Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Marsh

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Marsh

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Blighty. Sadly, no longer in Yorkshire.
  • Interests
    Tanks, wine, women, Celtic folk music and Leeds United. Not necessarily in that order

Recent Profile Visitors

373 profile views
  1. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Hi, I don't understand what you mean by the Merkava 3 was not fitted with additional, heavy applique armour kits in the same manner as the Merkava 2D. A major portion of the Merkava 3 production run were fitted with just such armour modules as the Merkava Siman 3 Daled (Mk. 3D). As well as those produced as new with the modules from the beginning, Merkava 3 Baz models were retro-fitted with the applique modules. Only a minority of the Merkava 3 fleet are left without the additional armour. If you are talking about only hull and side-skirt armour, then that would make more sense. However, there are different styles and weights of side-skirts available, some with better protection than the ones you see routinely fitted. There is also the matter of cost. Only a small portion of the Merkava 2 fleet were up-armoured to the Merkava 2 D Batash standard. Even then, the armour configuration and other changes used for the 2D Batash was not as extensive as the projected Merkava 2 "Tafnookim " which would have been too expensive. I could be mistaken, but I think the Merkava 3 in the bottom photo, was a developmental one used for the Merkava 4 programme, where new systems, armour modules, etc. were experimented with.
  2. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Hi, It was explained to me by people in MANTAK, that the Merkava 1 was rushed into service before it was ready. The Merkava 2, if there would not have been such pressure to introduce the tank into the order of battle, would have been the first model accepted for service. The intent was that by telescoping the evolution of the Merkava and learning from combat lessons, what was in essence a developmental vehicle, could be rapidly modified into a fully fledged MBT.
  3. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    At first glance, this appears, as has already been pointed out by Kylie, the left flank of an Achzarit. If so, then it's forward of the Toga mesh armour. Yet, I am not sure. I do wonder if it is some proof of concept, ballistic test rig, rather than the heavy APC itself. I have seen something similar when the Namer was being developed. There is another thing. I have met Tal a couple of times. He was a physically small man, as am I. The roof of an Achzarit towers well above our hight, yet on this photo it is at head hight. Something odd here. I am looking at the image on a mobile phone not computer, but isn't that hole an exit rather than entry point? Cheers Marsh
  4. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Just looking at a very small screen image, but that does look like a Merkava 3. If so, surprised that the 188th (Barak Brigade?) moved straight from the Shot to a later Merkava model. Cheers Marsh
  5. Marsh

