Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Who told you it's out of service? The Meitar unit, the one responsible for its combat use, was closed, but the missile itself is still in service. I don't know who got it, but the artillery corps still makes use of it.

Meitar has only reserve unit now.

Anything more than that is classifed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Belesarius said:

Classified doesn't mean much here on SH. We have some folks who have really keen noses.


Maybe you can conclude some details out of this article



The David's Sling Brigade was originally created to strike advancing tank formations; Now it is preparing for urban warfare against Israel's asymmetrical enemies.

 JUNE 6, 2016 17:10
3 minute read.
Share on facebook Share on twitter
Hafiz missile launcher, used to fire the Tamuz
The story of the “David’s Sling” Artillery Brigade reflects, in ways few other units do, the radical transformation of Israel’s security environment over the past decades. Today the brigade has the ability to fire a missile through a living-room window.

Originally set up after the 1973 Yom Kippur War to destroy advancing enemy tank formations with antitank missiles, the unit today specializes in precision strikes in urban warfare settings, targeting enemies embedded in Lebanese and Gazan civilian population centers.
Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.
“The brigade is not an ordinary artillery unit,” Col. M., commander of the brigade, told The Jerusalem Post recently.

He noted its special components, including the Meitar and Moran units that fire guided surface-to-surface missiles, often hitting with pinpoint accuracy targets beyond the line of sight. The brigade also includes the Sky Rider Unit – the only one in the IDF’s ground forces that operates its own tactical drones.

“The challenge today is targeting an enemy in an urban setting, with all of the restrictions.

It is about identifying the enemy and striking it and it only, and not hitting noncombatants. We cannot bring down a whole building because of one suspect who is there. We must be very precise,” Col. M said.

Young officers have to know when to order strikes, and also, “when to stop,” Col.

M added, referring to their responsibility for making life and death decisions under intense pressure.

The brigade has become known as the most air forcelike unit in the ground forces, due to its precision fire capabilities and drones.

“Some in the air force jokingly calls us one of their best squadrons,” the commander said. The unit must forge and maintain close ties to the IAF, to ensure its drones do not collide with the IAF’s platforms. The brigade is also responsible for calling in air strikes to assist ground forces during engagements on the battlefield and in maneuvers.

In the 1970s, the unit was dubbed the “judgment day weapon” due to its role in stopping what was then an existential threat – the conquest of Israel by Syrian or Egyptian armored forces.

Now that this threat has vanished, the brigade faces the 21st century threats of Hezbollah and Hamas, and potentially jihadists in Syria.

These groups could attempt to overwhelm Israel’s home front with rocket barrages, and attack the country’s borders with suicide bombers armed with shoulder-fired missiles.

The brigade incorporated the Sky Rider tactical drone Unit in 2011. Today, the drone has become central to all IDF operations, Col. M. said.

“No battalion commanders will go anywhere without it,” he stated. “We deploy drone crews in every sector.

As young as it is, this unit is already highly valued.”

Drone unit soldiers carry the Sky Rider and its mobile command equipment on their backs, meaning they must navigate terrain carrying 50 percent of their body weight.

Today, drone-equipped soldiers can be found on all the country’s borders and in the West Bank, providing overthe- hill reconnaissance assistance to infantry and armored corps.

In 2014, the IDF revealed that Meitar Unit is responsible for firing the Tamuz, known outside of Israel as the Spike. The fourth generation man-portable fire-and-forget anti-tank guided missile and anti-personnel missile, which has a tandem-charged HEAT warhead, is manufactured by the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Most details on the brigade’s missile capabilities remain classified.

The missile units are composed of personnel “who work with their brains, less with their muscles,” Col. M.


He declined to provide additional details, saying only that “They leave no stone unturned to generate new techniques. They are creating the next battle doctrine, and using their [combat] systems in ways that the system designers did not think of.”






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Welcome to the forum @Adraste.

Thank you for your input, first of all.


Thanks for your warm words, you are doing a good job keeping us informed about the latest israeli armor news in this thread. I keep checking your blog from time to time. Kudos!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is purely hypothetical speaking, but I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find a Tamuz launcher on a Eitan or Namer. I also know there exists a Tamuz launcher for the Sand Cat, so that's a possibility.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

This is purely hypothetical speaking, but I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find a Tamuz launcher on a Eitan or Namer. I also know there exists a Tamuz launcher for the Sand Cat, so that's a possibility.

