Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Hi Adraste, 

No UN soldiers there. If you mean the bloke with the blue hat, shirt and grey trousers, based on previous experience, he is probably from MANTAK. 



Edited by Marsh

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can confirm. This is a training area. They need an insider to tell the minister and the field commanders as well as everyone relevant about the new turret, and they need to get it prepped for a large scale mech exercise.


This is not somewhere a UN observer would be. 

Share this post

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






Why are the wheel hubs painted red like clown noses?  Is it not bad enough that an M88 powered by a Continental engine is forced to lift an MTU powerpack, which replaced the Continental AVDS-1790 in the Merkava series?  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Australian interest in things Israeli (BRIG in this case = Brigadier, i.e. 1 star):



Nice find. I forgot to update you guys. In 15-16 this month, i.e a few days from now, there will be a ground warfare exhibition in Israel. Nothing fancy like an arms expo, just a show of concepts, maybe new practical solutions, and some lectures. 

It will probably be less AFV-oriented and far more logistics, EW, and network oriented.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

IDF Reveals Brigade Combat Team Structure

For the first time the IDF is revealing so comprehensively the structure of its BCT's (Brigade Combat Team). This is coming ahead of a Ground Warfare Exhibition and Conference in 15-16.8.18, where the IDF is due to showcase new capabilities and various Israeli defense companies such as Elbit, RAFAEL, IAI, UVision, and subsidiaries, are due to show what they've built to provide these capabilities as well as their own concepts that drive their development efforts.

The following is a direct translation from the IDF's website. Link for reading in Hebrew.

How the IDF's brigades will decide the next war, and what weaponry will affect the results of the future battle? 36th Division and Ground Arm Command are unveiling the "Gideon BCT" - The new combat conception of the IDF, and provide a rare glimpse at the first experimentation of the combined arms.

In the framework of the wide military exercise conducted throughout the course of this week in the Golan Heights, 36th Division forces tried for the first time the new combat conception "Gideon BCT" - the future fighting form of the IDF's maneuvering brigades.
For a long time the GAC (Ground Arm Command) are working hard on developing the new conception that will provide a powerful solution to the enemy the IDF will meet in its next war. It's a "hidden and concealing" enemy, that operates covertly, fights from within urban areas, and utilizes multiple dimensions of combat, such as sub-terranean and cyber warfare.
The Gideon BCT, as explained by the GAC, offers a new structure to the maneuvering brigades of the IDF throughout the course of fighting. Until this day, every combat brigade operated with its own uniqueness and association of arm. For example, the 7th brigade was an armor brigade, and the Golani was an infantry brigade. However now, within the framework of the BCT, in times of war, the brigades will be assembled from infantry, armor, combat engineers, and artillery, that will work side by side.
The new structure should help the IDF in its efforts to conquer new territory and be decisive against the formations of the ever-changing enemy, via fast mechanized maneuver, combination of vast and various firing capabilities, and all that while maintaining common discourse and multi-arm coordination that will reinforce the survivability and lethality of the forces on the field.

So how will the brigades fight the next war?

The new brigades will consist of no less than 6 battalions, among them 3 infantry and armor battalions, an engineering battalion, a recon battalion, and an HQ unit. All these will be specialized battalions.
To them, will join a Fire Battalion Combat Team (BatCT). The Fire BatCT is an artillery battalion that has evolved to acquire independent combat capabilities such as recon, target acquisition, target destruction, and independent maneuver. 
It will do a dual work - Acquire and destroy its own targets, and receive targets to destroy from other maneuvering elements of the BCT.
During the exercise that was conducted last week, the 77th and 82nd battalions of the 7th Armor Brigade, along with the 13th battalion of the Golani Infantry Brigade and the 603rd Combat Engineers battalion, joined forces to test their cooperation and effectiveness of the new structure.
Other than the new brigade structure, the battalions themselves have also undergone quite a few changes. The recon battalion, that up until now was made of one light recon company, one engineering company, and one AT company, will now transform to receive two primary capabilities:
1. Attacking and seizing complex areas deep within enemy territory with powerful and independent raiding companies. 
2. Special purpose companies that will acquire quality intel through reconnaissance, and destroy hostile targets through advanced weaponry.
We are building better acquisition and destruction capabilities from our understanding that we're operating against a sneaky enemy, one that operates in ways that allow him to avoid meeting us in face to face combat.
We are thus more capable to destroy the enemy more quickly and more precisely.
The HQ unit is also a unique addition on the brigade level. Its purpose is to ease the control and operation of the brigade, and ensure the independence of the BCT from the division level or GAC level.

Ground-breaking weaponry

Additionally, during the BCT exercise numerous new systems were tried for the first time.
Those are advanced electronic systems whose purpose are to either locate the enemy and neutralize it, or to defend the forces.
However during the exercise the forces also used brand new and very accurate means of fire activation that will physically aid in capturing territory.
First and foremost, we tried the "Gideon's Shield", capable of defending the combat units from various threats like mortars, rockets, and it can even attack aerial vehicles, thus providing the forces with great advantage over the enemy.
It's a mobile battery that moves together with the forces, and provides a sort of an "Iron Dome" for the maneuvering forces through combined capabilities of firing missiles, lasers, and even EW for interception.
The commander in charge of the battery is the BatCT commander or BCT commander, and he can decide whom he wants to protect and what assets to utilize.
Another element is "Gideon's Grid". It's a sensor system capable of detecting all sorts of targets by laying an entire blanket on a certain grid, that can detect enemy signals. 
(Other sources say the plan is to use 24 aerial vehicles per brigade with various sensors).
Once a target it sighted, or a source of emissions is detected, the system quickly translates the source to accurate coordinates and sends them through the Fire Weaver system.

