Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Magachon, based on M60 chassis.

 

Reportedly, it was decided not to put it into service because the Centurion and T-55 were seen as much more suitable for such a conversion. 

Exactly what made the M60 unsuitable, I'm not sure. I am guessing it might be because of the size of the powerpack.

Magashon_002.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M60 was still considered an upgradable, if obsolescent, tank. The Centurion was considered obsolete and at the end of its service life.  On the other hand, the torsion bar suspension of the M60 was not as well liked as the Horstmann suspension of the Centurion which was seen as easier to repair and more suited to the rough terrain of the Golan. Given this, it was always more likely that the Centurion would be the vehicle likely to be retasked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2019 at 7:09 AM, Marsh said:

The M60 was still considered an upgradable, if obsolescent, tank. The Centurion was considered obsolete and at the end of its service life.  On the other hand, the torsion bar suspension of the M60 was not as well liked as the Horstmann suspension of the Centurion which was seen as easier to repair and more suited to the rough terrain of the Golan. Given this, it was always more likely that the Centurion would be the vehicle likely to be retasked.

At the time, M60 vehicles were already being steadily withdrawn from service, one battalion per year.

The IDF apparently had enough vehicles to spare as far back as the 80's to create Pereh AT vehicles.

 

The suspension is also not the main issue, IMO. What supports my opinion is that around the 90's the IDF developed a light tank, similar to what the US Army wanted of the FCS program at some point.

This light tank used torsion bar suspension, designed by the same guy who made the Merkava 3's suspension. 

At no time since the 70's has the IDF changed its reference terrain from the Golan, especially not only a decade after a war with Syria (1982).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Zuk,

The Centurion was obsolete and had already begun withdrawal from IDF front line service well before the M60. Hence ready availability of hulls. the M60 was obsolescent, but still upgradable, even though the intention was to replace them with the Merkava as they became available.

 

I thought the Pereh was based upon the M48?

 

I know of the light tank proof of concept vehicle. I don't think the intent was to use it on the Golan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

It's 120mm. There is a little information inside a book of commemoration for the designer of the suspension system. It's in Hebrew but very interesting nonetheless. I don't have the link to hand, however, I am sure Mighty Zuk does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, Marsh said:

a book of commemoration for the designer of the suspension system. It's in Hebrew but very interesting nonetheless

short summary of information about this project (in russian) https://oleggranovsky.livejournal.com/27287.html has among its sources link to that book https://www.himush.co.il/himush.co.il/originals/ספר יחיעם.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that the light tank also has double pin tracks.  The Merkava is unusual, possibly singular among modern MBTs in that it uses single pin, non-rubber-bushed tracks.  Double pin tracks last longer, but the experience in the Golan Heights was that the volcanic rock there chews up the end connectors too quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marsh said:

Hi Zuk,

The Centurion was obsolete and had already begun withdrawal from IDF front line service well before the M60. Hence ready availability of hulls. the M60 was obsolescent, but still upgradable, even though the intention was to replace them with the Merkava as they became available.

 

I thought the Pereh was based upon the M48?

 

I know of the light tank proof of concept vehicle. I don't think the intent was to use it on the Golan. 

Yes you're right, the Pereh was based on M48 hulls, not M60.

But for quite a long time the IDF has been looking to convert old vehicles to APCs. Even the Merkava 2 was repurposed, and perhaps the main reason why no more Achzarit HAPCs were made was because there were no more usable tanks to make them from.

The M60 APC conversion, judging by the image quality, came somewhere between two points in time in which the need for converted tanks was quite substantial.

 

Another aspect to consider is the US aid to Israel. Today the aid is used very efficiently. Not one dollar is spent on unnecessary stuff. When it's not used to purchase the most high end aircraft, it's used to produce outsourced parts for indigenous projects like Merkava tanks, Namer APCs, Eitan AFVs, even the new howitzer, as well as the very expensive air defenses like Iron Dome or David's Sling.

 

But in the 90's that was far from the case. Huge chunks of the aid money were used on equipment and weapons that the IDF really had no need for. They just took them so the money won't be completely wasted. A lot of stuff went directly from the port into scrap yards.

 

Surplus M60 hulls could be purchased in the hundreds in just a couple years.

 

The only explanation I see here is some untold engineering obstacle that is not related to the engine and suspension.

