Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Life_In_Black

  1. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm There are photos there for the Namer which shows the lower plate and the armored fuel tanks that fill the space between the front section of the lower and part of the upper plate, as well as the wall behind the fuel tanks. Of note is that not only is the armor plates extremely thin all things considered, but the plates have interlocking welds, which is the only time I've seen that done for armored vehicles outside of WWII Germany.
  2. I don't think it's all that thick either, as everything I've seen seems to indicate it's relying on the slope of the armor much more than the thickness of the armor. Like here for instance: That's why I named this thread the way I did, because the Merkava really seems like a further ev olution of the Chieftain, which makes sense given the Merkava's origins. My personal tinfoil hat theory is that the reason the armor is still technically classified is because the armor is really much thinner than they want to let on.
  3. Yeah, my friend the former Merkava III commander mentioned they were M48 hulls. As you say, the M60 iterations of the Magach would still have been frontline tanks at that point so it does make a lot of sense. Although it gets confusing when talking about the Magach, because the IDF doesn't really distinguish between various marks of the Magach when talking about them, they're all pretty much just called Magach.
  4. If I didn't know any better, I'd say those are M48 hulls, not M60 hulls given the way the ERA curves like that on the glascis. EDIT: Not that they tend to distinguish between the M48 and M60 in referrign to them as the Magach, just thought it was interesting.
  5. That's a Chinese Type 89 based mine laying system I believe.
  6. Thank you. I'm going to need to look into this further for the Israeli tech tree I'm working on. As we all know, Wargaming loves giving modules different designations for the exact same ting, even better when it's historical.
  7. Interesting, and not at all surprising given what I found out looking at the Olifant, and the Israeli tanks too for that matter. Was the version used to upgrade the M48s given a special designation too, like the Centurions?
  8. Interesting, my friend left that out about the basalt being used to make the dust stick to the paint. Then again, he probably didn't know all things considered. This explains the look of the paint on most Merkavas.
  9. Funnily enough, Daigensui brought up the same thing over in the T110 thread when I first mentioned the Semel's top speed in relation to the Action X. While I don't doubt the British probably couldn't get a much higher top speed out of the Centurion, the fact the Centurion Mk. I gets an unhistorical engine and a corresponding boost to top speed means they could give Centurion Mk. 7/1 a boost to its top speed as well. But really, this deals mainly with Action X and the justification for its top speed using the Olifant, in which case, why can't the Centurion 7/1 get the South African upgrade of an 810hp AV-1790 and an increase in top speed to 50km/h? EDIT: Why not start a thread for it over in Naval Discussion?
  10. So, two days ago on Status Report it was mentioned that the top speed of the Action X Centurion was historical, that it was based on the South African Olifant (no relation to that BabyOlifant fellow from the WoT forums): Naturally, this made me curious and so I started digging into the history of the Olifant and the upgrades South Africa made to their Centurions. Project Skokiaan began in 1972, with the goal being to replace the always unreliable 650hp Meteor engine. The replacement was the 810hp V-12 AV-1790 gasoline engine, which had seen service in the early variants of the M48 Patton, which was coupled to a new three speeed automatic transmission. In 1974, Project Semel was undertaken to further improve both the engine and tranmission, and it was under Project Semel that the Centurion reached a power to weight ratio of 16.5 hp/ton and a top speed of 50km/h, up from the 35km/h it got with the 650hp Meteor engine, and effectively doubling the vehicle's range. Now here's where it gets interesting. Under Project Olifant in 1976, the engine was replaced with a 750hp V-12 AVDS-1790 (used on the M60, and Israeli Centurions and M48s) and possibly a new transmission, which lowered the power to weight ratio to 13.4hp ton, and the top speed down to 45km/h, however the range further increased due to the diesel engine and fuel efficiency. With some other improvements, this became the Olifant Mk. 1 Near as I can tell, it took the Olifant Mk. 1A to finally replace the 20-pdr with the 105mm L7, but it's the Mk. 1B that's interesting. The engine on the Mk. 1B was repalced again with a 900hp engine, but apparently this was later superceded by a V12 950hp engine, possibly an American engine by way of Israel. In addition, the entire suspension was comprehensively rebuilt with individual torsion bars for the roadwheels rather than the outdated Horstmann suspension. So having researched all of that, I went back and looked at the engines of the Centurion Mk. I and Centurion Mk. 7/1 in-game, of which the elite form of the Centurion Mk. I is the Centurion Mk. III, and the elite form of the Centurion Mk. 7/1 is the Mk. 9. The Centurion 1 starts out with a 600hp Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, upgrades to a 650hp Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, which near as I can tell pretty much all of the Centurions in British service used for the entirety of their service, and finally as an elite engine it gets a 750hp Meteor engine that may or may not have existed, and certainly wasn't mounted on any mark of Centurion even close to a Centurion Mk. III, which with its historical 650hp engine, went a whopping 35km/h. In-game however, the top speed of the Centurion Mk. I is 40km/h, The Centurion 7/1 on the other hand, starts out with the 650hp Meteor engine, gets the aforementioned (and possibly fictional) 750hp version, and then gets a 950hp Rolls-Royce Griffon engine, that I can only find a single source as to ever being fitted to a Centurion. What's incredible however, is that the top speed of the Centurion 7/1 in-game is still 40km/h, even though the South Africans managed to get 50km/h with the 810hp AV-1790, and 45km/h with the 750hp AVDS-1790 and a lower power to weight ratio. However, it doesn't end there, as I came across something very interesting along the way. Namely that the Olifant Mk. 2 has a 1040hp diesel engine, also possibly of US origins via Israel. I even found an article from 2005 detailing that BAE had won the contract to upgrade more of the Olifant Mk. IBs to Mk. 2 standard, which includes 1040hp engine. So having found this, I decided to go back and look at the stats for the Action X Centurion on Status Report and something jumped out at me: Makes you wonder just what was meant by that statement regarding the Action X and Olifant, huh? Sources: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9088.235 http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9088.240.html http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/south_african_tanks.html Anyway, I figured this could be a thread for instances like this, effort posts detailing just what Wargaming got wrong or might be fucking up in some way, either knowingly (as I believe to be the case here with the Action X being given some South African upgrades to make it competitive), or ignorantly, because they couldn't be bothered to do basic research. Hell, maybe I should try sending this into Status Report, get my name in all the papers or some shit.
