Israeli Afvs

[Sardaukar]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Probably not. My impression was they were going to just retrofit the L11 in the centurion turret. Although I suppose conceivably the Action X turret might have been envisaged, Im not sure.

If you ask Lucas Electric, sure. (Sorry to bring this up again, but it just keeps on giving)

[Mike1158]

The way I know it the Centurion was going to be second string only until conversion, This process cooincided with a tranche of amalgamations which led to my regiment being the first with Chieftain and the last with Centurion.  Bookending made simple courtessy of the MoD.

 

Of course, this meant a shed of Cent's being available for resale.

 

AFAIK, the 110mm was a competitor to the L11 120mm only and the Action X turret fell off the radar when improving Centurion was abandoned by replacement with Chieftain and was only considered for the L7.

[WRW]

On 3/28/2024 at 10:45 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Interesting article by chief of military research in the IDF's Dado center think-tank.

https://www.maarachot.idf.il/28876

There he asserts the IDF needs to rethink the current composition of the tank platoon. The IDF currently has 2 tanks per platoon. The primary reasons are operation in tight urban areas where more than that is difficult to maneuver and coordinate, as well as enhanced mobility and situational awareness afforded by new technologies, and finally a lack of qualified officers and NCOs (one less tank per company). 

He proposes a 5 vehicle platoon, consisting of:

1. 2x Fire vehicles - conventional tanks.

2. 2x Reinforcement platforms - HIFVs with armored infantry tasked solely with protecting the vehicles.

3. 1x Command & indirect fire vehicle - incorporates some unique elements such as mortar, UAS, AT/AP munitions etc. Shall include C2 and comms relay capabilities, and particularly connectivity with other elements such as aerial assets and artillery.

He also proposes to expand the good old triangle into a pentagon that includes:

• Mobility.
• Protection.
• Close range firepower.
• Long range firepower.
• Sensory and connectivity.

The company shall be organized differently as well. It will have 3 platoons as described above, a self propelled mortar platoon, and a company commander's command tank. Not every vehicle will carry all equipment previously considered standard for the sake of uniformity, so more expensive platforms will be offset in cost by the reduction of equipment in others. Every vehicle will contribute something more unique, bringing AFVs somewhat closer to infantry where every infantryman has some sort of specialization or unique role.

The old crew roles - driver, loader, gunner, and TC are to be replaced by other more up to date roles such as light gunner, heavy gunner, BMC operator, sensor and drone operator, mortarist etc (duplications possible of course). The command chain will similarly have to adapt to this change as the burden on each platoon and company commander is now greater.

This brings us to the topic of manpower. If the IDF struggled to maintain 3 tank platoons due to manpower issues, how will it now operate much larger frameworks? There is a political element to it, but the IDF may soon face an influx of new conscripts as we are nearing resolution of the Ultra Orthodox draft dodging issue. The writer of course makes no mention of this, and has written his article before certain political developments.

 

Why not keep existing structure for admin but have mixed combat companies within brigades. The current fightig is unique so maybe the same org will not be suitable again.

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, WRW said:

Why not keep existing structure for admin but have mixed combat companies within brigades. The current fightig is unique so maybe the same org will not be suitable again.

The brigade already has mixed companies. It's usually 2 corps oriented brigades that are stitched together to form 2 mixed brigades of infantry, armor, and other elements to fight independently as brigade combat teams. Within that there are battalion combat teams, under which there are sort of ad-hoc combat teams on lower levels.

I just don't see how company and platoon command can remain the same under such drastic changes to the core fighting element.

Edited April 4 by Mighty_Zuk

[WRW]

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The brigade already has mixed companies. It's usually 2 corps oriented brigades that are stitched together to form 2 mixed brigades of infantry, armor, and other elements to fight independently as brigade combat teams. Within that there are battalion combat teams, under which there are sort of ad-hoc combat teams on lower levels.

I just don't see how company and platoon command can remain the same under such drastic changes to the core fighting element.

I think the 2 corps company battalions are being looked at again

Marrying the Merkava and Namer units would be reasonably logical - Armored Unit.

 

[Sardaukar]

Armour cannot work without armoured infantry. Thus, marrying Merkavas and Namers is sensible thing. 

[WRW]

What  would the ration AFV?/MBT be?

would the mix be at battalion, company or platoon level?

 

where would the recce, UAV, combat engineers and fire support fit in?

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, WRW said:

What  would the ration AFV?/MBT be?

would the mix be at battalion, company or platoon level?

