South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

Herman said:
Regarding the LZN: In Clive Wilsworth's book: "First In Last Out" (ISBN 978-1-920143-40-4), on the development and role of the artillery in... snip...
The book is quite interesting and certainly the last chapter, describing the acquisition and development of new equipment during the arms boycott years, including the G5 and G6, is an absolute must for people on this thread.
Click to expand...

Is this book recently published Herman? Does that last chapter deal exclusively with the Army, and artillery in particular?

That Beeld article posted by Apophenia implies that there is a drawing with that article of the LZN.

Sealord, I may have my wires crossed in connection with the link between the LZN and Beestrok. I seem to recall a connection, but still do not have access to my library due to my move, so cannot categorically say either way from what I have. I am going by memory here, and that sometimes lets me down. ;)
 
Folks (YES, YOU BOTH !), I have the feeling, this
discussion is going off course in a way, we had several times before.
Please, for debating who knows what, who knows more and who knows
nothing about anything, use PM, not this or any other thread !
I've cleaned up some posts a little bit, but if the tone won't come
back to a more polite level, there will be other consequences.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
The only reason? If they needed a cross country TEL and lacked the heavy weight truck capability then why didn’t they use a tank? They had plenty of those. You are fitting circumstances into your beliefs and shaping it with a fair dose of ignorance (not for the first time). Chinese nuclear tactics during the 70s, 80s and 90s are well understood and there are plenty of articles written about it. I suggest you get a basis of understanding about these tactics before weighing in with simplistic and inaccurate assessment. That they are now moving to a first strike hold at risk capability should not be confused with the requirements of their previous second strike force in being strategy. Nor should it be confused with the SADF’s requirements for a survivable but limited nuclear deterrence.
Click to expand...

The Chinese have not used cross country TELs for their missiles before simply because they have not had access to them (DF-3/4) and their missiles have been to large and primitive (DF-4/5), as soon as they got missiles light enough to go on the cross country TELs they could construct they started using them (early 90s) and have been increasing their use ever since. An MBT chassis is completely impractical for carrying a ballistic missile (with the possible exception of something very small and short range) due to the size of the overhang that would be required at either end.

While I’m sure its much harder for you to find a TEL hidden in the bush compared to one using the road system it is a very different matter for satellite surveillance.
Click to expand...

No it is not, irrelevant of the search apparatus an increase in the search area will increase the difficulty of locating what is still a relatively small object. You also increase the diversity of the terrain in which you can hide the TEL which increases the ability to camouflage it.

While I have never discounted that the Beestrok TEL was cross country capable I have been pointing out that it is unlikely and not an absolute requirement.
Click to expand...

And if you read back through my posts I have never claimed that an off-road TEL was an absolute requirement- simply that there is no evidence beyond conjecture that it was not pursued.

The simple facts are that evidence exposed to date are that the Beestrok was a four axle vehicle built in the mid 1980s that would have to carry a 25 tonne missile and a 5-10 tonne missile gantry. How many four axle vehicles can carry a 35-40 tonne load cross country?
Click to expand...

What facts? By your own admission earlier in the thread the only thing we have reported in the open source about the Beestrok is that it was disguised as a crane carrier- nothing about the number of axles it had.
 
Is this book recently published Herman?

The book, "First in Last out" by Clive Wilsworth was published in 2010. I got my copy from Amazon UK. The last chapter deals with the development of new equipment for the SA artillery during the period 1975 to the end of the eighties. It discusses the development of new artillery control systems, the introduction of the Isreali 120mm mortars into the SA Army, and the whole saga of the G5 and G6 developments, including the G3, G4 and G5 guns. The extensive Canadian connection with the development of the G5 is discussed. The development of the 127mm MRL missile systems is also described.

Some interesting facts mentioned are that South Africa had 183, 25 pounder field guns and 52, 140mm G2s (5.5 inch) medium guns in service in 1973. The army stated at that time that they required 232 field guns and 84 medium guns. Of the 140 Sexton self-propelled 25 pounders, only 54 were runners due to a lack of spares.

