Boxer.

About that M60T which survived a Kornet ATGM...

On the 19th April 2016 a photograph of a damaged  M60T tank have been posted on the internet. The tank was attacked by terrorists using supposedly a Russian Kornet (9M133, NATO reporting name AT-14 Spriggan) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Jane's also reported on this matter.

The M60T tank is a version of the Sabra Mark 2 tank upgrade by the Israeli Military Inudstries (IMI) developed for the Turkish Army. It is based on the Sabra upgrade for the M60 main battle tank (MBT). The Sabra add upgrade includes additional special armor (composite and/or reactive armor), a 120 milimetre smoothbore gun, the Knight fire control system (FCS) and upgrades to the engine aswell as the transmission. 

In case of the Sabra Mark 2 on which the M60T is based, the M60's AVDS-1790 engine and Allison transmission are replaced with the MT881 engine and Renk R304S transmission from the German companies MTU and Renk. The armor solution has been described as hybrid armor, which might suggest a type of ERA in combination with passive armor. However also the combination of non-explosive reactive armor types (NERA, NxRA) with passive armor has been described as hybrid armor.

Damaged M60T tank after the impact of a Kornet ATGM

Following the release of the photograph of the damaged tank, a lot of different claims and opinions on the matter of the effectiveness of tanks, the M60T's armor, ATGMs and the Kornet have been made. While some of these claims and opinions are based on a careful evaluation of the available information and on a reasonable thought process, it appears that a lot of people have abused the incident for preaching their own beliefs — "tanks are dead", "Turkish M60 tank is better armored than Russian T-90", "missiles cannot penetrate ERA/modern armor".

So, what should one learn from the incident? Is the M60T Sabra tank able to survive a Kornet ATGM under all circumstances? Can it survive a Kornet ATGM at least frontally? Or can any old, last generation tank be upgraded with a lightweight armor package to survive an impact from the Kornet ATGM? Is the Kornet weaker than other ATGMs? 

First of all, let's take a few looks at the M60T/Sabra and the Kornet ATGM. The M60T is based on the M60 tank from the 1960s. It uses the original turret and chassis, but has additional hybrid armor laid over the steel construction. How much armor? An approximation for this answer can be found by looking at the vehicle weight: The M60T has supposedly a weight of 59 metric tons - that is between 7 and 8 metric tons heavier than the original M60 model on which it is based. The weight increase is however not only the result of the new armor modules, but is also related to the 120 mm smoohtbore gun, the heavier powerpack and new fire control system components. Just for the reference, the weight of the composite armor modules of the original Leopard 2 turret only (from 1979) supposedly is 8 metric tons, while the turret is considerably smaller! Yes, the original Leopard 2 uses older armor, but instead of just replacing the old armor modules during future upgrades, additional armor was installed, increasing the turret weight by about 5 metric tons.

The Kornet ATGM is meant to combat modern main battle tanks from the front - it's 152 mm calibre tandem warhead is much more capable than the RPG-29 with 105 mm calibre warhead with precursor charge. According to Russian sources the Kornet ATGM can depending on version penetrate between 1,000 and 1,300 mm of steel armor, which given the missile's calibre and the penetration power of modern shaped charge warheads seems plausible.

Above is a screen-capture from the video, which supposedly shows the same M60T being hit by the Kornet ATGM. While it cannot be said for sure that this is the same tank, sources like Jane's have claimed that the only reason for releasing the photograph of the damaged tank was to counter the terrorists' propaganda, which claimed that the M60T was destroyed by the Kornet missile.

The screenshot from the video shows a number of interesting facts. Most importantly here is however the location and the angle of the impact. By comparing the position of the gun (marked in blue) to the path of the missile (marked in red), we can see that the missile approached from the left side (from the tank's perspective) and impacted on the righthand side of the turret frontal armor.

This means that the missile passed the gun barrel and impact on the frontal armor below the gunner's sight at an angle, which made it impossible to hit the base turret behind the armor. The missile's impact path was facing away from the turret. The large module of spaced hybrid armor was probably the only reason why the missile detonated, otherwise it most likely would have missed given the extremely sleek turret cheeks of the M60 tank!

