Life_In_Black

Any pics that show the Merk's lower plate? The upper plate seems meh, but it should be decent for any Syrian AFVs and most insurgent AT weapons. 

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.

That's the Glacis of a Mk.4? Doesn't look all that thick to be honest...nor is it sloped enough to not need to be well-sloped...

 

Corvettes need to bring back the pop ups 

 

Also, the modular turret armor won't hold up if it gets un-angled in any way. I used to think the Merkava was super-heavily armored, if anything it is just "well-armored" but with good methods of containing a penetration. 

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.

yep, looks like an M48 hull to me too.  I guess that makes sense.  If these really do date back thirty years, it would make more sense to use M48 hulls since the M60 was still a front line tank at that point.  The Israelis sure to like to recycle their AFVs in creative ways.  

Yeah, my friend the former Merkava III commander mentioned they were M48 hulls. As you say, the M60 iterations of the Magach would still have been frontline tanks at that point so it does make a lot of sense. Although it gets confusing when talking about the Magach, because the IDF doesn't really distinguish between various marks of the Magach when talking about them, they're all pretty much just called Magach.

I really need to do a montage of pictures showing both the right way and the wrong way to modify Soviet AFVs. Maybe I'll work on that later today or tomorrow.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say those are M48 hulls, not M60 hulls given the way the ERA curves like that on the glascis.

EDIT: Not that they tend to distinguish between the M48 and M60 in referrign to them as the Magach, just thought it was interesting.

 

(Courtesy Tamara K)

Nice Luftwaffe StuG III.

Another vehicle I suppose

 

That's a Chinese Type 89 based mine laying system I believe.

No, the versions used for the M48 were the same as what was put in the M60.  That said, there were several different versions used in the M48 and M60, although the differences are relatively minor.  All version used in either vehicle were 750HP, therefore they were all AVDS-1790-2.  The original version was AVDS-1790-2A.  Later on, they created two new versions of the engine, the AVDS-1790-2C and the AVDS-1790-2D. These are what is known as the "RISE" engines.  They were improved reliability versions basically.  The -2C had a more powerful 650 amp alternator, which was required to run the fire control system of the M60A3.  The -2D had the older 300 amp alternator and was intended as the replacement in older vehicles.  A few years later around 1975, they started having issues with engines suffering from severe dust gutting.  After much arguing with Chrysler and the Goverment, Continental got permission to redesign the air induction system.  To quote my dad, "With Chrysler Defense opposing, our analysis was that they had a shitty air cleaner system."  Continental got permission from the M60 Program manager to redesign the air induction system and rolled out the new "clean air" variants of the engine.  These are designated with an additional "A."  So, the final version of the 750hp engine are AVDS-1790-2CA and AVDS-1790-2DA.  As I understand it, many of these "clean air" engines were not new manufacture but rather upgrades done with kits provided by Teledyne Continental. 

 

To the guys in the field, a RISE engine often meant 650 amp generator.  This is not technically accurate as I understand it, but it was how the soldiers often understood it.  Also, sometimes 650 amp engines got put into older vehicles, not just M60A3.  The extra electrical power proved very popular regardless of the vehicle type.  

Thank you. I'm going to need to look into this further for the Israeli tech tree I'm working on. As we all know, Wargaming loves giving modules different designations for the exact same ting, even better when it's historical.

Historical accuracy, WGNA edition:

 

Seems legit.

