Marsh

Interesting, and consistent with Rob McLeod's analysis.

 

Who was the first to start calling K5 and related designs "heavy ERA?"  I almost wonder if it was deliberate misinformation about how it worked.  The design needs more space than older ERA, but it's not much heavier.

Rob McLeod's article is riddled with mistakes when he discusses the origins of Blazer. (Some of them are down to me, my knowledge of Blazer was incomplete. When I put out unintentionally skewed information on the web, it became accepted as factual). Because of this, no fault of Rob, I do wonder how accurate the information on K5 is.

So any namer can become an ambulance in a pinch?

A casualty evacuation vehicle with some basic medical equipment - yes. It was also intended that a specialised Namer ambulance would be brought into service. I do not know if this has happened. 

Edit. That small blobby figure standing in front of the Namer on my avatar, is me. That was one of the machines where I saw the automatic defribulator

Hi LoooSer,

Not only does the Namer carry a water cooler, it has other unexpected goodies.

I have been in a couple of them and both were fitted with an automatic defibrillator for the resuscitation of casualties who have had a cardiac arrest. As far as I understand it, all machines, not just those tasked with casualty evacuation, were intended to be fitted with this device. They are also designed ability to rapidly erect stretchers which are stowed away within the vehicle., not just those tasked with casualty evacuation. 

cheers

Marsh

Hi Collmatrix.

Thanks for your interesting reply. Am away from home so just chance of a very quick reply. Sorry if I wasn't clear. By turret basket I meant the external stowage bin at the rear of the turret. Again sorry for the lack of clarity. It does indeed work as a form of slat armour.

I will answer your other stuff, if I can later in the day. Am moving house so WiFi intermittent.

Cheers

Marsh

Yes; hull sides of the Merkava IV have NERA:

Merkava I was a rather dubious vehicle, IMO. It was still relying on the 105mm M68/L7 and steel armor when Syria and others were receiving T-72s. Subsequent Merkava designs seem to have closed the gap.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I would have to disagree with this. Let me explain -

When the Merkava was conceived, the Israelis, in concert with the rest of Western tank producers - at least those without access to "Chobham"- were reliant on RHA. The Soviet Union was a generation ahead with it's fielding of composite armour. The Israelis were aware of their short-comings and were years away from being able to field effective, advanced armour. To compensate for this, the IDF made a decision that the configuration of their tank would enhance crew survivability and compensate for some of the reliance on RHA. The IDF's experience in the 1973 war had demonstrated that a knocked out tank could be repaired and put back into battle, sometimes more than once. The crucial shortage was trained tank crew, crew survivability was given priority. * See below for further information.

We disagree on the effectiveness of the tank's front-engined configuration. It was not chosen lightly but the result of much research, research not just into the IDF's own considerable data base, but through WWII records as well. (Tal recounted to me a fact about the Sherman, which the US ordnance corps had over-looked. If a Sherman was hit frontally, there was a higher chance of crew survivability if the penetrating round hit the transmission). It caused some consternation when he told US friends in the Armour branch, they checked his research and found it to be correct.)

All components of the Merkava were designed to be sacrificed to protect the crew, battery pack, suspension, fuel cells, etc were integrated into the effort to protect the crew in case of penetration. It might be worth pointing out that as far as I am aware, the Merkava was the first tank fitted with automatic halon fire suppression system to help prevent the vehicle brewing up in case of a hit. It was the first tank where special fuel cells were deliberately incorporated as a form of protection rather than just a component that needed protection itself. Have you ever taken a close look at the Merkava's turret basket? It's constructed of ballistic steel. Look again at its construction. It is designed as bar armour against RPGs. A generation before the West started adding such slat structures to its AFVs. The suspension is unnecessarily heavy,why? It's made of ballistic steel and designed to degrade and prevent penetration of the crew compartment.

As soon as they could, the Israelis introduced "special armour", firstly with the Merkava 2. The Merkava 3 as you know, was designed with modular armour packs which could be changed and upgraded as the technology became available and the threat evolved. this modularity was intended from the start. It does not strike me as the sign of a "dubious" tank, but of foresight. A new tank manufacturer knowing it could not match the latest armour available to the Soviet Union and some Western powers. A new manufacturer which compensated for short-comings by design decisions, which were not taken lightly. A new manufacturer who introduced advanced armour as soon as possible to a level of technology at least as good as more established tank producers.

