methos
Members-
Posts
1,219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
methos's Achievements
Crew (2/3)
0
Reputation
-
As per the various (defence) news - everything from Jerusalem Post to Jane's, Defence News and even your own blog - the Carmel is/was to weigh between 30 and 35 tons. Defence News puts the weight specifically at 32 tons. That is only possible with a reduction in physical armor. Iron Fist already had a two round launcher when its prototype was presented for the first time to an international audience at Eurosatory 2006. That is one year before it entered state trials. Either way, there is no physical limit preventing a three round launcher or four round launcher to be rotated and elevated quickly enough (see AVePS and LEDS-150), it just means that the drive systems weren't powerful enough. These could have simply upgraded after trials (just like the automatic shutter for the countermeasure of Trophy was only added afterwards). Iron Fist - just like Trophy on the Stryker - was marketed for both light vehicles and MBTs. On lighter vehicles (4x4s), only one Iron Fist launcher was installed to keep the weight down. A further evolution of this was presented at Eurosatory 2012, called Bright Arrow (combining the Iron Fist launcher with an RWS). I am not, as per the US Army's witnesses in front of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Warfare of the US House of Representatives, the US testing of Trophy started following the decision to not fund further work on the US-designed Full Spectrum Active Protection Close-in Layered Shield as it required too much funds to meet the US timeline. Trophy was selected in June 2005 for possible adoption on Stryker. The autoloader only became a way ahead proposal in a meeting held on 1st May 2006, when Rafael and General Dynamics Land Systems declared their intention to showcase an "engineering design" for a possible autoloader for Trophy. In July 2006, negotiations began to fund and acquire an autoloader unit for testing, with the official RFP being issued in September 2006. Trophy was initially meant to provide a chance "to survive a first shot from a hidden enemy", not a system for prolonged combat actions. A photo of the US Stryker prototype in December 2005 for the inital testing of Trophy (and other subsystems) as part of the FSEP program. This Stryker wasn't used for any testing, as the further FSEP subsystems were deemed too valuable to risk. Because of that, one of the IDF's Strykers was used, featuring the "Trophy on bars") at the side of the hull. Another Stryker was later modified with the Trophy and an autoloader (and add-on armor): However, the US Army rejected the Stryker before the autoloader was finished, stating that the maturity of the autoloader design was too low. Zuk, first of all, you make it seem as if Iron Fist competed against Trophy and lost. That is not the case. IMI (at the time like Rafael completely state-owned) only requested the budget to develop an APS after Rafael had been tasked with developing Trophy, arguing that it would minimize risk to have a back-up program in case Trophy failed. The IDF/Israeli MOD placed an order for Trophy even before Iron Fist had entered state trials. Iron Fist's development was not about the Sabra, it was meant as its own product. Iron Fist was never primarily aimed at the Merkava, the Merkava project was only (ab)used by IMI to get funding for the development of Iron Fist. Is it heavier? Not really, only if you compare it to tanks lacking mine protection, roof protection and side protection comparable to the Merkava 4 - in which case we don't have any idea about how much of the weight difference might be related to the roof protection, the mine protection and the thicker side protection. Especially given the various weight figures cited for the Merkava 4... Sure, with mine roller, Trophy, the mine protection kit and the possible armor enhancements of the 4M model, the Merkava might weigh 82 metric tons - but the M1A2 SEP v3 with Trophy, mine roller and TUSK weighs 92.23 short tons (83.6 metric tons) without additional roof armor, without side armor resistant to the RPG-29, without having any noteworthy amount of rear armor and while being physically smaller. All tanks have weakened lower front plates, the Merkava is not exceptional in that regard. There are differences in how much weaker it is and how big it is. The Merkava has a large lower frontal plate, but it also happens to be quite thick steel compared to other tanks based on photos of the Namer hull production. Likely based on what? Got any source for such statements? This seems to be pure speculation, based on the turret geometry, there isn't any indication for lowered frontal arc size; thickness/protection seems rather consistent. In Sinai, there would be no need to expose the full body of a tank? In Sinai, where tanks fought in the open, flat desert during Yom-Kippur War? The whole north of Sinai is flat. No, you are applying video game logic. "Give my tank strong frontal armor, so I can face my enemy. I don't care about the frontal arc, because the video game players are uncoordinated and the maps are well