Czech Army prefers Puma, searches T-72 replacement and miscellaneous

In August an article on the Czech IFV program was published here. A long period of writing and more recent news from the Czech Republic have made the speculation and information on the possible contenders outdated. The Czech government asked a total of nine contenders to participate in the tender for the BMP-2 replacement. Apparently neither the Šakal IFV or the Wolfdog were considered by the army as proper replacement for the BMP-2s. The following IFVs were seen as possible replacement, which is why the manufacturers were invited to participate in the bidding process for the contract:

1. BAE System's CV90
2. General Dynamics European Land Systems' (GDELS) ASCOD 2
3. The Puma from PSM, a joint venture between KMW and Rheinmetall
4. Rheinmetall's Lynx
5. The PMMC G5 from the German manufacturer FFG
6. Otokar's Tulpar
7. The Kaplan-20 from FNSS (FNSS is a joint-venture by BAE Systems and Nurol Holding)
8. The Namer developed by the Israeli Ordnance Corps
9. Oto-Melara's Dardo

The Italian and Israeli companies did not respond to the Czech request - or at least not until the deadline was over. It must be noted that both the Dardo infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and an IFV variant of the Namer probably would have lost due to their performance characteristics not matching the standards set by the competitors. By current standards, the Dardo has poor armor, lacking firepower - only a 25 mm chaingun plus outdated TOW missiles - and lower mobility than the other options, while the Namer is too heavy and is fitted with an outdated powerpack, that delivers not enough horsepowers while consuming more fuel than more recently developed diesel engines. The fact that air-transportability and the compability with existing infrastructure might be factors for the purchase of a new IFV makes the Namer a very unattractive option.

The Namer was recently showcased with a new unmanned turret

It also should be noted that at the time of the tender request, the latest version of the Namer fitted with an unmanned turret had not been presented. At that time the only available infantry fighting vehicle configuration of the Namer was limited to a few prototype vehicles fitted with the Samson Mk 1 remote weapon station (RWS). This RWS is also used on the Czech Pandur IIs and features a 30 mm Bushmaster II autocannon, a machine gun (MG) and a launcher for two Spike-LR anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Using this RWS instead of a proper unmanned turret has one major drawback: it is essentially unarmored and can in worst case be disabled by machine gun fire, because the ammunition feed system and parts of the electronics are not covered by any sort of armor.

On the first of August the IDF presented a new IFV version of the Namer fitted with an unmanned turret specifically made for the vehicle. This infantry fighting vehicle would have been far better, but probably was still in development at the time of the request. The turret is not an off-the-shelf option from Elbit Systems or Rafael, but incorporates technologies from multiple companies and is designed by the IDF. It features two set of Elbit System's COAPS sights, the Trophy-MV active protection system from Rafael - a lighter variant of the Merkava's APS known as Trophy-2 during the development - and a relatively wide variety of armament, consisting of a 30 mm Bushmaster II chaingun, a coaxial machine gun, a pop-up ATGM launcher and an internally mounted 60 mm mortar.

The G5 PMMC was rejected by the Czech Republic

Based on the technical specifications of the vehicles, the G5 protected mission module carrier (PMMC) was eliminated before the actual testing of the offers started. It's technical characteristics - the low supported maximum weight of only 26.5 metric tons, the small 560 hp engine and the limited protection options - were too much to be compensated by the lower price point. FNSS' Kaplan-20 "new generation" armored fighting vehicle (NG-AFV) suffered from the same issues, but it also came with a big pile of potential political troubles due to the relations between the EU and Turkey being on a historically low level. Based on the latter factor, the Tulpar IFV from Otokar, which based on weight, armament and protection level might have been considered a serious alternative to the offerings from the established manufacturers, was eliminated together with the Kaplan-20 from the Czech tender.

A Puma IFV climbs a slope during the Czech trials

This meant that only four vehicles - the ASCOD 2, the CV9030 (in two variants), the Puma and the Lynx - remain in the competition. These four vehicles were tested during a longer period of time in the Libava military facility in the Czech Republic. The trials lasted a total of six weeks and included firing trials, high speed driving on roads, traveling cross-country, climbing over walls/barriers, crossing ditches, wading through deep bodies of water and other tests. The first set of static and dynamic firing trials was done against targets in a distance of 700 m, 1,200 m and 1,800 m. An exact list of tests has not been published yet. The performance data of the vehicles was gathered before proper requirements were issued by the Czech ministry of defence, which is a rather uncommon approach.

According to Czech sources, the German Puma IFV indirectly won the evaluation of the Czech Army. While at the time of testing no official requirements were released - a suggestion for possible requirements was scheduled too be send by the army to the Czech ministry of defence (MoD) at the end of August - the Puma proved its "technological dominance" as described by a the Czech website Armádní Noviny. What exactly is meant with this statement is not exactly clear, aside of the Puma apparently outperforming the other contenders. As stated by German sources, the Puma IFV managed to hit "by far" the highest number of targets during the firing trials. It seems likely that the superior level of protection of the Puma is also part of this "dominance", but it is possible that the high power-to-weight ratio in combination with the advanced hydropneumatic suspension allowed the Puma to outrun the competition during some of the mobility trials - in tests by the engine manufacturer MTU, the Puma outrun a Leopard 2 tank.

Puma IFV wading through water as part of the trials

Regardless of what the exact reasons for the Puma outperforming the other vehicles were, the Czech MoD has stated interest in buying this infantry fighting vehicle rather than one of the cheaper offerings, according to Czech websites Armádní Noviny and E15.cz. The Puma is the favored solution, but due to its high unit costs a vehicle with rubber band tracks is also considered as option; given that all three other vehicles - ASCOD 2, CV90 and Lynx - were presented with rubber band tracks, it is not clear what other IFV is meant - in theory one could also create a lighter variant of the Puma with rubber band tracks. A first meeeting was held between the German PSM and the Czech state-owned company VOP CZ to discuss details on a possible Puma purchase. VOP CZ had made agreements with all of the four final bidding companies for a possible deal regarding local assembly and production of components. Aside of PSM, the companies KMW, Rheinmetall, Hensoldt Optronics, MTU Friedrichshafen, Jenoptik Advanced Systems and Dynamit Nobel Defence were also taking part in the talks. PSM supposedly already showed technical documents regarding possible non-IFV variants of the Puma suited for the Czech Army.

The Czech  MoD has allocated a budget of up to 50 billions koruna (€1.916 billion) for the purchase of 210 new IFVs and other vehicle variants based on the same chassis with an option to later order a further 100 vehicles. This would be enough to buy 210 Puma IFVs for the cited unit price, about €7 million according to the Czech sources, but only half the bugdet is actually meant to be used on purchasing the new vehicles. The other half of the budget is meant for logistics, infrastrucutre and training, i.e.it is meant for purchasing spare parts and simulators, setting up training facilities and repair plants. This means currently the Puma is too expensive!

Puma production line in Germany

In order to deal with the high unit costs, different possibilities are examined. PSM is offering to set up a full production line in the Czech Republic, which would reduce costs (e.g. the wages in Germany are on average more than 3.5 times as large as the ones of Czech workes) and would create jobs, resulting in people paying more taxes in the Czech Republic and thus indirectly reducing costs further. All Puma IFVs for the Czech Army could be made within the Czech Republic and if desired even some of the components for the German Army vehicles could be manufactured there - currently some of the cables and sensors for the fire supression system are made in this country already.