There also is a photograph of a LZN, serving as an ammunition supply vehicle for a G5 in the book. The caption states that the photo was taken in the Arabian desert in 1990, during the marketing effort of the G6, a week or two before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
 
On the topic of 8x8 vehicles and Magirus Deutz, post 16 on Page 2 of this thread I posted a one-off armoured 8x8 development of the standard SAMIL 100 6x6 heavy truck, which used the Magirus Deutz 320D22AL 6x6 as it's design origin. Granted, the cab and engine location are probably not suitable for a TEL, but I thought I'd mention it in passing.

A few years back I saw a line drawing of a G6 chassis tht had a large turret with a bulbous protrusion out the front. I seem to remember speculation that this was perhaps a vehicle that could deliver a FAE, perhaps something to do with minefield clearance, or perhaps even a cruise or ballistic missile launcher.

Does anyone recall this? Was it an authentic concept? I'd imagine that the G6 chassis, due to its size and strength, must have been considered for a number of various projects.
 
kaiserbill said:
On the topic of 8x8 vehicles and Magirus Deutz, post 16 on Page 2 of this thread I posted a one-off armoured 8x8 development of the standard SAMIL 100 6x6 heavy truck, which used the Magirus Deutz 320D22AL 6x6 as it's design origin. Granted, the cab and engine location are probably not suitable for a TEL, but I thought I'd mention it in passing.
Click to expand...

Up until this recent discussion I had always imagined something like that 8X8 SAMIL as a tractor towing a trailer TEL in a similar fashion to the Iranian Shahab TEL or the current DF-31 TEL in China, simply as it would probably be the easiest solution. Tangentially the LZN was proposed as a Tractor unit as well.
 
In Wilsworth's book on the history of the South African artillery in the priod 1975-1988, he states that a 300km range artillery missile capable of delivering either a nuclear or conventional payload was developed as project Hibiscus. The project inviolved the use of an Israeli missile. The H2 guided bomb, developed at the same time, was however seen as a more feasible system and the missile project was scrapped. According to the author, all the effeort was not wasted though as a prototype heavy transporter was developed for the missile. This was known as the MLZN (Moerse Lorrie Zonder Naam) and this later served as the basis for an an ammunition vehicle for the G6 system.

So, apparently the truck was originally developed as a missile transporter and was then known as the (M)LZN, later named the Beestrok. The same vehicle, still known as the LZN, was then modified into a support vehicle for the G6.
 
Herman said:
So, apparently the truck was originally developed as a missile transporter and was then known as the (M)LZN, later named the Beestrok. The same vehicle, still known as the LZN, was then modified into a support vehicle for the G6.
Click to expand...

The Beestrock was the TEL for the 3,000 km range RSA-3 (Jericho) missile not a tactical range artillery rocket.
 
Having thought about it the Israeli missile could have been the Jericho 1, range reported at about 300 miles (not Km, though a heavier warhead would have reduced the range)- that would certainly make sense as preliminary cooperation prior to the Jericho/RSA2/RSA3 effort. The SA missile history is somewhat confused with many sources stating that RSA3 was just a space launcher and RSA2 was the ballistic missile- even sources saying it was an MRBM go on to call it a Shavit equivalent which is of course a satellite launcher.
 
I wonder if the LZN had anything to do with the Spanish Aljaba? According to Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics, developmenty of the the Kynos Aljaba started in 1982 with initial field trials in 1985 and production in 1987. It is about the same size as the LZN and uses the same engine and most probably the same transmission and, to put the cherry on the cake, SA selected the Aljaba as its tank transporter in the shape of the Cavallo. It is probably coincidence though. The time frame does not seem quite right and, if you want to build a very big truck using European built components, you tend to end up with the same components (engines, axles, transmissions, etc.) from the same (generally German) manufacturers.
 