I even posted PR videos and photos of those (Spike NLOS on Plasan SandCats for S.Korea, for example) in General artillery and long range ATGMs thread.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LoooSeR said:

I even posted PR videos and photos of those (Spike NLOS on Plasan SandCats for S.Korea, for example) in General artillery and long range ATGMs thread.


I didn't check that thread before posting here, just saw them. I got Loooser'd.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

This is purely hypothetical speaking, but I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually find a Tamuz launcher on a Eitan or Namer. I also know there exists a Tamuz launcher for the Sand Cat, so that's a possibility.

Namer? Highly unlikely. They didnt even serially produce the Namer's ARV version. 

Thing costs 3 million dollars in the baseline version.


Eitan? Also unlikely. Don't need all that weight for such a light launcher. 


Sandcat? Also unlikely. Ironically, Israel didnt purchase it other than a few for law enforcement.


For now HMMWV and M113 are the options and these should eventually be replaced by a sub 8-ton APC of yet unknown type, which will do many tasks including carrying the Spike NLOS.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2018 at 10:07 PM, Adraste said:

Maybe the shadow of the protuding sensor (?)  is a data-link antenna, the kind of the one on the defunct M60-based Pereh missile carrier. I found its weird the IDF chose to retire the type without bringing a worthy replacement.


They didn't really announce the pereh in the first place

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:


Just to check the round on the far right is an M339 and the second from the right is an M329?


From left to right:

M322, M325, M329, M339.


M329 is the APAM with 5 operation modes, limited service.

M339 is the Hatzav with 3 operation modes, full rate production and Armored Corps' favorite.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fairly common to have a lot of symbolism in exercises for such groups (Hams, PIJ, Hezbollah, IRGC etc). It looks great on the propaganda posters, and gets the kids excited.

Here's a typical Iranian Basij exercise:



Their vismods are much better than Israeli ones. By far. Good craftsmanship they have there, which probably cost them a lot of money. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kal said:


4 axles carrying the weight of a Namera?


Road damage

You got about 63 tons here spread over 16 wheels. It's not bad. Less pressure than what an Eitan would have (if wheel width is the same) which is supposed to be able to drive well on Israel's roads.

These new transporters are also rated for 80 tons, so you can even throw a Gavin in there and still have some spare weight.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

General engineering principle for roads is called the 4th power.  Road damage is approximate to axle loads to the 4th power. So 60 tonne over 4 axles is roughly 5 times more damage than 60 tonne over 6 axles.


The boxer crv also makes me cringe for road damage. 


Maybe israeli roads are tougher than australian roads

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kal said:

The Boxer CRV also makes me cringe for road damage.

You’re definitely right. 

The shear factor is superior with wheels than with tracks. 

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 Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • 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 times 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 the 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 we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian 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 it is offered separately, its 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 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 LostCosmonaut
      Backstory (skip if you don't like alternate history junk)
      The year is 2239. It has been roughly 210 years since the world was engulfed in nuclear war. Following the war, the United States splintered into hundreds of small statelets. While much knowledge was retained in some form (mostly through books and other printed media), the loss of population and destruction of industrial capability set back society immensely.
      Though the Pacific Northwest was less badly hit than other areas, the destruction of Seattle and Portland, coupled with the rupturing of the Cascadia Subduction Zone in 2043, caused society to regress to a mid-19th century technology level. However, in the early 2100s, the Cascade Republic formed, centered near Tacoma. The new nation grew rapidly, expanding to encompass most of Washington and Oregon by 2239. The Cascade Republic now extends from the Klamath River in the south to the Fraser River in the north, and from the Pacific roughly to central Idaho. Over time, the standard of living and industrial development improved (initially through salvaging of surviving equipment, by the late 2100s through new development); the population has grown to about 4.5 million (comparable to 1950 levels), and technology is at about a 1940 level. Automobiles are common, aircraft are less common, but not rare by any means. Computers are nonexistent aside from a few experimental devices; while scientists and engineers are aware of the principles behind microchips and other advanced electronics, the facilities to produce such components simply do not exist. Low rate production of early transistors recently restarted.
      The current armored force of the Cascade Republic consists of three armored brigades. They are presently equipped with domestically produced light tanks, dating to the 2190s. Weighing roughly 12 tons and armed with a 40mm gun, they represented the apex of the Cascade Republic's industrial capabilities at the time. And when they were built, they were sufficient for duties such as pacifying survivalist enclaves in remote areas. However, since that time, the geopolitical situation has complicated significantly. There are two main opponents the Cascade Republic's military could expect to face in the near future.
      The first is California. The state of California was hit particularly hard by the nuclear exchange. However, in 2160, several small polities in the southern part of the state near the ruins of Los Angeles unified. Adopting an ideology not unfamiliar to North Korea, the new state declared itself the successor to the legacy of California, and set about forcibly annexing the rest of the state. It took them less than 50 years to unite the rest of California, and spread into parts of Arizona and northern Mexico. While California's expansion stopped at the Klamath River for now, this is only due to poor supply lines and the desire to engage easier targets. (California's northward advanced did provide the final impetus for the last statelets in south Oregon to unify with the Cascade Republic voluntarily).
      California is heavily industrialized, possessing significant air, naval, and armored capabilities. Their technology level is comparable to the Cascade Republic's, but their superior industrial capabilities and population mean that they can produce larger vehicles in greater quantity than other countries. Intelligence shows they have vehicles weighing up to 50 tons with 3 inches of armor, though most of their tanks are much lighter.