Alternatively there is an option of getting financial support for the arms purchase thanks to the new EU Defence Fund, which were created in 2017 after first plans were made a year before. This fund has an annual size of up to €5.5 billion and can be used for research and development, aswell as arms acquisition; EU member countries can request support and submit a project, which then might receive additional money from the fund. Based on speculations on Czech-language websites, it seems that this money can only be spent on equipment from European companies - but all four companies (even GDELS in Madird) - have their headquarters in EU countries.

Last but not least, there are suggestions for buying two different vehicles at once: the Puma would then serve as IFV only, while according to E15.cz either the ASCOD 2 or the Lynx would be used for the support vehicle roles, eg. as an armored ambulance vehicle (MedEvac), as a command post vehicle, as a reconnaissance vehicle and as an armored recovery vehicle (ARV). The drawback of this approach would be the added logistics, infrastucture and training necessary for operating two new vehicle types.

3D model of the Puma's turret with MELLS launcher

In theory would be possible to make all vehicles in Germany, because the initial order for the German Army will be finished in 2020, the same year when the production for the new Czech infantry fighting vehicle is planned to start; by 2024 all new Czech IFVs should be finished according to the army's demands. In such a case the German production lines would never be closed and just continue making the hypothetical Czech Puma model, which is expected to feature several modifications compared to the German varaint (such as local radio units, a machine gun already in use with the Czech Army and other minor differences at least).

While the German Army is expected to place an order for a second batch of Puma IFVs, there is currently no projected schedule for this to happen. The German federal audit office has recommended to wait until the vehicles meet all of the original user requirements, of which many still have to be met - such as the integration of the MELLS Spike-LR launcher and TSWA secondary weapon, which has recently been contracted. Until the second batch is finished, the Marder will continue to soldier on in the German Army side-by-side with the Puma. Therefore up to 200 Marder IFVs will be upgraded with a new night vision system for the driver, a third generation ATTICA thermal imager and a variant of the MELLS launcher for the Spike-LR ATGM.

The Lynx in an IFV version in the Libava military facility

Not mentioned by E15.cz as a possible secondary vehicle to serve alongside the Puma is BAE System's CV90 family of vehicles. In a previous post, we mentioned that this vehicle offers less payload in terms of supported weight and internal volume compared to the other options, which might be the reason for not considering the CV90 as platform. Alternatively it might be related to the procurement costs; while originally designed to be cheap and reliable - the key factors that lead to its widespread adoption, the each successive version of the CV90 became more expensive after adding more technology.

A further aspect speaking against the CV90 might be the lower involvment of the local industry. While always looking for local partners, BAE Systems had kept the production of the hull in its own facilities; only the turret and several sub-components can be made by the industry in the user's country. 

The hulls of all exported CV90s were made by BAE Systems

It is worth mentioning that the CV90 is a great vehicle, but its main advantage doesn't seem to be superior performance. The fact that is has been adopted in so many different countries shows the adaptability of the design, the many different versions also show that an evolution of the concept was possible. The CV90 started its success during a time, when all major Western militaries already had designed and adpoted their infantry fighting vehicles a decade before, thus not offering new high-end solutions too compete against the CV90 on the international market. Vehicles purely meant for export, such as the Panzer unter minimalem Aufwand created by Krauss-Maffei in the 1980s, the TH-495 from Thyssen-Henschel, various main battle tanks from Vickers (Vickers Valiant, Vickers Mk 7) and the GIAT (AMX-32 and AMX-40), have a tendency of not being purchased due to potential issues with logistics, training and the availability of spare parts.

Given the military cooperation between some of the user countries of the CV90, the purchase was to some extend an avalanche - one country choosing to adopt the CV90 resulted in the vehicle having an advantage in the next trials.

Swiss CV9030CH infantry fighting vehicles without applique armor

The CV90 was chosen Switzerland after a total of eight vehicles was considered for the Schützenpanzer 2000 program, three of which - the CV9030, the Marder M12 and the Warrior 2000 - were tested during a period of six weeks in the Alpine country. The Marder M12 was an upgrade to the German Marder IFV, based on a refurbished Marder 1A3 chassis fitted with the E4 turret from KUKA.While achieving a high level of protection and featuring an excellent turret, this offer suffered from the old hull not being upgraded otherwise - the relatively primitive protection solution - spaced steel armor - resulted in a weight of 34.1 metric tons - too much for the original powerpack to keep up with the Leopard 2 (a key requirement from the Swiss Army). A Marder M12 with more powerful engine and/or more weight efficient ceramic armor would have been a better option.

CV90, Warrior 2000 and Marder M12 in the Switzerland

The CV90's hull was received with mixed feelings, some aspects were considered positive, while others were seen negatively. The small hull size was considered as advantageous for survivability - a low profile is less likely to be spotted and less likely to be hit. Also the separation of fuel from the crew compartment, not found on the other offers, and the easy to adapt add-on armor was seen as an advantage of the CV9030. This add-on armor consisted of MEXAS (ceramic) composite modules with a thickness of up to 70 mm (depending on location) and could be mounted within a few hours. Last but not least the running gear with seven roadwheel pairs (instead of six) proved to provide better in deep snow.

The small size of the hull however meant that the vehicle was cramped and ergonomics were poor compared to the Marder and Warrior variants.

The turret of the CV9030 was however the worst one offered, resulting in lower than average firepower. The problems were mostly related to ergonomics and the fire control system (FCS), which wasn't fully digitized. The FCS did not include an independent optic for the commander or a proper auxiliary sight, while relying on a single, outdated first generation thermal imager for night vision.

The Warrior 2000 IFV featured a redesigned hull mated with a turret manufactured by Delco

The Warrior 2000 performed best in the Swedish trials. Its turret - delivered by the US company Delco - was the most advanced turret on offer. Not only featuring modern sights for both commander and gunner, it also included advanced software functions such as fully automatic target tracking. The basic structure of hull and turret of the 31 tons heavy vehicle was made of aluminium, resulting in a relatively light weight given its size. Additional spaced armor - possibly simple steel - is bolted ontop of the aluminium construction for an increased level of protection. The Warrior 2000's larger size resulted in the best ergonomics of all tested vehicles.

Being a new vehicle design - based only to a very limited extend on the British Warrior IFV - the Warrior 2000 suffered from some teething issues which negatively affected the reliability of the vehicle. The manufacturer of the most advanced IFV offered to Switzerland - the British company GKN - told the Swiss Army that all these issues could be fixed, but sold its defence subsidiaries to Alvis plc, the same company that owned the CV90-maker Hägglunds and later became part of BAE Systems. Alvis plc had not much motiviation to keep two different product lines for the IFV market, which ultimately resulted in the end of the Warrior 2000.