A video from the 1992 DEXA show. There is some brief footage of various systems, the Rookat ZA-35mm SPAAG at around 02:33, and 08:22, E-Glas single 35mm at 2:53, and a launch of the SAHV SAM at 08:07.

This is the only footage I've seen of these systems so far, although there was a gentleman on another forum who had quite a bit of footage of the ZA-35. He is no longer active there, so I've been unable to source it.

Video was posted by Playtym over at youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ-hW844F4&feature=related
 
Gents ,new here but Ill to try to clear the confusion on the MLZN. It was in fact a localized version of the Spanish truck Kynos Aljaba which we bought a bunch of for evauation and as part of the marketing of the G6 as in the G6 is not a stand alone system but has the logistical support in the form of the MLZN (either local 6X6 version of Spanish 8X8 version). The 2 were built to local conditions (changed cab and axels and wheels) and planned to consist of both 8x8 and 6X6 versions but only 6X6 was built. See reply 19 with camo version of the propsoed 8X8 MLZN, a G6 and its command vehicle with was an Okapi.
The MLZN was planned to be a family of large heavy lift all terrian trucks .Assesment of imported 8x8 and local 6X6 was as far as it got when it was all canned
Saw them at Lohatla a few times and not sure where they are now but were massive when one saw then next to Samils.
 
Thanks PS for clearing that up. I was always perplexed by the disparity between the LZN's axle dimensions and that of the G6 despite the claim that they were both the same... But anyway a truck version of the G6 will have to remain an idea (a nice one) until someone converts a surplus G6 hull into a truck to win Dakar or something.
 
axel dimentions the same as the G6 were done so that one set of tracks through soft sand allowed both vehicles to use them. No point having a G6 poes klap its way through the bush with nice wide tyre tracks and then a SAMIL following had to make its own tracks. Lessons leant from ops in Angola showed the soft sand to be a real issue with logistics.the MLZN was meant to take 2 SAMIL 100s out the game with simmilar load capacity and to keep up with highly mobile G6 troop. Lessons from 88 showed the dominance of the big guns but the constant repositioning caused considerable headaches for the logistic guys as they would be resupplying a troop of G5's but had no idea where they would be when they got close. The need to reposition G5 troop 2/3/4 times a day doesnt allow for max impact as they were in positions to set up fire for 10 and then pack up and move.

G6 and MLZN was meant to make this repositioning for counter fire much faster and more indipendant. Great idea but after 88 and the withdrawl became a nice to have , not a must have item so it died. Would love to know where those 2 SA built MLZN trucks are today
 
On the issue of the Beestrok ,Pierre lowe was very accurate in his book on history of the vehicle etc and I think if memory serves me well around 89/90 ish I saw what might have been the template for the beestrock in Bloem but it had a MAN cab and was painted in German army green and obvioulsy no missile on the back. I recon it was bought/borrowed/procured to see how it worked and to model our ones made at Littelton.

Saw lots of cool shit when I was in Bloem and Lohatla. Saw some of the battle damage on the Oliphants and Ratels when the tiffies were fixing them in 89, shrapnel dishing on the armour and shattered glass pannels etc, also amazing photos of the battles at CC in 88 from inside the oliphants
 
panzerskool said:
On the issue of the Beestrok ,Pierre lowe was very accurate in his book on history of the vehicle etc and I think if memory serves me well around 89/90 ish I saw what might have been the template for the beestrock in Bloem but it had a MAN cab and was painted in German army green and obvioulsy no missile on the back. I recon it was bought/borrowed/procured to see how it worked and to model our ones made at Littelton.