Did the M60T survive a Kornet missile? Yes. Would the missile have hit the tank, if it wasn't for the additional armor module? Most likely not. If the missile had more penetration power, could it have penetrated the M60T's turret and killed the crew? Based on the angle from the video footage, no.

Upgraded Abrams to feautre XM360 gun and guided ammunition?

In the document "The US Army - COMBAT VEHICLE MODERNIZATION STRATEGY" published by the Army Capabilities Integration Center of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in 2015, there is an interesting passage about the future of the M1 Abrams tank:

"Next-Generation Large Caliber Cannon Technology. The XM360 next-generation 120mm tank cannon integrated with the AAHS will provide the M1 Abrams a capability to fire the next generation of high-energy and smart-tank ammunition at beyond line-of-sight (LOS) ranges. The XM360 could also incorporate remote control operation technologies to allow its integration on autonomous vehicles and vehicles with reduced crew size. For lighter weight vehicles, recoil limitations are overcome by incorporating the larger caliber rarefaction wave gun technology while providing guided, stabilized LOS, course-corrected LOS, and beyond LOS accuracy"

The 120 mm XM360 tank gun was originally designed for the XM1202 Mounted Combat System tank component of the canceled Future Combat Systems (FCS) program of the US Army. It retains the original dimensions of the M256 smoothbore gun (aside from being fitted with a muzzle break to reduce the recoil impulse/force) and is ballistically equivalent to the M256 gun when firing the same ammunition. Due to having an increased pressure limit the XM360 gun can however utilize more powerful KE ammunition. An ammunition data link (ADL) allows the usage of programmable ammunition or more accurate firing (i.e. when the propellant temperature can be taken into consideration by the fire control system). Parts of the barrel and many other components are made of composite materials, which reduces the weight compared to a conventional design. The XM360 is 2100 pounds (952.5 kilograms) lighter than a M256.

XM360 prototype on a mock-up XM1202 hull during Army trials

The XM360E1 is a version of the XM360 specifically designed for the M1 Abrams. Some components of the former M256 gun like the rotor are reused to reduce cost and increase commonality to older M1A2 tanks. It seems very likely that the XM360E1 is actually meant, when the article from TRADOC speaks about the XM360 gun for the M1 Abrams. From the renderings of the XM360 and XM360E1 posted above, the XM360E1 appears to have a slightly longer barrel. However this is no secured information and no official data on the XM360E1 has been published yet. The fact that the XM360E1 looks longer might be result of the perspective or the claims that the XM360 has the same length as M256's are including the muzzle break in the XM360's length, albeit drawings implying otherwise. The XM360E1 might have a barrel length of 46 to 48 calibre then.

The second part of the quote is implying that the US Army has yet to loose interest in developing guided tank ammunition. This means that the Army has either reactivated a formerly canceled development program like the XM943 STAFF or the XM1111 Mid Range Munition (MRM), or the US Army has started a new development program for long range/beyond-LOS guided tank ammunition.

While upgunning the M1 Abrams is certainly a move in the right direction - the Leclerc with it's GIAT CN-120-26 and the Leopard 2A6 with it's Rh 120 L/55 tank gun have already introduced longer barreled tank guns designed to sustain higher operating pressures more than a decade ago - the question remains if the XM360 is enough for the future. The German company Rheinmetall is currently working on an improved 120 mm smoothbore and a new 130 mm smoothbore gun for the Leopard 2 and the future Franco-German main battle tank (MBT), while the new Russian T-14 MBT is being fitted with either a new 125 mm high-performance gun (2A82) or an 152 mm 2A83 gun. It seems that the US tanks might be lacking in the gun department, despite receiving a new gun in the near future. 
The fact that the XM360E1 gun's barrel is rather short might be related to the oscillation and stabilization issues found on the M1A2, when investigation upgrading the M1A2 tank with the Rheinmetall L/55 (M256E1) gun. From 1998 to 2000 the US tested three modified Rheinmetall L/55 guns (and a further 12 barrels produced under licence by TACOM/Watervliet Arsenal) under the designation M256E1. While the Rheinmetall gun was designed to specifically fit into a modified gun mount of the German Leopard 2 tank, the different gun mount and stabilization systems of the M1A2 Abrams had troubles handling the longer and heavier barrel. This would result in a reduced accuracy and required major modifications (including a completely new stabilization system) to fix, which results in inappropriately higher costs for simply upgunning. The same issues arrived when testing the 120 mm XM294 L55 smoothbore gun prototype on the Abrams between 1996 and 1998.