The Swiss Army opted for the CV9030 because it offered the best price-to-performance ratio, not because it was the most capable vehicle! Unsatisfied with the original CV9030 tested by the military, a number of changes were demanded before purchasing the CV9030CH. The original engine was replaced by a larger 670 hp Scania engine meeting the Euro II emission standard for trucks, while the hull was enlarged: the hull roof at the dismount compartment was raised by 100 mm, while the vehicle was also stretched by 200 mm in order to reduce the issues with ergonomics. The rear doors were replaced by a single rear ramp for easier entry and exiting of the vehicle by the infantry squad. A second-generation thermal imager was installed into the gunner's sight instead of the outdated previous model. The FCS' computer system was exchanged and local equipment (machine guns, radios, smoke grenade launchers) were fitted to the IFV. Only forty armor kits were purchased, leaving the majority of the vehicles unprotected against medium calibre ammunition.

Further changes were planned - such as adopting a separate optic for the commander for hunter-killer capability - but deemed to be too expensive.

In 2002, Germany tested an ímproved variant of the Swiss CV9030CH, which was fitted with a more extensive applique armor kit including a mine protection plate. Germany had halted the development of the next-generation NGP vehicle family due to the recent developments in assymetric warfare and international peace-keeping/peace-making operations. The NGP was too heavy for air-lifting, being designed with a weight ranging from 51 metric tons (in the base configuration) up to 77 metric tons with a full armor kit.

Several options were evaluated, but in the end the CV9030 was rejected, ending up on the last place of all tested vehicles! The German Army considered the poor protection against anti-vehicle mines, the high weight in relation to its protection level and the low growth potential of the chassis to be key factors speaking against buying the CV90. Because none of the vehicles met the German requirements, the Neuer Schützenpanzer project was started, which reused some of the technologies and concepts of the NGP; later it was renamed multiple times - Panther, Igel and finally Puma.

The CV90 offered for the Scout-SV program

Likewise the UK tested a variant of the CV90 for the Scout Specialist Vehicle (Scout-SV) program, which itself was part of the FRES project of the British Army. BAE Systems decided to reduce the overall size of the CV90 for the Scout-SV offer in order to implement a higher level of protection. According to claims from the manufacurer, this variant of the CV90 met the British protection requirements and had a level of mine protection "equivalent to a MBT". The United Kingdom prefered to buy a number of variants of the ASCOD 2 from GDELS, despite BAE Systems being a local company - the  larger size and greater payload of the resulting vehicle being a key factor.

Why this short recapitulation of the times the CV90 was not chosen? Because its widespread adoption makes some people believe that the vehicle is inherently superior to all other options and buying something else must be related to lies and corruption. BAE Systems created a number of presentations - both in the Czech and in the English language - on the development of the CV90, its advantages and why the Czech Army should buy it instead of the other vehicles. These presentations were available in BAE Systems' online resource center, but after they have been posted in multiple forums, BAE Systems added a password protection for these files. They might not have been meant to be available for the public.

According to the documents, the fifth-generation of the CV90 is protected according to STANAG 4569 level 6 (30 mm APFSDS from 500 metres distance) ballistically and has mine protection meeting the STANAG 4569 level 4a/4b standard - a 10 kg TNT charge located under the track or the hull; this is currently the highest standardized level of mine and ballistic protection. Protection against shaped charges such as RPGs, additional roof armor aswell as active protection systems are available, but not fitted to the CV9030CZ in the Czech trials. 

According to the documents from BAE Systems - the manufacturer of the CV90 - the older versions of the vehicle provide ballistic protection equivalent to STANAG 4569 level 5 "plus" or "plus-plus", while the CV90 Mk III is the only older variant with mine protection, reaching the STANAG 4569 level 3a/3b - this is an expected level of mine protection for such a vehicle, it's the same level of mine protection achieved on the Marder 1A5 IFV and believed to be also equivalent to the that of the Bradley with the BUSK. 

While not related to the Czech IFV procurement plans, the problem remains that there is no official, standardized data for the protection levels "level 5+" and "level 5++". All that is confirmed, is that the ballistic protection requirements for STANAG 4569 level 5 are met and exceeded. A further problem is that there are different volumes of STANAG 4569  and the corresponding AEP-55 standard for the testing procedures. The earliest edition of STANAG 4569 required only protectiton against APDS in order to reach the level 5 of ballistic protection and didn't feature a level 6. The later revisions require protection against APFSDS ammo aswell. So what does "level 5+" and "level 5++" mean? Does it relate to a requirement for protection against 25 mm APFSDS ammo, because the updated standard didn't exist back then? Does it relate to a requirement for protecting against 30 mm APDS ammo or APFSDS ammunition? What exact 30 mm calibre would that be -  30 x 165 mm, 30 x 170 mm or 30 x 173 mm APFSDS? What is the range and the impact angle? Is the STANAG 4569 level 6 simply not mentioned, because it didn't exist at the time these vehicles were designed?

STANAG AEP-55 required armor coverage by protection level

One example of a vehicle exceeding STANAG 4569 level 5, but failing too reach the level 6 requirements for ballistic protection is the Austrian Ulan IFV, a version of the ASCOD with MEXAS applique armor. This vehicle is protected against 30 mm APFSDS of unknown type fired from a distance of 1,000 metres along the frontal 30° degree arc - so essentially +15° and -15° from the vehicle's centerline. While in this case the difference in frontal protection might not be very much, the difference in required side armor is much bigger. Modern 30 x 173 mm APFSDS rounds from manufacturers such as Nammo and Rheinmetall can perforate in excess of 110 mm steel armor at 1,000 metres distance, the estimated penetration at 500 metres would be somewhere in the range of 120-130 mm steel armor. A 29 mm steel plate is enough side armor to stop a 30 x 173 mm APFSDS at a range of 1,000 metres and an impact angle of 15° - effective plate thickness will nearly quadruple at this angle. STANAG 4569 level 6 requires however protection against a 30 x 173 mm APFSDS at at a range of 500 metres and an impact angle of up to 30° - therefore one needs at least a ~60-65 mm thick steel plate or more than twice as much side armor to meet the NATO STANAG requirements! In the end both BAE Systems and the Norwegian Army claim that the latest Norwegian model - on which the CV9030CZ is based - features upgraded armor protection over previously existing CV90 variants and has the highest level of protection of the vehicle versions. Photographs of the fifth generation CV90 and previous models show increased armor thickness - at least at certain places.

The T-72M4Cz is due to be replaced by a new tank

The new Czech IFV is to be manufactured in the timeframe from 2020 to 2025 - in this period of time, the Czech military also plans to replace the T-72M4Cz, probably the most capable T-72 upgrade operational within NATO, with a more capable solution in reponse to the latest Russian tank developments. According to Czech-language sources, there are only two real contenders: the Leopard 2 and the Israeli Sabra tank. The M1A2 Abrams, the South-Korean K2 Black Panther and the Japanese Type 10 main battle tank (MBT) are all in production, but too expensive - the Abrams consumes too much fuel and spare parts, while the huge physicial distance to the Asian countries would negatively affect the price of spare parts and training exchanges. The Italian C1 Ariete, British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc tanks are all out-of-production and made in very limited quantities only.

