Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

91083447.jpg

 

As we can see, it has everything a turret might need but I caught a few unconventional things, for the better and worse:

 
  • Commander seems to have an MWIR night sight with a recognition range of 5km on the main vision block (FLIR), while the gunner has an EMWIR sight with a somewhat longer range, neither of which however are mentioned specifically on Elbit's site. Their HDTV cameras are also different, probably the gunner also having a longer range, higher quality one.

 

  • There are 2 MATADOR anti-bunker/materiel/personnel short range rockets for up to several hundred meters, primarily for urban warfare scenarios where you may need a little more punch than a 30mm gun can provide. These are, of course, fully interchangeable with Spike LR 2 missiles.

 

  • The Trophy system does not seem to have an autoloading mechanism on this one. We know the IDF required, about a decade ago during trials of the Trophy against the Iron Fist, for both contenders to have 3 interceptors per side, for a total of 6. This meant the autoloader would accommodate either 3 munitions, or 2 with 1 already loaded. It would be quite ridiculous for it to only have 1 charge per side. 

          We do not know yet if this was intentionally left out from this presentation, or a temporary                  design choice. But we can see that the mortar's autoloading mechanism was also omitted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 11:18 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

-snip-

 

EDIT: Party's over folks. Mil censorship got me. Tell my family I love them.

R.I.P

 

Anyways, is it because of the turret picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 10:18 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

-snip-

 

EDIT: Party's over folks. Mil censorship got me. Tell my family I love them.

You will be remembered! R.I.P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pics of the Namera CEV in training, which is the first type of Namer to come with a Trophy APS.

 

This one's personally my favorite:

lahav-5.jpg

 

Spoiler

lahav-2.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&widt

 

Seems the guys got the newest personal gear as well.

lahav-3.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&widt

 

Fun thing they kept the chains. Come to think about it, they might be quite useful against IEDs.

lahav-8.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&widt

 

lahav-7.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&widt

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Some pics of the Namera CEV in training, which is the first type of Namer to come with a Trophy APS.

 

This one's personally my favorite:

lahav-5.jpg

 

The road to Damascus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a Nakpadon, not a Nagmashot, but yes, your principle does apply.

Edited by Marsh
Clumsy fingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Marsh said:

It is a Nakpadon, not a Nagmashot, but yes, your principle does apply.

When it comes to repurposing vehicles, I think the Ofek is the winner. Thanks for posting the Nakpadon shots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Newtonk said:

When it comes to repurposing vehicles, I think the Ofek is the winner. Thanks for posting the Nakpadon shots. 

The Ofek is nowhere nearly as comprehensive of an upgrade as either the Achzarit or the many variations of the Sho't tank. Just replace the turret with some boring superstructure, take out the internals, put some seats in, and done.

 

An Achzarit or any of the Sho't conversions took actual skill to both design and build. These are very complex modifications that entirely repurposed these vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Marsh said:

It is a Nakpadon, not a Nagmashot, but yes, your principle does apply.

Thank you. But what is the difference?

UPD.
Ok, I found this
the difference is not large, i think 
83872-hobbyboss-nagmashot-box.800x600w.j
 dc04c0cfb50c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is their use. Nagmasho't is the baseline version with a decently protected superstructure and slightly improved protection. Basically just a Sho't remade to become an APC.

Spoiler

83872-hobbyboss-nagmashot-box.800x600w.j

 

Nagmachon was later developed with a higher superstructure called 'doghouse' with protective armored glass and 7.62mm machine guns. Few versions were made but this one is the latest one to which all were converted:

Spoiler

nagmachon.jpg

 

Nakpadon took armor protection even further and up-armored the front with composite armor instead of the outdated Blazer ERA, got new and better side armor, lower superstructure and better protection for it as well.

Spoiler

dc04c0cfb50c.jpg

 

A recon version is called Nagmapop:

Spoiler

69fdcfa19b0fa8b37e70e6293609ce0c5b30d400

 

A Combat Engineering Vehicle is called Puma:

Spoiler

1200px-IDF-Puma-by-Zachi-Evenor.jpg

 

And a specialized (also made in very low quantities) transport for the special engineering unit Ya'alom is called Nakpilon:

Spoiler

fbcb317344abea77882e49be3d11e238-jpg.770

 

All these are used in very low quantities, and only where some unit must have heavy armor but doesn't yet have the Namer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, VPZ said:

Screen-_Shot-2017-12-10-at-17.39.58-e152

 

BTW, Nakpilon on Gaza border. I thought it is not used anymore.

Hi VPZ,

The Nakpadon and its derivatives are still very much in use. The Nagmashot has gone, but I do believe the Nagmachon also

remains in service too, or at least held in depots for use.

Cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. 
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire teams of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. 
      Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia disruptive pattern. 
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. 
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that is is offered separately, it’s high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst by no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.  
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Walter_Sobchak
      I realized that we don't actually have a thread about the British Chieftain tank.  
       
      I posted a bunch of Chieftain related stuff on my site today for anyone who is interested.  The items include:
       
      Magazine Articles
       
      1970 article from ARMOR
      1970 article from IDR  - Chieftain-Main Battle tank for the 1970s
      1976 article from IDR - The Combat-Improved Chieftain – First Impressions
      1976 article from IDR - Improved Chieftain for Iran
       
      Government reports
       
      WO 194-495 Assessment of Weapon System in Chieftain
      WO 341-108 Automotive Branch Report on Chieftain Modifications
      DEFE 15-1183 – L11 Brochure 
      WO 194-463 – Demonstration of Chieftain Gun 
       
      WO 194-1323 – Feasibility study on Burlington Chieftain
×