Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


alanch90 last won the day on November 29 2019

alanch90 had the most liked content!

About alanch90

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Most likely SA cameras, those are mentioned as part of the equipment. But they were part of the discussion. The engineers/higher ups were pushing for 2 man crews in order to get lighter tanks (which should be the main priority) but were met with resistance by soldiers. 3 man crews proposed as a compromise while the soldiers were adamant in that 4 men (and weight like the current abrams) were preferable, after all the crews dont concern themselves with the strategic/operational/logistic aspects of deploying tanks, they care about the job they already are familiar with. So i thin
  2. Thats a second coaxial machinegun as described by the table below. Why put two 7.62 coaxials? Who knows
  3. Variants 1-2 have no turret hatches so unmanned turrets and the hulls seem to point to 2 man crews. The document tells that 2 man crews were proposed to soldiers and instantly rejected while they could be somewhat open to 3 man crews while 4 men was the preferred. After all thats how they are accostumed to do stuff, thats why tanks arent usually designed by crewmen. So the engineers kindo off gave up and hence drew Variant 3 the way the soldiers said the liked. But now they have to come up for stuff for the not-loader to do in order to justify his presence in the vehicle. I think that is
  4. Variant 1 and 2 have the most potential. They could make the same hull but interchangeable turret/gun and make most of the armor modular so that the tank can be scaled from low 50 tons (or preferably even lower) to almost 60. The developmental risk here is the 2 man crew and more difficult manual loading backup. Variant 3 i think it's pointless (most conservative/compromised of the 3) BTW why does it have 2 crewmen in the hull and 2 in the turret? Are those 2 in the turret TC and manual loader (=gunner and driver in the hull, TC and loader in the turret)? However given soldier fee
  5. Officially there was only one penetration (by Kornet) which led to total destruction of the tank which makes me think about a hit to the rear of the hull side were most of the ammo is stored.
  6. Its this one And some years ago in youtube there was the footage recorded by Hezbollah from the same incident were the rotation of the missle (characteristic of beam riders like Kornet) was clearly visible, so far i couldn't find it again. Same tank after the hit The whole incident was covered here https://defense-update.com/20060801_lebanon-merkava.html
  7. Metis-M level for sure. Kornet likely. Nonetheless, there is one instance of a confirmed Kornet impact on the turret front and didn´t penetrate. https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7360479_B2
  8. That's because there is a big difference of angle in your image. I chose to make my estimation on that picture and that side specifically because of the angle of the channel in relation to the camera. And i find plausible that those were indeed the requirements in terms of CE protection. By the time Mk.4 was in development the IDF was experiencing asymmetric warfare in the first Lebanon War and plenty of attacks by ATGMs to the tanks weakspots. If this is achieved or not is something we can´t know but as you well say the only instance a Mk4 was penetrated was by a Kornet, and l
  9. The one i made days ago kind of validates this one. But mine has the advantage of being based on a real life image.
  10. Well we have seen both sides of UFP modules and there are no "warning-eplosives" signs. Makes sense to not have explosives right above the engine. Besides Mighty_Zuk (BTW, why was he banned??) confirmed that to me.
  11. If the empty triangular channel is a byproduct of the module geometry and not a needed feature to achieve the required protection level, then i have to conclude that the vast majority of the vertical aspect (at least at the turret side, i will make another estimation like this for the front module) maintains a module LOS thickness of no less than around 480mm not accounting for the side turret wall (50mm RHA?). That by itself is very thick (for comparison M1A2 has around 350-400mm including the side turret backplate/wall). Another matter entirely is estimating how that thickness t
  12. Point taken. However it's a complex matter on the Mk4. Firstly on other images showing "vertical slices" of the turret modules, the actual LOS thickness of the armor is mostly maintained across the height of the turret internal volume. Besides that, the inner "empty triangle" in between the armor should be accounted for as well. And in addition we have very thick turret walls (judging by eye the seem to me like 20-30cm in thickness).
  13. FINALLY got a relatively good top down view on Merkava 4 turret and again could make some pixel counting on the thickness of the externally mounted armor modules (that is, not accounting for the thickness of the steel backplates/turret walls).
  14. That's very interesting and sounds very similar to what the Chinese are doing. However i will express the same doubts that i did on the occasion of commenting on the AI assisted target detection and full AI gunnery. The latter is more difficult than the first especially in the kind of procedure described in the article (which point to a 2 man crew, driver plus commander). Why i say this? Because since the commander is busy confirming the targets offered to him by the AI and passing them over to the AI gunner (to smartly prioritize the order in which the targets will be engaged should be relati
  • Create New...