Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

 

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Now, one reason why the upper sections are generally thicker in the Merkava series is because anything coming from an angle that is above the horizontal, will be able to substantially decrease the effect that the armor's angle gives, so to negate that the armor itself must have a certain thickness. And if the lower sections of the armor are pierced in this manner, only the engine will be hit. If the upper section will be hit, the engine will not be in the way and the crew compartment will be breached, and there will be casualties. The same appears on the Mark 3 where the hull composite armor module shown below in green is of the same thickness as the yellow and red modules (when they're combined with the base armor), which was calculated earlier to be 140mm.

 

  Hide contents

ec87a810.jpg

 

You can have thickness to have vacuum for air intake to cool the plate avoiding problems with the thermal sight and improving thermal signature. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Something interesting about Merkava III's armor protection(in Chinese): Some of these images are come from Chinese course book《装甲防护技术基础》(The basic technology of armor protection), and others are

Couple more of the Mk.3-based Ofek    

13 hours ago, Serge said:

 

You can have thickness to have vacuum for air intake to cool the plate avoiding problems with the thermal sight and improving thermal signature. 

The air intake on the Mark 3 is not in the same position as it is on the Mark 4. It's beside the UFP and above the tracks. Only on the Mark 4 it's behind the UFP's main composite armor plate (section C).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I am leaning towards thinking they might be wrong.

:wacko::unsure::(<_< that sucks!  Are they any viable estimates on the protection level of the early Merkava I , II and III ?

 

I am getting the impression that a lot of the general  estimates of many MBTs out there are overestimates.  The  Leopard 2A5 turret cheeks having a KE resistance of 1300 mm RHAem is a good example of these overly "optimistic" estimates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are wrong. Mr. Zhang probably didn't invent the values, he has seen armor testbeds. Maybe he used the performance of these testbeds to estimate the protection (i.e. he has provided photos of Merkava's armor being tested against ATGMs and RPGs - so it doesn't seem to be very unlikely that he also saw tests of the armor against KE rounds) or he was told against which respective rounds the armor was designed and used this to estimate the protection level.

 

___

 

How heavy is the Namer IFV with remote turret? According to the DTR Magazine, the LAND 400 Phase 3 competition for an IFV demands sealift capability using a LHD class landing craft from Navantia. Given that these have problems lifting a Leopardo 2E (63-64 metric tons), this might eliminate the Namer IFV from having any chances of being chosen.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

:wacko::unsure::(<_< that sucks!  Are they any viable estimates on the protection level of the early Merkava I , II and III ?

 

I am getting the impression that a lot of the general  estimates of many MBTs out there are overestimates.  The  Leopard 2A5 turret cheeks having a KE resistance of 1300 mm RHAem is a good example of these overly "optimistic" estimates.

I can try to calculate the armor thickness and armor LoS but the results would probably be disappointing. The Merkava 1 and 2 just did not have any form of good hull front protection against KE, until the Mark 2D maybe, which even then only covered the driver's section.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

I don't think they are wrong. Mr. Zhang probably didn't invent the values, he has seen armor testbeds. Maybe he used the performance of these testbeds to estimate the protection (i.e. he has provided photos of Merkava's armor being tested against ATGMs and RPGs - so it doesn't seem to be very unlikely that he also saw tests of the armor against KE rounds) or he was told against which respective rounds the armor was designed and used this to estimate the protection level.

 

___

 

How heavy is the Namer IFV with remote turret? According to the DTR Magazine, the LAND 400 Phase 3 competition for an IFV demands sealift capability using a LHD class landing craft from Navantia. Given that these have problems lifting a Leopardo 2E (63-64 metric tons), this might eliminate the Namer IFV from having any chances of being chosen.

 

 

You are correct in your assumption that he had at least a good enough access to make educated guesses at the least, if not fully being aware of certain tests results other than just those of the armor modules vs HOT and RPG-7. But we also see some very theoretical implementations of armor protection there. 

Other than the mere protection estimates, we see a sketch of what is supposed to be a Merkava 3 hull but with the flat UFP of a Merkava, probably relating to a test bed of the Merkava 3 that would simulate the Mark 4. And we also see a sketch of what is identical to the Merkava 3 by shape (rear section), but with thickness values that would much more likely resemble the Mark 1-2 tanks, not the Mark 3. I'll try to see what I can find on the Mark 1 and 2 so I could measure their UFP thickness via scale, and check if that picture refers to them. And that composite armor on the LFP? Only if they chose to put a thin composite armor block between the structural steel and the fuel tanks, or after the fuel tanks (of which there is no evidence).

