Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Magachon, based on M60 chassis.

 

Reportedly, it was decided not to put it into service because the Centurion and T-55 were seen as much more suitable for such a conversion. 

Exactly what made the M60 unsuitable, I'm not sure. I am guessing it might be because of the size of the powerpack.

Magashon_002.jpg

Share this post


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

I am guessing it might be because of the size of the powerpack.

The Israeli Centurions at that point used the same power pack as the M60 and M48 (with minor fittings differences), so that's a no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M60 was still considered an upgradable, if obsolescent, tank. The Centurion was considered obsolete and at the end of its service life.  On the other hand, the torsion bar suspension of the M60 was not as well liked as the Horstmann suspension of the Centurion which was seen as easier to repair and more suited to the rough terrain of the Golan. Given this, it was always more likely that the Centurion would be the vehicle likely to be retasked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, N-L-M said:

The Israeli Centurions at that point used the same power pack as the M60 and M48 (with minor fittings differences), so that's a no.

Definitely. Forgot about the upgrade to continental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 7:09 AM, Marsh said:

The M60 was still considered an upgradable, if obsolescent, tank. The Centurion was considered obsolete and at the end of its service life.  On the other hand, the torsion bar suspension of the M60 was not as well liked as the Horstmann suspension of the Centurion which was seen as easier to repair and more suited to the rough terrain of the Golan. Given this, it was always more likely that the Centurion would be the vehicle likely to be retasked.

At the time, M60 vehicles were already being steadily withdrawn from service, one battalion per year.

The IDF apparently had enough vehicles to spare as far back as the 80's to create Pereh AT vehicles.

 

The suspension is also not the main issue, IMO. What supports my opinion is that around the 90's the IDF developed a light tank, similar to what the US Army wanted of the FCS program at some point.

This light tank used torsion bar suspension, designed by the same guy who made the Merkava 3's suspension. 

At no time since the 70's has the IDF changed its reference terrain from the Golan, especially not only a decade after a war with Syria (1982).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zuk,

The Centurion was obsolete and had already begun withdrawal from IDF front line service well before the M60. Hence ready availability of hulls. the M60 was obsolescent, but still upgradable, even though the intention was to replace them with the Merkava as they became available.

 

I thought the Pereh was based upon the M48?

 

I know of the light tank proof of concept vehicle. I don't think the intent was to use it on the Golan. 

Share this post


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

What supports my opinion is that around the 90's the IDF developed a light tank, similar to what the US Army wanted of the FCS program at some point

 

Are there any pictures or concept art of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

It's 120mm. There is a little information inside a book of commemoration for the designer of the suspension system. It's in Hebrew but very interesting nonetheless. I don't have the link to hand, however, I am sure Mighty Zuk does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Marsh said:

a book of commemoration for the designer of the suspension system. It's in Hebrew but very interesting nonetheless

short summary of information about this project (in russian) https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/27287.html has among its sources link to that book https://www.himush.co.il/himush.co.il/originals/ספר יחיעם.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that the light tank also has double pin tracks.  The Merkava is unusual, possibly singular among modern MBTs in that it uses single pin, non-rubber-bushed tracks.  Double pin tracks last longer, but the experience in the Golan Heights was that the volcanic rock there chews up the end connectors too quickly.

Share this post


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

Hi Zuk,

The Centurion was obsolete and had already begun withdrawal from IDF front line service well before the M60. Hence ready availability of hulls. the M60 was obsolescent, but still upgradable, even though the intention was to replace them with the Merkava as they became available.

 

I thought the Pereh was based upon the M48?

 

I know of the light tank proof of concept vehicle. I don't think the intent was to use it on the Golan. 

Yes you're right, the Pereh was based on M48 hulls, not M60.

But for quite a long time the IDF has been looking to convert old vehicles to APCs. Even the Merkava 2 was repurposed, and perhaps the main reason why no more Achzarit HAPCs were made was because there were no more usable tanks to make them from.

The M60 APC conversion, judging by the image quality, came somewhere between two points in time in which the need for converted tanks was quite substantial.

