Marsh

Hi,

The wooden mock up was dated 1970. It was followed by at least two proof of concept vehicles in the same year. The first was based upon a Centurion hull minus its turret. the test mule had its hull widened, its drive sprockets reversed from rear to front and its powerpack placed in the front. The second test mule had the same hull configuration, but its turret replaced with a weighted casing. As you can see, there were a number of other test mules produced with different turrets etc, between 1970 and 1974.

Four Merkava prototypes commenced their trials in 1974 and the production process telescoped to accelerate entry into service as soon as possible. Thus the Merkava 1 that entered service was still a development model and underwent a series of upgrades both on the production line and at the ordnance base at Tel ha Shomer after entry into service. If you know what to look for, you can see interesting hybrids of Merkava 1 and 2 in old photos. The latter was really the full production model.

cheers

Marsh

Nakpadon. Frontal door 

Only a handful of Nakpadons were produced with that configuration. For a very specific purpose. It's still OPSEC, but I am sure you can figure it out easily enough.

Entrenching device?

Could be. Perhaps applique belly armour kit?

Marsh

Hi,

A diesel fuel cell 7cm thick, will offer roughly 1cm protection equivalent of RHA against HEAT and slightly less against KE penetrators.

i have visited the production line for Merkava III when it was active, Merkava !V and the Namer. You are somewhat underestimating the protection of the tanks and are missing something. For obvious reasons I am not prepared to discuss this factor any further. 

Cheers

Marsh

Hi Donward,

Zippo adverts from WW11 with the catchline "Lights every time". There are loads out there, particularly the adverts that focus on the device being windproof.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/163325923963584488/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/163325923963252344/

Just to reiterate. I do not believe that Shermans were referred to as Ronsons in a derogatory sense, nor Zippos for that matter.

cheers

Marsh

I did not know this.  I have been in four Hellcats in the US, all in movie use, and I actually spun the turret on one, and the turret was a shock at how accurate you could move it. I assumed its light feel was the gyro.  An here I mean when the M18 was moving I was able to not only keep a crosshair on a stationary target, but swing between two targets.  I wonder if the quality of the turret movement is related to weight of the turret?

Perhaps both weight and balance. The early M10s were a nightmare to lock on to the target because of poor weight distribution, hence the duckbill and other modifications to the turret rear. This actually increased weight but improved balance and consequently accuracy.

I haven't got the leaflet. It was in English, not German, aimed at Allied troops, not German ones. I can not find a link.

Meplat, let me just edit this as I think you misunderstand my intent - 

1. I do NOT believe that the Sherman was referred to as a Ronson by Allied troops during the war. Possible exceptions being the flamethrower variants and then used in a complimentary manner rather than a dismissive one.

2. I was merely pointing out that the expression "lights every time" was a wartime advertising slogan, but for Zippo, not Ronson lighters.

3. I am 60 years of age and have being doing historical research in military affairs long before the internet and probably long before you were born. I am pretty sure I have seen a German propaganda leaflet referring - in English - to Sherman's lighting every time. I do not have a link to said leaflet

I have no intention of getting too involved in the "Ronson debate", nor complicate matters further.  However, have a look at at wartime advertising for Ronson's competitor, Zippo. You will find the expression "lights every time" WAS used as an advertising slogan, for Zippo.. In addition, I am pretty sure that I have seen a Nazi propaganda leaflet referring to Sherman's with the phrase "lights every time"

Just for the record, I do not think Sherman's were more likely to burn than other WWII tanks, especially once wet storage of ammunition came into use.

Cheers

Marsh

LoooSer, thank you for posting some truly fantastic pictures; much appreciated and really thought provoking

cheers

Marsh

Hi Collimatrix,

The gunner perhaps, his station being mounted within something akin to a turret basket.  The commander no. I would have thought that with modern hunter/killer FCS, the commander has already designated the target to be destroyed and is hunting for more prey.

Interesting, thank you Marsh.

 

What are these auto-trackers, and how do they prevent the disorientation?

The Merkava's auto tracker is fully integrated with it's FCS and thermal sights. Once a target has been designated, it locks on to it irrespective of movement of the Merkava or that of it's target. I believe auto-trackers incorporate some of the technology used in high end cameras. Auto-trackers will automatically predict the position of the target if it is momentarily lost from view or the gunner is distracted, either by the tactical situation or something as simple as sweat blinding his vision.. Richard Ogorkiewicz was given the opportunity to engage moving targets, at distance, whilst on a visit to the IDF. Remember, he not military, not a gunner, no training and had never operated the system before. His Merkava III with the Baz FCS was moving at speed over rough terrain. He repeatedly got accurate hits each time.

If you incorporate such technology in tank vectronics, you can alleviate some of the disorientation associated with remote sensors being your primary visual field. You can designate target priority, track them and at least to a degree, electronically compensate for kinesthetic disorientation.

Cheers

Marsh

I don't know; it seems to me that using rotating optical instruments from the hull would be similar to using the rotating optical instruments from within a turret.  On that, Ogorkiewicz has to say:

The Steinheil Lear Siegler TRP-2A panoramic sight with a magnification of between x6 and x20 is one of several optical sights used by Leopard etc and is a fine instrument. However, it is used in conjunction with a number of optical and digital feeds, as well as the naked eye, from a crew position which give a clear view of the tactical situation. Compare this to the research from Robin Fletcher et al, which talks about the disorientating effect of digital feeds, collected from a position not proximal to the individual interpreting those feeds, whilst under the strain of being in combat.

 "an even more difficult problem will then arise -- crew vision will still be exercised from the roof of the hull while the mounting will extend to well above that level. This will mean that when moving over rolling country, the unmanned turret or overhead mounting will come into the view of the enemy before our commander is in a position to see him. Our commander will then have lost what is usually described as his "top vision," which can be defined as the ability to see all round from the highest point of his vehicle. This is what he has become accustomed to when putting his head above the roof of a conventional manned turret or when he closes his hatch and uses the array of vision blocks or periscopes surrounding his turret cupola.

Although sighting vision can be obtained remotely from an unmanned turret or an overhead mounting and displayed on screens in front of the crewmen, it will be much more difficult both to obtain "top vision" remotely from the top of these mountings and also to display it at the crew stations down in the hull of the vehicle" 

Fletcher, Robin (1995). The Crewing and configuration of the Future Main Battle Tank. Armor. May/June 1995. I have met both Richard Ogorkiewicz and Robin Fletcher many times at military symposiums,  this remains an ongoing problem. 

Thanks. It's an interesting site. I can't wait until the veil comes off the T-14 later this month.

Hi,

My first post here.

I am absolutely fascinated by the Amarta, potentially the first successful MBT with an external gun mount. The ballistic protection, survivabilty and mobility are likely to be class leading. Firepower still an unknown, depending on the efficacy of the FCS.

The real question mark has to be about situational awareness, ergonomics and fightability. Situational awareness is the most difficult problem to solve. The crew are highly dependent on external optics and electronic sensors, The commander, now being low down in the hull of the tank, does lose some situational awareness. Even with effective electronics and optics, he is likely to suffer from kinesthetic orientation problems. The kind of technology incorporated in the auto-trackers used in the Merkava 3 and 4, plus the latest Japanese tanks, could compensate for kinesthetic disorientation. However, their is bound to be some loss of combat effectiveness without the occasional use of the Mark 1 eyeball, from an elevated position.   Unless the Russians have made a real breakthrough in the field of electronic sensors and optics that is.

cheers

Marsh