I have been lucky enough to have met the late General Tal on a number of occasions and to discuss the design philosophy of the Merkava. I was cheeky enough to ask him with the benefit of hindsight, was there any aspect of the Merkava's design he would redo. The answer, by the way, was it's suspension. He would have ditched the current suspension for a pneumatic system, to save weight and accept a slight degrading of the vehicles cross-country performance in extreme terrain. MANTAK still toy with the idea of introducing a pneumatic suspension. I have seen one trialled on the Merk 4, but they have decided to stick with the current system, as it gives better rebound and travel needed when traversing the lava plains of the Golan.

*Incidentally, the records of the IDF's Ordnance Corps during 1973 and its work as a force multiplier, have been declassified and published, but only in Hebrew. An English transcript can be found here - An Israeli contributor to the military web sight "The Mess" has translated the official record of the IDF's Ordnance corps during the Yom Kippur war. The contributor, who goes under the name Camera, is an excellent source of information. See

http://themess.net/f...-yom-kippur-war

There is a highly detailed breakdown of armoured losses, listings of vehicles repaired, booty collected and pre and post war plans for the expansion of the IDF's order of battle amongst other information. It is clear that the Ordnance corps was a remarkable force multiplier during the conflict. data is an absolute treasure house for researchers on the war. There is information contained within this document that I had spent years, unsuccessfully trying to obtain. It was this document and the IDF's still classified data base of tank losses, causes and crew survivability statistics, which was the foundation of the Merkava's design.

cheers

Marsh

Hi, that diagram was in Rolf Hilms book and was an assessment of the Merkava 1. It was a guess at the time. It was wrong then and even more an underestimate nowadays with later machines. No tank is perfect. Like all others the Merkava has flaws and weaknesses. This is NOT one of them. I can think of two which Hizbollah certainly know as they have used them in the past. They don't try and penetrate Merkavas frontally not with even multiple launches of the lethal Russian ATGMs they have. Forgive me if I don't mention known weaknesses here.

I am not talking about magical composites and NERA, although the Israelis certainly have some of the best.

Israeli society is painfully sensitive to casualties. Far more so than most "Western orientated" countries. MANTAK meet and analyse every hit and its result on a Merkava in great detail. Would they accept such a fundamental mistake? In a culture where you literally get crewmen pounding on the door if they think there is a problem?

Whoops.  Sorry. I am getting increasingly senile. You wait until you are in your 60s, its not fun . . . . . . 

A fascinating post. If you don't mind, I will put a link for it on Tanknet.

Hi Walter, that's the case. The exception being photos and illustrations which remain the authors copyright and still generate income. Generally I don't mind if people use my stuff, as long as they acknowledge my copyright.

What really bugs me, is when I see my text and/or photos, either in print or on the web, when someone else claims they took the photos or wrote the book.That does happen and it's bloody annoying!

The Oshkosh is so bloody ugly, even its mother couldn't love it ........

Re the single roof hatch for the Merkava 4? All Merkava' 4s were produced with a "plug" in the turret roof. This could be removed temporarily to allow the fitting of an external seat, to be used by an instructor for crews in training.

It was originally intended that the Merkava 4 should go into battle with just the one hatch, the fewer the hatches in situ on the roof, the better the armour protection. Recently, some Merkava 4s have had a permanent, second roof hatch installed. The reason why is considered OPSEC.

cheers

Marsh

Hi LoooSeR,

The top photo is actually one of the proof of concept vehicles for the Merkava 4 programme, it's based on a Merkava 3 chassis. Note, the RCWS, which at one stage was going to be a standard fitting for the Merkava 4 but was restricted by costs.

Re copyright issues in Russia? An earlier book of mine was reproduced word for word, using the same photos etc, in Russia. The "author" claimed copyright of both text and photos. The publishing company I had written the original for,  for decided not to act as it was hopeless doing so through Russian legal system.

