Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway?

 

 

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is, while rednecks like you don't.

 

Quote

Is it wrong?

 

Yes, it's wrong, because this myth is spread by people who know nothing about this tank. I'd rather ask them where did they read about problems with aiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

asshole
while rednecks like you 

You are quickly getting closer to getting out of here, stalker. Переходить на личности тут очень не любят.

 

7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is

   Great, now please show us who/which one of them are spreading those myths in English part of internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

   Great, now please show us who/which one of them are spreading those myths in English part of internet.

 

I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.

Source. Who are those Russian propaganda who spreads those myths in English part of internet? And about forums, you know that idiots exist everywhere?

Share this post


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

Source. Who are those Russian propaganda who spreads those myths in English part of internet?

 

There was an article, that was discussed on russian forums. Maybe it was from topwar. It's hard to remember now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

There was an article, that was discussed on russian forums. Maybe it was from topwar. It's hard to remember now.

   So Russian propaganda spreading those myths on English part of Internet through some military-related Russian language site where random people can post their articles? Great, who here ever heard of topwar? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LoooSeR said:

   So Russian propaganda spreading those myths on English part of Internet through some military-related Russian language site where random people can post their articles? Great, who here ever heard of topwar? 

 

Those Russian, who participate in discussions on English forums. Is it really so hard to understand? 

 

BTW, this article is much older than I thought:

https://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

Those Russian, who participate in discussions on English forums. Is it really so hard to understand? 

 

BTW, this article is much older than I thought:

https://topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivnye-uyazvimosti-osnovnoy-boevoy-mashiny-aoi-merkava-mk4.html

   You understand how dumb this whole thing sounds? Some badly informed Russians that saw a random article on random military-related site in Runet in 2013, posted somewhere in English forums a nuanced myth about Merkava and all this is a part of.... Russian propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   You understand how dumb this whole thing sounds? Some badly informed Russians that saw a random article on random military-related site in Runet in 2013 posted somewhere in English forums anuanced myth about Merkava and all this is a part of.... Russian propaganda?

 

That's how Internet works - reposting. BTW, why a hell should I know where did he read it? Just ask him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, VPZ said:

 

I know that this myth appeared in Russian internet several years ago. This youtuber said nothing new, he just repeated what he had read on some forum, probably AW, or any other military forum popular among Russians.

This mythe is simply a basic of armoured vehicle design you have to take into account. 

When Tal introduced the Mk3 around May 1989, it was a part of the discussion. 

Share this post


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

This mythe is simply a basic of armoured vehicle design you have to take into account. 

When Tal introduced the Mk3 around May 1989, it was a part of the discussion. 

 

Yes. And there are many vehicles with frontal engine. Do all of them have problems with aiming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:
3 hours ago, MRose said:

 

There's been some stuff published on the subject. I'd imagine Hezbollah would be very interested in the conflict in Ukraine, although Russia used a lot of techniques derived from the Israelis.

   That article is garbage. There are far more instanses of Russian military cooperating with Liwa Al-Quds during past few months than with Lebanon Islamic Resistance in 4 years. Liwa Al-Quds didn't suddenly became much better than they were. Hell, PMC training probably did more positive for their training than Russian Army "support" ever did. 5th assault corps was made out of garbage left from Soviet times like T-62Ms and similar crap like tin-can BMPs in ATGM-filled enviroment of Syrian war.

   In short Russian Army showed very little commitment to train or equip troops that we were supporting in Syria.

   On top of that Islamic Resistance had very few operations where both Russian and their side even participated in the same time with 2 of them comming to my mind now - Battle for Aleppo and push to Deir EzZor.

   On top of that i don't know what we can give to Islamic Resistance training wise, as Russian Army ground troops are not exactly super-well trained or more experienced.

   Also, our side showed more will to help to Israeli side in Syria than Iran or Islamic Resistance (airstrikes, story about Russian SFs searching body of dead Israeli, etc).

 

All I'm saying is that Hezbollah is the by far more competent regime troops and the Russians aren't exactly bringing plentiful manpower. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned how to make better use of combined arms operations. Remember the drone that had to be shot down with a patriot missile. Didn't a lot of the guys in Syria, also serve in Ukraine?

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Yes. And there are many vehicles with frontal engine. Do all of them have problems with aiming?

Yes. 