6 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Is that a 105 or 120mm gun? 

 

Also, you have peaked my interest; is there a name or more info, preferably in English? 

 

No name. As was said, it was only once mentioned by the deceased Yehiam Harpaz, when he talked in a book about his experiences with torsion bar suspension.

 

3 hours ago, Karamazov said:

Tell me, does the IDF use Magah’s tanks? Or did IDF go completely to the merkava tanks?ÐаÑÑинки по запÑоÑÑ Ð¼Ð°Ð³Ð°Ñ-6 Ð±ÐµÑ Ð³Ð°Ð»Ñ Ð±Ð°ÑаÑ

 

The Magach tanks were officially retired in 2014, and the Pereh was retired in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contract for Trophy systems for the IDF in 2016 was $285 million for ~1,000 systems plus development.

It grew in 2017 to $312 million. 

Date of contract completion remained unchanged - 2027.

This is an approximately 100 systems more, and adds to the production rate quite substantially. 

If the date of contract completion is not delayed, then we're talking about 1,040 systems over 10 years, instead of 950 systems over 11 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, SPARTAN ARMED said:

The U.S. military set an April target for leaving Syria, even without a plan in place to protect Kurds from Turkish attacksWhy idf didnt have the new JLTV and when they have in service the new MRAP from the FMTV and how many trucks the army will have , i wonder if you serve in lebanon you have only zelda and nagmachons and not a light MRAP.

 

1)The JLTV costs quite a lot of money and is still a lower priority for replacement at the moment. First a critical mass of heavy Namer APCs and medium Eitan APCs have to enter service. Only then, when their production and budget are secured, the IDF can start allocating resources to replace the old APCs in support roles. But replacement of the Zelda in combat roles is top priority!

 

2)The FMTV truck is already in service and the IDF so far placed contracts for 200 units, although it also said it intends to purchase a further 'hundreds more' trucks for medium and heavy loads, which includes the HEMTT trucks as well.

 

3)Serving in Lebanon is no longer a thing since 2000. Any maneuvering combat unit going into either Lebanon or Gaza, or any other hostile territory, as part of a military operation, will be going in heavy APCs/IFVs. First go the units equipped with Namers. Then go the units with the 2nd best armor and so on.

 

The units patrolling the border near Lebanon, in areas of high risk, are constantly driving in heavy APCs. Although in any case of war they do not enter Lebanon, or at least are not the first to enter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said:

that video with 3d models and crew in mockup of future vehicle's interior kinda reminds me of FCS adverts from mid-00s,
The main difference is - monitors got bigger.
bx12d38.jpg

The difference is not in the size of monitors, but what they are supposed to feed back to you.

 

Rafael's concept is kinda like Elbit's IronVision, giving you a full hemispheric view of the vehicle's surroundings, but instead of using a helmet, using very large touch screens, which also allows interfacing with mission aid software which is limited on the IronVision.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      @Toxn
      @Dominus Dolorem
      @Lord_James
      @A. T. Mahan
      @delete013
      @Sten
      @Xoon
      @Curly_
      @N-L-M
      @Sturgeon
       
      detailed below is the expected format of the final submission.
      The date is set as Saturday the 24th of July at 23:59 CST.
      Again, incomplete designs may be submitted as they are and will be judged as seen fit.

      PLEASE REMEMBER ALL ENTRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN USC ONLY
       
       
      FINAL SUBMISSION:
      Vehicle Designation and name
       
      [insert 3-projection (front, top, side) and isometric render of vehicle here]
       
      Table of basic statistics:
      Parameter
      Value
      Mass, combat (armor)
       
      Length, combat (transport)
       
      Width, combat (transport)
       
      Height, combat (transport)
       
      Ground Pressure, zero penetration
       
      Estimated Speed
       
      Estimated range
       
      Crew, number (roles)
       
      Main armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
      Secondary armament, caliber (ammo count ready/stowed)
       
