login   |    register
Armor/AFV: IDF [Israeli Defense Forces]
Armor and AFVs of the IDF army from 1947-today.
Hosted by Darren Baker
IDF Light/Heavy Metal
jps
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: February 06, 2006
KitMaker: 141 posts
Armorama: 135 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 11:32 AM UTC
thanks
Marsh
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 09:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Marsh, you have a rather long incubation period: joined in 2003, first post in 2020...



I prefer to lurk to check sites are OK. Also, had bad experiences on other sites, when people asked for photos and I couldn't provide them. (Although they were in my copyright, they had been sold on for further usage and I couldn't release them). Then they got upset. Alternatively, I did give people photos to use for modelling on the condition not to put them out anywhere and a week later, they would be all over the net. Got my fingers burnt too many times. There is just a couple of people I trust completely to provide photos and that is it. It made me very wary. I go on Tanknet, Sturgeon's House and War online to contribute and that it is it really.

Should say i am also a bit old, in my mid-60s and i probably manage the web a little differently to most people on here
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 05:40 AM UTC
Marsh, you have a rather long incubation period: joined in 2003, first post in 2020...
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 05:25 AM UTC
There are a few more on page #8.
Marsh
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 05:06 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Perhaps you are interested in the other side of the vehicle too...

1926.



Nice photo!
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 888 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 05:06 AM UTC
Perhaps you are interested in the other side of the vehicle too...

1926.
Marsh
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 29, 2020 - 04:03 AM UTC
If anyone is in Facebook's "IDF Tanks & AFV- The inquiry corner" group, Michael Mass has published an exceptional photo of a Merkava II in a three tone camouflage. The photo shows the camouflage colours clearly.
(I will not post the photo directly on here. Sorry. It's not fair to Michael).
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 07:31 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The mine plough is not a common choice for the IDF.



I suppose that's because the topography of the Northern region (especially that of the Golan Heights) makes them difficult to use effectively.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 08:19 AM UTC

Quoted Text

As always thank you for this epic posting. Is the Ramta mine plow the same as the US uses on Abrams?



Yes. In '89 they bought some 400 units to be used on US Army M1s and USMC M60s. The US designation is 'M1 Mine Clearing Blade System' (MCBS). They were used during operation Desert Storm.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1mcbs.htm



Northwoods
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: May 13, 2019
KitMaker: 13 posts
Armorama: 14 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 08:18 AM UTC
Some info about #72

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/08/18/israeli-use-of-fixed-tank-turrets/
Removed by original poster on 03/28/20 - 20:13:04 (GMT).
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 888 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 08:06 AM UTC
1923.



1924.


1925.

GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 888 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 08:03 AM UTC
I think it is almost identical to the Abrams one with the exception of the mounts on the idler wheels on Magach tanks and perhaps some minor differences on the mount on the front glacis. I have bought 2 Trumpeter Abrams 5 in 1 kits for the mine plough (they are really cheap online)

1922.

jps
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: February 06, 2006
KitMaker: 141 posts
Armorama: 135 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 07:59 AM UTC
As always thank you for this epic posting. Is the Ramta mine plow the same as the US uses on Abrams?
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 888 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 07:57 AM UTC
1921.

ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 07:11 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The mine plough is not a common choice for the IDF.



I suppose it's more common on Pumas, but sometimes also tanks were equipped it:

This looks like an exhibition piece:

1918.


Merkava Mk.1

1919.


1920.




GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 888 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:38 AM UTC
Those were just sent to me. Magach 6M tank with Ramta mine plough. The mine plough is not a common choice for the IDF.

1916.


1917.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:32 AM UTC

Quoted Text

But the Mk.3 power train, right?





Quoted Text

Yep!



I guess 1.200 HP is sufficient, you don't really need the 1.500 HP of the MT833. Probably a lot more cost effective too.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:23 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Edit: Looking at the photos above I think that the Mk3 chassis vehicles have a split cover at the foremost part of the engine deck (diagonal split hatches) while the Mk4 chassis vehicles have one single piece cover on the foremost part of the engine deck. Plus the front hull geometry difference and wheel spacing.



Well spotted, Nikos. Indeed that seems to be the case.
Marsh
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:20 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Thanks for your input, Marsh.


Quoted Text

The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.



But the Mk.3 power train, right?




Yep!
HDSC2D
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: March 12, 2013
KitMaker: 156 posts
Armorama: 138 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:12 AM UTC
Interesting the cupola appears to be the Chrysler one but with all the .50 cal fittings removed.
GTDeath13
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 888 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 05:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi Israel,

You are not entirely correct on this. Some of the early Namers that are in service, were built on the Merkava 3 chassis, not that of the Merkava 4. The intention was to introduce a batch of vehicles as soon as possible. They are the ones you can see with Merkava 3 suspension and tracks. The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.

If you have access to Robert Manasherab's book Israeli Wild and Cruel Cats Volume 5 on the Namer, there is a discussion on this and some nice photos of the two variants in service together.



That is some very valuable info. MAny thanks.

Edit: Looking at the photos above I think that the Mk3 chassis vehicles have a split cover at the foremost part of the engine deck (diagonal split hatches) while the Mk4 chassis vehicles have one single piece cover on the foremost part of the engine deck. Plus the front hull geometry difference and wheel spacing.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 05:55 AM UTC
Thanks for your input, Marsh.


Quoted Text

The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.



But the Mk.3 power train, right?

Marsh
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 05:36 AM UTC
Hi Israel,

You are not entirely correct on this. Some of the early Namers that are in service, were built on the Merkava 3 chassis, not that of the Merkava 4. The intention was to introduce a batch of vehicles as soon as possible. They are the ones you can see with Merkava 3 suspension and tracks. The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.

If you have access to Robert Manasherab's book Israeli Wild and Cruel Cats Volume 5 on the Namer, there is a discussion on this and some nice photos of the two variants in service together.
ReluctantRenegade
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,312 posts
Armorama: 2,204 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 06:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

I have read that they have used Mk.I hulls.



The prototypes were MkI hulls.

The hull really looks like a Mk4 but the wheel spacing is a bit different judging by photos and the front glacis angles look as if it is a Mk3.



Correct. The hull of production series Namers is indeed based on that of the Mk.4, but the power train and the entire running gear (including the tracks) are identical to those of the Mk.3.