And they have other problems such as :

- complexe cooling (big problem for the SPz-Puma),

- bad field of view for driver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the assertion that hot air would interfere with a thermal sight (hello emissivity) or that distortions in light caused by hot air would interfere with the sights, be they thermal or day?

Share this post


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

Is the assertion that hot air would interfere with a thermal sight (hello emissivity) or that distortions in light caused by hot air would interfere with the sights, be they thermal or day?

Do you asking about the driver field of view ?

Share this post


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

 

All I'm saying is that Hezbollah is the by far more competent regime troops and the Russians aren't exactly bringing plentiful manpower. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned how to make better use of combined arms operations. Remember the drone that had to be shot down with a patriot missile. Didn't a lot of the guys in Syria, also serve in Ukraine?

 

   This discussion should be moved here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

2 has a new powertrain with the Renk RK304 transmission, which necessitated changing the entire engine deck area, exhaust routed into the coolant air exhaust manifold, as well as turret changes like the mortar and special armor slapped on.

The drivetrain of the 2 is closer to that of the 3 than it is to the 1.

This point is interesting. 

So, do you regard Mk-1 and 2 as both different generations of the Merkava program or do you think they are the same generation ? In this case, the Mk-1 is the first batch and the Mk-2 is the first standard generation of Merkava tanks. 

Share this post


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

 

Being high and to one side interfering with a drivers view is a bit intuitive.

The main problem here is the minimum distance you need to see the ground. 

At hight speed on an open ground, it’s not tricky. But, when driving on narrow tracks, it’s better to see the ground very close to the front of the chassis. 

So, when considering the position of the driver, designers try to place the driver as much as the front as possible. 

With the front engine configuration, you have the transmission wich move the driver backward. This is not good. 

To compensate, they are force to raise its position or to work on the slope of the UFP and so, to lower the front protection. 

For exemple, with the Leclerc MBT, we are very satisfied considering this point.

 

An other point to take into account is how easy it’s to use a doser blade.

Share this post


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

I live in Russia, asshole. I do know what Russian propaganda is, while rednecks like you don't.

Hoo boy that's a lot of implied implications in one line. 

One at a time:

-You living in Russia means you have a special sense for Russian propaganda.

-I do not know what Russian propaganda is

-I am a redneck

-Rednecks do not know what Russian propaganda is

 

Despite half of that being flat out wrong, it's mildly amusing that your only response is that you're russian, and not actually anything of content or value.

Also flattery will get you nowhere.

 

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

Yes, it's wrong, because this myth is spread by people who know nothing about this tank. I'd rather ask them where did they read about problems with aiming.

 

And here we have:

-It's wrong

-it's a myth

-the people spreading this claim know nothing about the tank

-the above is the reason for it being wrong

So, ignoring for a moment the whole stopped clock business (idiots saying something right doesn't automatically make it wrong), do you have any basis for your claim that people discussing it know nothing about the tank? Cause you sure seem to have a high opinion of your own knowledge of the vehicle.

 

Also for the record, I do not believe there would be a problem firing within the frontal arc, what with the way the Merk throws the hot air back and to the side. But the hull itself is highly likely to light up for all to see IMO.

 

1 hour ago, VPZ said:

appeared in Russian internet several years ago

I note we jumped from "Russian propaganda" to "Russian media" to "randos on Russian forums".

As an aside, it was an issue raised in Western defense publications at leadt as far back as the Mark 3s introduction if not the Mark 2s. It is a potential issue that many have spotted. IIRC it was also discussed to death on the Steel Beasts forums, for what it's worth.

 

None of this however smells of propaganda, as much as it does of idle speculation. Crying propaganda is not good for your health or credibility.

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

That does appear to be a base for most of the shitty assumptions and numbers in the vid in question, good catch.

 

Share this post


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

So, do you regard Mk-1 and 2 as both different generations of the Merkava program or do you think they are the same generation ?

The 2 is what the 1 always should have been IMO. Based on what @Walter_Sobchakhad to say about it, the reason the Merk 1 had the CD850 was that Allison were being shitters and not cooperating with Continental on newer better transmissions for tanks at the time, and the Izzys had to then go to Renk for assistance.