known". If there is one constant we can see on MBT & AFV design programs based on unclassified and declassified reports from the UK, the United States, the Soviet Union, (West-)Germany, France, South Korea, South Africa and many more places, it is this: The requirement for armor protection are focused either on the weapons a potential adversary currently has or the ones a potential adversary is expected to field. Reducing the protected frontal arc and limiting full protection against KE rounds on the turret armor doesn't make sense, if no enemy is expected to field weapons that require such actions. A reasonable assumption would be that the Merkava 4's KE protection requirements took potential future acquisitons/improvements in firepower into account, but only to a realistic degree. Syria fielding 140 mm smoothbore gun or the Egyptian M1A1 Abrams firing 120 mm M829A3 DU APFSDS ammunition doesn't make sense and any military planner drafting requirements based on such silly ideas, would be wasting huge amounts of money and adopt a tank designed without providing less survivability benefits for the crews operating them than possible. A reasonable example would be the IDF using IMI's CL 3254 (M711) APFSDS as a possible worst-case scenario (Russia somehow being able to produce & export modern 125 mm APFSDS in 2004 and Syria acquiring such modern rounds). Or they could have based their requirements around the rather unrealistic scenario of the Egyptians completely ignoring the US influence and attacking the IDF via Sinai, which would mean facing the KEW-A1 round at longer ranges. But it certainly is not reasonable for RATAP/MANTAK to design and build tanks with armor to stop "very modern APFSDS" in 2004, especially given how easy it would be to replace the Merkava 4's armor to react to future arms acquisitions.
-
I think you are too eager drawing conclusions here. First of all, research work on the future often is not that relevant for existing platforms. E.g. the IDF's Carmel is/was focused on the idea of replacing passive armor systems with active protection systems. This concept likely didn't materialize spontaneously when the Carmel project was started, hence the IDF might already had this concept in mind. Furthermore, Iron Fist's anti-KE capability doesn't lead to sacrifices regarding autoloading or the number of ready-to-fire interceptors; Iron Fist doesn't have an autoloader and has only two rounds on each launcher, because it was designed like that. It was designed to be a lightweight, platform agnostic APS that could easily be adopted on numerous different AFVs; it was originally showcased on the IMI's M60 Sabra and M113 upgrades before being considered by the IDF. Similar active protection systems such as Diehl's AVePS (offered with 2, 3 and 4 round launchers) and SAAB's LEDS-150 (with a 6 round launcher) are/were also advertised with an anti-KE capability based on the same approach (HE grenade's shockwave tilting the penetrator). Trophy only got an autoloader, because the US Army rejected it in its 2006 tests for use on Stryker, as the system would have required a crew member to exit the vehicle after every interception to manually reload the launcher. (Trophy on the Stryker in 2006; note the launcher is directly mounted on the bar). In terms of complexity, an autoloader for Iron First wouldn't be any more complex/expensive than Trophy's autoloader. Iron Fist doesn't have an autoloader, because it was not required for the design philosophy behind the system. So IMO one should not draw any conclusions regarding the armor of the already existing Merkava tanks based on APS projects that were started later. Iron Fist was developed with anti-KE properties as it was also meant as retrofit option for older tanks (as part of IMI's own Sabra product line). If an anti-KE capability was a mandatory part in the IDF's own requirements, we would see Iron Fist in Trophy's place on the Merkava. I think you are the only person I've seen refering to the IDF's action against Hizbollah and Hamas to be part of the global war on terror. Maybe it is commonly refered to like this in Israel, but a lot of the factors (such as logistics and sttrategic mobility) don't really play the same role for the IDF than for other countries in GWOT. As for RAPAT, I am sure they came up with a reasonable balance between the different requirements in their design. Unfortunately, there simply is no free lunch in engineering. One cannot create a tank that is perfect in every sense, as most improvements in one area require makign sacrifices in another. Armor protection isn't free, it costs weight, space and money. So what would you consider a reasonable balance between the threats that the Merkava 4 could face given the Israel's geographic and geopolitical situation? Frontal armor on par with the contemporary NATO tanks when at worst facing something like L23A1 or 3BM42 APFSDS or armor capable to withstand regional threats (Syrian T-72, Jordanian Khalids, etc.) and the RPG-29 and Kornet ATGMs at angle that would completely shred NATO tanks? Obviously this won't be fun in video games like War Thunder, but one answer is a lot more reasonable IMO.