As far as I know, pretty much all variants of the Oliphant use some version of the AVDS-1790 diesel engine.  It comes in several different power levels, as it's been upgraded over the years.  The original version, the AVDS-1790-2 series was 750HP.  It came in a few different versions depending on the size of the alternator.  The original version is called the AVDS-1790-2A.  Those that were built specifically for use in the Centurion were called AVDS-1790-2AC.  Later versions also had a "C" added to the end of the name if they were intended for use in a Centurion.  Later on, Teledyne Continental Motors  introduced the AVDS-1790-5 series.  These engines are commonly listed at 900 HP engines, but in reality they are 908HP.  These went into the Merkava I.  Israel wanted more power so TCM was able to provide a slightly better model called the AVDS-1790-6 with 950 HP.  After that came the AVDS-1790-8 series.  This engine has 1050HP.  I suspect this is the 1040hp engine mentioned in the sources you listed for the Oliphant.  The AVDS-1790-8 is still in production to this day for the US Army M88A2 Hercules ARV.  After that, the next version is the AVDS-1790-9.  This engine produces 1200HP and is in the Merkava 3 and the Namer APC.  The model used in the Merkava is specifically designated AVDS-1790-9AR.  While an "R" in a AVDS-1790 designation usually stands for "recovery vehicle", in this instance it stands for "Renk", since the Merkava uses a Renk transmission.  There is also a version that has been prototyped but not put into production called the AVDS-1790-1500.  The 1500 stands for 1500 HP.  So yes, and engine that started out as 750 HP is now capable of twice that amount, 1500hp.  

 

Unfortunately for the AVDS-1790, Israel decided to go with the MTU 883 1500HP diesel for the Merkava IV.  I doubt the 1500HP AVDS 1790 will ever see production.  From a marketing perspective, it's hard to convince customers that an engine that has its roots in the 1950's is as good as the shiny new designs coming from MTU.  Also, the aircooled AVDS-1790 looks so much bigger and bulkier than the German watercooled jobs on paper.  Of course, when you look at the total size of the powerpacks, cooling systems included, the difference is much less.  Also, it's a fairly long engine, too long to be mounted transversely, as is the fashion for some of the newer tanks out there.  

Interesting, and not at all surprising given what I found out looking at the Olifant, and the Israeli tanks too for that matter. Was the version used to upgrade the M48s given a special designation too, like the Centurions?

To Life_in _Black.

 

From the Merkava III onwards, when they received their initial paint job at Tel ha Shomer, basalt blocks were fed in a crusher. Then the finely crushed rock is passed through a hopper. The fine grit is then added to the grey/olive paint sprayed on the tank. The noise is absolutely unbearable. It is a clever, if primitive, method of camouflage. Any environmental dust sticks to the tanks paint job, it is a bastard to clean off in fact. Thus a Merkava operating on the Golan will look a different hue to a Merk in the Negev.

 

In this era of multi-spectral sensors, the IDF need to move on. Hence Fibrotex . . . . .

 

To collimatrix. You are mistaken. what you consider a problem is a non-issue. Frequencies used are not affected. Making the fire control system work well in a dusty environment with a resultant thermal plume was a real problem to solve. Your point simply isn't an issue, sorry.

 

cheers

Marsh

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.

Advocatus Diaboli here; the top speed of a tank can be limited in two ways.  It can be limited by RPM availability or it can be limited by power availability.

 

If you took a stock centurion and plopped a more powerful engine in it, it might not go any faster, because you might be limited by the maximum RPM of the engine and the maximum gearing ratio of the transmission.  The additional power would improve acceleration, but not top speed.

Funnily enough, Daigensui brought up the same thing over in the T110 thread when I first mentioned the Semel's top speed in relation to the Action X. While I don't doubt the British probably couldn't get a much higher top speed out of the Centurion, the fact the Centurion Mk. I gets an unhistorical engine and a corresponding boost to top speed means they could give Centurion Mk. 7/1 a boost to its top speed as well. But really, this deals mainly with Action X and the justification for its top speed using the Olifant, in which case, why can't the Centurion 7/1 get the South African upgrade of an 810hp AV-1790 and an increase in top speed to 50km/h?

EDIT:

Well on WOWS, they Iowa class only goes 30 knots when it was capable of 33, and did more than that in the 80s.  Not sure if you want to cover WOWS here though.