 

New build Leopard 2 tanks are likely too expensive for the Czech Republic

 The Leopard 2 should be considered the favorite option for a new MBT. The tank is in widespread use and a large number of companies - such as KMW, Rheinmetall, RUAG and Turkish Aselsan - are offering different types of vehicle upgrades. The Leopard 2 has access to various types of technology and can be offered with a number of unique advantages over the Sabra and other existing tanks, such as a long-barreled L55 smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall. With three out of the four neighbour countries operating the Leopard 2, adopting the Leopard 2 MBT would be advantageous for logistics.

However there is a big problem with funding the purchase of Leopard 2 tanks; buying completely new tanks is too expensive. But even buying older tanks and upgrading them to a decent configuration - a 1980s Leopard 2A4 will provide no real performance boost over the T-72M4Cz - might be rather costly. Czech sources speculate about using the EU Defence Fund for purchasing the tanks.

Only about a hundred tanks in a decent condition are left on the market, but aside of the Czech Republic, the militaries of Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland are interested in buying them.This could result in a bidding war, driving prices higher. Alternatively it could be possible to lease Leopard 2 tanks from another European country, but the question remains from whom the tanks would be leased. The neighbours Germany and Poland are increasing their tank fleets, thus unlikely to hand over tanks to the Czech Army.

The M60T is based on the Israeli Sabra upgrade

The Israeli industry was expected to offer the modern Merkava 4 tank, but decided - after investigating the Czech requirements and operational environments - too offer only the Sabra tank, supposedly in its latest version. The Sabra tank is an upgrade of the obsolete M60 tank, which has been adopted in Turkey as the M60T. It must be noted that while the Merkava is only operational in Israel, it has been offered to multiple other countries in the past decades, including Switzerland (early variant - either the Merkava 1 or 2) and Sweden (Merkava 3 during the 1990s); Sweden had very good relations with Israel, sharing tank technology in some cases; e.g. a Swedish delegation was insturcted on the modular armor concept of the Merkava 3, but the tank was still rejected for not being competitive compared to the European and US offers.

The Sabra is a cheaper option compared to the Leopard 2, which might provide beneficial. However due to the fact that it is made by Israeli companies, it might not be possible to use EU money from the defence fund for purchasing the tanks. Depending on variant, the Sabra can be better than the Leopard 2 - at least the old 1980s models without extensive upgrades - in terms of firepower and potentially also in regards to armor protection. It is unlikely that the Sabra can compete with more modern Leopard 2 versions in regards to performance in any important category. The upgraded M60 main battle tank is protected by hybrid armor - a combination of explosive reactive armor and passive composite armor - and sometimes also by the Iron Fist hardkill active protection system from Israeli Military Industries (IMI). The gun is replaced with a 120 mm smoothbore gun, while the Knight III fire control system from Elbit Systems allows the vehicle to be used at night, fire on the move and operate in a hunter-killer configuration. The latest version of the Sabra - the Sabra 3 - is supposedly  fitted with armor derived from the armor modules fitted to the latest variants of the the Merkava series.

The choice of the M60 as base for the Sabra upgrade is questionable. On one hand, the M60 tank is widespread and rather cheap - that's good; on the other hand however the M60 is probably one of the worst tanks for upgrading: it is already rather heavy thanks to the use of thick, but weight-inefficient steel armor, and it is one of the tallest main battle tanks, therefore installing applique armor yields less gain in protection. The tank also lacks proper compartmentation, storing the ammo inside the crew compartment without blow-off panels. The mobility of the Sabra tank is worse than that of a Leopard 2 or other modern MBT due to its poor suspension and small 1,000 hp engine, which isn't really enough for a 60 ton tank.

A light tank variant of the ASCOD 2 offered by GDELS

A further option that is being considered by the Czech Army is buying a light/medium tank based on an IFV chassis. The CV90105 and CV90120-T are well known examples of such vehicles, but there also have been different light tank variants of the ASCOD design. The Lynx could be used as a medium tank according to Rheinmetall representatives and as demonstrated by various Marder light/medium tank projects - the Marder medium tank offered to Indonesia is a prime example. Retired US Colonel MacGregor is suggesting a medium tank variant of the Puma (or an equivalent IFV) for his concept of a Reconnaissance Strike Group; he claims that the possibility of creating a Puma armed with 120 mm smoothbore gun was confirmed by the manufacturers.

The big problem is that such a light/medium tank is not a one-to-one role replacement of the T-72M4Cz; none of these vehicles has enough frontal armor to withstand impacts of large calibre APFSDS ammunition or tandem charge ATGM warheads. In so far buying such a vehicle requires changes in the training and doctrine.

Meanwhile news websites have reported more on the Polish IFV project, after various options were showcased at the MSPO 2017. According to Jane's IHS, the basic steel hull of the Borsuk IFV offers ballistic protection according to STANAG 4569 level 2 only - so essentially the same level of armor protection as the old BMP-1, that is meant to be replaced by the Borsuk. When fitted with ceramic or composite armor modules, the hull protection is boosted to level 4 ballistic protection - which is given the weight of about 30 metric tons a rather unimpressive - some 20 tons vehicle reach this level of protection, but the focus on IED/mine protection and amphibious requirements take their toll from the Borsuk's design. The Borsuk and the older Anders IFV both are fitted with hydropneumatic suspensions based on the hydrops from the British company Horstman. 

While being developed following a contract of the Polish Army, it is not decided that the Borsuk will actually enter service, which is why the Anders, the ASCOD 2, CV90 and Lynx are apparently all also offered to the Polish military.

MBT upgrade news

A number of countries has presented or ordered upgrades for main battle tanks (MBTs) in the past months. Unfortunately low activity on this blog has resulted on some of the more recent events not being properly covered. This article is trying to recapitulate a few new developments and news reports that couldn't make it into a full-sized article. While this approach will increase the coverage of "recent" events, the quality of the post might not be up to typical standards. In three countries low-cost upgrades of the T-72 were presented, while three other news a related to the Leopard 2 tank. The Argentine Army is also looking to improve more TAM tanks.

The T-72BME is fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA

The T-72BME is a new upgrade developed by the 140th repair plant of the Belarussian Army, which was first presented at the MILEX 2017 defence exposition. The upgrade is focused on improving the electronics mainly - in Soviet/Russian nomenclature, the original T-72 variants didn't even feature a proper fire control system (just a "ballistic calculator") - but it also includes a few improvments to armor protection and mobility. While called T-72BME, the MBT is apparently not based on the T-72B version, but is rather a T-72A as identifiable by it's turret. The main change in regards to protection is an altered layout for the Kontakt-1 explosive reactive armor (ERA) compared to the old Soviet layout. The T-72B1 originally feature a single ERA row mounted flat to the turret, whereas the T-72BME now uses multiple tiles arranged into a wedge shape - similar to the Kontakt-1 ERA layout on the T-80BV and the T-72AV. The rear section of the turret and the rear section of the hull sides are fitted with slat armor, which should provide protection against older types of RPGs. The slat armor on the turret rear section is used as mounting point for Kontakt-1 ERA.

The turret shape reveals this tank to be an upgraded T-72A

The T-72BME also features a more powerful engine, now providing up to 840 horsepowers output instead of only 780 hp. This is an increase of only 60 horsepower; it is not known if the Belarussian tank designers opted for uprating the existing engine or adopting a new one. There are quite a few different sub-versions of the V-84 that provide 840 horsepowers.