-
The most reasonable answer is: We don't know. The armor composition and the protection level (or the requirements that lead to said protection level) of the current Merkava models remain classified. All we can do is speculate. There is one source suggesting that at least for the Merkava 3, there was a much bigger focus on protection against shaped charge weapons; i.e. a Chinese delegation visited Israel during the time of the Merkava 3's development and was briefed on the program. According to a Chinese article published on the matter, the Merkava 3's KE protection was rather limited while its shaped charge protection was quite strong. The article also included photos of four test setups of Merkava 3 armor modules before being tested against shaped charge warheads (RPG, Sagger and supposedly the warhead of a HOT ATGM). The very limited information we have on the Merkava 4's frontal armor (which are basically limited to 2 photos of damaged Merkava 4 tanks and photos of partially disassembled tanks) don't show anything that I would describe as typical anti-KE elements, but then again, we only see a small fraction of the total array. I personally wouldn't be suprised, if the IDF didn't ignore the changes in threat environment in the 22 years between the Lebanon War and the introduction of the Merkava 4 into service.
-
It is a 127 mm shaped charge warhead with 60° cone angle used to simulate (future) Soviet missiles.
-
He probably forgot to mention that the lead times for an artillery barrel are above 6 months, as the autofrettage process alone takes that much time - without drilling the tube, etc.
-
Some could still go all the way through to the base armor, you just need to keep in mind that the armor is sloped. If the purpose of the rods is to add rigidity/ensure spacing, then it should look rather like this than what is shown your drawing.
-
Both impacts are not on the the roof, so how does this show anything regarding (incorrect) claims about top attack provisions?
-
Yes, most of the newer Leopard 2s "got them back" (or rather a much improved newer model), but not older ones upgraded. You can see it here on a Qatari Leopard 2A7+ behind the RWS. ... and here on a Leopard 2A7HU: It is part of KMW's/KNDS Deutschland's optional FCS upgrade for 6,000 meters range.
-
It is using a Belgian turret with French optics... so much for "self-reliance".
-
The new thermal imager is directly integrated into the existing sight. https://bel-india.in/product/commander-thermal-imaging-sight-for-t-90-tank/
-
Not sure about that explanation. Seems like the vehicle was hit from a very steep angle... or a drone-dropped RPG warhead?
-
If the claims on Wikipedia are correct and the T-64 model 2017 uses the TPN-1TPV sight, then it is an uncooled bolometer made locally in Ukraine.
-
Given that the photo has been posted on twitter and various other forums already, I'll just add that here: Captured M1150 wreck showing the exposed turret armor array. Very similar to the Chobham armor of the early M1 Abrams, likley because it was not optimized against KE rounds (no DU armor).
-
It isn't really clear. First the text states, that the tank has only been hit by HEAT rounds in static trials. That's already a bit odd given that the graphic shows "Impacts from previous tests". Then it lists three rounds "120 mm", "105 mm HEAT" and "3.2'' HEAT" being used in live firing ballistic tests. Does the lack of the word "HEAT" behind the "120 mm" mean, that the first round was a KE round? Or did they simply forgot about that? I am not sure. From the context, I'd assume that it was HEAT, but maybe there is more in the addendum - the document refers to the addendum (vergl. Beilagen). The 120 mm round only caused damaged at the "exterior skin", which also is rather curious.
-
Where does it say anything about 120 mm APFSDS? The text says "Bezüglich Beschussversuche wurden bisher nur statische Prüfungen, d.h. Sprengung von HEAT auf den Panzer durchgeführt" (regarding ballistic trials, only static trials i.e. detonating HEAT were conducted so far). Before mentioning the "Überprüfung im scharfen Schuss" (validation with live ammunition). Or is there more text/data?