Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Marsh

  1. Like the beefed up side skirts ..... Now I know what this beast was intended for (Casualty evacuation apparently)., I must say it' a bloody silly design. Surely converting one of the many mothballed Merkava IIs, would have made more sense. Rear hatch etc for bringing in stretchers.
  2. I am genuinely surprised that the Hyena decoy system has been declassified.
  3. Hi, Walter is right. Centurions started to convert to the L7 in the early 1960s. The Shot Kal programme, which replaced the original engine and transmission etc, as well as the gun (for those tanks not already converted to the 105 mm weapon), started after some delay in 1970. Not all tanks had been converted to the Shot Kal standard by 1973, but all, as far as I know, all had the 105mm L7 by October 1973. Cheers Marsh
  4. Just got a reply from Sean. I was wrong. My apologies. "My Chieftain was in the film and that scene. But the tank he drives is a T55m, actually about 5 different ones, including a fibreglass one, so, while my tank was there, it wasn't the one he drove, sorry"
  5. I don't think so, but I will check with Sean and post again, in a day or so.
  6. The movie trivia is wrong. The tank used in the movie is owned by a good friend of mine. It is a Vismod Chieftain, which now stands in a field outside his house in the Curragh, Ireland. I have added a link. I have also been reminded that th3e tank was put up for sale and I would have to check if it is still outside his house. http://www.rte.ie/tv/fourlive/2011/1111/thetankaccount172.html
  7. Hi, To the best of my knowledge, all the Shot Kals were fitted with L7s and not M68s. I don't know of any examples of the Shot Kal, be they conversions of Centurion MKs 3, 5 or 7, that were fitted with the M68. Having said that, in the wacky world of IDF tank uprgrades, which tend to be done in relatively small batches, it is not impossible if unlikely, any Shot Kal received the M68. Cheers Marsh
  8. Yes, but as it is probably OPSEC still, no comment.
  9. Simple, the magazine of the semi auto rack only holds 5 rounds.
  10. Sorry lads, my bad. I was being imprecise. I meant that the Merkava 4 has no unprotected ammunition stored above the turret ring. SH_MM, sorry but you are mistaken re both the Merkava 3 having rounds stored in the turret and not having a semi-automatic ready rack. The Merkava 3 does in fact have a semi-automatic armoured drum magazine housing 5 ready rounds. The drum is mounted on the base of the turret basket. It is triggered by a foot switch and lifts the chosen round toward the loader so that he can complete his task more quickly. As far as I am aware, doctrine is not to have any unprotected rounds above the turret ring. Certainly all Merkavas were designed so that all ammunition should be protected and within the hull. cheers Marsh
  11. Hi Collimatrix, The author of your quoted piece is correct in that the Merkava is not intended to carry infantry and ill-suited to carry any passengers except in a dire emergency. Obviously, it is not an APC. Some of the information though is either a misunderstanding or deliberate disinformation. For instance, to the best of my knowledge, no ammunition is normally carried above the turret ring. If passengers have to be carried, then much of the ammo has to be dumped. The passengers do not sit crouched in that cramped space. They sit on the floor with their backs to the tank hull facing inwards, their feet facing the opposite outer wall. It is hardly comfortable and is impractical for any long term carry. The soldier crouched painfully in the restricted space is taking the piss, that is not how they would travel. it would break and dislocate joints. As stated by the author of the quoted piece, the rear hatch is useful for bailing out from a tank that has been hit, relatively safely. It does make the resupply of tank shells much quicker and the space at the rear can be used to evacuate surviving crewmen from other tanks. A friend of mine was a Merkava battalion commander. In 2006 during the clumsy IDF fight against Hezbollah. He ensured that a small number of his tanks had most ammo stripped from them. Some operated as armoured ambulances and casualty evacuation vehicles others were stripped of their war load to act as logistic carriers. The rational was that the battle space was so fire swept and dangerous that the M113 ambulances and logistic/supply vehicles simply could not survive. Nowadays I believe that there are both Achzarit and Namers equipped as ambulances and even the standard Namer, has been designed so that it can be rapidly configured as a casualty evacuation vehicle. In addition, there is a wheeled trailer that Merks can tow filled with supplies if needs be. cheers Marsh
  12. Two of the most prevalent and irritating myths on the Web are;- 1. The S-Tank was designed as a tank destroyer or as a tank only fit for just defensive missions. 2. The Merkava was designed for asymmetric combat in an urban environment, rather than full scale armour versus armour battle. Both these myths are endlessly propagated and make me want to spit feathers.