 

The Namer CEV version weighs 63.5 tons. The reason I'm telling you about the CEV is because on the 'normal' Namer the specs are rounded up/down so they're of no use (things like about 9 meters, about 60 tons etc). CEV version comes with Trophy and a 0.5" cal RCWS. The IFV version will replace the 0.5" cal with a 30mm gun and relocate the APS to the turret. I can infer from this that the turret designed for the Namer is a derivative of RAFAEL's improved and yet unnamed variant of the Samson. The Samson has a weight of 1.5 tons if we account for all the kit (not adding Trophy's weight because the platform's weight accounted for it) but exclude the armor. So even without an armor kit, this would make the Namer a 65-ton IFV. Not good.

But, unless they plan on putting these ashore and rush straight to the battlefield, there's a lot of very heavy equipment that can be removed and shipped separately like the side skirts, belly armor, and other pieces of armor.

IMI (although now it would probably be Elbit) could offer the Namer with different armor packages, but the likelihood of that isn't very high, and that would beat the purpose of this vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eitan has finished a comprehensive series of mobility trials conducted by MANTAK in pair with the Nahal infantry brigade. The trials have included driving in all types of terrain that exist in Israel, from the northernmost Golan heights with its boulders and deep mud, to the open deserts and dunes of the southern Negev desert. Road tests were also made. This means the baseline version is now almost ready, and the next milestones include testing of the turret, helmet systems, and operational trials. I assume that since the Nahal brigade has been involved for quite a long time now, at least several milestones in the operational trials were also met already, which just shows the merits of concurrency. 

 

Just a reminder, the Eitan is due to enter service in its finalized version with a turret, APS, and HMDs in the year 2020, and the government has recently approved a program to acquire several hundred vehicles of this type.

 

Youtube has a higher quality footage now:

Spoiler

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.4.2018 at 2:31 PM, Marsh said:

Hi,

I don't understand what you mean by the Merkava 3 was not fitted with additional, heavy applique armour kits in the same manner as the Merkava 2D. A major portion of the Merkava 3 production run were fitted with just such armour modules as the Merkava Siman 3 Daled (Mk. 3D). As well as those produced as new with the modules from the beginning, Merkava 3 Baz models were retro-fitted with the applique modules. Only a minority of the Merkava 3 fleet are left without the additional armour.

 

If you are talking about only hull and side-skirt armour, then that would make more sense. However, there are different styles and weights of side-skirts available, some with better protection than the ones you see routinely fitted. There is also the matter of cost. Only a small portion of the Merkava 2 fleet were up-armoured to the Merkava 2 D Batash standard. Even then, the armour configuration  and other changes used for the 2D Batash was not as extensive as the projected Merkava 2 "Tafnookim " which would have been too expensive.

 

I could be mistaken, but I think the Merkava 3 in the bottom photo, was a developmental one used for the Merkava 4 programme, where new systems, armour modules, etc. were experimented with.

 

I was talking about the frontal hull section, which was more or less neglected other than the driver's section.

The Merkava 2 'Tafnookim' was not as extensive as the Mark 2D was. It only had the turret armor of it, as well as the Mark 3's driver section UFP module, which is thinner than the larger armor module eventually fitted on the Mark 2D, and only a portion of the eventual side armor. Also, the turret roof armor on the Tafnookim remained the same as the Mark 2C, while Mark 2D got a new one. Mark 2D was definitely more comprehensive if it was merely an armor upgrade.

 

123.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A tragic accident happened today. A Merkava 3D tank veered off course and fell into a ditch, which caused one round (unknown from where) to come escape its stowage and eventually catch fire. The fire was immediately extinguished by automatic systems, but nonetheless the driver was killed.

It is yet undetermined whether it happened because of inhalation of the gas, or because of the intense burning of the round.

The rest of the crew received burning injuries of varying degrees. One was lightly injured, and another two are hospitalized in a serious condition.

