Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
-
Regardless, we have seen in the past such engagement that they had consistently hit the turret rear. So sniping weakspots IRL is perhaps not far-fetched at all. And with such guidance it seems they are very well trained.
On paper it will not disable the tank as the Leopard has a hull ammo storage, but it may well panic the crew.
-
Can't link videos from this site but I think it's a really neat video:
https://www.idf.il/אתרים/זרוע-היבשה/סקם-בשיזפון/
Officers' course cadets finishing their course with a combined arms exercise that includes the 460th instructional armor brigade (hence the absence of Trophy, though they are called into combat like everybody else).
And a few pics to make this post look a little prettier:
-
1 hour ago, Willy Brandt said:
For which kind of Weapon?
And is that the Puma on the left board above the Stryker?
It seems it can Penetrate the Stryker and the Bradley from the Front so maybe some sort of ATGM? But then aiming for the upper plate of the Abrams?
If you shoot it from the front without elevation it wouldnt probably fuze, right?
And i think i can see a Marder behind the guy.
If we put aside the strong propaganda vibe this site gives, the info is really pretty basic.
On the Abrams, it says to hit its sights and external gear with sniper rifles, its upper front plate with either RPGs or ATGMs(recommended from elevation) or APFSDS at any point between the turret bottom and UFP.
Hit with RPGs (even the simplest ones) the sides of the tank at the rear, or with 30mm autocannon munitions.
Doesnt specify as far as I can see, with what to shoot at the turret sides at the rear. Also doesnt specify on the Bradley and Stryker, though they could probably be disabled by RPGs practically everywhere, including basic PG-7 warheads. The BRAT and SRAT kits (ERA for Bradley and Stryker) could increase that threshold to tandem warheads e.g PG-7V.
The Stryker's wheels are vulnerable to small arms fire, and it is vulnerable to all sorts of autocannon fire.
Bradley may be protected against 30mm munitions at the front through passive armor, but I think it only relates to newer variants so I'm not sure.
And yes that is a Puma.
-
If you guys don't mind, I'd like to revive an old debate about which layout would be the best for the next generation of MBTs.
What I had in mind is an MBT that necessarily places its crew, inside a protected capsule, at the very rear of the vehicle.
What this gives them is a rear access door through which they can escape, rather than try to escape through the top hatches or a floor escape hatch. This, in order to both improve mine protection and allow more comfortable operation when the tank is stationed in a ready hull-down position.
What's left of this is to locate the powerpack and the turret. Since a forward placed turret may be problematic to handle in almost any type of terrain or combat area, it'd be best to put the engine at the front and the turret in the middle.
The batteries for the engine would be located all across a double V floor (between the two floors) to save space and keep the engine bay as small as possible.
@Xoon, you're the top authority on making neat sketches. What's your take on this?
-
Graduation video:
Part of a recent propaganda series to educate people on the role of the armored corps due to its decline in recent years. This time they show a live operational firing on 3 targets in a Hamas outpost.
You can see them exiting the tank after firing and celebrating with the bunch, but that's just editing for the sake of smooth transitioning.
https://he-il.facebook.com/2055812101320752/videos/2085466998355262/
-
This is something I haven't discussed and frankly don't know the answer to:
Why do Merkava 4M tanks have mounts for the ELAWS but don't have anything mounted on them?
This custom predates the Merkava 4M actually. Many Merkava 4 tanks keep the mounts empty as well.
What I have noticed is that in its sole major deployment - the 2006 war in Lebanon, they all had it. And it did its job well. There were no complaints about it.
But afterwards, especially in exercises, I noticed they didn't bother mounting them. And they didn't put them on in the 2014 operation in Gaza.
So there are 2 questions:
1)Why remove the ELAWS if it was already bought in large quantities and had no issues?
2)Why keep the mounts in even brand new made tanks?
The Trophy probably nullifies the need for this system, so it doesn't make sense to keep making these mounts.
The tank you see here is just a little over a year old:
-
18 hours ago, Collimatrix said:
I do not think that this video is accurate.