Saw lots of cool shit when I was in Bloem and Lohatla. Saw some of the battle damage on the Oliphants and Ratels when the tiffies were fixing them in 89, shrapnel dishing on the armour and shattered glass pannels etc, also amazing photos of the battles at CC in 88 from inside the oliphants
Click to expand...

welkom panzerskool,

I wonder if this was the same vehicle I saw biefly parked at my unit towards the end of "modular in Rundu.(also there was a command ratel & a G5 that suffered a barrel burst)
I posted a question in another forum linked to earlier here.I have read subsequently that this MAN was used by the "tiffies"(technical services/mechanics) in one of the many bushwar related books/online(?),memory not quite recalling which one tho!I did take pics of it,but got permanently seperated from my camera & kit a few weeks later!
 
Fascinating stuff Panzerskool.

I take it from your username that you were in tanks? Any info you can relate on some of the vehicles would be most interesting, especially the Loggim/TTD.

You might like to see the following 2 threads, if you have not seen them yet:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8913.0.html

and

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8883.0.html
 
Hi KaiserBill, yip was a school of armour and i have followed some of these threads for a while but the Ratel replacement concepts and test beds wernt there when I was. The TTD was there and was tehe pride and job of the school of armour. I belive the Oliphant 1B was a halfway house between the Oliphants and the TTD as it allowed some features of the TTD to be incorporated into existing vehicles as the TTD would be a new build. We also had the T-72 floating around there and regulary took it out to die brug and Lohlatla to play as well as the kooi pad just in front of SOA.

As for the other concepts etc some were at SOA and some down at SSB and also some at maintenance which was across the road from the bats at the bottom of the hill next to the shops.

I find it criminal that our history as a military is not well documented and captured for future generations and even for old farts like us and the same can be said for 30 years of SA military developments, concepts and tests. I have built up quite a comprehensive libray over the years on books and bits and pieces on aerospace, nuclear issues in SA and this conventional hardware is whats missing. One day Ill do a proper book on this stuff me thinks.
 
I agree wholeheartedly about the history part of the South African arms industry. That's precisely why I started these threads, so that various contributors can add pieces to the puzzle. There should be a wealth of detail out there, and one hopes that it sees the light of day before age catches up with us all.

There was a poster over on the AFM website that obviously had sound knowledge of the Carver fighter programme, as he knew who the chief designer was, and mentioned that he had seen many of the engineering blueprints. He was going to enquire (at work?) whether it was time to release more information on the project, but thereafter went silent and has not posted again!

Very frustrating.

Any info or pieces of the puzzle you may be able to contribute over the various related threads would be most appreciated. :)
 
on carver, i had a quite day today so was trawling through the aviation section here and found a IAI project (name escapes me) that was carver through and through. im convinced there was much more co-development than has been admitted and the IAI plane looks almost idential to Pierres drawings in those that has the power. Im sure it was more developed than we have managed to dig up
 
panzerskool said:
... found a IAI project (name escapes me) that was carver through and through ...
Click to expand...

Was that IAI project a variation on Lavi or a different development altogether?
 
different, not F16 based but more Mirage in design style. will go looking again and post when I find it, it was like 50 pages back into planes
 
panzerskool said:
different, not F16 based but more Mirage in design style. will go looking again and post when I find it, it was like 50 pages back into planes
Click to expand...

The Israelis had a plan for a twin engine Mirage/Kifir with twin tails in the 1970s. The later version of the Carver had twin engines and except for the tails looked similar but they were seperated by 10 odd years (and 10,000km).

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2684.0
(Still with "Cava" mistake name in the title. Project Carver it was until a journalist misheard the South African accent as "cava": ja, its called Cava boet...)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,513.0
IAI Arie (Eagle)
 
I deliberately kept "Cava" in the topic title because it is widely known under that, even if it was wrong.
 
Okay, so the MLZN is also the LZN? And it is based on the Spanish Aljaba, although redesigned with some G-6 components? And that it was an all terrain logistics vehicle that was to accompany the G-6 in whatever terrain it goes? And 6x6 and 8x8 versions were envisiged?