The upgraded MBT from Belarus is fitted with  new LED headlights and a Barret-2082 radio system from the Perth-based Australian manufacturer Barret Communications. The gunner's sight is replaced with the ESSA-72U from the Belarussian manufacturer Peleng. This sight is commonly including a French-designed Thales Catherine-FC thermal imager, providing three different magnification stages - x3, x12 and x24, although the latter is understood to be digital zoom only. The respective fields of view are 9° x 6.75°, 3° x 2.25° and 1.12° x 1.5° (in case of the electronic zoom stage). The original ESSA-72 had no independent dual-axis stabilization, however the improved ESSA-72U might feature it. The thermal imager works at a wavelength of 8 to 12 micrometres; overall the target detection range is claimed to be 8.6 to 11.7 kilometres, however this is not based on NATO-standardized testing.

Different versions of the ESSA sight have also been used on the Indian T-90S tank and the Russian T-90A. It is not known if the T-72BME will be introduced in the Belarussian Army, it seems rather unlikely given that a number of upgraded T-72B3 MBTs was recently handed over by Russia.

The M-84AS1 is a Serbian upgrade of the Yugoslavian M-84

In Serbia an upgraded version of the M-84 main battle tank was demonstrated to the public, although this supposedly won't be adopted by the Serbian Army in the near future. The M-84 is a Yugoslavian version of the T-72 tank that received several local improvments. The new model by Yugoimport has been described as the M-84AS1, a designation that is extremely similar to the M-84AS, an older M-84 upgrade including many Russian-made components of the T-90 tank, including the Shotra electro-optical protection system, Kontakt-5 ERA and a new fire control system. In many aspects the M-84AS is superior to the newer upgrade solution.

The side armor coverage is quite lackluster

While the previous model already had a digital fire control system, the upgrade to the M-84AS1 configuration introduces thermal imagers with the DNNS 2ATK sight and gives the tank commander the ability to override the gunner's input in case of emergency. The commander of the M-84AS1 is responsible for operating the new KIS M84 battlefield management system. A new radio from French manufacturer Thales is replacing the older Yugoslavian-made radios.

As common for most T-72 upgrades, the commander of the M-84AS1 is not provided with a proper turret-independent main optic, but has to rely on his fixed optics, cupola and the sights of the newly added remote weapon station (RWS). The RWS is armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun (HMG) and contains three different optical devices, understood to be a thermal imaging system, a daysight camera and a laser rangefinder.

Like the T-72BME, the new tank upgrade makes use of Kontakt-1 ERA; however a locally improved type is used, which has been claimed to provide a very limited amount of additional protection against kinetic energy projectiles such as APFSDS ammunition. This new ERA covers the frontal aspect of the main battle tank. The rear section of the hull and turret are fitted with slat armor to resist older types of RPGs. Three large panels - probably containing six smaller ERA tiles each - are mounted at the frontal section of each hull flank. However the largest aspect of the hull sides is still only covered by rubber skirts, which are understood to be either a single or two approximately 25 mm thick rubber sheets with an internal steel wire mesh for increased rigidity. At most impact angles this won't be enough to reduce the armor penetration of even the oldest RPG-7 warheads in such a way, that the 80 mm steel plate forming of the M-84 hull sides would be able to stop the residual penetration. Therefore the decision to not extend the slat armor or ERA over the full hull sides appears to be questionable.

The tank is fitted with a radar and laser warning system connected to the smoke grenade launchers in order to work like a simple softkill system. Upon detection the smoke grenades can be used to disguise the tank's position with a multi-spectral smoke screen.

The T-72 Scarab uupgrade focuses on improving frontal protection by adding DYNA ERA

In the Czech Republic defence company Excalibur Army spol. s r.o. has presented a new upgrade solution for the T-72 tank, which has been nicknamed Scarab. The T-72 Scarab is mainly intended for export, although it was supposedly also offered to Czech Army according to Defence-Blog.com. The Scarab is focused on increasing the tank's protection level by adding a new ERA package to the turret and hull front. This is claimed to be a variant of the DYNA reactive armor, that is also used on the T-72M4Cz tank. It's installed in a new, sloped configuration and provides nearly seamless coverage in case of the turret. Some photos show the turret front with an additional layer bolted ontop of the ERA package, creating the illusion of a passive composite armor package being used instead. If the new armor is really based on the DYNA ERA, then it should not only protect against ATGMs and RPGs, but also affect the armor penetration of tandem shaped charge warheads and APFSDS ammunition.

The ERA covers the frontal arc and the some parts of the roof of the turret, aswell as the upper front plate (UFP) of the hull. The rear section of the turret is fitted with slat armor, the hull sides and rear however are not fitted with any type of applique or add-on armor.

The altered optics and the remotedly controlled machine gun

Aside of the new armor package, the T-72 Scarab provides only minor changes to the tank. A new RWS with a 12.7 mm NSVT machine gun is installed ontop of the turret roof, while the old V-46-6 engine is replaced with the 840 horsepower V-84 engine. The new powerpack has a maximum torque of 3,335 Nm when running at 1,350 rotations per minute (rpm). The engine can provide at most 2,100 rpm. The T-72 Scarab is claimed to reach a top-speed of up to 60 kilometres per hour on road and 45 kph in light terrain; this is (together with the unaltered T-72 suspension) not on par with other modern tanks. The fire control system received no major upgrade, but apparently the night vision sight was replaced by a passive system, leading to the removal of the Luna IR searchlight usually located at the side of the main gun. Overall this leads to a combat weight of 45 metric tons.

All these T-72 upgrades seem to have a rather small scope, being either limited by budget or avialable technology. Other tank upgrades developed in Europe and Asia seem to be much more capable. The T-72M4 Cz, currently in service with the Czech Army, might be the most capable T-72 upgrade operational within NATO, being fitted with anti-tandem HEAT ERA (the previously mentioned DYNA), the British Condor CV12 with 1,000 horsepowers output and the Italian TURMS-T fire control system with modern thermal imagers and turret independent optic for the tank commander. Despite some minor issues of the current model, the PT-91 of the Polish Army also seems to have a number of advantages over the T-72 Scarab, T-72BME and the M-84AS1. Both the T-72M4 Cz and the PT-91 are however much older tanks, which were accepted in general service more than a decade ago! A more modern T-72 upgrade like the PT-16 will enhance the tank's capabilities even further. There is not much wrong with the T-72 tank - at least when considering it's age - but poorly made, budget-oriented upgrades won't help much to boost its combat value or its reputation!

Even the Iranian Karrar tank seems to be superior to the three recent European upgrade solutions, despite Iran being a third world country based on various available definitions.

Leopard 2SG with COAPS sight (red arrow)

Singapore has decided to upgrade an unknown quantity of its Leopard 2SG tanks. The Leopard 2SG originally was a standard Leopard 2A4, formerly used by the German Army, fitted with parts of the Evolution armor package from the German company IBD Deisenroth Engineering. This package consists of various types of AMAP (Advanced Modular Armor Protection) composite armor, covering the frontal section, sides, roof and bottom of the tank, while slat armor is protecting the rear part of hull and turret. Singapore is understood to have bought only some parts of the Evolution package, giving the Leopard 2SG a distinctive shape with a flat-walled turret compared to the partially rounded/sloped turret front of tanks like the Leopard 2PL, Leopard 2RI and Rheinmetall's Leopard 2 ADT. At least one Leopard 2SG - maybe only a single prototype at the current point of time - was fitted with the Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight from Elbit Systems.

