Exel

You are specifically supposed to dry the parts and the barrel with cloth before shooting. Sure, there will always be residue left no matter how much you dry it, but that's quite literally nothing compared to the amount of lubrication required by the AR-15 types. In the field there basically is no need to oil the weapon. Of course you do it if you're able, but you can go without oiling the weapon for days on end and keep shooting and keep shooting.

In the Greek system, reservists of arms like artillery and armour, stay in their arm's reserve for a few years and then get transfered to the infantry. I think I once read that artillerymen get transfered after 4 years. Which means that a conscript who served in artillery at age 19-20, by the time he gets 25 years old he is a reservist rifleman. I wouldn't be surprised if among reservist tank crews the time is even shorter. That's quite strange. You spend a lot of time and money to train up artillery and tank crewmen, and then turn them into infantry several years later? I imagine this is probably because you do not have enough artillery pieces and tanks to need so many crewmen? We have a similar system. We don't have that many tanks so we can replace the crews with new ones quite quickly. Once a sufficient number of new crews have been trained, the old ones are given new assignments in the reserve. For some it may mean transferring into a 2nd line infantry unit, whilst someone who has a degree in engineering will be placed in a pioneer slot somewhere. Officers might get put into staff jobs.

Not sure if the material or construction of the receiver is relevant to it, but one of the great advantages of the original AK design is that it doesn't need lube to cycle. In fact you are supposed to fire it dry and only use oil for cleaning. That's a huge, huge advantage when you use the weapon with poorly trained soldiers or in extreme conditions (think dusty or moist or freezing). If they want to manufacture a gun that will enjoy the original AK's worldwide success, I wouldn't go around changing too much regarding that feature.

What's with the wooden (?) plates on the turret front of the Abrams, btw?

It would require the turret to be slaved to the RWS, which I don't think is done at the moment (although I don't know). Certainly there is no technical reason why it couldn't be done, but I imagine it would require quite a major redesign and rewiring of the FCS and turret controls. I'm also not sure if the optics on the CROWS match those of the CITV (although they could even be better, given they're much newer tech). Technically the Leclerc setup seems much more refined. There's less clutter on the turret roof and thus the commander has a better field of view. It's also simpler in that the commander doesn't have to operate two separate systems for what is basically the same task.

It seems to me that with the CROWS and the loader's gun shield the field of view of the CITV to anywhere but the frontal arc is rather obstructed, is it not?

In our Leos we don't even have a commander's MG. The hatch wouldn't allow a very convenient 360 degree use for it for one, but also it would distract the commander from his primary duties. The loader's hatch has an MG and he's expected to use it when not loading the main armament. It works okay for its purpose, but I would much prefer an RCW setup that could be operated by the loader, commander, or both. As I understand it that's how they've done it in some of the more recent Leopard variants.

Remember these guys live by "Insha'Allah" thinking that hitting a target, or not getting hit themselves, is an act of God. So if they manage to actually get something done it is worth thanking Allah for. Let's hope it stays that way and they wont start picking up marksmanship skills (or rational thinking) en masse. Because then we'd be fucked.

Do they really have some tanks with additional armor and some without even in the same platoon / company?

If they operate like the Soviets used to, it's an extremely hierarchical system where the rank and file are left with very little if any initiative of their own. Everything has to be ordered by officers, literally everything. It's a system that breeds complacency and passivity throughout the organization, which partly explain why Soviet-trained forces have always had such a dismal combat record against Western forces, man for man.

So what? We have the B-52 and they do not. And you are going to do what exactly with those B-52s when the jihadists stage another Madrid, London or 9/11? You can't deter these people by threatening civilians they consider expendable as martyrs. And you can't hit a network of spread out individuals with a B-52.

I love the marketing speech they are doing. Less noise is "more silent operation ability". Useless jargon if I ever saw some.

No experience on Soviet stuff apart from small arms. And the MG turret on MT-LBv, which was... an interesting contraption. I've seen BMP-2s in live fire drills and they can be pretty accurate (not to mention loud and scary as fuck) even with high ROF. The BMP-1 is probably much less so.