Additionally, Rafael's Fire Weaver was used. It's a system that can direct all the different firing sources at a certain target, after which it can select what firing source is best suited for the task, and finally give the order to fire.
This system tremendously contributes to the multi-arm cooperation of the BCT's units.

Also, new vehicles were used for the first time as well, such as robotic convoys, i.e unmanned vehicles capable of autonomously provide them with a logistical solution without endangering the drivers.
Namer IFVs with cannons were also used with armor piercing munitions. Installation of the cannon on the Namer turns him from a well protected vehicle capable of safely maneuvering with the forces - to an especially lethal fighting vehicle.


Other sources have also added some valuable information. Walla and Ynet.

In points, what they add:
  • BCT tried a new guided mortar round in the 120mm caliber.
  • Guided artillery shells will enter service soon.
  • Up to 50% of the arsenal will be guided munitions.
  • Every BCT will have its own aerial fleet and small airstrip.
  • The fleet will consist of at least 24 reconnaissance aircraft that will be able to pick up signals.
  • Every BCT will get a far-reaching broadband internet, dubbed the "3 100's". 100Mhz, 100MB, and 100km.
  • Every BCT will have its own air defense battery.
  • Below 300m the BCT's aerial wing will operate freely. Between 1km and 300m the BCT will cooperate with the air force. And above 1km only the air force works.
  • The drones will be operated by an air control unit belonging to each brigade.


There's quite a lot going on here. Both a very serious restructuring, and new capabilities that are also independent of the BCT effort but greatly enhanced by it.
Under the program, a total of 10 BCT's will be formed eventually, if not more. Both active and reserve.
They're not really even brigade-sized anymore, but are closer to being twice the size of a typical brigade, or 50% larger for already large brigades. The largest brigade in the IDF is Kfir with "only" 5 battalions, which still falls short of the 6-battalion BCT.
But let's talk weaponry, shall we?
1) Fire Weaver from RAFAEL. This video explains better than anyone could, what this system does:

My take on it? It's the next generation of BMS and the only thing left to do, to get a very streamlined process of sensor-to-shooter is to give the MBTs the ability to designate targets through the IronVision helmet they'll get with the Barak.
2) Mobile Iron Dome. From my understanding it's multiple systems, one is probably the Iron Dome, and the other is a shorter range laser system suitable for downing drones. None was selected yet as far as the public knows.
RAFAEL have showcased their mobile Iron Dome in 3D models, but nothing real yet.
The model shows a missile launcher with 10 tubes on the back of a MAN truck, and a radar dome above the cabin. This gives half the static Iron Dome's missile capacity (original 20). However a typical Iron Dome battery should have a launching capacity of 40 missiles prior to reloading. 
The mobile Iron Dome is dubbed iDome or I-Dome.
It's a good solution, but leaves much to be desired. First, there is still an urgent need for a 100kW laser system, dubbed Iron Beam, which has been stuck in limbo for the past decade, and this could be the only hint for its future existence (note: 100kW combat lasers were demonstrated recently).
Second, such a setup, of missiles on a truck, although cheap and flexible, require preparation time prior to firing, and are less maneuverable. The coverage issue could be fixed by moving one unit at a time out of 4, but perhaps a more suitable solution would be its placement on an Eitan vehicle.
3) 24 drones with various payloads including SIGINT, flying below 1km, or sometimes below 300 meters, per brigade, is quite a task. 
A very good candidate for this could be Elbit's Hermes 90, although they are talking about having small runways for each brigade, while the Hermes 90 is runway-free. So it could be a new development.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the rioting points have either expanded so much, or the IDF had to relocate most of its riot control and sniper teams, that now tanks on patrols have to do the quick reaction to infiltration attempts.

A smoke grenade does seem like a good response. It's non-lethal but could do some damage if the person persists on staying put. 

Just didn't know how large of a smoke screen a pair of grenade could do...

EDIT: Action starts at 1:50. Better keep the sound muted unless you like the music.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites






If someone hasn't noticed yet, there are differences between first and last variants of turreted Namer. The first one lacks of frontal observation camera, but has smoke grenade launchers on chassis. And the second one has some additional device on commanders sight.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VPZ said:
  Hide contents

No, no, close this tab.


If someone hasn't noticed yet, there are differences between first and last variants of turreted Namer. The first one lacks of frontal observation camera, but has smoke grenade launchers on chassis. And the second one has some additional device on commanders sight.

That's because the first one is an ad-hoc solution while the 2nd is a more complete one, closer to serial standard. No need for smoke grenades on the hull if the turret can carry them. And that driver's camera may just be a new addition that is irrelevant to the turret.


EDIT: To be honest, I'm kind of surprised they went with only 6 smoke grenades there. I thought they'd gone along the lines of ROSY and have something that can throw smoke in all directions, or at least in a more substantial volume.

But I guess they have a different approach to smoke screening, maybe thinking that with APS they don't want to conceal but to use the opportunity to fire back.


The commander's sight and gunner's sight are both Elbit's COAPS (Commander Open Architecture Panoramic Sight), which is funny because Elbit are offering the MGS (Modular Gunner's Sight).

The COAPS, as you can see in the video, has a central stabilization unit, with two optical modules, one on each side. In the video the left side has a thermal optical unit, and the right side has a day-time optical unit with a laser range finder.

It appears on the test turret, they did not use the full optical set, and on the more recent one they have. 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


19 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

EDIT: To be honest, I'm kind of surprised they went with only 6 smoke grenades there. I thought they'd gone along the lines of ROSY and have something that can throw smoke in all directions, or at least in a more substantial volume.

But I guess they have a different approach to smoke screening, maybe thinking that with APS they don't want to conceal but to use the opportunity to fire back.

Look at Merkava, they are only firing in the barrel direction. 


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.