Mighty_Zuk

This leads me to believe he was misunderstood. It is indeed illogical to say a 1200hp is just as fine but say a 1500hp provides better capabilities. Especially for a man like him.

Still, he points to the suspension as another key argument, and indeed many times Israeli sources like comparing the Merkava's mobility to that of the Abrams.

If anyone can post this article here, it would be great, because I think what I referred to, and what @SH_MM and @Serge refer to are different things.

More info to come soon.

EDIT: Just posted it without reading so I don't get ninja'd. This appears to be a demonstrator turret for the automatic loading system.

Should be just a 76mm steel plate. It didnt need protection according to the Brits (which makes sense) so they just made it strong enough to carry the weight of things like dozers and mine plows. Theres also a driver's manual I've seen a long while ago that shows it, but I dont have it anymore.

15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

It might be the same type of logic used to defend the Merkava 3's 1,200 HP engine compared to the 1,500 HP AGT-1500C: the transmission is more efficient than the previous model, so that it can deliver more performance out of the 675 HP engine to the drive sprockets than the old transmission could extract out of a 800 HP engine. I.e. the old transmission would loose something like 150 HP out of 800 (thus effectively having 650 HP at the drive sprockets), while the new transmission would only loose 25 HP.

 

The same argument was being made by some IDF soldier in the ARMOR magazine quite a while ago - i.e. the Merkava 3's 1,200 HP would come a lot closer to the AGT-1500C due to the higher efficiency of the Renk 304S tansmission. Given that Hunnicutt claims that there are 1,232 net horsepower available in case of the Abrams', this statement was probably exaggerated.

I think you misinterpreted that text. I believe I remember it quite well - the argument revolved around the suspension, and not the transmission. In some areas, the Abrams would have to intentionally limit its speed to avoid damage and excessive fatigue of the crew, whereas the Merkava 3 didn't need limitations as its suspension did a better job absorbing the shock. It was probably said in the context of the comparative trials between the Merkava 3 and M1A1 AIM a while ago. I remember nothing about comparison of the transmissions other than the intentional limitation.

We can probably rule out the possibility of a hatch for dismounts to fire from (that usually exists in other AFVs), as the IDF is now pushing hard with the closed hatch combat thing.

Best guess is it's an open storage space for backpacks and other light gear, that could be covered with a net that would be fastened to the cage's bars.

Akin to the Bumerang's side wall attachment points for example.

Also, that's a really good model! Where did you find it?

1 hour ago, Laviduce said:

Why in the world would the Merkava 1 still be classified ?

It's less about 'why not' than it is about 'why'. Why would the IDF just publish documents it has on the Merkava 1? 

And unless none asked the IDF to publish it, it would probably still be classified simply because the expiration date hasn't passed. Though it's probably not hard for some fanboy to go to the Czech Republic with some special gear and measure the armor all around.

1 hour ago, Toimisto said:

BTW does anyone have sources on Merkava 1 turret armour?

The Merkava 1 turret armor seems to consist of at least 3 visible spaced plates (most likely there's more, due to the length) of various thicknesses, each angled in a different way. Sufficient against anything the T-62 could throw at it.

Here you can see a large gap:

It was designed this way mostly to create a very steep angle of impact. 

If you want actual numbers, you can forget about any sekrit documents. 

The cabinet approved this evening (11.03.18) an MoD and IDF plan for strengthening the ground arm, which includes 2 main projects that were decided in the Gideon multi-year plan (2015-2020): The purchase of 'hundreds' of Eitan combat vehicles, and the development of a new self propelled howitzer.

Eitan

SPH

5 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Hello all, 

 

first time poster here, looking for a little help with a cruel lady, please.... I need a photo of the engine bay of an Achzarit where the engine is removed; if anyone has a shot they can share, I’d appreciate it. I’m particularly interested in the teaching model of the Achzarit at the Golani Brigade training base, please. I did try several modelling forums before posting here.

 

thanks in advance,

 

Kylie

I've done quite a bit of searching and found nothing. And if modelling forums couldn't help you, I don't think anyone can. 

Maybe try these books:

http://www.deserteagle-publishing.com/books.html

Their author, Michael Mass, is Israel's main historian on armored vehicles and the head of Israel's tank museum in Latrun.

I will also try looking up in a forum I know, but if that book doesn't have it, then the chances are slim to none.

Seems rather chaotic. How do I find the grand total of destroyed tanks and AFVs there? 

Just for you Looser I will upload to my blog and post here. Don't worry. 

EDIT: fixed.

Judging by the watermark, this one is just an experimental kit.

And the M1A1HA only had DU on the turret sides, right? Because that's the only place that is actually limited by volume rather than weight, in most tanks.

1 hour ago, Militarysta said:

This American 125mm APFSDS-T was: XM711 / XM771 

The M711 is not American, and I'm pretty sure it was never named "XM711". 