 

84682430990100640360no.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not exactly a tank or a heavy APC or IFV, but it was said the IDF is looking for multiple types of vehicles for multiple weight classes below the Eitan, and it's possible the Plasan Yagu will find its place there:

imgl0982.jpg?itok=bZaI49ZK

 

imgl1104.jpg?itok=1m2zvBgb

 

It provides a STANAG 4569 level 2 protection, but comes with a weight of 1.48 tons, which is extremely light for that protection class.

 

Sporting an RCWS and an observation drone (tethered?) as well, it could be very suitable for a multitude of roles - from border patrols and peacekeeping operations to special forces who require very high mobility and minimal protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Found a few higher resolution photographs from the recent North Korean military parade. We didn't have a topic for BEST KOREAN armored fighting vehicles, so here it is.
       
      New main battle tank, Abrams-Armata clone based on Ch'ŏnma turret design (welded, box-shaped turret) and Sŏn'gun hull design (i.e. centerline driver's position). The bolts of the armor on the hull front is finally visible given the increased resolution. It might not be ERA given the lack of lines inbetween. Maybe is a NERA module akin to the MEXAS hull add-on armor for the Leopard 2A5?
       
      Other details include an APS with four radar panels (the side-mounted radar panels look a lot different - and a lot more real - than the ones mounted at the turret corners) and twelve countermeasures in four banks (two banks à three launchers each at the turret front, two banks à three launchers on the left and right side of the turret). Thermal imagers for gunner and commander, meteorological mast, two laser warning receivers, 115 mm smoothbore gun without thermal sleeve but with muzze reference system, 30 mm grenade launcher on the turret, six smoke grenade dischargers (three at each turret rear corner)
       


       
      IMO the layout of the roof-mounted ERA is really odd. Either the armor array covering the left turret cheek is significantly thinner than the armor on the right turret cheek or the roof-mounted ERA overlaps with the armor.
       


      The first ERA/armor element of the skirt is connected by hinges and can probably swivel to allow better access to the track. There is a cut-out in the slat armor for the engine exhaust. Also note the actual turret ring - very small diameter compared to the outer dimensions of the turret.
       
      Stryker MGS copy with D-30 field gun clone and mid engine:

      Note there are four crew hatches. Driver (on the left front of the vehicle), commander (on the right front of the vehicle, seat is placed a bit further back), gunner (left side of the gun's overhead mount, next to the gunner's sight) and unknown crew member (right side of gun's overhead mount with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher mounted at the hatch). The vehicle also has a thermal imager and laser rangefinder (gunner's sight is identical to the new tank), but no independent optic for the commander. It also has the same meteorological mast and laser warner receivers as the new MBT.
       
      What is the purpose of the fourth crew member? He cannot realistically load the gun...
       
      The vehicle has a small trim vane for swimming, the side armor is made of very thin spaced steel that is bend on multiple spots, so it clearly is not ceramic armor as fitted to the actual Stryker.

       
      The tank destroyer variant of the same Stryker MGS copy fitted with a Bulsae-3 ATGM launcher.
       

      Note that there is again a third hatch with 30 mm automatic grenade launcher behind the commander's position. Laser warning receivers and trime vane are again stand-out features. The sighting complex for the Bulsae-3 ATGMs is different with a large circular optic (fitted with cover) probably being a thermal imager and two smaller lenses visible on the very right (as seen from the vehicle's point of view) probably containing a day sight and parts of the guidance system.
       

      Non line-of-sight ATGM carrier based on the 6x6 local variant of the BTR, again fitted with laser warning receivers and a trim vane. There are only two hatches and two windows, but there is a three men crew inside.
       
       
      There are a lot more photos here, but most of them are infantry of missile system (MLRS' and ICBMs).
    • By Monochromelody
      Disappeared for a long period, Mai_Waffentrager reappeared four months ago. 
      This time, he took out another photoshoped artifact. 

      He claimed that the Japanese prototype 105GSR (105 mm Gun Soft Recoil) used an autoloader similar to Swedish UDES 19 project. Then he showed this pic and said it came from a Japanese patent file. 
      Well, things turn out that it cames from Bofors AG's own patent, with all markings and numbers wiped out. 

      original file→https://patents.google.com/patent/GB1565069A/en?q=top+mounted+gun&assignee=bofors&oq=top+mounted+gun+bofors
      He has not changed since his Type 90 armor scam busted. Guys, stay sharp and be cautious. 
       