For starters, I was under the impression that the nozh linear shaped charges live underneath a thick steel cover plate. The linear shaped charges cutting up and projecting this plate is, as I understood it, the primary mechanism of nozh, not direct interaction of the linear shaped charges and the threat.
But more significantly, I don't think that shaped charge liners have enough momentum to carry away fragments of long rod penetrator the way this video shows. 120mm APFSDS rods are on the order of 5 kg and impacting at on the order of 1,500 M/S. Each linear shaped charge is maybe 40mm across, and only about 25mm of the length of the linear jet is going to impact the LRP because the LRPs are only about 25mm in diameter. The copper liner of each linear shaped charge is maybe 5mm thick.
So, per that video, we have five 25x40x5mm patches of copper impacting the front 2/3 of a 120mm LRP. So that's about 225 grams of copper smacking about 3300 grams of tungsten. And in the video the linear shaped charges are just batting that LRP aside like it's nothing, so the vector sum of the momentum of the LRP and the linear shaped charge has to be dominated by the momentum of the linear shaped charge. But that LRP is moving forward at north of mach 4, and the portion of the LRP being hit by the linear shaped charge has an order of magnitude more mass! Do you see where I am going with this? The tips of conical shaped charge jets can move an order of magnitude faster than LRPs, but the average liner velocity is much less impressive. Furthermore, a linear charge like this with a hemispherical liner cross-section isn't going to go anything like that fast.
There just isn't enough momentum for nozh to possibly work the way this video shows, unless of course the enemy helpfully shoots at Oplot BMs with aluminum darts that move slowly.
Whether or not it actually pushes the rod (and consider the fact that the jet's velocity is several times higher than that of the rod), it cutting the rod is quite significant in itself.
-
10 minutes ago, Serge said:
Namera was the name of the ARV too, no ?
There was and still is a lot of confusion about it. First it was the name of the prototype, then the name of the ARV, and now the name of the CEV. But the ARV is no more.
Besides, Namera as a CEV does make sense for Hebrew speakers. It could stand for Namer Handasa (engineering).
-
26 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
From a youtube video.
PS: Hitting the frontal section of the ERA tile = lower efficiency...
That's why they have multiple layers of it on the sides. So that even if you hit the frontal section of one, you won't do it on the second one. And on the turret they have 3 layers.
-
Namer CEV (Combat Engineering Vehicle), also known in Hebrew as Namera, did its first exercise with the 7th brigade.
Unfortunately with only 30 units produced per year, of Namer in all variants, it's going to take a long while.
Meanwhile, here's footage of that exercise:
https://a7.org/media/a7radio/misc/video/18/jan/WhatsApp0901.mp4
-
29 minutes ago, Scolopax said:
Tide Pods
Noted.
-
Concept of the Kafeel-1 tank of the Iraqi Army, to be based on modernized T-55 and upgraded by Czech company Excalibur. No verification on the news so far.
-
It was a concept and that's it. It never was supposed to become an actual MBT.
-
Yep. The brochure I have saved on my computer doesn't really specify them clearly. Will try looking it up again.
-
We need to establish some rule against Looosering people.
-
Persumably ALWACS from Elbit, same as you see on some Merkava tanks.
-
-
Eitan and new years' update
It's been a while since news came about any major development in AFVs in Israel. We're kept in the dark for now, about the artillery project, which seems to be delayed until inspection by the MoD is finished regarding corruption allegations.
Eitan
- Costs half the price of a Namer.
- Costs 1/10th the engine-time of a Namer.
- Reached well over 100km/h on trials but may be limited to 60km/h in transportation mode as it's expected to drive on highways in emergency time rather than on HETs (Heavy Equipment Transporters). But the speed governor could also be removed when needed.
- MANTAK will present this month its recommendations for an APS for the Eitan - Iron Fist or Trophy, a decision said to be worth hundreds of millions of shekels (Every Trophy system costs 1 million shekels roughly, which is 300,000 USD).
- ERA as well as the passive composite armor are said to be sufficient against current threats.
- 3 screens are located inside the vehicle - 2 large "21 screens for the commander and driver, and 1 smaller one by the rear door.
- Engine could come from either MTU or Caterpillar.
- Initial operation capability in 2019.
