Israeli Afvs

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I was thinking more along the lines of converting them to something else if the need arises during peacetime (or indeed an operation like the current one).

Due to the IDF's size and choice of steady production rates, by the time some piece of equipment is withdrawn, much of it is already obsolete. In the case of Merkava 2 tanks, I really don't think it'd be easy to get our hands on suitable engines without, you know, converting it into a Merkava 3 which would eat into new production and would rely on the same form of foreign supplies.

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I assume that Merkava/Namer production line is pretty much 'booked' and it's not possible to substantially increase the number of hulls produced on a short notice. 

It is possible to increase. Current rate is 30 hulls per year for Merkava and Namer (so 60 total). I don't know about Eitan. A while ago an official either in MANTAK or RAPAT (don't remember) was interviewed about it and said 30 hulls is the bare minimum to keep the facility working. They can ramp it up significantly. How much? I don't know, but I'd assume with triple shifts and increased orders for imported items - 90 hulls a year per type (180 total).

6 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And yes, I know that up until now Israel's wars have been rather short, but do you have a guarantee that it will always stay that way?

Yes and no. 

No, as in wars can assume the form of wars of attrition and then lack of equipment is not an issue for the IDF. Rather, it's the ability to keep the home front secure that's a challenge. 

Yes, as in Israel always builds its armed forces to keep the intense part of a war as short as possible, and if intense wars last too long, Israel's survival will be at stake. 

This reality is dictated mostly by the small size of Israel. If Israel were to retain the Sinai, the full Golan, and the security belt in Lebanon, reality would be quite difficult. But those were different times, and Israel could not reasonably hold such large territories.

9 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

One last thing is what I thought about in the context of my country - 'damn, it sure would've been nice if we kept those several hundred T-55AM Meridas in storage and started slowly refurbishing them (maybe with some upgrades) for the Ukrainians after the war broke out'. It's not what I would have said even a few years ago, but seeing as the other side rolls out actual T-54s (not even Bs or As, just T-54) in what has become a war of attrition...

For a nation whose security is as strongly tied to an alliance as it is for NATO members, it makes a lot of sense to maintain stock to assist allies wherever crisis emerges. Israel is not a member of any large, binding alliance. It alone takes care of its security, and its assistance it receives from a distant ally whose good will is not assured. And for the forseeable future, it may not have the capacity to assist allies even if it were a part of an alliance. A single brigade is all it could dedicate at some point for a NATO exercise.

This is pretty much also why Israel hasn't been sending Ukraine nearly the amount of aid provided by other donors, particularly European ones. It can either sell, to fuel its own acquisitions, for example the PULS and ATMOS sales to Europe to backfill for aid to Ukraine, or it can provide whatever it permanently withdraws from service, for example the several Patriot batteries that are probably somewhere in the US right now, being upgraded to backfill for increased supplies to Ukraine. But it has very little, if anything at all, to send directly. Not the case for Poland, thankfully.

[WRW]

Last year I saw a photo on line with a Merk chassis with a very large curve edged box on top with many aerials - in the back ground

 

when all the 105mm tank guns gone what happened any ammo left?

[WRW]

my search facility is improving

New command vehicle based on the Merkava platform spotted in Israel – Defence Blog.pdf

[WRW]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Due to the IDF's size and choice of steady production rates, by the time some piece of equipment is withdrawn, much of it is already obsolete. In the case of Merkava 2 tanks, I really don't think it'd be easy to get our hands on suitable engines without, you know, converting it into a Merkava 3 which would eat into new production and would rely on the same form of foreign supplies.

It is possible to increase. Current rate is 30 hulls per year for Merkava and Namer (so 60 total). I don't know about Eitan. A while ago an official either in MANTAK or RAPAT (don't remember) was interviewed about it and said 30 hulls is the bare minimum to keep the facility working. They can ramp it up significantly. How much? I don't know, but I'd assume with triple shifts and increased orders for imported items - 90 hulls a year per type (180 total).

Yes and no. 

No, as in wars can assume the form of wars of attrition and then lack of equipment is not an issue for the IDF. Rather, it's the ability to keep the home front secure that's a challenge. 

Yes, as in Israel always builds its armed forces to keep the intense part of a war as short as possible, and if intense wars last too long, Israel's survival will be at stake. 

This reality is dictated mostly by the small size of Israel. If Israel were to retain the Sinai, the full Golan, and the security belt in Lebanon, reality would be quite difficult. But those were different times, and Israel could not reasonably hold such large territories.