And the Beestrok was a different vehicle, an 8x8, that was to be the TEL for the South African ballistic missile programme then being tested, as the mobile component thereof?

Where is that vehicle stored in the photos Sa-bushwar?
 
yip that looks like her, seems she is a civi truck now. Kaiser you are spot on with the info on teh 2 seperate truck development projects. I also belive that there were some MAN trucks floating aorund at some stage as I saw them at Lohatla but may be been on trial/ used for development work etc for the above mentioned projects.

I belive pierre said in his book that the TELs were chopped up as scrap which seems such a waste as the RSA 3 at teh airforce museaum would have looked great sitting on the back of that as a static display somewhere.

Strange that after all these years simple things like photos of thr TEL's are not available anywhere, sad this part of history seems to be forever gone
 
kaiserbill said:
Okay, so the MLZN is also the LZN? And it is based on the Spanish Aljaba, although redesigned with some G-6 components? And that it was an all terrain logistics vehicle that was to accompany the G-6 in whatever terrain it goes? And 6x6 and 8x8 versions were envisiged?

And the Beestrok was a different vehicle, an 8x8, that was to be the TEL for the South African ballistic missile programme then being tested, as the mobile component thereof?

Where is that vehicle stored in the photos Sa-bushwar?
Click to expand...


This MLZN is at N4 Trucks east of Pta, visible from the N4. Some interesting other remnants there as well...
 
Don't know if that Ratel 2000 project was a real project sa_bushwar. I think it was posted over on the Ratel replacement thread here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8883.0.html



Any other interesting pictures you have from that N4 truck depot?
 
This looks like a Rooikat derivitive IFV with a Rooikat suspension back to front?!
 

Attachments

  • Rooikat IFV.jpg
    Rooikat IFV.jpg
    143.3 KB · Views: 516
Reply to post #194: The vehicle depicted is a fantasy. The lay-out depicted is impossible. Look at the position of the radiator. This is obviously copied from the Iklwa (sp.?) but it would put the engine and the turret in the same place. The very clodely spaced axles (wheelbase no more than 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 meters) would also create difficulties with the placement of the transfer case. The turret is decidedly on the small side for a 35mm cannon and the mention of a "V12" engine is also silly. Modern engines in the required power range for this vehicle (400-600hp) are all inline 6 cilinder, V6 or possibly V8 engines.
 
Not impossible at all. it has exactly the same wheel and chassis configuration as the Rooikat. Engine mounted accross in front in fire proof compartment, offerring additional crew protection from frontal fire. Turret is remotely controlled and purposely small as all modern turrets of this nature, such as the 35mm Denel turret on the Hoefyster Patria. No mention of V12 engine, could be V8 or V6.
 
Sa-bushwar, I don't think Herman was talking about the picture you posted above, but rather the one from your post before that, which is the same one I linked to on the ratel thread.

The later picture you posted above is interesting.
 
Reply to post #197.
The vehicle depicted in post #195 looks somewaht like the Ratel-based prototype for the Rooikat. It seems to be quite high off the ground, suggesting solid axles such as used in the Ratel. The engine could be mounted in front, next to the driver, with the transmission behind it and the transfer case positioned between the second and third axle. In a live axle setup, you need a minimum of about 2.2 meters bewteen axles for the transfer case and still have adequate axle movement. On the Spähpanzer, for instance, it is 2.365m, although it is only about 2.1m in the Transportpanzer. The Ratel has 2.8 meters between the first and second axles. This is where the transmission with integrated transfer case is situated. The illustration seems to have enough space. With a modern independent suspension setup, you obviously need much less space: 1.5 or even 1.4 meters should be enough. If the vehicle shown had independent suspension, for instance the Panhard/Rooikat type of internally driven trailing arms, I would expect it to be much lower.
 
...or it could have independant suspension with variable/adjustable ground clearance? Good ground clearance is important in the African bush, but if the vehicle could "crouch" for concealment purposes, it will be an added advantage.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom