Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Yep, it's Trophy alright. 

 

11.jpg

 

Looking good!

 

Note: The smoke grenade launcher was removed and the gap that was usually taken by it was filled with armor. 

Notice the gap:

MERKAVA-3D-1.jpg

 

Shame they didn't take the opportunity to make a more serious overhaul. The Mark 3 could probably use a little rearrangement in its frontal section, some weight reduction wherever possible, and an improved frontal armor on the hull. I know it's more needed on the sides, but it can't be very economical to have the engine frequently damaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yep, it's Trophy alright. 

 

961809_bnekfa-jpg.71005

 

Looking good!

 

Note: The smoke grenade launcher was removed and the gap that was usually taken by it was filled with armor. 

Notice the gap:

MERKAVA-3D-1.jpg

 

Shame they didn't take the opportunity to make a more serious overhaul. The Mark 3 could probably use a little rearrangement in its frontal section, some weight reduction wherever possible, and an improved frontal armor on the hull. I know it's more needed on the sides, but it can't be very economical to have the engine frequently damaged.

Can you re-upload a first picture? For some reason i have 404 error now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a big demonstration of all sorts of technologies today to the IDF, of tech that will soon enter service (not just experimental stuff). As usual, the new artillery piece was not shown, because Elbit are still keeping it under covers, but they chose to give us, the peasants, some news:

 

The new howitzer will be built in an initial batch of 100 vehicles and will be based on a wheeled chassis. Follow-on howitzers may be based on tracked vehicles. 

Now, I don't quite remember the exact numbers, but if I'm not wrong, there are, in the IDF:

4 artillery brigades - 2 active, 2 reserve.

Each brigade consists of 4 battalion of howitzers each.

The 2 active brigades are both split with 2 active battalions and 2 reserve battalions in each of them.

This puts us at 4 active battalions, and 12 reserve battalions.

 

So there are:

Active - 72 howitzers.

Reserve - 216 howitzers.

 

Each howitzer will be manned by a yet undetermined number of crewmen ranging from 3 to 5, and an overall reduction of 25% to 40% is envisioned, though yet unclear whether it refers to manpower, vehicles, or both. 

My assumption is that each vehicle will be manned by 3 men, while another 2 (for a total of 5) will be in the ammo carrier vehicle. This is because it's normal to say the M109 has a crew of 9 to 11 (9 in the vehicle, and 2 in the resupply vehicle).

 

It is assumed that the typical battalion will reduce to 12 vehicles from 18, so a batch of 100 vehicles will be enough to fully equip 8 battalions, which are 2 whole brigades. And another 4 vehicles will be left for testing and demonstrations. 

 

And of course, it's likely the 2nd batch of 100 vehicles, which will complete the transition of the artillery corps to a new howitzer, will be based on a tracked platform. If that will be the case, the wheeled platforms will be transferred to the reservists, and the tracked platforms will take their place in the active brigades.

 

This is a good move for 2 main reasons:

1)Tracked howitzers are only needed for maneuver combat. With a total of 192 howitzers (after the transition), hardly half will be required to maneuver anywhere. So it would be ideal if the reservists will have a system that will be easier and cheaper to maintain. A wheeled platform cuts down expenses tremendously.

2)Wheeled platforms are easier and faster to make, not only cheaper. So it would allow the IDF to re-equip its artillery forces before the M109 turn into rust buckets. I mean, they already are. 

 

And because this has been an unpleasant wall of text, have some pictures:

 

Bunch of Namers amid a Golani brigade exercise along with the 188th armored brigade, in which a Mark 3 tank with a Trophy system was also showcased for the first time.

83772600990100640360no.jpg

 

Eitan, of course. Just an optical illusion though. It's not really that big.

resizedimg115086-jpg-jpg.71367

 

Namer with its new turret with 30mm gun, 2 Spike LR2 missiles, a 60mm mortar, a Trophy APS, and a damn good look.

83777200992398640360no.jpg

 

120mm low recoil mortar on a light 4x4 platform:

837772201001287640360no.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all, 

 

first time poster here, looking for a little help with a cruel lady, please.... I need a photo of the engine bay of an Achzarit where the engine is removed; if anyone has a shot they can share, I’d appreciate it. I’m particularly interested in the teaching model of the Achzarit at the Golani Brigade training base, please. I did try several modelling forums before posting here.

