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At the time, M60 vehicles were already being steadily withdrawn from service, one battalion per year.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


×
×
  • Create New...