Marsh

Lynx light MRAP

 
KamAZ-53949

 
 

More:

 
 

Figure from an experiment, showing how ERA is drastically less effective when it is not oblique relative to the threat:
 

"In 1967 War the most popular pilot language was polish for exmaple."
This is frankly laughable.  There was practically no movement of Polish Jews to Israel from the 1950s to 1968. The major movement of 13,000 or so Jews who left Poland after the March 1968 political crises and a surge of antisemitism post dated the Six Day war and of the 13,000. Only 28% went to Israel and fewer stayed. (By the way, no one is  allowed to serve in the IDF unless there Hebrew is reasonably fluent. You are not allowed to use a different native tongue in combat).
The Aliyah of Russian Jews to Israel is an entirely different matter. It was vast and did include a significant number of scientists, engineers and people who had military experience. Even then, it was only in the 1990s that the IDF trusted Russian immigrants to serve in sensitive areas of the military. 
I am well aware that the Soviet Union developed ERA long before the Israelis. I also freely acknowledge that Soviet developments were actually better designed and more effective than the rather primitive first generation Blazer. However, having been involved in researching the origins of Blazer and having been fortunate to sit and chat with Manfred Held on two occasions, I can assure you, it was not developed by Russian emigres. 

Damn Yankees and their weird intellectual property laws.

https://www.witu.mil.pl/www/biuletyn/ptu_2016/139/23.pdf
(pdf in polish and englis)



 slides from pdf:

 

 

Now, this is definitely weird  ......
 
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37997640
 
                                                  

Yes, it did:
 

 
about four minutes in he starts scrutinizing the bolt.
 
The Uziel Gal rifle is one of my favorite might-have-beens.

Well looks like I've got some dates to cancel.

Enjoy:
 

 

SAA modified BMP to carry Vulcan rocket launcher. Each is 300+ mm caliber HE/thermobaric rocket.

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

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"

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

The guy who took these gave the ok to share them. A couple might be from elsewhere because my folders are not organized.
 

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

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

speak of the devil

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.

Now the IDF got their own wheeled death traps™.

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

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