 

thanks in advance,

 

Kylie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Hello all, 

 

first time poster here, looking for a little help with a cruel lady, please.... I need a photo of the engine bay of an Achzarit where the engine is removed; if anyone has a shot they can share, I’d appreciate it. I’m particularly interested in the teaching model of the Achzarit at the Golani Brigade training base, please. I did try several modelling forums before posting here.

 

thanks in advance,

 

Kylie

I've done quite a bit of searching and found nothing. And if modelling forums couldn't help you, I don't think anyone can. 

Maybe try these books:

http://www.deserteagle-publishing.com/books.html

 

Their author, Michael Mass, is Israel's main historian on armored vehicles and the head of Israel's tank museum in Latrun.

 

I will also try looking up in a forum I know, but if that book doesn't have it, then the chances are slim to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Hello all, 

 

first time poster here, looking for a little help with a cruel lady, please.... I need a photo of the engine bay of an Achzarit where the engine is removed; if anyone has a shot they can share, I’d appreciate it. I’m particularly interested in the teaching model of the Achzarit at the Golani Brigade training base, please. I did try several modelling forums before posting here.

 

thanks in advance,

 

Kylie

This is what i have. These photos were taken at the Latrun Armored Corps Museum in Israel(not by me). The tank shown in this walk around is a prototype. It does not represent accurately the fielded units.

 CE10WS9GIic.jpg

New-Achzarit-Powerpack.jpg?id=9451012

 

achzarit_29_of_42.jpgachzarit_24_of_42.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cabinet approved this evening (11.03.18) an MoD and IDF plan for strengthening the ground arm, which includes 2 main projects that were decided in the Gideon multi-year plan (2015-2020): The purchase of 'hundreds' of Eitan combat vehicles, and the development of a new self propelled howitzer.

 

Eitan

On the Eitan, it was said it would enter service with the Nahal light infantry brigade in 2019, and will steadily start replacing M113 in 2020. Nahal was chosen to lead the Eitan project by being the first to test it. 

MANTAK say the Eitan will be the world's most advanced and protected wheeled combat vehicle, basing itself on technologies developed for the Merkava and Namer, and being designed with an open architecture to allow easy integration of upgrades in the future.

And its main advantage over the Namer would be its rapid rate of production.

 

MoD and IDF refrained from telling how many vehicles exactly will they need, which may be due to the fact that they have yet to see how much the budget allows them. Ideally, it would replace the M113 in as many roles as possible, while in some roles a light armored vehicle, preferably the JLTV, would replace the M113. 

 

The plan spans a decade, so even if the production rate of the Eitan is similar to the Namer, we can expect at least 300 vehicles. But it won't be, and will likely be twice as fast, which could mean north of 600 vehicles. Of course, many of them will not be frontline vehicles. 

 

MoD's contract with RAFAEL includes ~1,000 Trophy systems, of which ~90 will go to Merkava 3 tanks, ~600 will be evenly split between Merkava 4 and Namer vehicles, which leaves ~300 for the Eitan over the course of a decade. 

Admittedly, the IDF was only supposed to present its recommendations for an APS (Iron Fist or Trophy) in January 2018, which is long after the contract with RAFAEL was signed, so it remains until the 2018 fiscal report to understand how many more Trophy-equipped Eitans will we see.

 

SPH

MoD approves the continued project to develop and produce the next generation howitzer for the IDF, and promises that within the following decade, the IDF ground arm will undergo a revolution. 

Indeed, the howitzers are long overdue, and should have been produced and enter service over a decade ago! But budget cuts happened. Thankfully, the Gideon plan seems to be on track from start to end.

 

Oddly, as opposed to other programs in the IDF, the new howitzer entered prototype stage a while ago and begun test firing as well, without the public knowing the Hebrew name of the system, or seeing a prototype. The Eitan, Namer, Carmel, and Barak, were all named at the very early stages of their program and prototypes/concepts were shown very early on as well.

The fact that the IDF has only very recently concluded it would be best for it to make a first batch of wheeled howitzers shows the development program is still lagging behind, and Elbit's promises to get the system ready within half a year to one and a half years (in the worst case), were broken.

 

It is however important to understand that Elbit is now tasked with 2 development programs - 1 for a wheeled howitzer, 1 for a tracked howitzer. 