Why not start a thread for it over in Naval Discussion?

So, two days ago on Status Report it was mentioned that the top speed of the Action X Centurion was historical, that it was based on the South African Olifant (no relation to that BabyOlifant fellow from the WoT forums):

 

- The improved 53 km/h of Action X is historical, this speed was achieved during tests in South Africa (Olifant suspension)

Naturally, this made me curious and so I started digging into the history of the Olifant and the upgrades South Africa made to their Centurions.

Project Skokiaan began in 1972, with the goal being to replace the always unreliable 650hp Meteor engine. The replacement was the 810hp V-12 AV-1790 gasoline engine, which had seen service in the early variants of the M48 Patton, which was coupled to a new three speeed automatic transmission. In 1974, Project Semel was undertaken to further improve both the engine and tranmission, and it was under Project Semel that the Centurion reached a power to weight ratio of 16.5 hp/ton and a top speed of 50km/h, up from the 35km/h it got with the 650hp Meteor engine, and effectively doubling the vehicle's range.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Under Project Olifant in 1976, the engine was replaced with a 750hp V-12 AVDS-1790 (used on the M60, and Israeli Centurions and M48s) and possibly a new transmission, which lowered the power to weight ratio to 13.4hp ton, and the top speed down to 45km/h, however the range further increased due to the diesel engine and fuel efficiency. With some other improvements, this became the Olifant Mk. 1

Near as I can tell, it took the Olifant Mk. 1A to finally replace the 20-pdr with the 105mm L7, but it's the Mk. 1B that's interesting. The engine on the Mk. 1B was repalced again with a 900hp engine, but apparently this was later superceded by a V12 950hp engine, possibly an American engine by way of Israel. In addition, the entire suspension was comprehensively rebuilt with individual torsion bars for the roadwheels rather than the outdated Horstmann suspension.

So having researched all of that, I went back and looked at the engines of the Centurion Mk. I and Centurion Mk. 7/1 in-game, of which the elite form of the Centurion Mk. I is the Centurion Mk. III, and the elite form of the Centurion Mk. 7/1 is the Mk. 9. The Centurion 1 starts out with a 600hp Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, upgrades to a 650hp Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, which near as I can tell pretty much all of the Centurions in British service used for the entirety of their service, and finally as an elite engine it gets a 750hp Meteor engine that may or may not have existed, and certainly wasn't mounted on any mark of Centurion even close to a Centurion Mk. III, which with its historical 650hp engine, went a whopping 35km/h. In-game however, the top speed of the Centurion Mk. I is 40km/h,

The Centurion 7/1 on the other hand, starts out with the 650hp Meteor engine, gets the aforementioned (and possibly fictional) 750hp version, and then gets a 950hp Rolls-Royce Griffon engine, that I can only find a single source as to ever being fitted to a Centurion. What's incredible however, is that the top speed of the Centurion 7/1 in-game is still 40km/h, even though the South Africans managed to get 50km/h with the 810hp AV-1790, and 45km/h with the 750hp AVDS-1790 and a lower power to weight ratio.

However, it doesn't end there, as I came across something very interesting along the way. Namely that the Olifant Mk. 2 has a 1040hp diesel engine, also possibly of US origins via Israel. I even found an article from 2005 detailing that BAE had won the contract to upgrade more of the Olifant Mk. IBs to Mk. 2 standard, which includes 1040hp engine. So having found this, I decided to go back and look at the stats for the Action X Centurion on Status Report and something jumped out at me:

 

Engine: 1040 hp

Makes you wonder just what was meant by that statement regarding the Action X and Olifant, huh?

Sources:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9088.235

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9088.240.html

http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/south_african_tanks.html

Anyway, I figured this could be a thread for instances like this, effort posts detailing just what Wargaming got wrong or might be fucking up in some way, either knowingly (as I believe to be the case here with the Action X being given some South African upgrades to make it competitive), or ignorantly, because they couldn't be bothered to do basic research. Hell, maybe I should try sending this into Status Report, get my name in all the papers or some shit.

