Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Life_In_Black

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

769 profile views
  1. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm There are photos there for the Namer which shows the lower plate and the armored fuel tanks that fill the space between the front section of the lower and part of the upper plate, as well as the wall behind the fuel tanks. Of note is that not only is the armor plates extremely thin all things considered, but the plates have interlocking welds, which is the only time I've seen that done for armored vehicles outside of WWII Germany.
  2. I don't think it's all that thick either, as everything I've seen seems to indicate it's relying on the slope of the armor much more than the thickness of the armor. Like here for instance: That's why I named this thread the way I did, because the Merkava really seems like a further ev olution of the Chieftain, which makes sense given the Merkava's origins. My personal tinfoil hat theory is that the reason the armor is still technically classified is because the armor is really much thinner than they want to let on.
  3. Interesting, my friend left that out about the basalt being used to make the dust stick to the paint. Then again, he probably didn't know all things considered. This explains the look of the paint on most Merkavas.
  4. I was actually told by a former Merkava III commander that they rely on the dust to blend in with the base color and camouflage the tank to its current operating environment, as they don't use camo paint at all.
  5. I can't imagine the Leopards would have been in any better shape. And even then, there were plenty of East German T-55s that could just as easily have been given either the 125mm cannon or the entire T-72 turret, and at least in that case most people would have the logistics to keep the hulls going given how commonplace the T-55 was. I think the biggest argument against it however, is that suppose you need spare parts to keep said tank fleet running. With a Leopard 1 chassis and a T-72 turret, you need parts from two totally different places, thus complicating logistics. Germany may be able to
  6. Because Germany? Near as I can tell, that artist's impression of what the conversion would look like appeared in a military magazine back in the '90s. http://www.track-link.com/gallery/6005/6 I just can't see any benefit to it though, as it not only complicates logistics, but the Leopard 1 was outdated by that point in time anyway and didn't hold up nearly as well as the T-72 has.
  7. Maybe. Like I said, I found mention of it possibly being something for India (which wouldn't surprise me given India's military being a hodgepodge of almost everything), but I also found something on it possibly being a proposal by GIAT in France of upgrading older tanks with T-72 turrets. Hell, I don't even know if it's real or anything. EDIT: Now I've found something about it possibly being for Malaysia. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. EDIT 2: Found slightly more about it possibly being Malaysian, apparently Malaysia trialled the Leopard 1A5 but ended up going with the Polish
  8. Having thought about it earlier, who on earth is such a conversion trying to appeal to? To my knowledge, nobody ever operated both the Leopard 1 and the T-72, and anybody who had access to one of those certainly didn't need the other one. I think this can be chalked up to "Germany" again. EDIT: I found something that it may have been a German project for India back in the '90s, but as to whether that's true or not I haven't a clue either. We do have color now though! Oh, and on a related note, Colli will be happy to know that Romania did indeed develop a stretched T-72 because reason
  • Create New...