 

where would the recce, UAV, combat engineers and fire support fit in?

They mix at all levels. Combat teams operate from as high up as brigades and as low as the sub-platoon level.

Say you have 4 tanks and 6 APCs in a given area. Mission takes 2 tanks and 2 APCs. These are drawn from the pool while the rest are awaiting orders/resting. They link comms and coordinate an ad hoc chain of command.

[Mighty_Zuk]

IAI Elta unveils the M3S2 (ELI-3312) APS against loitering munitions and drones.

The system utilizes sensors developed by Elta, connected to a fire computer and an MG. These allow engaging drones out to hundreds of meters. It can be inferred that it may also engage drones that position themselves directly above the target.

The system seems to utilize the OTHELLO optical target detection system (above the radar), and the ELM-2133 WindGuard radar, both of which are used by the Trophy system.

This indicates that Trophy may now be improved to tackle drones by slaving existing firing assets to it.

Such connection may also be used by Trophy to return immediate fire on a firing source if the main gun isn't suitable for the task (e.g. rotation speed, elevation limits etc).

I have advocated for such a system for a long time. Roof mounted machine guns are an under-utilized assets, and if infantry can snipe drones with small computerized sights, so should heavier AFVs.

[WRW]

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

IAI Elta unveils the M3S2 (ELI-3312) APS against loitering munitions and drones.

The system utilizes sensors developed by Elta, connected to a fire computer and an MG. These allow engaging drones out to hundreds of meters. It can be inferred that it may also engage drones that position themselves directly above the target.

The system seems to utilize the OTHELLO optical target detection system (above the radar), and the ELM-2133 WindGuard radar, both of which are used by the Trophy system.

This indicates that Trophy may now be improved to tackle drones by slaving existing firing assets to it.

Such connection may also be used by Trophy to return immediate fire on a firing source if the main gun isn't suitable for the task (e.g. rotation speed, elevation limits etc).

I have advocated for such a system for a long time. Roof mounted machine guns are an under-utilized assets, and if infantry can snipe drones with small computerized sights, so should heavier AFVs.

impressive

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 minutes ago, WRW said:

impressive

It is, and honestly it is the type of solution the west needs to fast track and fund for Ukraine right now, and which Israel needs to urgently deploy prior to its entry to Lebanon.

Unfortunately, the IDF's aversion to RWS on tanks has severely limited the deployability of such system in a reasonable timetable.

[WRW]

combat is getting very complicated

[Mighty_Zuk]

25 minutes ago, WRW said:

combat is getting very complicated

For now. Lots of technologies are entering as "intermediate" solutions between conventional weapon systems, but things will calm down soon as some concepts will quickly be invalidated and others will solidify.

[WRW]

what was the IDF issue with RWS... cost?

[Mighty_Zuk]

12 minutes ago, WRW said:

what was the IDF issue with RWS... cost?

I assume it's mostly about training. Don't want too many systems to train on and maintain when it's already a very complex machine. But that's just my guess.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Found these on Twitter.

Does anyone know how they did that with the suspension on the 2nd photo? Surely the didn't adjust the springs' springiness, right?

 

 

Forgot to give credit. Here's the twit:

 

Edited April 14 by Mighty_Zuk

[Ssnake]

...absence of the bridge itself?

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

...absence of the bridge itself?

On 1st pic the hull is 'level', and on 2nd pic it's leaning forward. In both pics, there is no bridge. 

Besides, the bridge puts most of the weight on the forward section, no? So wouldn't its absence cause the hull to lean the other way?

[Rick]

On 4/10/2024 at 3:33 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

IAI Elta unveils the M3S2 (ELI-3312) APS against loitering munitions and drones.

The system utilizes sensors developed by Elta, connected to a fire computer and an MG. These allow engaging drones out to hundreds of meters. It can be inferred that it may also engage drones that position themselves directly above the target.

The system seems to utilize the OTHELLO optical target detection system (above the radar), and the ELM-2133 WindGuard radar, both of which are used by the Trophy system.

This indicates that Trophy may now be improved to tackle drones by slaving existing firing assets to it.

Such connection may also be used by Trophy to return immediate fire on a firing source if the main gun isn't suitable for the task (e.g. rotation speed, elevation limits etc).

I have advocated for such a system for a long time. Roof mounted machine guns are an under-utilized assets, and if infantry can snipe drones with small computerized sights, so should heavier AFVs.