The COAPS is apparently marketed with a rather aggressive pricing, having being featured in tank upgrades with very limited budget such as the Arjun upgrade and the Argentinian TAM-2C modernization. It is dual-axis stabilized and includes a thermal imager operating at either a mid-wave infrared spectrum, an extended medium-wave spectrum or at a long-wave infrared spectrum - based on the size of the lens opening the Leopard 2SG apparently uses one of the former options - a HD daysight camera and an eyesafe laser rangefinder. The thermal imager is available with a detector resolution of either 640 by 512 or 1,024 by 768. This allows the tank commander to detect targets at ranges up to 10.5 kilometres, recognize them at a distance of up to 4.5 kilometres and identify the target at 2.2 kilometres range or closer. The daysight camera provides slightly better DRI (detect, recognize and identify) ranges of 11.5, 5.1 and 2.3 kilometres respectively. The laser ramgefinder has a range of 7,000 metres.

Leopard 2A5DK: To be upgraded in the near future

Other countries also have decided to upgrade their Leopard 2 tanks. Denmark has contracted Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) for a midlife update of 38 Leopard 2A5DK main battle tanks. Sixteen of the tanks will receive a full upgrade to a Leopard 2A7V-like configuration, including the new 120 mm L55A1 high-pressure smoothbore gun from Rheinmetall, aswell as a mine protection kit. The other 22 MBTs will receive a basic modification package with reduced scope. The midlife update is claimed to improve firepower, protection and mobility at the same time. It will likely include a better armor package (or interfaces require for mounting such) and a new Danish Army communication and battlefield management system. All tanks will be repaired and obsolete or worn components will be replaced. Denmark has chosen KMW as supplier due to the company having exclusive rights to several components used on the Leopard 2A5DK. A contract was made on the 21th December 2016, which had a value (excluding VAT) of €112.6 million.

Norwegian Leopard 2 upgrade plans

Norway is still waiting on a decision regarding the upgrade of the Leopard 2A4NO; the website of the Norwegian defence materiel agency (Forsvarsmateriell) claims that no contract has yet been made, although mentioning that a contract was planned for 2016. It appears that budget cuts have lead to a stalling of the Leopard 2 modernization. Norway also plans to acquire a number of bridge-laying vehicles based on an in-service Leopard 2 solution.

The upgrade is meant to improve the tank's protection while staying within the military loading (weight) class (MLC) 70, i.e. staying at a weight below 63.5 metric tons. This means the tank has to be lighter than the current Leopard 2A7 of  the German Army. The protection is increased using a modular approach and is planned to incorporate modules for enhanced ballistic protection at the frontal arc aswell as a thick applique belly plate for additional mine and IED protection. Foils from a Norwegian presentation include photographs of the Leopard 2A5/2A7 from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Rheinmetall's Advanced Technology Demonstrator (formerly known as Leopard 2 Revolution), aswell as the Leopard 2 Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) from the Swiss company RUAG. These choices are similar to the upgrade options for the Chilean Leopard 2A4 tanks. While the former two Leopard 2 variants have been quite successful - e.g. Rheinmetall is currently delivering upgraded Leopard 2 tanks to Indonesia and Poland - the RUAG-made upgrade has yet to win any contracts. The Leopard 2 MLU makes use of RUAG's armor portfolio featuring the armor types SidePRO-ATR and SidePRO-RPG (the latter on the rear section only) for ballistic protection, while MinePRO and RoofPRO armor enhances the MBT's survivability against artillery submunitions and mine blasts.

Protector Super Lite on a Leopard 2A4 turret

The Norwegian Leopard 2 tanks are meant to retain the shorter barreled 120 mm L/44 smoothbore gun, but firepower will still be enhanced by the use of a digital fire control system (FCS) for ranges up to 5,000 metres, including third generation thermal imagers for improved DRI ranges. Electric turret drives improve the turret's rotational speed, while being less dangerous than a flammable, hydraulic system. A new computer system with data link added to the gun's breech for firing programmable air-burst ammunition (such as the 120 mm DM11 HE-ABM ammunition) is also part of the planned upgrade.

After being upgraded, the Leopard 2 tanks are prepared for the adoption of a remote weapon station (RWS). Most likely a solution from the local manufacturer Kongsberg will be chosen in a future upgrade; a Kongsberg-made Protector Super Lite RWS has been tested on a Leopard 2A4 some time ago in Norway.

The TAM 2IP prototype is fitted with Iron Wall armor from Israel

According to Jane's IHS, the Argentinian Army has finally decided to purchase a larger number of tank and other combat vehicle upgrades. The vehicles scheduled to be upgraded include 400 TAM (Tanque Argentino Mediano) tanks and derived variants (such as the VCTP infantry fighting vehicle and the VCA self-propelled howitzer) aswell as 400 US-made M113 armored personnel carriers (APCs). A further 100 M113 APCs might be purchased by the Argentine Army from the United States inventory; the US Army is replacing the M113 with the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), essentially a turret-less Bradley with enhanced IED protection. The TAM is by modern definition a light tank, although being de facto used as a main battle tank by the Argentine Army. It was developed in the 1970s by the German company Thyssen-Henschel and makes use of a modified Marder infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) hull fitted with a 105 mm gun turret.

The TAM 2C features advanced optics and electronics

Argentina has contracted the three Israeli companies Elbit Systems, Israel Military Industries (IMI) and Tadiran to develop an upgrade for the TAM tank beginning in 2008. Originally it was announced in 2015, that only 74 TAM tanks were to be upgraded to the new standard, costing $111 million USD. Under this program two different prototypes were developed, the TAM 2C focusing on upgraded firepower by adding Elbit System's COAPS sight for the commander, the Thermal Imaging Fire Control System (TIFCS) sight for the gunner and a laser warning receiver on a mast on the turret. An APU and new internal electronics are also part of the TAM 2C.

The other prototype has been designated TAM 2IP and features IMI's Iron Wall composite armor to improve protection against kinetic threats and IEDs. The TAM 2IP upgrade however doesn't include any changes to electronics and optics compared to the original TAM. The weight of the TAM with armor kit is increased to 31 metric tons.

The applique armor gives the TAM turret a wedge-shape

The exact content of the TAM modernization to be purchased by Argentina is not directly known. The most capable solution would be to adopt both the TAM 2C and TAM 2IP upgrades into each vehicle, although this could be too much weight for the existing running gear. Confirmed by Jane's IHS is an upgrade of the tank's ammo suite and electronics, which will enable the TAM to fire Israeli-designed gun-launched anti-tank guided missiles (GLATGM) through it's 105 mm rifled main gun. The LAHAT missile from IMI has a tandem shaped charge warhead against targets protected by ERA and has an effective range of above 5,000 metres; however Jane's mentions an effective range of 3.5 kilometres with the new guided munition made under licence in Argentina. The LAHAT missile has currently been withdrawn from Israeli service, but might be issued to frontline units in case of war.

