Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Marsh said:

 

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

 

As for me, Nagmachon looks ridiculous. Puma and Nakpadon are the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

Instagram

I need a link to the source so I could verify whether it's production-standard or not.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, seems to be an experimental tank as it has no unit markings.

Share this post


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

On the Merkava IV above, what is the tube parallel with the ground, behind the Trophy APS, please? 

It's where the crew will insert a faulty shell, instead of dumping it where an enemy can potentially grab it and sell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a loader’s hatch less tank, put a tube on the loader side to carry a misfired ammo. And the best : the tube cover the turret roof (in case of explosion...) to threaten episcope and the tank commander by ricochet.

 

Why not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Serge said:

So, a loader’s hatch less tank, put a tube on the loader side to carry a misfired ammo. And the best : the tube cover the turret roof (in case of explosion...) to threaten episcope and the tank commander by ricochet.

 

Why not. 

You can't know from this picture if this tank has a loader's hatch or not.

But it is worth noting that currently all Trophy-equipped tanks of the Mark 4 type have a loader's hatch. Most likely only 1 reserve brigade has the original structure of a single commander's hatch.

 

And it's better have a shell over there where it will only do material damage, than leave it somewhere in the field where it can kill someone (either a soldier in combat, or a civilian after combat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serge said:

When I was tank commander I had special grenade to destroy such a thing. Even the tank by itself. 

A special grenade for a special man.

But we don't know the considerations of those who decided to make these.

Maybe they dont think a grenade will do the job well enough. Maybe they dont want crewmen to carry grenades inside a tank. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those two pictures are from this article https://www.idf.il/אתרים/חטיבת-הנחל/האיתן-של-הנחל/ 
which also has a video on Eitan. Some screenshots from this video:
7E5KhGh.jpg jLCSnE5.jpg
zyIgsHS.jpg

vvCKrQN.jpg

X5UIaut.jpg
some changes are noticeable comparing to this:
JLjexsK.jpg

 

parts of the same footage also appeared a month ago in another video, which also has more footage from different angles and from inside the vehicle:

screenshots:
vnTHHOSg.jpg
OXdqPUh.jpg
IUM5EFg.jpg
OQW8bmA.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting ready for Eurosatory. Unfortunately, nothing spectacular this year in the field of AFVs. Only a few lightweight ones in the 1.5 ton to 9 ton categories.

Spoiler

 

 

Also first photo of the MT-30 turret from Elbit, from the inside. I remind that this is the same turret that was on the Terrex 3 for the LAND 400 program.

 

Spoiler

screenshot_2018-06-08-12-16-42-1-png.774

 

screenshot_2018-06-08-12-17-22-png.77495

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nimda posted their brochure in a recent magazine which shows a few interesting details:

 

Screenshot_1.png

 

  1. Eitan uses an Allison SP4800 transmission. You can read about it here.
  2. Also produces complete powerpacks for the T-72 and Indian FRCV program.
  3. Offers the Achzarit APC based on the T-72 (existing Achzarit are redesigned captured T-55).

 

Acquisition updates:

  • 401st brigade prepares to receive new Merkava 4 tanks with improved FCS. Note: The 401st was the first brigade to receive Merkava 4 tanks in 2003, and was also the first to get the Trophy system in 2009.
  • 179th brigade will get new Keshet mortars, probably on the basis of HMMWV instead of M113 but that's not confirmed.
  • Preparations being made to phase out the 105mm gun, as there are only 2 and a half brigades remaining with that gun, and will soon be replaced with Merkava 4 tanks. Replacement may be completed within 7-8 years.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple pictures of the Namer, Puma, and Eitan:

 

Spoiler

Showing the final configuration with a turret quite far in the back, plus some serious amounts of ERA (?) or some kind of NxRA array.

 

Screenshot_1.png

 

Currently used Puma CEV based on Centurion tanks, already in the process of replacement by Namer CEVs.

Screenshot_2.png

 

Namers in the assembly line.

Screenshot_3.png

 

Sitting without the automotives.

Screenshot_4.png

 

Dude just won a life work award.

Screenshot_5.png

 

From the same factory as before.

Screenshot_6.png

 

Screenshot_7.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

Way back at the time of the Magach 6B Gal. However, as with most IDF armour upgrades, this particular one was done by switching over small batches of vehicles. Not all the Magachs converted to the new tracks and several different types of tracks were in service at any one time.

 

cheers

Marsh

Share this post


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

Hi, 

Way back at the time of the Magach 6B Gal. However, as with most IDF armour upgrades, this particular one was done by switching over small batches of vehicles. Not all the Magachs converted to the new tracks and several different types of tracks were in service at any one time.

 

cheers

Marsh

But as I know there were no Magach 7 with 2 pins, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know. I have learnt never to say never, when talking about Israeli tanks!  :)

 

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
×