The IDF's Pereh missile carrier is a lot better suited for launching ATGMs than a conventional tank

As far as the guided ammunition is concerned, one should take into account that this has to fit into the XM360 smoothbore gun and into the ammo racks of an M1A2 tank. This means the maximum missile diameter can be 120 milimetres (mm) and the maximum length of a hypothetical gun-launched missile for the Abrams can not exceed ~990 mm (39 inches). Unfortunately the limitations on the missiles size have a negative impact on the possible effectivness: currently all ATGMs are relying on shaped charge (HEAT) or explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warheads. Modern ATGMs such as the Hellfire, Javelin, PARS 3 LR (TRIGAT), Spike-LR, Kornet, etc. all exceed a diameter of 120 mm, mostly by a rather large amount. The length of long-range high performance ATGMs exceeds 1.5 metres (59 inches). Thus it seems rather unlikely that guided LOS/BLOS ammunition for the M1 Abrams can defeat the frontal armor (in some cases even the side armor) of a current and next-generation tank. Therefore in order to have a high chance at defeating current generation armor, the guided ATGMs have to follow a top-attack design. Even then, a number of current tanks already has enhanced roof protection against top-attack ammunitions (e.g. every Soviet/Russian tank since the 1980s has roof mounted explosive reactive armor). Some variants of the German Leopard 2 aswell as the Israeli Merkava tanks have been fitted with passive roof armor against shaped charges and/or EFPs.

So overall there are good news for the Abrams, but are they good enough?

Photographs from North Korean ATGM tests

A North Korean soldier fires an upgraded Bulsae ATGM

North Korea recently released a number of photographs showing tests of a "new" anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) system or a "new" variant of an ATGM supposedly developed in North Korea.

Based on the available photograph it appears to be a variant of the AT-4 Spigot (9K111 Fagot) missile of the Soviet Union. This missile system is supposedly known as "Bulsae-2" (Korean for "firebird"or "phoenix") missile and entered service in 1973 according to a Korean source.
According to a forum post regarding the Bulsae ATGM, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) yearbook 2005 claims that about 23250 Bulsae ATGMs have been sold by North Korea to Russia between 1976 and 2004.

Bulsae-2 launchers mounted on North Korean Army jeeps

What exactly has been upgraded or newly developed by the North Korean missile engineers for the new missile is unkown. An apparent difference between the original AT-4 Spigot ATGM is the different configuration of the launcher unit. A close-up of the Bulsae-2 ATGM launcher can be seen below.

The Bulsae-2 is also operated by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam brigades in Gaza.

While the optics channel and the launcher plattform seem to be identical with the original Spigot launcher from the Soviet Union, the actual optics have been changed. The 9Sh119 optical sight (the lower sight) seems to be rather unmodified, but above this the guidance system has been altered/replaced. What the idea behind the other two openings on top of the sight is, is not exactly known. It could be an integrated night-vision sight (which due to the lack of thermal imagers in North Korea seems somewhat improbable) or a different guidance method, which is less suspectible to jamming.

Alternatively the upgrades from North Korea are focused on the missile itself, possible are improvments to the warhead and/or the rocket engine in order to boost penetration and/or range.

North Korean tank being hit by Bulsae

Maybe even more interesting than the North Korean using (and possibly upgrading) the old Soviet AT-4 Spigot missile system is the target for their missile tests. The missile was fired at a Chonma-216, a tank which was first revealed to public in 2009 under the name P'okpoong (Pokpung). However it was supposedly revealed by Korean sources that this is a fake designation and was never used. The tank is said to be designated M-2002 by NATO intelligence.