Interesting on how tanks are becoming like battleships with larger size, larger guns, and thicker armor. Now there is radar fire control for anti-air defense and electronic warfare devices. I suspect there is a C.I.C. to coordinate this data for the tank commander.

Wonder if this naval analogy will extend to an a.p.c. carrying multiple drones for attack and defense as an aircraft carrier with tracks and armed with a machine gun or two for anti-drone defense   

[Mighty_Zuk]

24 minutes ago, Rick said:

Interesting on how tanks are becoming like battleships with larger size, larger guns, and thicker armor. Now there is radar fire control for anti-air defense and electronic warfare devices. I suspect there is a C.I.C. to coordinate this data for the tank commander.

Wonder if this naval analogy will extend to an a.p.c. carrying multiple drones for attack and defense as an aircraft carrier with tracks and armed with a machine gun or two for anti-drone defense   

This observation isn't new. Naval warfare and ground warfare are in many ways similar, but it can be said that naval warfare outpaces ground warfare by several decades. Naval was the first domain of attack and self defense missiles. It was the first domain of saturation tactics. It was the first domain of 'joint ops' (i.e. offense, defense, intelligence operating as one for a single goal). It is the first in many ways. The reason is that ships are large platforms with significant manpower, and as such if we put cutting edge items on anything, it'd be on them. 

You could put radars and missiles and other expensive things on tanks and IFVs before, but when you produce thousands of them, and they each carry only a few people and don't survive very long - why bother investing in them so much? But some technologies are becoming cheap enough to utilize in ground combat now, and this is something that will continue for the forseeable future.

 

[sunday]

42 minutes ago, Rick said:

Interesting on how tanks are becoming like battleships with larger size, larger guns, and thicker armor. Now there is radar fire control for anti-air defense and electronic warfare devices. I suspect there is a C.I.C. to coordinate this data for the tank commander.

Wonder if this naval analogy will extend to an a.p.c. carrying multiple drones for attack and defense as an aircraft carrier with tracks and armed with a machine gun or two for anti-drone defense   

Thoughts like that led to the development of multi-turreted tanks, but conventional-arranged tanks proved superior - once good doctrines of cooperation with infantry were developed.

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

This observation isn't new. Naval warfare and ground warfare are in many ways similar, but it can be said that naval warfare outpaces ground warfare by several decades. Naval was the first domain of attack and self defense missiles. It was the first domain of saturation tactics. It was the first domain of 'joint ops' (i.e. offense, defense, intelligence operating as one for a single goal). It is the first in many ways. The reason is that ships are large platforms with significant manpower, and as such if we put cutting edge items on anything, it'd be on them. 

You could put radars and missiles and other expensive things on tanks and IFVs before, but when you produce thousands of them, and they each carry only a few people and don't survive very long - why bother investing in them so much? But some technologies are becoming cheap enough to utilize in ground combat now, and this is something that will continue for the forseeable future.

 

Agree. Plus the fact that manpower is becoming more costly and, perhaps, from a humanity standpoint, worth saving.

[alanch90]

On 4/10/2024 at 4:36 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

It is, and honestly it is the type of solution the west needs to fast track and fund for Ukraine right now, and which Israel needs to urgently deploy prior to its entry to Lebanon.

Unfortunately, the IDF's aversion to RWS on tanks has severely limited the deployability of such system in a reasonable timetable.

While its a good example of repurposing existing APS sensors to add drone protection, these systems can´t be fast tracked to Ukraine nor integrated into its existing fleet of AFVs during a realistic time period. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

28 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

While its a good example of repurposing existing APS sensors to add drone protection, these systems can´t be fast tracked to Ukraine nor integrated into its existing fleet of AFVs during a realistic time period. 

SMASH sights are fit for rifles and are in service. For AFVs there is a similar system on the Pitbull RCWS which you can semi-integrate on any AFV. To get initial cueing on a drone you can replace the radars and EO with acoustics. Less reliable but still extremely helpful.

[alanch90]

24 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

SMASH sights are fit for rifles and are in service. For AFVs there is a similar system on the Pitbull RCWS which you can semi-integrate on any AFV. To get initial cueing on a drone you can replace the radars and EO with acoustics. Less reliable but still extremely helpful.

Yes I´ve thought about that. But it would be an entirely different system altogether. Nevertheless I can´t imagine how to integrate all of that into existing T-64/72.

 

Good news is that ELO-5220 can be programed to recognize drones so radars in the end aren´t that necesary.