       
      Vehicle designer’s notes: explain the thought process behind the design of the vehicle, ideas, and the development process from the designer’s point of view.
      Vehicle feature list:
      Mobility:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Engine- type, displacement, rated power, cooling, neat features.
      3.     Transmission - type, arrangement, neat features.
      4.     Fuel - Type, volume available, stowage location, estimated range, neat features.
      5.     Other neat features in the engine bay.
      6.     Suspension - Type, Travel, ground clearance, neat features.
      Survivability:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Link to Appendix 2 - armor array details.
      3.     Non-specified survivability features and other neat tricks - low profile, gun depression, instant smoke, cunning internal arrangement, and the like.
      Firepower:
      A.    Weapons:
      1.     Link to Appendix 1 - RFP spreadsheet, colored to reflect achieved performance.
      2.     Main Weapon-
      a.      Type
      b.      Caliber
      c.      ammunition types and performance (short)
      d.     Ammo stowage arrangement- numbers ready and total, features.
      e.      FCS - relevant systems, relevant sights for operating the weapon and so on.
      f.      Neat features.
      3.     Secondary weapon - Similar format to primary. Tertiary and further weapons- likewise.
      4.     Link to Appendix 3 - Weapon system magic. This is where you explain how all the special tricks related to the armament that aren’t obviously available using 1960s tech work, and expand to your heart’s content on estimated performance and how these estimates were reached.
      B.    Optics:
      1.     Primary gunsight - type, associated trickery.
      2.     Likewise for any and all other optics systems installed, in no particular order.
      C.    FCS:
      1.     List of component systems, their purpose and the basic system architecture.
      2.     Link to Appendix 3 - weapon system magic, if you have long explanations about the workings of the system.
      Fightability:
      1.     List vehicle features which improve its fightability and useability.
      Additonal Features:
      Feel free to list more features as you see fit, in more categories.
      Free expression zone: Let out a big yeehaw to impress the world with your design swagger! Kindly spoiler this section if it’s very long.
       
       Example for filling in Appendix 1
       Example for filling in Appendix 2
       Example for filling in Appendix 3

      GOOD LUCK!
    • By Monochromelody
      IDF had kept about 100 Tiran-6/T-62s since 1973, and remain service until 1990s. 
       
      I wonder if there's any modification on Tiran-6, like changing the powerpack into 8V71T+XTG-411, adapting steering wheel. 
       
      I also heard that British ROF had produce a batch of 115mm barrel for IDF, while MECAR or NEXTER produced high-performance APFSDS for 115mm gun. Did IDF really use these barrels for original barrel replacement? 
       
      And about protection, did IDF put Blazer ERA on Tiran-6? Or they use more advanced APS like Trophy? 
       
      Thank you. 
    • By Sturgeon
      The LORD was with the men of Deseret. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots of steel.
      —The Book of Latter Day Saints, Ch 8, vs. 3:10, circa 25th Century CE
       
      BULLETIN: ALL INDUSTRIAL-MECHANICAL CONCERNS
       
      SOLICITATION FOR ALL-TERRAIN BATTLE TANK
       
      The Provisional Government of the Lone Free State of Texas and The Great Plains issues the following solicitation for a new All-Terrain Battle Tank. The vehicle will be the main line ground combat asset of the Lone Free State Rangers, and the Texas Free State Patrol, and will replace the ageing G-12 Scout Truck, and fill the role of the cancelled G-42 Scout Truck. The All-Terrain Battle Tank (ATBT) will be required to counter the new Californian and Cascadian vehicles and weapons which our intelligence indicates are being used in the western coast of the continent. Please see the attached sheet for a full list of solicitation requirements.
       

       
      Submissions will be accepted in USC only.
       
       
      Supplementary Out of Canon Information:
       