For a nation whose security is as strongly tied to an alliance as it is for NATO members, it makes a lot of sense to maintain stock to assist allies wherever crisis emerges. Israel is not a member of any large, binding alliance. It alone takes care of its security, and its assistance it receives from a distant ally whose good will is not assured. And for the forseeable future, it may not have the capacity to assist allies even if it were a part of an alliance. A single brigade is all it could dedicate at some point for a NATO exercise.

This is pretty much also why Israel hasn't been sending Ukraine nearly the amount of aid provided by other donors, particularly European ones. It can either sell, to fuel its own acquisitions, for example the PULS and ATMOS sales to Europe to backfill for aid to Ukraine, or it can provide whatever it permanently withdraws from service, for example the several Patriot batteries that are probably somewhere in the US right now, being upgraded to backfill for increased supplies to Ukraine. But it has very little, if anything at all, to send directly. Not the case for Poland, thankfully.

parts probably more important than hulls

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 minutes ago, WRW said:

parts probably more important than hulls

When I say "hulls" I mean complete tanks. 

 

8 minutes ago, WRW said:

Last year I saw a photo on line with a Merk chassis with a very large curve edged box on top with many aerials - in the back ground

That's the Ofek, yes. But there's another one called Pereg. Both are based on Merkava 3. 

Early footage of Ofek on Merkava 2 was just prototypes.

Pereg on Mark 3 chassis, seen with the same superstructure as the Ofek, with an added crane.

 

[Colin]

On 6/5/2024 at 2:24 PM, lucklucky said:

Land gun artillery increasingly look like naval gun artillery

My thoughts as well. With the research pointing to a significant impact on gun crews from the firing 155mm, keeping them protected from the blast wave, will have long term benefit for the soldiers and reduce veteran claims and associated long term benefit costs.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Sigma / Ro'em automatic loading system was apparently modified:

 

[Bichri001]

This night vision system of Merkava Mk.1 was posted on Reddit: 

The title says: "Merkava Mk1 with mirror for night time operations. System is fitted in left side of turret and was reflected the projector light and provide visibility in the night." https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1dzqf01/merkava_mk1_with_mirror_for_night_time_operations/

I was also able to find this: "The main sight could be swapped for a passive night sight, with a residual light amplifier. It could be enhanced by a 1 kW EOS Xenon headlight placed vertically in a special housing at the left rear of the turret, behind the loader hatch, using indirect lighting under retractable plastic reflector inclined at 45°7 to avoid direct hits." https://tank-afv.com/coldwar/Israel/Merkava-Mark-I.php

So as far as I understand, red circle is the IR searchlight(red circle) emits light at 45° angle to the plastic mirror/reflector(green square) which than casts the IR beam infront of the gunner's IR sight?

What are those square things in the compartment under the plastic reflector?

Edited July 10 by Bichri001

[Marsh]

The object within the red circle is simply the reflector for the Xenon searchlight, which lies below the reflector. The green square is a storage compartment, nothing to do with the light reflector.

By the time the Israelis introduced in the Xenon searchlight with infra-red filter it was already obsolescent and consequently  swiftly removed from service. Any tank using IR searchlights self-illuminated as a target to enemy tanks. 

The US and Brits were introducing starlight passive sights and experimenting with thermal sights. Export was prohibited.  The Israelis found their own solution to tank combat at night. They brought in a passive infra-red channel for the gunners sights and equipped the tank commander with a Heath Robinson (Rube Goldberg for Americans) starlight scope. This inelegant lash-up did work. It's a long time ago, but I think the IDF referred to the commanders helmet mounted sight as Bunny Ears.

Edited July 11 by Marsh
further information

[Stuart Galbraith]

Were they swap sights like Chieftain, or did they have a dual channel? I know that many Chieftain crews didnt bother, because it was an utter faff to zero the gun every time you put in the IR sight.

[Marsh]

53 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Were they swap sights like Chieftain, or did they have a dual channel? I know that many Chieftain crews didnt bother, because it was an utter faff to zero the gun every time you put in the IR sight.

Honestly don't know Stuart. The references I have just refer to a "night sight elbow" initially using image intensifiers and in later years, thermal sensors.

[Mighty_Zuk]

They were used up to the early Mark 3s, right? 