An interesting fact is the number of 400 TAMs: this suggests that the previously mentioned 74 TAM tanks contracted in 2015 are included in the figures - otherwise it would be hard to explain the number of vehicles. It is known that the production number of TAM tanks and IFVs wasn't very large (and only 20 artillery systems were made), and a they are not in very good condition due to maintenance and repair issues; as Argentinian forum users have discovered on Google Earth image data, at least 19 TAMs have been scrapped or cannibalized for spare parts.

Austria won the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017

Two days ago the Strong Europe Tank Challenge (SETC) 2017 ended. The winning platoon comes from Austria, one of the first time participants. The soldiers of the Austrian Bundesheer deployed the 1980s' Leopard 2A4 main battle tank (MBT), beating last year's winner Germany. In the challenge held from 8th to 11th of May, teams from Austria, France, Germany, Poland, the Ukraine and the United States tried to show their skill in a number of different disciplines. These included offensive actions, defensive actions, target recognition/identification of thirty allied and enemy targets, estimating the range to a target without using the laser rangefinder, accurately reporting targets in a simulated urban area and firing crew weapons (pistols or submachine guns). Also part of the SETC was to recover a tank with simulated damage from an NBC attack, evacuating and treating wounded, calling for fire support by artillery/aircraft and precision driving along a pre-defined track. Crews also had to endure a physical fitness test. In comparison to last year the scoring was changed.

The confirmed rankings are:

1. Austria (Leopard 2A4)
2. Germany (Leopard 2A6)
3. United States (M1A2 SEP v2)

As expected, the top ranks were occupied by the Leopard 2 tanks; last year the three top-scoring teams were all operating the Leopard 2 tank. That the older Leopard 2A4 managed to beat the sixteen years newer Leopard 2A6 gives a lot of reasons to speculate. It shows that the Leopard 2A6 tank (just like the Leclerc and M1A2 MBTs) probably could not make full use of their more advanced optics, as no night operations were tested. The Leopard 2A4 - fitted with only a single, older thermal imager - should perform a lot worse than these tanks. The limited range during firing trials also makes it impossible for the German and French crews to make full use of their longer barreled main guns.

The crews of the four Austrian Leopard 2 tanks with their trophy

However there is also another major factor for the Austrian victory: crew training. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is not meant to be an evaluation of the technical characteristics of a main battle tank, but instead tries to measure how well a platoon from a country can perform with it's own equipment. The Austrian crew won, because they were the best trained crew (or rather: they could make the most use of their training).

Based on a photo from a score sheet, that was taken during the competition, the Austrians managed to perform best in calling for fire, the highest scored part of the competition. The Austrian crew got 696 of 700 possible points, while other teams such as the Germans and the Poles got only 500 and 450 points respectively. The Leopard 2s managed to get the best results in offensive operations, which might be related to the high quality and performance of the Leopard 2's fire control system (FCS) and optics. The platoons manning the Leopard 2A4 and the Leclerc tanks both managed to get the fastest time in the precision driving challenge; both these tanks happen to have the highest power-to-weight ratio of the competing models. This should give some of the tank designers a reason to think, if upgrading the engines shouldn't be a priority for the future, specifically after armor upgrades lead to an increase in combat weight of tanks like the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 by more than seven metric tons.

The score sheet during the competition

According to the US Army's own news report, there were different 12 events/challenges in the SETC 2017, which allowed for a total score of 1,500 possible points. However official data from the Austrian Army (scores during the competition, not all teams have finished the same amount of tasks) and the photo from a score sheet during the competition suggest that there were more than 1,500 possible points.

Unconfirmed rumors from an Ukranian websites suggest that the French team with the Leclerc MBT managed to get the fourth place, while the Ukranian platoon - operating an upgraded version of the T-64BV tank (sometimes described as T-64BM) - got the fifth place. These tanks were fitted with new radios, GPS systems and night vision optics before being send to SETC 2017. Apparently the crews managed to beat other Ukranain soldiers with T-64BM Bulats and T-80BVs in a national competition before being send to Germany. Supposedly the Polish team with the Leopard 2A5 was on the last place, something that has been blamed on poor training; last year the Poles managed to outperform all but the Danish and German crews. Based on the score sheet from during the competition the Polish crews apparently underperformed in the recovery of a damaged vehicle in a CBRN scenario, in precision driving, in calling for fire, in identifying vehicles and in determining the range. Other claims to justify the poor performance of the Polish platoon say that the fire control system of a single Leopard 2A5 broke in such a way, that the crew couldn't repair it. However the Polish press claims, that they managed to get the fourth place, beating the French and the Ukranian squads - it might be possible, that after the challenge a modifier was added to compensate the lack of a single tank.

According to claims from the US website Stripes.com, all scores are rather close to each other.

The trophy and the awards for first, second and third place

In 2017 the US Army had only one single platoon competing in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge; previously two US platoons tried their best to win the trophy. Back then the M1A2 SEP v2 tanks managed to only secure the fifth and sixth place, beating out only the M-84s of the Slovenian platoon. For the second time in a row, the US Army used the most modern of all tanks (the M1A2 SEP v2, which first entered service in 2011), but again failed to beat at least some of the Leopard 2 users with much older hardware. This means that the either the training of the US tank crews is lackluster, or that the M1A2 SEP v2 still requires some work in order to reach the same level of performance as the older German designs. Based on the very few known scores, the US tank platoon did perform slightly worse in offensive actions (gunnery, target spotting) than either German-speaking team, while also being a lot worse in precision driving. Specifically the offensive actions should be among the events, that are most affected by equipment.

The runner-up of the SETC 2016, Denmark, couldn't afford to participate. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is rather expensive, it not only requires sending four tank crews, but also four tanks, to Southern Germany. Denmark instead decided to compete at the Worthington Challenge in Canada and the Nordic Tank Challenge in Scandinavia; both these competitons require only two crews, while tanks can be leased.

Next year Sweden will compete in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, probably with an upgraded version of the Strv 122; there are hopes that the United Kingdom with the Challenger 2 and Canada with the Leopard 2 (2A6 or 2A4M) will also be part of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018.  

Leopard 2: Poland wants more; Germany and Turkey opt for upgrades

According to a news report from Defence24.com, the Polish Army is interested in buying more Leopard 2 main battle tanks (MBTs). Poland originally received 128 Leopard 2A4s for an extremely low price, a decision made in Germany in order to build up better political relationships between the two countries, which previously due to the second World War and previous conflicts had been terrible. A further 119 Leopard 2 tanks (including 105 relatively modern Leopard 2A5s) were ordered in 2013, after Germany (falsely) decided to downsize it's tank force. These second-hand tanks also were extremely cheap, costing only €180 million.

 

The Leopard 2PL is an upgraded Leopard 2A4 with AMAP armor, new optics, electronics and an APU

Given this history, it seems very unlikely that Poland is going to order newly built Leopard 2 tanks, which would cost between €5 and €11 million per vehicle, depending on variant and other parts and services being part of the contract value. Buying new tanks also would delay the introduction into service by some years, however the tanks could be more capable than what currently is possible with upgrading older vehicles - in order to keep upgrades cheap, most Leopard 2A4 users try to limit the weight of a modified version to 60 metric tons (above this limit the torsion bars need to be replaced, which requires some welding on the hull). 

