Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • 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    

2 hours ago, VPZ said:

Two types of interceptors for APS?

 

 

It sure does seem like it could be related to the APS, but it isn't. It's part of the vision block. Notice how there are 2 identical vision blocks placed at the front and sides of the vehicle, but nothing to cover the sides. The lower circle shows what is supposed to give vision for the sides.

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

It sure does seem like it could be related to the APS, but it isn't. It's part of the vision block. Notice how there are 2 identical vision blocks placed at the front and sides of the vehicle, but nothing to cover the sides. The lower circle shows what is supposed to give vision for the sides.

 

It's APS, in the video this thing launches interceptor to destroy RPG (2:30)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My post from here: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5197154648992459577#editor/target=post;postID=3802146867857306860;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname

 

On 11/02/2019 Jane's posted a video from IAV (International Armored Vehicles), showing an interview given by Shmulik Olanski, Head of Innovation Programs Center, Land and Naval division.

 

In the interview, Olanski talks a lot about Rafael's evolving future armored vehicle suite intended to provide mission support to the two crewmembers, also known in Israel as the Carmel.

In the Carmel project, three teams, or three companies, were pitted against each other in a $100m competition between Rafael, IAI, and Elbit, to design a cockpit for the next generation AFV of the IDF.

 

 

 

One of the key aspects of the cockpit are the ability of the crew to observe their surroundings almost seamlessly and thus prevent casualties from small arms fire when crewmembers stick their heads out of the vehicle.

 

I remind that the concepts are as following:

 

Elbit - IronVision helmet mounted system.

Rafael - Panoramic wide screen setup.

IAI - Combination of wide screens and a helmet.

 

IAI has still not presented its concept in a visual way, nor has publicly revealed any details about it, other than it being a combination of Elbit's and Rafael's concepts.

 

Elbit's concept was also revealed a while ago:

 

 

 

Elbit has also presented a prototype at roughly when Rafael only began working on their solution, but that won't seem to be an issue, except for one thing:

Elbit's solution has already been picked for the Merkava 4 Barack MBT, Eitan IFV, and presumably also the Namer AFV.

 

This may create some bias within the IDF for Elbit's system for the Carmel, however the Carmel is supposed to be a clean sheet design, and the competition is only supposed to examine various concepts, not the end product's performance.

 

It is also in my belief that Elbit's control of the BMS market will not affect the competition.

 

The purpose of this post is to provide a brief summary of the pros and cons of each of the presented solutions.

 

Rafael

Pros

  • Crewmen can point to the other crewman on the screen, and be sure they are observing the same thing. Especially useful in ambush scenarios, or in recon duties when the BMS is not yet fed with the target data or cannot pick up the target.
  • Easy data input via touching the screens.
  • More intuitive for a larger crew - a 3rd human crewman may be added for special missions.
  • More rugged.
  • Can possibly display other critical mission data when external cameras are offline.
  • May be used to interface with other systems in the tank during the mission, when cameras are online.
  • Stimulates team-work.

Cons

  • Coverage is limited to the location of the screens, requires movement of the independent panoramic sights to observe high elevation targets, which may take up some of the visual space for the other crewman.
  • Either analog and thus inferior movement of the independent sights or complex eye tracking technology.

Elbit

Pros

  • More intuitive for the single crewman, seeing everything right in front of his eyes.
  • Easier to operate the independent (TC or gunner's) sights.
  • Possibly less complex technology to move the independent sights (inertial navigation vs eye tracking).
  • May interface with different sights without interfering with the work of the other crewman.
  • Higher coverage.

Cons

  • Harder to communicate with the other crewmen over shared objectives.
  • Stimulates solo operation.
  • Less rugged.
  • If external cameras go offline, the vehicle's backup interface and systems may be more difficult to operate.
  • Difficult data input, may require separate computer or only allow commander to do so via less intuitive methods.

 

Those were just the pros and cons I could think of in the total span of maybe 5 minutes. 


 

Carmel

Now onto examining the video itself:

Screenshot_1.png

 

Here we can see one of the points I was talking about earlier. The man on the left points for the guy on the right, allowing easy interaction between the two crewmembers who can easily be distracted by vast amounts of incoming data.

Touching the screen also allows the crewmembers to easily lay new data for each other and on the BMS. For example selecting a target and classifying it as hostile/non-hostile.

 

Screenshot_2.png

 

The Carmel in this video, seems to be more clearly defined as a tankette, rather than an IFV, which on the concept level seems to replace the MBT altogether, or rather add a brand new vehicle which is yet unknown how it will fit in existing formations.

It could be an organic addition to infantry or recon battalions, but no doctrine has been developed for such a vehicle. Even in the Russian army where they have at least once considered purchasing BMPT vehicles as tank escorts, there is no solid doctrine proposal.

 

Screenshot_3.png

 

Same old Trophy system with no changes may indicate that no serious work has yet been done to integrate Iron Fist's launchers onto the Trophy system, even though the IDF required it for the Barack MBT.

Or it could just be a matter of editing choice, choosing to focus on the situational awareness technologies rather than unrelated APS development.

 

Screenshot_4.png

 

Another image here shows that Rafael chose to use 2 independent cameras, one for each crew member, which may be a result of the requirement to allow every crewmember to assume the role of the other in case the other is incapable of fulfilling his mission (injury/death). 

But what's more interesting is that Rafael proposed using 2 RCWS as well. 