  13. As far as I am aware,no ERA. The Eitan was designed to be more survivable than other wheeled APC available for purchase. In combat configuration it will be heavier than any other current wheeled APC. I believe it is somewhat smaller than the Boxer, yet heavier. We can speculate as to what constitutes it's passive armour, but we don't know. I find its mini-Namer configuration interesting. The rear sponsons, presumably containing NBC and air-conditioning plant, does mean that the rear access door is narrower than most APCs. This was a deliberate design choice. Remember though, this is a pre-production prototype and things can change.
  14. Hi, Yep re Sparky. However, this beastie is almost double the weight of a Stryker and will be fitted with an active protection system. So, hopefully, it will be more survivable than most wheeled APCs. Which, I am not a great fan of, to be honest. cheers Marsh
  15. Yep. That's the Eitan APC which I believe was declassified today. Good catch with those photos. Cheers Marsh
  16. Hi LoooSeR, At least two different 30mm cannon/ATGM capable RCWS have already been trialled on the Namer for years now. The problem is funding and to an extent doctrine. It was the intention of MANTAK to introduce such a firepower support Namer, right from the earliest days of the concept. However, no funds were available.. Cheers Marsh
  17. You are exactly right. I hope this exchange helps build and repair relations between the two countries. It amazes me when I visit Israel. just how many Russian speakers there are and how significant Russian culture still is for many second generation immigrants.
  18. As already mentioned. They do want to search for any evidence of the fate of the captured crewmen. Sadly, any new information is unlikely. I would not be surprised if the returned Magach was to become a memorial for soldiers missing in action.
  19. As Walter has said. It's more to do with the missing crewmen than the tank. It's the same MIA thing common to most Western societies. The families still think the crew may be alive and/or want some form of closure. Two Magachs were captured. Three crew members were not accounted for. There are grainy clips of film from 1982 showing one of the Magachs being driven through the streets of Damascus, with three apparently alive, but wounded, crew members being exhibited on the outside of the vehicle. The Syrian authorities since then have blankly denied any knowledge of the fate of the crew members. The Israelis want to ascertain if it was the same vehicle being driven through Damascus and if it is the vehicle belonging to the missing soldiers. It won't bring the crewmen back, but might fill in some of the missing jigsaw pieces. cheers Marsh
  20. You are welcome Collimatrix . Just to expand on my answer, I forgot to mention that I have seen a number of old fashioned looking Soviet light trucks, each mounting Swatter AT-2 ATGMs, which were captured from Egypt in 1967.(One of the advantages of being an old git, is that you have lived long enough to have seen a lot. My problem nowadays, is remembering it)!
  21. Both the Israelis and Egyptians had a handful of vehicle mounted ATGMs in 1967. Cobras and S11s as far as I remember for the IDF. I do not know of any actually being fired. There was neither the doctrine nor numbers for either side to employ the missiles with any effect. Sagger was not a great surprise to the IDF in 1973. They had encountered it in small amounts during the War of Attrition between 1968 and the Yom Kippur war. What was a huge surprise was the numbers of ATGMs used in company with an apparently endless supply of RPGs. That and the greatly improved level of training and determination offered by the Arab forces. Cheers Marsh
  22. Hmm, the new Jordanian APC looks much less advanced than their previous offering, the Temsah, which also was Centurion based but didn't go into service.
  23. Hi LoooSeR, In post 293, the black and white photo of the Nagmachon and Nakpadon next to each other, is one of mine. The correct name is Nakpadon. The Base where the machines were photographed was in Galilee. It was built to train infantry and armour to work in tandem against an asymmetric opponent. A LOT of input in the Base design was from ex Russian and Soviet combat veterans, you might be interested to know.
  • Create New...