Thus Poland is most likely looking to buy second hand Leopard 2A4 tanks for a much a lower price - before Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, used Leopard 2A4 tanks were sometimes sold for less than one million Euros per tank.

If Poland purchased Leopard 2A4 tanks, these MBTs then should be upgraded to the modern Leopard 2PL standard, which features enhanced surivability, firepower and slightly improved mobility. A thick AMAP composite armor module at the turret front boosts the frontal turret protection to a level comparable to the Leopard 2A7, while optics and modifications to the gun, improved drive system and a computer unit to program the 120 mm DM11 HE-airburst ammunition boost the tank's lethality.

A possible source for these second-hand tanks might be Norway; recent reports suggest that Norway is considering giving up it's small tank force (originally ordered 52 Leopard 2A4s, 46 left operational) in favor of a more mobile infantry-focused doctrine. Small infantry units should take out enemy tanks by using anti-tank guided missiles and other weapons. This is however only one of three options being considered by the Norwegian Army, in the end the tanks might be kept operational.

Finland might also be able to sell slightly less than a hundred Leopard 2A4 tanks, after purchasing 100 ex-Dutch Leopard 2A6 MBTs in 2014. Some of the 139 Leopard 2A4s originally bought by Finland have been relegated to reserve units, while others were converted into bridge layers, support vehicles or cannibalized for spare parts.

A third option for getting Leopard 2A4s at a low price might be Spain. Originally Spain leased 108 Leopard 2A4 tanks from Germany, which later were purchased by the Ejército de Tierra (Spanish Army), after Germany had downsized it's own military significantly and had no need for further tanks. Spain has offered the tanks to the Czech Republic and to Peru; however they were rejected due to being in a bad condition and thus requiring costly factory-level maintenance.

It is currently unknown what buying more Leopard 2 tanks means for the fate of the PT-16 tank developed by the Polish industry. It might result in no PT-16 being bought by the Polish Army, however the current government plans to increase the size of the military dramatically (together with it's budget), which might allow to upgrade some of the older T-72 and PT-91 tanks to the PT-16 configuration.

Leopard 2A5 of the Polish Army

Due to Russia's politics towards Eastern Europe (predominantely annexing Crimea and supporting the rebels in the civil war in Ukraine) being considered an aggression and inacceptable, NATO has increased it's focus on conventional warfare, shifting away from focusing on international peace-keeping, peace-making and anti-terror operations. To react faster and better in case of a Russian aggression, the Polish Army has moved some of it's currently most advanced tanks - the Leopard 2A5 - closer to it's eastern border. The tanks originally belonging to the 34th Armoured Cavalry Brigade located in Zagan (a city close to the German border) have been moved to the 1st Tank Brigade, which is stationed in Wesola, a place close to the country's capital, Warsaw. Likewise the PT-91, an enhanced, local version of the T-72 featuring ERAWA armor and improved electronics, will be used to replace some other tanks in the 1st Tank Brigade. Previously the unit was equipped with obsolete T-72M1 tanks.

The ADS system utilizes pre-warner radars, optronic sensors and box-based countermeasures

Meanwhile ADS Protection GmbH, a German company owned by Rheinmetall Defence and it's partner IBD Deisenroth Engineering, has suggested to the German military to adopt it's Active Defence System (ADS), a box-based active protection system (APS) capable of defeating (depending on exact variant) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) - including top-attack weapons, RPGs, EFPs, aswell as HE(AT) and APFSDS ammunition fired by main battle tanks. A report following an investigation on the system was presented to the German Defence Commitee at the end of March. Due to the commitee working in private, it is not known what the result of this report are. According to an earlier report in a news magazine, the system could enter service in 2018 or 2019, when ordered in 2017. The system manages to exceed the NATO STANAG 4686 requirements for active protection systems (intercepting more than 85% of incoming projectiles for a reduction in penetration capacity by 50%), defeating over 95% of incoming threats during testing.

On the 26th April of 2017, the German parliament finally approved a contract to buy and upgrade 103 Leopard 2A4 tanks, which are currently owned by the German defence industry. Previously the contract was delayed due to disputes between the two companies Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall, which could not agree on how the contract value would be split between them. Most of the tanks will be upgraded to the new Leopard 2A7V configuration, an upgraded variant of the Leopard 2A7, while the other tanks will be converted to support vehicles or repurposed in another way. The Leopard 2A7V will feature a stronger 20 kW auxiliary power unit (APU), enhanced armor protection, superior optics and improved communication systems. It might also feature the improved L/55A1 tank gun, that allows to operate at higher pressures. Together with new ammunition, this is said to improve performance/penetration by 20% compared to the current gun.

Leopard 2's originally produced with old armor package can be identified by the welded ammo hatch (red arrow)

After loosing several Leopard 2A4 tanks in combat against terrorists, Turkey is trying to improve the protection of the tanks. Depending on production batch, the 2A4 version of the tank is either fitted with a first, a second or a third generation armor package. At least some Turkish Leopard 2A4 tanks are most likely fitted with the oldest and weakest armor option, because they belong to the earliest production batches. These can be identified by the ammunition hatch located in the left side wall of the turret; it was closed (by welding steel ontop of it) when the tanks were upgraded to the 2A4 configuration.

According to the Military Technology Magazine, Turkish sources claim that a about 80 MBTs were used in the operation "Euphrates Shield", of which 43 were Leopard 2A4 tanks. Based on available data about 7 to 14 Leopard 2A4 tanks were hit by anti-tank guided missiles, damaging or destroying the tanks. Due to IS propaganda filming the same tank from different angles and pretending that this would be different vehicles, the exact kill number might be inflated.

M60A3 fitted with ERA from Roketsan

Currently 40 Leopard 2A4, 40 M60A3 and 120 M60T MBTs of the Turkish Army are planned to receive an upgrade to improve the protection against ATGMs, after two M60T tanks were already fitted with a remote weapon station (RWS) and laser warners. The M60T is meant to receive an active protection system; given that the Akkor APS is still in development, Turkey plans to buy an existing system. Furthermore the M60A3s and Leopard 2A4s are to be fitted with a new ERA kit from Roketsan (scheduled to be tested on a Leopard 2A4 first), a fire supression system, a close proximity surveillance system and the same upgrades as the two M60Ts received (which are laser warners and a SARP RWS). The upgraded Leopard 2A4 tanks are also meant to receive an APS, just like the M60T Sabra tanks. Which APS will be chosen is unknown, but Rheinmetall has complained about Germany blocking several weapon exports to Turkey; this might include the AMAP armor package used on the Turkish Leopard 2NG upgrade and/or the ADS active protection system.

The Leopard 2 tanks from Germany, Denmark and Poland did enjoy great success in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2016, hosted by the US Army on the Grafenwöhr site located in Germany. This year's competition is scheduled to take place between the 7th and 12th of May. Denmark, Italy and Slovenia won't return after participating last year, however Austria (with Leopard 2A4s), France (with the Leclerc MBT), Romania (with the TR-85M1) and Ukraine (most likely using an upgraded T-64 version) join last year's competitors Germany, Poland and the United States. Let's see how the Leopard 2 can handle the Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2017.