Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

So Rafael put out this video to celebrate 10 years of Trophy covering the past of the system.

 

Spoiler

 

 

It's pretty standard fare, but at roughly 4:15 through 4:30 - you get what appears to be the first proof of the long-mythical Merkava work with the Singaporean armed forces. That is clearly blurred SAF personnel, and the jungles that the demonstration shot was done there are exactly the flora you see in Singapore. I cannot understand Hebrew, but they flash up an image of a Merkava during that sequence, so it wasn't *just* dev work for Trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

So Rafael put out this video to celebrate 10 years of Trophy covering the past of the system.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

It's pretty standard fare, but at roughly 4:15 through 4:30 - you get what appears to be the first proof of the long-mythical Merkava work with the Singaporean armed forces. That is clearly blurred SAF personnel, and the jungles that the demonstration shot was done there are exactly the flora you see in Singapore. I cannot understand Hebrew, but they flash up an image of a Merkava during that sequence, so it wasn't *just* dev work for Trophy.

Perhaps. It could also be part of a sales pitch and demonstration in Singapore of Trophy, as part of a potential sale of the system for integration on their Leopards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Marsh said:

Perhaps. It could also be part of a sales pitch and demonstration in Singapore of Trophy, as part of a potential sale of the system for integration on their Leopards.

 

Very true, but they went quite out of their way in the vid to flash an image of a Merkava during this Singapore segment, and I cannot comprehend any reason to do so if they were merely doing a sales demonstration for the Trophy system.

 

(There is also the issues that other countries have had with slapping Trophy on their tanks, it weighs quite a lot and demands quite a lot of power. Since Singapore was already planning on a pretty hefty applique armor package, I would be very shocked if their old mid-batch 2A4s had the weight and power margins to even think about fitting Trophy. Would remind me of the issues that forced the 2A7A1 awkwardness in Germany.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

and I cannot comprehend any reason to do so if they were merely doing a sales demonstration for the Trophy system.

Well, if the system is being demonstated, presumably it must be on some platform. And for a demonstration, going to all the effort to integrate the system into a new platform seems excessive. So perhaps, a case of "ignore the tank focus on the system on the tank".

I would expect much the same to be the case with fire control demonstrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, N-L-M said:

Well, if the system is being demonstated, presumably it must be on some platform. And for a demonstration, going to all the effort to integrate the system into a new platform seems excessive. So perhaps, a case of "ignore the tank focus on the system on the tank".

I would expect much the same to be the case with fire control demonstrations.

 

Yeah, I went into it thinking it would just be a demo rig on a truck or something but they could have hauled the full tank out to demo the system. Which would make the old crazy rumors of Merkava IVs in singapore not entirely false, one was there to show off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Yeah, I went into it thinking it would just be a demo rig on a truck or something but they could have hauled the full tank out to demo the system. Which would make the old crazy rumors of Merkava IVs in singapore not entirely false, one was there to show off.

You could well be correct. However, to me, the still of the Merkava 4 appears not to be part of the clip of tests in Singapore. The terrain and vegetation seems more akin to that of Israel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Yes, but that was around 15 years ago, and appears to have been succeeded by the Namer ARV as the full all-purpose heavy ARV. This new one seems to be an "el cheapo" knockoff, likely based on mk3 hulls which are now being gradually phased out of the armor corps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Yes, but that was around 15 years ago, and appears to have been succeeded by the Namer ARV as the full all-purpose heavy ARV. This new one seems to be an "el cheapo" knockoff, likely based on mk3 hulls which are now being gradually phased out of the armor corps.

You are correct in assuming this is Mark 3 based. But this is not a cheap alternative to the Namer ARV. They fulfill very different tasks.

Simply, the Namer ARV replaces the M88, and the Pereg replaces M113 maintenance vehicles such as this one:

16042014-5-300x174.jpg

By the way this new variant is called Pereg. It is a Hebrew acronym for Generic Armored Platform for maintenance units.

It will be used by Company-level tech units to maintain tanks and other AFVs, reducing dependence on light crane vehicles like the Rio trucks or M113s.

Of course, there will be an overlap with the Namer ARV, because the ARV will use its massive crane to assist others in lifting light weights like powerpacks and armor blocks, which the Pereg can also easily do, and use its sheer size to carry spares but they still fill different niches.

Pereg is also said to have a MEDEVAC capability, a capability which I do not know whether the ARV has.

The superstructure itself seems to add quite a lot of room in the Ofek, and I assume here as well. Perhaps more than the Namer affords.

 

EDIT: Pereg may not necessarily be able to lift a powerpack, and light crane vehicles' ability is in doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Newtonk said:

Odd, that crane does not look too sturdy, and why would you carry a spare wheel on the roof when it is so far from the ground? Still, an interesting discovery.

The purpose of the crane is just to manipulate spares, not a power pack. 
This is a combat repair vehicle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VPZ said:

There already was variant of ARV with small crane.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcCngdQ0POLDSvUJJ7syw

The Chata’p was not adopted. 
This prototype was one of both Namer demonstrators. 
Priority was given to the heavier Achzaka. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, M_Z said:

lifting light weights like powerpacks

Powerpacks weigh up to 5 or so tons, which I doubt that light crane can deal with, but conversely the 113 fitters can't deal with that either, so it's likely not a problem.

 

Replacing the 113 is always a good idea, even if it is by using an obsolete tank hull tortured almost beyond recognition.

 

Also, you aren't very subtle with your ban evading accounts, are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

Powerpacks weigh up to 5 or so tons, which I doubt that light crane can deal with, but conversely the 113 fitters can't deal with that either, so it's likely not a problem.

 

Replacing the 113 is always a good idea, even if it is by using an obsolete tank hull tortured almost beyond recognition.

 

Also, you aren't very subtle with your ban evading accounts, are you?

The point is not to evade a ban, but to answer a question as none at the time could give a translation to an important piece of text. Hence me using the same name.

I could have just created a fake e-mail and restart posting a very long time ago but chose not to.

And you are correct. The powerpack of the Merkava 3 at least is said to be 5 tons in weight (according to Michael Mass), which the M113's crane indeed cannot lift.

I have seen Rio's and M113s helping with lifting some stuff around the tanks, so maybe that's the source of my confusion. Perhaps some armor pieces.

EDIT:

%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D%20%

My latest source of confusion. I'm not sure what vehicle this is with the crane.

 

Since I've now already provided the necessary translation, I'll go back to inactivity.

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...