    • By Beer
      I am sure there are many very interesting stories to share about this topic. Let's start with couple of articles about the weird and sometimes downright crazy history of Czechoslovak assistance which helped Israel to survive its early days. It's true that Czechoslovakia asked a lot of money for bypassing the UN embargo but it doesn't change the fact that it helped in the critical time - before the change of course was ordered from Kremlin in 1949. It's also worth mentioning that the arms-smuggling to Israel brought up to 1/3 of all foreign currency income of Czechoslovakia at that time! It's all in Czech but well understandable with the google translate. 
       
      Here in short the story of the secret Czechoslovak operation DI - the military asistance to Israel from the website of the Czech Institute of the military history. The article contains rare historical photos from the covert military training for army specialists (pilots, tankers, mechanics and even an infantry brigade made of volunteers from the former Czechoslovak Army Corps in USSR). 
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vhu.cz%2Fprubeh-a-podrobnosti-cs-vojenske-pomoci-izraeli-na-konci-40-let%2F
       
      If you really like the topic, you can learn many more details from these six chapters of this superlong article (sure worth studying for anyone interested in the topic).
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valka.cz%2F14222-Ceskoslovensko-a-jeho-vojenska-pomoc-statu-Izrael-v-prvnim-obdobi-jeho-samostatne-existence-I%3Futm_source%3Dvalka_cz%26utm_medium%3Darticle%26utm_campaign%3Dserial
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valka.cz%2F14223-Ceskoslovensko-a-jeho-vojenska-pomoc-statu-Izrael-v-prvnim-obdobi-jeho-samostatne-existence-II%3Futm_source%3Dvalka_cz%26utm_medium%3Darticle%26utm_campaign%3Dserial
      https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valka.cz%2F14230-Ceskoslovensko-a-jeho-vojenska-pomoc-statu-Izrael-v-prvnim-obdobi-jeho-samostatne-existence-III
      https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valka.cz%2F14236-Ceskoslovensko-a-jeho-vojenska-pomoc-statu-Izrael-v-prvnim-obdobi-jeho-samostatne-existence-IV%3Futm_source%3Dvalka_cz%26utm_medium%3Darticle%26utm_campaign%3Dserial
      https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valka.cz%2F14242-Ceskoslovensko-a-jeho-vojenska-pomoc-statu-Izrael-v-prvnim-obdobi-jeho-samostatne-existence-V%3Futm_source%3Dvalka_cz%26utm_medium%3Darticle%26utm_campaign%3Dserial
      https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valka.cz%2F14246-Ceskoslovensko-a-jeho-vojenska-pomoc-statu-Izrael-v-prvnim-obdobi-jeho-samostatne-existence-VI%3Futm_source%3Dvalka_cz%26utm_medium%3Darticle%26utm_campaign%3Dserial
       
      After that we have the totally crazy story of the Cairo bombing raid actually performed from the communist Czechoslovakia in 1948. Why don't we have yet any movie about three B-17s smuggled from USA, crewed by American-Jewish airmen, armed with former German machineguns and bombs and operating from an airfield located in then communist Czechoslovakia? If that doesn't deserve to be filmed than what does? 
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.idnes.cz%2Fzpravy%2Fdomaci%2Fnalet-zatec-kahira-b-17-izrael.A130712_105045_domaci_jw
       
      Most of you likely know that the first combat aircraft of the Israeli airforce were Czechoslovak Avia S-199 fighters. This stillborn stop-gap modification of the leftover Bf-109G airframe was rather useless in fact (Czechoslovakia had loads of Bf-109 airframes but no spare DB-605 engines whose reliability was absurdly low due to bad late-war steel, so the engines were replaced with Jumo-211 bomber units - completely unsuitable but available) but nevertheless it helped to stop the Egyptian attack on Tel Aviv and brought a very important psychological advantage on the Israeli side. More about these planes here. 
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.idnes.cz%2Ftechnet%2Fvojenstvi%2Fizrael-ceskoslovensko-vyroci-izraelske-letectvo.A180526_235424_vojenstvi_erp
      https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.idnes.cz%2Ftechnet%2Fvojenstvi%2Fceskoslovenske-letectvo-stihaci-letadlo-avia-s-199.A200116_174150_vojenstvi_erp 
       
      To add to the absurdity of that time... the man behind the support for the Israel was Czechoslovak FM Vladimír Clementis who was executed just few years later as a result of an intra-communist power struggle.  
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

×
×
  • Create New...