      The expected frontlines for an engagement with the Californian military would be the coastal regions in southern Oregon. Advancing up the coastal roads would allow California to capture the most populated and industrialized regions of the Cascade Republic if they advanced far enough north. Fortunately, the terrain near the border is very difficult and favors the defender;

      (near the Californian border)

      The other opponent is Deseret, a Mormon theocratic state centered in Utah, and encompassing much of Nevada, western Colorado, and southern Idaho. Recently, tension has arisen with the Cascade Republic over two main issues. The first is the poorly defined border in Eastern Oregon / Northern Nevada; the old state boundary is virtually meaningless, and though the area is sparsely populated, it does represent a significant land area, with grazing and water resources. The more recent flashpoint is the Cascade Republic's recent annexation of Arco and the area to the east. Deseret historically regarded Idaho as being within its sphere of influence, and maintained several puppet states in the area (the largest being centered in Idaho Falls). They regard the annexation of a signficant (in terms of land area, not population) portion of Idaho as a major intrusion into their rightful territory. That the Cascade Republic has repaired the rail line leading to the old Naval Reactors Facility, and set up a significant military base there only makes the situation worse.
      Deseret's military is light and heavily focused on mobile operations. Though they are less heavily mechanized than the Cascade Republic's forces, operating mostly armored cars and cavalry, they still represent a significant threat  to supply and communication lines in the open terrain of eastern Oregon / southern Idaho.

      (a butte in the disputed region of Idaho, near Arco)
      As the head of a design team in the Cascade Republic military, you have been requested to design a new tank according to one of two specifications (or both if you so desire):
      Medium / Heavy Tank Weight: No more than 45 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet (3.25 meters) Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 3 in (76mm) LoS thickness Side armor at least 1in (25mm) thick (i.e. resistant to HMG fire) Power/weight ratio of at least 10 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds Light tank Weight: No more than 25 tons Width: No more than 10.8 feet Upper glacis / frontal turret armor of at least 1 in thickness Side armor of at least 3/8 in (10mm) thickness Power/weight ratio of at least 12 hp / ton No more than 6 crew members Primary armament capable of utilizing both anti-armor and high explosive rounds  
      Other relevant information:
      Any tank should be designed to operate against either of the Cascade Republic's likely opponents (California or Deseret) The primary heavy machine gun is the M2, the primary medium machine gun is the M240. Use of one or both of these as coaxial and/or secondary armament is encouraged. The secret archives of the Cascade Republic are available for your use. Sadly, there are no running prewar armored vehicles, the best are some rusted hulks that have long been stripped of usable equipment. (Lima Tank Plant ate a 500 kt ground burst) Both HEAT and APFSDS rounds are in testing. APCR is the primary anti-armor round of the Cascade Republic. Either diesel or gasoline engines are acceptable, the Cascade Republic is friendly with oil producing regions in Canada (OOC: Engines are at about a late 1940s/early 50s tech level) The adaptability of the tank to other variants (such as SPAA, SPG, recovery vehicle, etc.) is preferred but not the primary metric that will be used to decide on a design. Ease of maintenance in the field is highly important. Any designs produced will be compared against the M4 Sherman and M3 Stuart (for medium/heavy and light tank), as these blueprints are readily available, and these tanks are well within the Cascade Republic's manufacturing capabilities.  
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.