This picture illustrates why I'm dubious of active protection systems.

 

How well can the threat warning sensors work when the tank is surrounded by dust?

 

If the tank fires, it will throw up a cloud of dust that persists for up to several minutes, depending on conditions.  Even moving throws up a decent amount of dust.

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.

216cm, same as an M48.

 

Edit:  There might have been a test rig with a bigger ring.  The_Chieftain posted this picture a while back:

 

 

But I don't recall exactly what it is.

Huh. I could have sworn the M48, Chieftain, etc, all had an 80inch turret ring, not an 85inch one.

To be fair, the M48 was designed with a gigantic turret ring (same diameter as M103 and chieftain) so it could be upgunned to a 105mm later on.  I think they had the T140 in mind at the time, but ended up going with the (much better) M68/L7.

I thought the M103 had a larger turret ring than the M48 and Chieftain?

 

Seriously, this is great news. Much obliged.

How much free XP do you have saved up now in anticipation?

This reminds me, I wish I could find that picture I had of an Iranian M18 from back in the '50s. I'm fairly certain I saved it somewhere as I remember showing it to Colli on TS once, but I'll be damned if I can find it again.

That definitely started out as the front of an M47 turret with the gun mount and mantlet. Looks like they gave it a smaller turret ring to fit it onto that abomination. I guess Iran doesn't have too many M36 Jacksons left at this point and tried creating their own version of the M36's turret.

Better to spend some time upgrading a T-72 then to drive around in that abomination on tracks

 

I hate the leopard one as much as you guys hate 6.8

 

its a prentious, ugly, stupid design that naziboo's flaunt around becuase they think there so smart for building a tank that isnt 30 tons overweight

 

not to mention the whole cult of the L7 becuase the Isreali's managed to kill some goat farmers driving T-55s like teenagers and you have one of the most sperged over tanks only which upramored variants from other country's have actually used in combat 

Funnily enough, the Israelis initially hated the Centurion and weren't impressed with the 105mm L7. It took Israel Tal himself to correct that by making them learn the ins and outs of the Centurion and the gun.

Here's an idea. What if the T-72s East Germany had weren't in good automotive shape, and the Leopard 1s were? It might be a way to upgrade somewhat antiquated but functional Leopard 1 tanks with a more modern turret.

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 supply such stuff for a short while, but that will run out eventually. By just going with a T-72, you not only simply things to one single country for spare parts, but the sheer number of T-72s around and countries operating them means that acquiring spare parts isn't going to be a problem at all. Plus, cannabalizing other tanks for spare parts is greatly simplified as you know the parts are not only all interchangeable, but that each T-72 turret is going to fit on each T-72 chassis without any modifications. Who knows what was involved to mount the T-72 turret on the Leopard 1 as I don't even know if they had the same size turret ring or if the Leopard has enough internal room for the auto loader to work effectively. Plus as I said, a cheaper alternative would be to use the T-55 chassis, as that thing is available from almost everywhere and while it complicates logistics slightly, at least you'd be able to get parts from one country instead of two.

Interesting digging Life.

 

I too am having difficulty figuring out how grafting a T-72 turret to a Leo 1 hull isn't just watering down the T-72.  CBA to look up engine and suspension figures, but the Leo 1 might have a slight edge there.  But at the cost of making it taller and having no hull armor?  Why?!

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.

They had lots of weird Leo 1 test rigs, like this one with the three-axis stabilization:

 

 

Maybe it's to test... something?

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 PT-91. In a last ditch effort, the Germans tried changing their minds by giving them the best of both worlds. (cue Van Halen). Of course whether this is actually true or internet hearsay, is beyond me. I've found three different stories at this point.

Holy crap, I think that is right.  Look at the engine deck and the angle of the glacis.

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 reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-125