What this means
- For now a total of 500 Namers are planned. Some in service and some in production, albeit slow one. For the same price as another 500 (originally the IDF wanted 800 or more), over 1000 Eitans could be acquired which makes them more open to auxiliary duties such as mortar carriage, repair and maintenance, recovery and more, where the Namer would be too expensive. And since these duties require no turret and no APS, it could cost even 1/3rd as much as the Namer.
- Training a battalion worth of Namers would cost as much as 3 brigades of Eitans. Impressive savings, but these can be attributed probably to the fact the Namer's engine is the old AVDS-1790 which in its early iterations served the Patton tanks.
- No comment here, other than it being odd that they just gave it a top speed of 90km/h at first when it could do well over that. Previously they gave it a governed speed of 50km/h I believe, which now changed to 60km/h. Perhaps some automotive improvements they didn't disclose.
- This is a big one - we were promised way back in 2014 that RAFAEL and IMI will set aside their former rivalry in this exact topic but it seems now that the next generation of APS will no longer be a combination of both their systems, and rather would be another competition between the two. I don't know yet whether this is good or bad, but I do feel some disappointment.
- When talking about the Eitan, the military officials and media always refer to just one incident - the Shujaiya (Gaza) rocket attack that killed 7 men in an M113 troops transporter. The rocket was an RPG-29 (PG-29V). So if the IDF claims the Eitan can, without an APS, resist the RPG-29, then by all means this is an impressive feat. Generous claims are for 600mm penetration after ERA, and 750mm without ERA, which is quite substantial.
- Just like the Merkava 4, but unlike the Namer, the Eitan will have the BMS Tzayad (Hunter, marketed by Elbit as Torch) integrated into the main computer, laying everything on one screen in front of the commander. Though judging by the photos below alone, it's not yet obvious where the gunner's display is.
Eitan 
Namer And for the first time in ever, the IDF released some statistics on its acquisition this year. It's not much, actually not enough even, but it's something.The only two important bits are that the Merkava 4 and Namer are both produced at a rate of 30 vehicles per year, each. This makes sense for the Namer, which is due to have the 500th unit delivered by 2027, which means today there are ~200 units, but that's a really low number. At peak production, the plant could produce 120 Merkava tanks a year. And that was more than 30 years ago.And that's it for today!Source:
- Belesarius, Bronezhilet and Zyklon
-
3
-
I believe the French design is better on this one. When you have a permanent "bulge" instead of a hatch, it's completely resistant to environmental damage. A hatch is not as well protected because when mud starts flying everywhere or the rain starts pushing dirt (leaves etc) between the hatch openings, it can clog it up the whole thing and in an extreme situation get it stuck when elevating the gun, or usually just be a nightmare to maintain (clean).
Even if you put an elastic cover it's bound to get ripped so again a pain to replace or maintain.
The downside of the French bulge is not really there because the peripheral equipment already contributes much more significantly to the turret profile. RCWS, crew operated MGs, panoramic sight, gunner sight, etc etc stand taller than the bulge so they negate its issues.
-
28 minutes ago, Serge said:
I believe Leopard-2 tanks will remain in service by 2060 or even latter.
If you think about it, it's quite a scary thought.
It's like seeing Russia keeping the T-34 in service until 2020.
-
17 hours ago, Khand-e said:
How are Israelis so good at the art of flipping over Tanks and other AFVs?
It honestly baffles me.
I believe it doesn't take much time to learn to use a crane properly.
-
-
-
IDF set to equip a 3rd infantry brigade (Givati) with the Namer, having a first battalion operational in Q4 2018, and by 2020 the whole brigade will operationally use the Namer.
Just a pic for fun:
Nahal brigade, one of 5 main active infantry brigades, will receive soon the Eitan APC/IFV. It was unspecified when, but it's probably going to be 2018 or 2019.
The Leopard 2 Thread
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
That's a Merkava type concept. It too has its limits.
Designing a new turret, hence designing a whole new tank, with a human loader, is a terrible mistake.
IMO the best solution would be to have an unmanned turret AND the ammo inside the hull to minimize the damage to the tank if the turret is penetrated.
Okay Alzoc, go ahead.