The Merk 2 also benefits from being a few years later and incorporating some lessons learned from the fielding of the Merk 1 (both field trials and combat), but on the whole the 2 is the M1IP to the Merk 1's M1. (And in this analogy the Merk 3 is the M1A1, the Merk 3 Baz is the M1A1 AIM and the Merk 4 is the M1A2 with the Barak being the M1A2C, but this whole analogy is a bit of a stretch).

Share this post


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

 

If you actually bother to look at how the Merks 1-3 and the AVDS-1790 are put together....

If you actually bothered to read anything, or watch the video, you'd know the debate is specifically about the Mark 4. So right off the bat you've allegedly started a debate with the following:

  1. An insult with no logical addition to the debate.
  2. An offtopic debate.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 The Merk 4 also what looks like layered sponsons around the exhaust grate, which the 3 lacks; so that area too should be better off than it was. These tanks however also have solid steel hulls, which the engine can and does heat up through its mounting points (as you need pretty solid mounting points to hold down a 1000+HP diesel), and the hull extends forwards to the nose (and to the non-modular sponsons on the Merk 3), giving a large area in the front radiating away. It should also be noted that transmissions produce non-negligible quantities of waste heat, as do the brakes (torque converters too, yay viscous fluid shear), for obvious reasons; more so that the engine if you're doing anything other than standing still. And having those stacked right up close against the steel hull is asking for it to heat up.

 

I don't remember seeing any thermal view of the Merkava 4 online. 

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

Regarding the pic you posted, there's a certain component that deserves some attention there. Specifically, the tires on the roadwheels. You may note, that they are white and therefore cold. Now, what do we know about roadwheels on tanks?

So by the fact that the wheels are cold, we know that the Merk you posted has not been moving, and indeed one cannot tell how long the engine has been running; nor can the LFP, which is by all accounts part of the steel hull, be seen. Using a photo such as that to demonstrate the effect of the engine on the thermal signature is disingenuous at best.

 

True, but the grate is hot, which wouldn't really make sense as when idling, the tank uses an APU instead of the engine. But we can't just assume they used the APU, so that begs the question - even though it's idling, shouldn't at least SOME heat be radiated from the front?

As I've said, I don't have any other available thermal image of the Merkava 4. But we can see here that there is no heat emitted from the UFP at least.

As soon as we get more footage, then we can properly debate this.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

The LFP is a thing on the Merk 4 too, you know; and considering how the rest of your treatment of this point is "I'd rather have a damaged engine", you're effectively trying to squirrel out of the fact that yes, the engine on the Merk is more vulnerable than it is on MBTs.

 

The point of that argument was that it makes no sense to list it as a downside, or a problem, in the Merkava. Of course the engine is more vulnerable, but it is at least going to result in a mobility kill while otherwise it would be a mission kill.

The LFP is indeed a weak spot, as a penetration of roughly 50% of its area can result in substantial damage to the transmission, but statistically it's not considered vulnerable enough to be prioritized for additional armor compared with areas like the belly, sides, or top.

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Not if said conventional design had, y'know, armor there, like, I dunno, the Abrams or Leo 2.

 

You're assuming the Merkava 4 has no armor on the front, an assertion that is objectively incorrect considering the vast evidence presented in this very thread. If you wish, I could link these photos again.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Again, do you have a single fact or source to back that opinion up?

 

I thought the consensus here was that engines and associated components are made of materials that are too light to make any substantial addition to protection against KEPs. I just rolled with that consensus, as it was explained by members more knowledgeable than me. I believe it was Bronez who explained it, though I don't remember entirely.

Why are you keen on breaking that consensus? And why are you not offering any information to dispute it?

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

And, as usual, you are ignoring a much more vital component than the engine, care to guess what it is and why?

 

The transmission that is more dense?

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

In actual competently designed tanks post-1973 there are no fuel tanks in the crew compartment (excluding derivative designs which inherited them), so that's a bit of a moot point. Most modern tanks keep the fuel in the engine bay and/or the sponsons, and not in the front of the hull where armor belongs.

 

So the Abrams keeping fuel tanks around the driver is a sign of an incompetently designed tank?

The point also wasn't that any tank keeps fuel tanks with a potential to leak into the crew compartment. It was to ridicule the maker of that video.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

I find that hard to believe, you wouldn't happen to have a source for that would you?

Cause if we take that at face value, that would make the Merk the first tank designed without armor compromises since what, 1916?