    Movie tanks and terrible Vismods

    Good spot, in the film it appeared so massive, it looked like a Nakpadon!
  6. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Interesting link. Thanks. Would it be OK if I put it in Tanknet? Assuming I can ever get on it again?
  7. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Hi LoooSerR, After the end of the Six Day War, the IDF absorbed into service approximately 150 T-54s and T-55s as Tiran 4 and 5s. A substantial stock of other intact and damaged tanks were kept for spare parts. After the end of the Yom Kippur war, the original intention was to replace losses by introducing two entire, new armoured divisions (Division 440 and Division 880) made up of captured and then upgraded T series tanks. along with captured BTR-50, Topaz APCs and BDRMs. Of the 139 captured T-62s in running order 79 were in excellent condition and introduced into service as an independent brigade of Tiran 6s to be allocated to Division 440. The Tiran 6s kept their 115mm weapons. Although the IDF was impressed by its performance, the original intention was eventually to replace the 115 with the 105 mm gun because of ammunition shortages Initially another 330 Tiran 4s and 5s were absorbed as war booty by the end of 1974. Upgrades were limited to new radios, optics and machine guns. The intent was that all the Tirans would have their gun replaced with the 105 mm , potential power-pack replacement and other profound upgrades as part of Project Samovar. Many hundreds of T-54s and T-55s in various states of repair were held as a store of spare parts. The IDF planned to absorb another 400-500 Tirans by the end of 1976. This was never carried out, and Division 880 was not introduced with ex Soviet equipment, nor was Project Samovar carried out. This was because the US sold sufficient M48s and M60s to rebuild the Armoured corps with Western equipment. If not for this, the Israelis would have been one of the largest users of T54s and T-55s outside of the Warsaw Pact. The irony. The numbers are accurate. A friend of mine "Camera" translated the Hebrew text to English from the second of volume of the History of the Ordnance Corps, written by the military historian Amira Shahar and offered for free download on the site of the Foundation of the Veterans of the Ordnance Corps. The Hebrew name of the volume is ‘The Ordnance Corps as a force multiplier – the history of the Ordnance Corps in the years 1967-1985’:http://himush.co.il/himush.co.il/ori...s1967-1985.pdf. The study is an excellent "warts and all" account pointing out serious shortcomings of the IDF, but also underlining just how important rapid battlefield recovery and vehicle repair was during the 1973 war. cheers Marsh
  8. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Hi Serge, I am well aware that the Namer is a heavy APC. Yet the intent for the Namer was originally for a family of vehicles, including a "Fire Support Variant". How do I know this? I was invited to attend a presentation and discussion of the Namer project, by the then head of Mantak, at the time the first Namer prototype was undergoing its firepower trials. Lack of funds and differences of doctrine withinj the IDF scuppered these plans. I do suspect that only a proportion of Namers will carry the new turret and envisage them acting as a Fire Support Vehicle, albeit, without ATGMs. I do understand that the nature of the enemy has changed, assuming things do not go pear shaped with Egypt or Turkey. As I stated, I do not expect ATGMs to be mounted on the vehicle. Incidentally I do not believe the IDF has "Air Cav" at least not in the way the US invisages it. Cheers Marsh
  9. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Hi Zuk, Normaly I would agree with you. I am not a fan of either IFVs or mounting ATGMs on an infantry carrier. It depends how the vehicle is to be utillised though. If it is going to be used in the same manner as a the Russian BMPT-72 (unlikely) as a tank support vehicle, or as an infantry support vehicle (likely). If the former, then ATGMs would make sense.
  10. Marsh

    Israeli AFVs

    Hi, Apparently it's a 30mm Bushmaster and the vehicle as shown, is the configuration entering service. One important question is will Spike ATGMs be an option? Cheers Marsh
  11. Marsh

    The Merkava, Israel's Chieftain?

    Note the extra storage panniers on the upper hull flanks. Could this be a vehicle to supplant either the Puma and/or the Nagmachon/Nakpadon?
  12. Marsh

    The Merkava, Israel's Chieftain?

    Not a thing! Great find. For some reason, the hull reminds me of something. Can't place it. I wonder if it is a Frankenstein conversion of an existing AFV in IDF service, rather than a new build. The IDF were always opposed to light tanks, which makes this beast all the more interesting.
  13. Marsh

    The Merkava, Israel's Chieftain?

    Nice photo LoooSeR. It really shows the sheer size and bulk of the Namer. My avatar shows me standing in front of one of the first pre-production vehicles and it absolutely dwarves me.( I am short mind! )
  14. Marsh

    Explosive Reactive Armor

    "In 1967 War the most popular pilot language was polish for exmaple." This is frankly laughable. There was practically no movement of Polish Jews to Israel from the 1950s to 1968. The major movement of 13,000 or so Jews who left Poland after the March 1968 political crises and a surge of antisemitism post dated the Six Day war and of the 13,000. Only 28% went to Israel and fewer stayed. (By the way, no one is allowed to serve in the IDF unless there Hebrew is reasonably fluent. You are not allowed to use a different native tongue in combat). The Aliyah of Russian Jews to Israel is an entirely different matter. It was vast and did include a significant number of scientists, engineers and people who had military experience. Even then, it was only in the 1990s that the IDF trusted Russian immigrants to serve in sensitive areas of the military. I am well aware that the Soviet Union developed ERA long before the Israelis. I also freely acknowledge that Soviet developments were actually better designed and more effective than the rather primitive first generation Blazer. However, having been involved in researching the origins of Blazer and having been fortunate to sit and chat with Manfred Held on two occasions, I can assure you, it was not developed by Russian emigres.
  15. Marsh

    Books About Tanks

    Hi, The bonus book offer is US only. I live the other side of the Pond.
×