I also had an Italian company reproduce one of my articles and  accompanying photos and claim the copyright for someone else. Complaints useless. 

A very well known German publisher stole some of my photos and sold them on. When I complained, I got a real, genuine personal apology from the owner and financial compensation. It's a funny old world out there . . . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LoadersworkinMerkava.jpg

 

Ha, the Achzarit cut away is from one of the books I wrote!

The intent of the Pereh was to engage and destroy formations of enemy armour approaching the border with a specific emphasis on the Golan. The airforce in 1973 had not been able to interdict columns of enemy tanks, prior to their arrival on the battlefield. Dense enemy air defences  made such missions too costly. Ripple fire of Tamuz from Peleh batteries was intended to restore the ability to reach out and destroy, with precision, at a distance.

Does Elbit produce any ground-based missiles? I remember that i was told that they are making such things.

To the best of my knowledge, Elbit now focuses on anti-missile counter measures. Rafael produces most of the ATGMs that the Israelis build. IAI did produce Nimrod, a very long range ATGM, but I don't know the status of that programme. This is not to say that Elbit doesn't produce missiles, but if so, the programmes are still classified.

cheers 

Spike NLOS? Are Tamuz and Spike NLOS same missile or they are different missiles that do similar job? If my memory serves right, Spike is Rafael and Tamuz is Elbit-produced guided missiles.

Nope. Tamuz and Spike are the same missile produced by Rafael. Tamuz is the IDF designation, Spike the manufacturers for world wide sales. The first designation by the manufacturer was Gill, but that name was dropped years ago.

Actually to be precise, there are other guidance options, dependent on the model of Tamuz used

Yes LoooSer it uses the Tamuz. A non line of sight Spike. Fibre optic spool with either fire and forget or man in the loop options

The Magach based Spike launcher, the Pereh or Wild has been officially revealed. Thanks to "Camera" at the Mess for the heads up. The vehicle has been in service for 30 years!

Links currently available in Hebrew only. 

Cheers

Marsh

http://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/t-5...�לי_תמוז

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/he/co...�רא-נחשף

https://www.facebook.com/mazidf/phot...type=1&theater

Mike, never mind that BTD has the identical style, content and font used for Sparky's videos presentations on different sites over the years? Have a google search for "Black Tail Defence and Mike Sparks", 

Black Tail Defense appears to be linked to Mike Sparks. Yes the bloke who devised the name "Gavin" for the M113 and insists it be referred to as such, even though in reality it never has been given that designation. Frankly those who have had any kind of dealings with the man on Tank Net et al, believe he has some mental health issues. I wouldn't take anything written by Black Tail Defense, as being worth analysis or rebuttal.

To Life_in _Black.

From the Merkava III onwards, when they received their initial paint job at Tel ha Shomer, basalt blocks were fed in a crusher. Then the finely crushed rock is passed through a hopper. The fine grit is then added to the grey/olive paint sprayed on the tank. The noise is absolutely unbearable. It is a clever, if primitive, method of camouflage. Any environmental dust sticks to the tanks paint job, it is a bastard to clean off in fact. Thus a Merkava operating on the Golan will look a different hue to a Merk in the Negev.

In this era of multi-spectral sensors, the IDF need to move on. Hence Fibrotex . . . . .

To collimatrix. You are mistaken. what you consider a problem is a non-issue. Frequencies used are not affected. Making the fire control system work well in a dusty environment with a resultant thermal plume was a real problem to solve. Your point simply isn't an issue, sorry.

cheers

Marsh

NERA, i guess?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUxrMW04tXs

Probably Kryptonite in the modules . . . . .

I do know of one instance where this particular model of Merk was hit by two heavy ATGMs (early model TOWs I believe). I know from someone who was at MANTAK at the time, that it generated a huge volume of traffic from the US, who were mightily impressed with the performance of the armour modules.

Hi LooSeR. Yes Merk 2 Batash with armour modules specifically designed to defeat heavy ATGMs. Also note the side skirts which extend upwards.

Marsh

I suspect it's British and it is probably an exercise in the Emirates or Kuwait. We did hold similar exercise in Libya, but my bet is that it is one of the Trucial states