       
      I.     Technology available:
      a.      Armor:
      The following armor materials are in full production and available for use. Use of a non-standard armor material requires permission from a judge.
      Structural materials:
                                                                    i.     RHA/CHA
      Basic steel armor, 360 BHN. The reference for all weapon penetration figures, good impact properties, fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches (RHA) 8 inches (CHA). 
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3.
                                                                   ii.     Aluminum 5083
      More expensive to work with than RHA per weight, middling impact properties, low thermal limits. Excellent stiffness.
       Fully weldable. Available in thicknesses up to 4 inches.
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1 vs CE, 0.9 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.33 vs CE, 0.3 vs KE.
      Density- 0.1 lb/in^3 (approx. 1/3 of steel).
      For structural integrity, the following guidelines are recommended:
      For heavy vehicles (30-40 tons), not less than 1 in RHA/1.75 in Aluminum base structure
      For medium-light vehicles (<25 tons), not less than 0.5 in RHA/1 in Aluminum base structure
      Intermediate values for intermediate vehicles may be chosen as seen fit.
      Non-structural passive materials:
                                                                  iii.     HHA
      Steel, approximately 500 BHN through-hardened. Approximately 1.5x as effective as RHA against KE and HEAT on a per-weight basis. Not weldable, middling shock properties. Available in thicknesses up to 1 inch.
      Density- 0.28 lb/in^3
                                                                  iv.     Fuel
      Mass efficiency vs RHA of 1.3 vs CE, 1 vs KE.
      Thickness efficiency vs RHA of 0.14 vs CE, 0.1 vs KE.
      Density-0.03 lb/in^3.
                                                                v.     Assorted stowage/systems
      Mass efficiency vs RHA- 1 vs CE, 0.8 vs KE.
                                                               vi.     Spaced armor
      Requires a face of at least 1 inch LOS vs CE, and at least 0.75 caliber LOS vs fullbore AP KE.
      Reduces penetration by a factor of 1.1 vs CE or 1.05 vs KE for every 4 inchair gap.
      Spaced armor rules only apply after any standoff surplus to the requirements of a reactive cassette.
      Reactive armor materials:
                                                                  vii.     ERA
      A sandwich of 0.125in/0.125in/0.125in steel-explodium-steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 2 sandwich thicknesses away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 81% coverage (edge effects).
                                                                  viii.     NERA
      A sandwich of 0.25in steel/0.25in rubber/0.25in steel.
      Requires mounting brackets of approximately 10-30% cassette weight.
      Must be spaced at least 1 sandwich thickness away from any other armor elements to allow full functionality. 95% coverage.
      The details of how to calculate armor effectiveness will be detailed in Appendix 1.
      b.      Firepower
                                                                    i.     Bofors 57mm (reference weapon) - 85,000 PSI PMax/70,000 PSI Peak Operating Pressure, high quality steel cases, recoil mechanisms and so on are at an equivalent level to that of the USA in the year 1960.
                                                                   ii.     No APFSDS currently in use, experimental weapons only - Spindle sabots or bourelleted sabots, see for example the Soviet BM-20 100mm APFSDS.
                                                                  iii.     Tungsten is available for tooling but not formable into long rod penetrators. It is available for penetrators up to 6 calibers L:D.
                                                                  iv.     Texan shaped charge technology - 4 CD penetration for high-pressure resistant HEAT, 5 CD for low pressure/ precision formed HEAT.
                                                                   v.     The subsidy-approved GPMG for the Lone Free State of Texas has the same form factor as the M240, but with switchable feed direction.. The standard HMG has the same form factor as the Kord, but with switchable feed direction.
      c.       Mobility
                                                                    i.     Engines tech level:
      1.      MB 838 (830 HP)
      2.      AVDS-1790-5A (908 HP)
      3.      Kharkov 5TD (600 HP)
      4.    Detroit Diesel 8V92 (400 HP)
      5.    Detroit Diesel 6V53 (200 HP)
                                                                   ii.     Power density should be based on the above engines. Dimensions are available online, pay attention to cooling of 1 and 3 (water cooled).
                                                                  iii.     Power output broadly scales with volume, as does weight. Trying to extract more power from the same size may come at the cost of reliability (and in the case of the 5TD, it isn’t all that reliable in the first place).
                                                                  iv.     There is nothing inherently wrong with opposed piston or 2-stroke engines if done right.
      d.      Electronics
                                                                    i.     LRFs- unavailable
                                                                   ii.     Thermals-unavailable
                                                                  iii.     I^2- Gen 2 maximum
                                                                  vi.     Texas cannot mass produce microprocessors or integrated circuits
                                                                 vii.    Really early transistors only (e.g., transistor radio)
                                                                viii.    While it is known states exist with more advanced computer technology, the import of such systems are barred by the east coast states who do not approve of their use by militaristic entities.
       
      Armor calculation appendix.
       
      SHEET 1 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 1200 yd
       
      SHEET 2 Armor defeat calculator 4in-54 2000 yd
       
      SHEET 3 Armor defeat calculator 6in HEAT
       
      Range calculator
       
    • 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).
×
×
  • Create New...