 

The merits of such a proposal are disputable, but if two separate sights are already required, then adding an RCWS is considered an inexpensive upgrade, and could make engagement of targets more comfortable for the crew, knowing each one can control an MG at any given time for self defense in tight areas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Adraste said:

The ATK 50mm gun as shown in the Griffin demonstrator would be a more promising fit for the Carmel even if it means slightly lenghting the turret to accomodate the bigger ammos. The Carmel deserves a next-gen gun.

As far as we know, the plans on switching to a larger caliber gun remain in place. 

I have estimated, and still believe, that there will be an exceptionally high level of cooperation between Israel and the US in the Kaliya and OMFV programs, due to the high degree of similarity between the two projects.

In the previous video, posted by the Israeli MoD about a year ago, they showed a larger caliber gun, although it seems they were still ambiguous about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'Carmel' future armored vehicle project seems to me more and more a worderful compact 'turtle', with amazing situational awareness (the Rafael solution is largely the best concept I've ever seen), great firepower (even better with the ATK 50 Supershot), mobility and probably also great protection, passive (a so compact 36 ton AFV could be over Stanag 6 level) and active, with its APS. 

 

I think it could be a perfect platform for ISR and strike missions, in the role of forward echelon / covering force of the heavy armored brigades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VPZ said:

Are they going to install tank cannon on Carmel? Because, after all, army will need a replacement for Merkava.

The Kaliya program, which birthed the Eitan in 2014 before separating from it, is supposed to create a whole family of vehicles, but they don't necessarily have to be the vehicle you see in this video. It may definitely include an MBT as well.

The Carmel is a feasibility test, and anywhere between early 2020 and late 2027, the IDF should bunch up all the technologies they want for this program, and decide how to design the next family, or families, of vehicles. 

A tank to replace the Merkava 4 Barack will eventually be made. Whether it's going to be some form of evolution of the existing concept of Merkava tanks or a design that is radically different, is not yet known. Only that it will exist, and that it will incorporate Kaliya technologies.

 

What you're seeing in this video is basically just a Wiesel-tier vehicle with all the latest and greatest situational awareness gadgets. This is a vehicle type for which the IDF does not have a doctrine, and likely does not plan to develop one for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What you're seeing in this video is basically just a Wiesel-tier vehicle with all the latest and greatest situational awareness gadgets. This is a vehicle type for which the IDF does not have a doctrine, and likely does not plan to develop one for.

 

That vehicle looks a lot larger and higher than 5 tons and 2 meters and packs a lot more firepower. Seems more something along the Russian Terminator line of CONOPs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aroud 3:42-3:43 when they replace 3d model of that vehicle to 3d model of Boxer - one can somewhat compare those two.
jTNUp03.jpg
To me it looks like that thing was about 20 feet long and 6 feet 3 - 6 feet 7 high by hull's roof excluding turret, and (as seen on 3:36) rather wide,
FXOh3Vn.jpg
- overall, hull allmost as big (mere feet-and-a-half shorter) as that of the Bradley.
It looks smaller in earlier part of the video, when it materializes around 2 soldiers - but than it shoul have gun barrel length of like 5 or 6 feet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

 

According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

 

If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

 

PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Adraste said:

The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

 

According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

 

If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

 

PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

 

 

Transmissions are probably produced in Israel (at least, it was so in the past).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind folks that the MT883 engine is what allowed the IDF to finally get the Merkava's frontal hull armor from piss poor on the Mark 3 to rock solid in the Mark 4.

The Namer already got armor as thick as that of the Merkava 4's at the front, but could further be enhanced.

 

I am inclined to believe, however, that the AVDS engines are no longer supported, or just improlerly supported. 

A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A 9-man squad is already achieved in the Namer, and the troop compartment is relatively very spacious.

"relatively"
It's much narrower, compared to what could be expected given Namer's width when measured by tracks -
partly because of those antimine seats and because of whatever is located behind them on this pic:
7mSdfaJ.jpg 
MKhRGoQ.jpg

in the end soldiers seat in wery tight knee-to-knee configuration, although on those two pics its partly because of backpacks they wearing.
YBlz9wU.jpg
vAKbycj.jpg
VlN8DGF.jpg

different seats + not wearing backpacks inside = much more spacious, look at this Bradley photo:
QEYHcNH.jpg
or T-15 Armata, to that matter:
5LEc49E.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VPZ said:
14 hours ago, MRose said:

 

I'd think it's probably closer to 20-25 tons, it looks like it has a pretty elevated V-hull, which makes a lot of sense.

 

The chassis in the video is not what will really be.

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

 

A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VPZ said:
3 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

 

A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

 

The whole more guns than crew hasn't struck you as a little odd?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MRose said:

 

You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

I personally think that they added 2 RCWS simply because they already want 2 independent sights (current AFVs only have 1 at best), so attaching an RCWS with is really cheap and simple. This way both crewmembers get a sight of their own, and the ability to engage targets independently of who uses the main gun.

 

It can also be used to emulate the concept of Bright Arrow without burdening the interceptors/launchers themselves with the added weight of an RCWS.

Bright Arrow is basically a derivative of the Iron Fist LC in which an MG is attached to each launcher, and fires a burst immediately after the launcher fires. This way, in short range engagements it has a very high chance of eliminating the personnel who fires at the vehicle. At the cost, of course, of traverse speed of the launcher and thus increasing its reaction time.

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 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).
    • 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. 
       

×
×
  • Create New...