[Marsh]

27 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

They were used up to the early Mark 3s, right? 

Different systems. Initially the image intensifier elbow periscopes were a drop-in direct replacement for the old Mark 32 and Mark 60 periscopes on the M60, if I remember correctly.

The Elbit-El-OP Knight 1 replaced that system on M60s and Merkava 1 and 2. The Knight FCs underwent several upgrades until replaced by Elbit-El-Op Matador. These were  more sophisticated fire control systems, with a greater level of integration of cutting edge technology, not add-ons on to old FCS. Different models of the Matador were used until superseded by a more modern FCS the Merkava 3 Baz

Edited July 11 by Marsh

[Bichri001]

16 hours ago, Marsh said:

The object within the red circle is simply the reflector for the Xenon searchlight, which lies below the reflector. The green square is a storage compartment, nothing to do with the light reflector.

Very interesting, thank you. If we ignore the fact of it obsolescent at the time of introduction, it seems as a much better solution than Soviet Luna searchlight which was very exposed to even small arms fire.

[alanch90]

The first Merkava 4 Barak was damaged in Gaza. Looks like it was just a track though. The deployed Baraks don´t seem to have been equipped with Iron Vision for some reason.

 

https://t.me/Zornkrieger/63167

 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 7/12/2024 at 8:16 PM, alanch90 said:

The first Merkava 4 Barak was damaged in Gaza. Looks like it was just a track though. The deployed Baraks don´t seem to have been equipped with Iron Vision for some reason.

 

https://t.me/Zornkrieger/63167

 

 

Namer 2 which is reportedly operational or new Namer 1 batches, in-service Eitans, and the Barak of course - are all missing some form of equipment officially stated to be standard. Iron Vision should have been present on all of them. 

It's technically possible to make a partial implementation of the Iron Vision because it's fed not only through static all around cameras but also the commander's panoramic sight, but yes it's evident that parts are missing. Components of the Iron Vision all around cameras are supposed to be emplaced on top of the gunner sight.

Iron Fist should have been installed at least on the Eitan and reportedly the D9 armored bulldozers.

And RCWS on the Barak. It's a real shame it's not on yet. It's the basic enabler of anti drone capability.

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

[Colin]

On 7/14/2024 at 1:35 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Dang beat me to it

[Mighty_Zuk]

I have a strong feeling it's old footage, but I think it's still worth seeing. The Trophy system has shutters that open before interception, to protect the launcher and warhead.

https://imgur.com/tCVrwhA

[Mighty_Zuk]

Belly plates being fitted on Mark 3 tanks of the 8th reserve brigade. Notable that Wikipedia's entry on that brigade says they've been transitioning to the Mark 3D Baz since December 2020. This process takes at least 3 years just to re-equip, and potentially more to get everyone re-trained and have logistics prepared. But these are older tanks with older FCS and without the D armor. I'm assuming they were in the process of pre-reequipment preparations and it was cut short by the war. Alternatively, some battalions may have received newer tanks, but these remained with older ones as the IDF decided on expansion of the armored corps.

 

[Marsh]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Belly plates being fitted on Mark 3 tanks of the 8th reserve brigade. Notable that Wikipedia's entry on that brigade says they've been transitioning to the Mark 3D Baz since December 2020. This process takes at least 3 years just to re-equip, and potentially more to get everyone re-trained and have logistics prepared. But these are older tanks with older FCS and without the D armor. I'm assuming they were in the process of pre-reequipment preparations and it was cut short by the war. Alternatively, some battalions may have received newer tanks, but these remained with older ones as the IDF decided on expansion of the armored corps.

 

At least one of the tanks is a Merkava 3D. Look at the one to the right with a "cope cage"

[Mighty_Zuk]

27 minutes ago, Marsh said:

At least one of the tanks is a Merkava 3D. Look at the one to the right with a "cope cage"

Wow I thought that was a Mark 4 from another unit. Good catch!

[Mighty_Zuk]

Rare to see a Merkava with Trophy covers open like that. We can also see an open hatch above the Trophy's radar. That's a storage area. 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

Two types of M60-based AVLBs in IDF service.

Israel sold at least 2 Merkava 4-based AVLBs to the Philippines. I wonder if there are any plans to acquire these for the IDF.

Target practice Magach 6. That's some serious damage with just leftovers of fuel and hydraulic fluids, from a couple TP-HEAT shells.

 

Edited July 26 by Mighty_Zuk