Also the multiple generations of modules and sideskirts spotted on Merks suggests that that is not actually the case.

Of course another point that both you and Red missed is that tank armor is designed to meet a reference threat. What that threat is is a different question, but considering how Egypt, Jordan and Syria all operate tanks which fling APFSDS and which the Merk 4 is at least notionally supposed to be able to go up against and win, the idea that its armor doesn't at least do something against KE is laughable, to say the least. What the CE threat is is also an open question. Red also clearly doesn't get how "special" armors work against CE.

 

The sources you're repeatedly asking me for, are a few articles written over 15 years ago. I've only read them a few times, so my memory is not the best. 

Now that I've found the articles, I'd like to make a correction - they overcame certain "basic" compromises or limitations, but these are irrelevant to this topic.

So if you were trying to argue about absolute values in an inherently relativistic statement, then you've absolutely won that one.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Again, fact to back that up? Cause without a source, that's just meaningless handwaving.

Cause even with the most modern turret modules seen on the Merk 4m, there doesn't seem to be any burster plate to prevent the blast from an ATGM disassembling the armor inside, the way we've all seen the pictures of it happening from 2006. If the declasified Brit Burlington docs are anything to go by, NERA arrays have trash multi-hit ability without burster plates, and there's no reason to believe the Izzys have some super duper sekrit sauce nobody else does to solve this problem.

 

The article about the Mark 4B having upgraded armor is very old. Not 15 years old, but old enough to get lost, and Yad La Shiryon didn't document it and save it like it did with the older articles you've asked me to link here.

However, since the only time we've seen the internals of the Merkava's armor was in 2006, and the upgrade came in response to that, we can't know for sure what the armor modules contain now. But since the context given was exactly the vulnerability of the armor to repeated hits, I assume a burster plate addition is a possible upgrade.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

That's a very strong statement to throw around unsubstantiated. You wouldn't happen to have anything resembling a source to support this claim would you? Official claims that this is indeed the case? Product page on one of IMI's websites that claims this gun ever existed? pictures of a testbed with the gun?

 

Not entirely sure about the source of this image:

2wrkz13.jpg

 

But basically Switzerland and IMI cooperated on the project, with Switzerland developing the gun, and IMI developing the APFSDS round. IMI was a government-owned company back then, and only took part in projects that would directly benefit the IDF.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

For reference, L/55 guns have a whole host of problems accompanying them, including balance issues, elevating mass and inertia, recoil impulse and length (same problem faced with more energetic ammo in L/44 guns), and so on. As part of the upgrade to the L/55 in the Leo (part of the A5 upgrade pack), the gun drives were replaced and the entire mantlet area redesigned -the newer mantlet is much narrower, and the gap is filled by armor boxes attached to the fixed turret structure, most likely to reduce the elevating mass and restore margins.

L/55 guns are enough of a headache that the US seems to have decided to not go that route because of the problems the testbeds had with them. Handwaving away integration issues like this as "no biggie" is being deliberately ignorant.

 

Yes, I am aware of the implications of introducing a larger gun to a tank. Is there anything NEW you'd like to add? Because you really need to stop speaking in absolutes all the time.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

We've already been over the whole thermals business and that picture, but what I don't get is even if we assume you are correct and the Trophy antennae are a stronger radiator in the relevant wavelengths*, how is this greatly increased thermal signature a point in favor of the Merk?

 

It's not a point in favor. It shows that at one point he takes issue with a side effect of the design that impacts its survivability by a certain margin, and then proceeds to talk about the Trophy so eagerly despite its radars actually being, in many cases, substantially more impactful in that regard.

 

6 hours ago, N-L-M said:

 

A. You are aware that the wonders of modular armor mean that armor packages can be changed mid-batch, and that therefore doesn't make it a 4a/4b difference.

B. If you think minor changes like that (and whatever internal changes to the armor module it covers) are enough to prevent the blast from a warhead shrekking the armor after a hit you're somewhere between deluded and hopeless.

 

An Mk 4B doesn't really technically exist. It's just a conglomeration of different upgrades implemented simultaneously around 2011-2012.

If you're so eager to find a source on this, I promise I will do some digging among the 50+ issues of the very long Shiryon magazine, but I can't promise much, and it certainly doesn't help that you once again choose to insult me to mask an inability to maintain a proper debate. 

 

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...