 

Another aspect to consider is the US aid to Israel. Today the aid is used very efficiently. Not one dollar is spent on unnecessary stuff. When it's not used to purchase the most high end aircraft, it's used to produce outsourced parts for indigenous projects like Merkava tanks, Namer APCs, Eitan AFVs, even the new howitzer, as well as the very expensive air defenses like Iron Dome or David's Sling.

 

But in the 90's that was far from the case. Huge chunks of the aid money were used on equipment and weapons that the IDF really had no need for. They just took them so the money won't be completely wasted. A lot of stuff went directly from the port into scrap yards.

 

Surplus M60 hulls could be purchased in the hundreds in just a couple years.

 

The only explanation I see here is some untold engineering obstacle that is not related to the engine and suspension.

6 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Is that a 105 or 120mm gun? 

 

Also, you have peaked my interest; is there a name or more info, preferably in English? 

 

No name. As was said, it was only once mentioned by the deceased Yehiam Harpaz, when he talked in a book about his experiences with torsion bar suspension.

 

3 hours ago, Karamazov said:

Tell me, does the IDF use Magah’s tanks? Or did IDF go completely to the merkava tanks?ÐаÑÑинки по запÑоÑÑ Ð¼Ð°Ð³Ð°Ñ-6 Ð±ÐµÑ Ð³Ð°Ð»Ñ Ð±Ð°ÑаÑ

 

The Magach tanks were officially retired in 2014, and the Pereh was retired in 2017.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract for Trophy systems for the IDF in 2016 was $285 million for ~1,000 systems plus development.

It grew in 2017 to $312 million. 

Date of contract completion remained unchanged - 2027.

This is an approximately 100 systems more, and adds to the production rate quite substantially. 

If the date of contract completion is not delayed, then we're talking about 1,040 systems over 10 years, instead of 950 systems over 11 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. military set an April target for leaving Syria, even without a plan in place to protect Kurds from Turkish attacksWhy idf didnt have the new JLTV and when they have in service the new MRAP from the FMTV and how many trucks the army will have , i wonder if you serve in lebanon you have only zelda and nagmachons and not a light MRAP.

Share this post


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

The U.S. military set an April target for leaving Syria, even without a plan in place to protect Kurds from Turkish attacksWhy idf didnt have the new JLTV and when they have in service the new MRAP from the FMTV and how many trucks the army will have , i wonder if you serve in lebanon you have only zelda and nagmachons and not a light MRAP.

 

1)The JLTV costs quite a lot of money and is still a lower priority for replacement at the moment. First a critical mass of heavy Namer APCs and medium Eitan APCs have to enter service. Only then, when their production and budget are secured, the IDF can start allocating resources to replace the old APCs in support roles. But replacement of the Zelda in combat roles is top priority!

 

2)The FMTV truck is already in service and the IDF so far placed contracts for 200 units, although it also said it intends to purchase a further 'hundreds more' trucks for medium and heavy loads, which includes the HEMTT trucks as well.

 

3)Serving in Lebanon is no longer a thing since 2000. Any maneuvering combat unit going into either Lebanon or Gaza, or any other hostile territory, as part of a military operation, will be going in heavy APCs/IFVs. First go the units equipped with Namers. Then go the units with the 2nd best armor and so on.

 

The units patrolling the border near Lebanon, in areas of high risk, are constantly driving in heavy APCs. Although in any case of war they do not enter Lebanon, or at least are not the first to enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

that video with 3d models and crew in mockup of future vehicle's interior kinda reminds me of FCS adverts from mid-00s,
The main difference is - monitors got bigger.
bx12d38.jpg

The difference is not in the size of monitors, but what they are supposed to feed back to you.

 

Rafael's concept is kinda like Elbit's IronVision, giving you a full hemispheric view of the vehicle's surroundings, but instead of using a helmet, using very large touch screens, which also allows interfacing with mission aid software which is limited on the IronVision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By delfosisyu
      I heard Merkava tanks have  revolving magazine for main gun loading.
      Magazines hold 6 rounds for Merkava I, II,   5 rounds  for Merkava III, 10 rounds for Merkava IV. 
      After emptying the magazine, how is the procedure for filling magazines with stowed rounds?
    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
×
×
  • Create New...