North Korean tank being hit by Bulsae

The Chonma-216 is an improved version of the Chonma-215, fitted with a superior fire control system. Both of these tanks are based on the previous Chonma series, developed from the Soviet T-62 tank, which was assembled in North Korea under licence. The Chonma-216 can also be identified by it's smoke-grenade launchers, of which two banks, each consisting of two smoke grenade dischargers, are mounted on either sidfe of the turret. The Chonma-215 and it's predecessor versions however are fitted with a single bank of four smoke grenade dischargers on each side of the turret.
Unlike the T-62 and the earlier Chonma tanks, the Chonma-215 and Chonma-216 have a lengthened hull with six roadwheels instead of five. This is supposedly due to mounting a larger and more powerful (according to speculations 800 to 1200 hp) engine.

Close-up picture of the Chonma-216 tank after being destroyed supposedly by the new upgraded Bulsae

The photograph above does provide some details about the Chonma-216. The applique armor at the turret front of the Chonma-216 does have a slight wedge-shape and a thickness of  200-300 milimetres. It leaves an area at the right side of the main gun unprotected, which has about half the size of the gun mantlet opening. This is due to the mounting location of the infra red light and the coaxial port.
It has been speculated that the turret applique armor and the hull applique armor are based on the brezhnev brow armor package (aka BDD armor) developed for the T-55AM and T-62M in the early 1980s. This armor consists of a number of thin spaced steel plates located in a steel box filled with plastic/resin (supposedly polyurethane). According to Steven Zaloga this boosted the protection level of the T-55 to the level of the original M1 Abrams model with Chobham armor.
The Chonma-216 has been speculated of being using laminated composite armor for the main turret armor aswell. Sources for the armor technology might have been indigenous research, old Soviet export tanks (such as the T-72M1 with kvartz composite armor) or China. 

The BDD armor consists of spaced steel plates located in a plastic layer.

Based on the welding seams on the turret roof and a quick comparsion with the T-55 - which essentially has the same turret armor layout as the T-62 aka the original Chonma (but with slightly thinner armor) - and the T-72M1, it appears that the Chonma-216 has quite thicker armor than the T-62 - it's armor thickness seems to be more comparable to the T-72M1.

T-55, Chonma-216 and T-72M1 - armor thickness at the gun mount/gun trunnions.

The T-72M1 has a maximum turret armor thickness of about 600 mm, whereas the T-55 has a maximum armor thickness of only 200 mm at the turret front. The Chonma-216 seems to have roughly comparable armor thickness to the T-72M1, but due to the different angle and the different size of the turrets (which is quite hard to judge - the T-72M1 has a very small turret thanks to it's autoloader, on the other hand North Koreans are not very tall on average and the turret size might have been decreased compared to the T-62) this seems to be a very rough approximation only. The Chonma-216 has an additional armor module mounted at the front of the turret however and might thus have slightly thicker frontal armor than the T-72M1. According to the older document "N Korea Military Tactics In A War With US - A Strategy Of Massive Retaliations Against US Attacks" from Han Ho Suk, Director Center for Korean Affairs, claims from North Korea say that a version of the Chonma tank had a maximum armor thickness of 700 mm at the turret front.

The Chonma-216 is the fourth tank in the frontal row. The 215 with the same armor and engine is the third tank.

An interesting aspect is the location of the penetration. The missile did not penetrate the frontal applique armor, but there are two holes possibly caused by the penetration. One hole is located on top of the turret roof, which would mean that it's either an extremely lucky shot (the missile hitting the sloped roof and not bouncing off, while the fuze manages to work) or that the new version of the Bulsae uses a top-attack warhead (EFP or HEAT). Another location for a possible penetration at the turret is what appears to be a hole located just below the coaxial machine gun port - if this was caused by the missile it again would have been a lucky shot.
On the left armor module at the turret front there seem to be traces of the impact of a HE charge, which caused only minor exterior/cosmetic damage.