 

The news here, are that the project can now proceed as planned. It was previously stalled as the MoD had to review it for fears of corruption, and due to a new law that calls for routine program reviews for deals worth 100 million NIS and 400 million NIS, each with different parameters set for the reviews.

 

Now, considering the fact that they claim a decade will be needed for the full (?) transition, and the facts that today there are ~300 howitzers in service, of which 100 will be cut as the new ones will be able to more than compensate for the lower numbers, we're looking at a production rate of roughly 20 units per year. A more precise figure would likely be 24 howitzers, which would equate to 2 battalions per year, or if there are any plans to produce new dedicated ammo carriers, then 12 howitzers and 6-12 carriers which would equate to 1 battalion.

 

Source:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The cabinet approved this evening (11.03.18) an MoD and IDF plan for strengthening the ground arm, which includes 2 main projects that were decided in the Gideon multi-year plan (2015-2020): The purchase of 'hundreds' of Eitan combat vehicles, and the development of a new self propelled howitzer.

 

Eitan

On the Eitan, it was said it would enter service with the Nahal light infantry brigade in 2019, and will steadily start replacing M113 in 2020. Nahal was chosen to lead the Eitan project by being the first to test it. 

MANTAK say the Eitan will be the world's most advanced and protected wheeled combat vehicle, basing itself on technologies developed for the Merkava and Namer, and being designed with an open architecture to allow easy integration of upgrades in the future.

And its main advantage over the Namer would be its rapid rate of production.

 

MoD and IDF refrained from telling how many vehicles exactly will they need, which may be due to the fact that they have yet to see how much the budget allows them. Ideally, it would replace the M113 in as many roles as possible, while in some roles a light armored vehicle, preferably the JLTV, would replace the M113. 

 

The plan spans a decade, so even if the production rate of the Eitan is similar to the Namer, we can expect at least 300 vehicles. But it won't be, and will likely be twice as fast, which could mean north of 600 vehicles. Of course, many of them will not be frontline vehicles. 

 

MoD's contract with RAFAEL includes ~1,000 Trophy systems, of which ~90 will go to Merkava 3 tanks, ~600 will be evenly split between Merkava 4 and Namer vehicles, which leaves ~300 for the Eitan over the course of a decade. 

Admittedly, the IDF was only supposed to present its recommendations for an APS (Iron Fist or Trophy) in January 2018, which is long after the contract with RAFAEL was signed, so it remains until the 2018 fiscal report to understand how many more Trophy-equipped Eitans will we see.

 

SPH

MoD approves the continued project to develop and produce the next generation howitzer for the IDF, and promises that within the following decade, the IDF ground arm will undergo a revolution. 

Indeed, the howitzers are long overdue, and should have been produced and enter service over a decade ago! But budget cuts happened. Thankfully, the Gideon plan seems to be on track from start to end.

 

Oddly, as opposed to other programs in the IDF, the new howitzer entered prototype stage a while ago and begun test firing as well, without the public knowing the Hebrew name of the system, or seeing a prototype. The Eitan, Namer, Carmel, and Barak, were all named at the very early stages of their program and prototypes/concepts were shown very early on as well.

The fact that the IDF has only very recently concluded it would be best for it to make a first batch of wheeled howitzers shows the development program is still lagging behind, and Elbit's promises to get the system ready within half a year to one and a half years (in the worst case), were broken.

 

It is however important to understand that Elbit is now tasked with 2 development programs - 1 for a wheeled howitzer, 1 for a tracked howitzer. 

 

The news here, are that the project can now proceed as planned. It was previously stalled as the MoD had to review it for fears of corruption, and due to a new law that calls for routine program reviews for deals worth 100 million NIS and 400 million NIS, each with different parameters set for the reviews.

 

Now, considering the fact that they claim a decade will be needed for the full (?) transition, and the facts that today there are ~300 howitzers in service, of which 100 will be cut as the new ones will be able to more than compensate for the lower numbers, we're looking at a production rate of roughly 20 units per year. A more precise figure would likely be 24 howitzers, which would equate to 2 battalions per year, or if there are any plans to produce new dedicated ammo carriers, then 12 howitzers and 6-12 carriers which would equate to 1 battalion.

 

Source:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/defense-ministry-approves-new-armored-vehicles-for-idf/

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 10th 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
       
      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...