  11. I was actually told by a former Merkava III commander that they rely on the dust to blend in with the base color and camouflage the tank to its current operating environment, as they don't use camo paint at all.
  12. Huh. I could have sworn the M48, Chieftain, etc, all had an 80inch turret ring, not an 85inch one.
  13. I thought the M103 had a larger turret ring than the M48 and Chieftain?
  14. This reminds me, I wish I could find that picture I had of an Iranian M18 from back in the '50s. I'm fairly certain I saved it somewhere as I remember showing it to Colli on TS once, but I'll be damned if I can find it again.
  15. That definitely started out as the front of an M47 turret with the gun mount and mantlet. Looks like they gave it a smaller turret ring to fit it onto that abomination. I guess Iran doesn't have too many M36 Jacksons left at this point and tried creating their own version of the M36's turret.
  16. I can't imagine the Leopards would have been in any better shape. And even then, there were plenty of East German T-55s that could just as easily have been given either the 125mm cannon or the entire T-72 turret, and at least in that case most people would have the logistics to keep the hulls going given how commonplace the T-55 was. I think the biggest argument against it however, is that suppose you need spare parts to keep said tank fleet running. With a Leopard 1 chassis and a T-72 turret, you need parts from two totally different places, thus complicating logistics. Germany may be able to supply such stuff for a short while, but that will run out eventually. By just going with a T-72, you not only simply things to one single country for spare parts, but the sheer number of T-72s around and countries operating them means that acquiring spare parts isn't going to be a problem at all. Plus, cannabalizing other tanks for spare parts is greatly simplified as you know the parts are not only all interchangeable, but that each T-72 turret is going to fit on each T-72 chassis without any modifications. Who knows what was involved to mount the T-72 turret on the Leopard 1 as I don't even know if they had the same size turret ring or if the Leopard has enough internal room for the auto loader to work effectively. Plus as I said, a cheaper alternative would be to use the T-55 chassis, as that thing is available from almost everywhere and while it complicates logistics slightly, at least you'd be able to get parts from one country instead of two.
  17. Because Germany? Near as I can tell, that artist's impression of what the conversion would look like appeared in a military magazine back in the '90s. http://www.track-link.com/gallery/6005/6 I just can't see any benefit to it though, as it not only complicates logistics, but the Leopard 1 was outdated by that point in time anyway and didn't hold up nearly as well as the T-72 has.
  18. Maybe. Like I said, I found mention of it possibly being something for India (which wouldn't surprise me given India's military being a hodgepodge of almost everything), but I also found something on it possibly being a proposal by GIAT in France of upgrading older tanks with T-72 turrets. Hell, I don't even know if it's real or anything. EDIT: Now I've found something about it possibly being for Malaysia. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. EDIT 2: Found slightly more about it possibly being Malaysian, apparently Malaysia trialled the Leopard 1A5 but ended up going with the Polish PT-91. In a last ditch effort, the Germans tried changing their minds by giving them the best of both worlds. (cue Van Halen). Of course whether this is actually true or internet hearsay, is beyond me. I've found three different stories at this point.
  19. Having thought about it earlier, who on earth is such a conversion trying to appeal to? To my knowledge, nobody ever operated both the Leopard 1 and the T-72, and anybody who had access to one of those certainly didn't need the other one. I think this can be chalked up to "Germany" again. EDIT: I found something that it may have been a German project for India back in the '90s, but as to whether that's true or not I haven't a clue either. We do have color now though! Oh, and on a related note, Colli will be happy to know that Romania did indeed develop a stretched T-72 because reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-125
  • Create New...