Here's the brochure on it:

http://www.imisystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/125mm-M7118-MK-2-APFSDS-T-Cartridge-1.pdf

This is a long one so I'll do the recap:

1)Its Kornet missiles have an extended range of 6.5km.

2)Shitty joke about Bumerangs going into combat and returning.

3)Afghanit gives it a full peripheral protection. Almost complete reliance on APS. Anti-mine/IED system included as well.

4)More than one kit exists for the Bumerang. One for amphibious operations, which is the lightest, and another heavier one for combat.

5)Base armor protects against sniper fire, MGs, and basically all sorts of small arms fire.

6)Plans exist for a "wheeled tank" on the basis of the Bumerang, but without reducing the internal volume of the vehicle. i.e fully overhead high caliber weapon system.

7)Production series vehicles will be more spacious.

8)User Interface (UI) allows easy access and view of the vehicle's full diagnostics data.

9)Weight of the vehicle can exceed 30 tons, which may refer to its heavier armor package, although for this brakes testing they used special weights placed on top of the vehicle.

10)Bumerang is built to accommodate even exceptionally large individuals.

2 hours ago, Scolopax said:

It might be a flatbed trailer that was carrying the tank.  The truck could have hit a bump or uneven ground and sent the tank off into the ditch.

Probably, yes. Considering they're very close to a city, there should already be proper crossings and bridges in the vicinity.

The IDF has purchased 2250 FCS units for rifles, to be delivered by 2020. 

A first batch of 250 units will be delivered by the end of this month (March), and will become operational with the Givati infantry brigade.

The system allows the soldier to first designate a target, and fire only when the gun is aimed at the target. 

There was a big demonstration of all sorts of technologies today to the IDF, of tech that will soon enter service (not just experimental stuff). As usual, the new artillery piece was not shown, because Elbit are still keeping it under covers, but they chose to give us, the peasants, some news:

The new howitzer will be built in an initial batch of 100 vehicles and will be based on a wheeled chassis. Follow-on howitzers may be based on tracked vehicles. 

Now, I don't quite remember the exact numbers, but if I'm not wrong, there are, in the IDF:

4 artillery brigades - 2 active, 2 reserve.

Each brigade consists of 4 battalion of howitzers each.

The 2 active brigades are both split with 2 active battalions and 2 reserve battalions in each of them.

This puts us at 4 active battalions, and 12 reserve battalions.

So there are:

Active - 72 howitzers.

Reserve - 216 howitzers.

Each howitzer will be manned by a yet undetermined number of crewmen ranging from 3 to 5, and an overall reduction of 25% to 40% is envisioned, though yet unclear whether it refers to manpower, vehicles, or both. 

My assumption is that each vehicle will be manned by 3 men, while another 2 (for a total of 5) will be in the ammo carrier vehicle. This is because it's normal to say the M109 has a crew of 9 to 11 (9 in the vehicle, and 2 in the resupply vehicle).

It is assumed that the typical battalion will reduce to 12 vehicles from 18, so a batch of 100 vehicles will be enough to fully equip 8 battalions, which are 2 whole brigades. And another 4 vehicles will be left for testing and demonstrations. 

And of course, it's likely the 2nd batch of 100 vehicles, which will complete the transition of the artillery corps to a new howitzer, will be based on a tracked platform. If that will be the case, the wheeled platforms will be transferred to the reservists, and the tracked platforms will take their place in the active brigades.

This is a good move for 2 main reasons:

1)Tracked howitzers are only needed for maneuver combat. With a total of 192 howitzers (after the transition), hardly half will be required to maneuver anywhere. So it would be ideal if the reservists will have a system that will be easier and cheaper to maintain. A wheeled platform cuts down expenses tremendously.

2)Wheeled platforms are easier and faster to make, not only cheaper. So it would allow the IDF to re-equip its artillery forces before the M109 turn into rust buckets. I mean, they already are. 

And because this has been an unpleasant wall of text, have some pictures:

Bunch of Namers amid a Golani brigade exercise along with the 188th armored brigade, in which a Mark 3 tank with a Trophy system was also showcased for the first time.

Eitan, of course. Just an optical illusion though. It's not really that big.

Namer with its new turret with 30mm gun, 2 Spike LR2 missiles, a 60mm mortar, a Trophy APS, and a damn good look.

120mm low recoil mortar on a light 4x4 platform:

3 hours ago, Toimisto said:

Whilst not exactly concerning tanks, do 20mm autocannons need a coax MG in your opinion, a lot of cold war APC/IFV seem not to have one, like the HS.30, Schutzenpanzer 61/73,  the US 20mm M113 prototypes and then there are the swedish APC´s.

coax MGs are always good as a backup rangefinder. In some cases I believe it would be best to use a smaller armament like HMG/MMG rather than a cannon. 

Though considering footage I've seen of 30mm HE rounds, it doesn't seem like 25mm or let alone 20mm rounds are that much lethal. How much filler could there possibly be?

What am I seeing here mate?

41 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

@Mighty_Zuk

@SH_MM

Can I bother one of you to post this in that thread on tank-net about Bradley’s and TOW missiles?

 

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN3238_ATP 3-21x91 FINAL WEB.pdf

Already did, sweet.

47 minutes ago, Collimatrix said:

Quickly:

-Four Stroke, liquid-cooled turbodiesels are the engines of choice for most tanks (e.g. T-90, Leo 2, export Leclercs, K2).  These have very good efficiency, and there is a lot of industry experience in getting them to work.  They have the lowest power to volume ratio, but that has improved significantly in recent years.  That said, the more power you squeeze out of an engine the more chance there is of problems.  Problems include relatively slow throttle response, a high amount of particulate in the exhaust which scatters IR radiation and makes them more visible on thermals, usually a lack of multi-fuel capability, high vibration, and a relatively high requirement for maintenance.

-Gas turbines in current tanks (M1, T-80) are several generations older than the cutting edge in gas turbine technology and are poor representatives of the state of the art.  Overall pressure ratio has nearly tripled and turbine inlet temperatures have increased as well.  State of the art turbine material technology is two generations better than what the AGT-1500 has.  State of the art gas turbines also have a significantly better power to volume ratio than AGT-1500-level engines, mainly due to improvements in compressor compactness.  The problem is that all the advanced materials that make these advances possible are very expensive, and it's not clear if it's cost-effective to use cutting edge gas turbine technology in anything less than an airliner or fighter.  Gas turbines are multi-fuel, offer unparalleled power to volume, are easier to start in extremely cold climates than diesels, have extremely long periods between overhauls, and create very little vibration or exhaust particulates.  Gas turbines do not require radiators, they are almost entirely self-cooling.  Even with the latest improvements gas turbines still suffer inferior fuel economy to turbodiesels, although the gap is closing.  Notably, the fuel consumption of a turbine when it is idling is not much lower than when it is at full power.  Efficiency can be improved by adding a recuperator, but recuperators are bulky and sacrifice a lot of the compactness.  On the other hand, recuperators have no moving parts and also reduce thermal signature.  The M1 has one, the T-80 does not.  Gas turbines require a large mass flow rate of very well-filtered air, which basically offsets the advantage of not needing a radiator.  Very few companies in the world can design and produce cutting-edge gas turbines.

-Two stroke diesels have better power to volume than four strokes, but not as good as turbines.  They're fidgety and in the past haven't worked well, although supposedly Kharkov in Ukraine has got a marvelous design used in the Oplot-BM.  Pros and cons are otherwise similar to four stroke diesels.

-Diesel wankels are an interesting possibility, but so far three companies have tried and failed to make them actually work.  If they could be made to work they would be a halfway house between a four stroke and a turbine.  Like a turbine it would have low vibration and better power to volume than a four stroke diesel.  Efficiency would probably fall between the two.  Due to the high ratio of surface area inside the combustion chamber to volume, heat leakage would be higher and this would necessitate larger radiators for a given output than a four stroke diesel.  A diesel wankel would not be multi-fuel.  Like the turbine but unlike the four stroke diesel the engine could run at its maximum rated power for long periods of time without breaking, since it produces power by rotation rather than reciprocation.  Maintenance of the rotor tip seals would likely be an issue.

-Air cooled four stroke diesels have basically the same pros and cons as liquid-cooled ones except that the bulk of the radiator system is built into the engine and can't be moved somewhere more convenient.  On the flip side, it has fewer moving parts and no vulnerable radiator.

First of all, thank you for the explanation. But I'd like to know if any of them could be coupled with an electric engine to serve as a backup. In 2020 the Mark 4 'Barak' should enter service, and it's said it would have a hybrid-electric engine with some form of diesel generator without any further elaboration. Basically what I wanted to know is whether to expect the whole thing to take up less space, more space, or about the same. 

I'm currently trying to do a little research on how conventional tank design could evolve, as well as the future of the Merkava family (due to their frontally placed engine), when hybrid or purely electric engines become the norm.

Can anyone make a simplified comparison of the required volume for each type as well as purchase cost and maintenance costs.

i.e if certain type of engine would take a little more volume, or much more volume. And if it would cost just a little more or a lot more. 

I believe that if there is a substantial difference in the parameters of volume and cost, and not just performance, then this could cause a pretty serious shift in the way tanks are designed.

Has anyone actually kept count of how many tanks did the SAA lose since the beginning of the war? Or any meaningful AFVs like BMPs and such?

How often do they lose a tank nowadays?