South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

[Herman]

Reply to #201
...or it could have independant suspension with variable/adjustable ground clearance?

Absolutely. The Spanish BMR 600 built in the late seventies had adjustable height suspension.

 

[RAD72]

The Krokodil and the Gator seem to be very interesting vehicles. Does anyone have any more pics of these armoured animals?

Thanks in advanced

Rad72

 

[sa_bushwar]

This seems to be amongst others an Eland and Buffel replacement....?

 

[sa_bushwar]

Anybody knows the history behind this prototype at the Bloemfontein armour museum? The 2 rear axles are from a 6x6 Magirus Deutz gun tractor used by the SA field artillery till replaced by the SAMIL 100's.

 

[JAZZ]

New BAE RG-35?

 

[Apophenia]

Thanks JAZZ. There's more difference between the original 6x6 prototype and the 4x4 then was first apparent.

 

[kaiserbill]

Nice pics, sa-bushwar.

That last vehicle you posted, I've never seen it before.
It has vision firing ports on the sides, as well as bench type seats at the back, with outward opening roof hatches over the troop(?) compartment. Rear and side doors for dismounting. There also appears to be an aperture for a turret over the centre part of the hull. So probably an Infantry combat vehicle prototype? Maybe based on Samil components?

Fascinating.

I'm due to go to South Africa in December, and feel that a trip to the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein is an absolute must. Just got to keep the wife and daughter occupied with something else at the same time....

 

[curious george]

Thx for clearing up a mystery for me!(dankie M.)

Always wondered about in the vehicle in the background...,I have to wonder tho if this proto took at least some inspiration from captured FAPLA BTR152's in Angolsch?

http://gallery2.ipmssa.za.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=9403&g2_serialNumber=6


I'm due to go to South Africa in December, and feel that a trip to the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein is an absolute must. Just got to keep the wife and daughter occupied with something else at the same time....
[/quote]

Lol,good luck with that in Bloem! ;D

 

[kaiserbill]

Hey, nice catch, curious george! I've seen that Rooikat photo before, but never noticed that vehicle parked in the backround. It appears to be the same vehicle.

My basic analysis above is just me guessing what this vehicles intended role was, going by what I can see on the photo.

I may be completely wrong though.

 

[Grey Havoc]

New BAE RG-35?

That, my friends, is the BAE submission for the Canadian TAP-V requirement. This is from the Ares article linked below:

We’ve known for some time that the company was submitting a refitted RG-35 to the Canadians, but the company said today that it’s 4x4 RG35 RPU is about 5.2m long, 2.6m wide, and with a ground clearance of 414 millimeters, and has a gross vehicle mass of 21,000kg with a payload of 3,000kg and seats a driver plus 9 crew members. The TAP-V, which is being pegged as the replacement to Canada’s RG31 and Coyote reconnaissance, will be used by Canadian forces in a reconnaissance role on the battlefield, and domestically as a general utility vehicle. An award for the TAP-V contract of 500 vehicles is due this fall.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a94409f5d-37d4-4e87-8eb4-540cf7ed14c0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest


Here's a bit more on the TAP-V requirement and it's place within the overall FLCS (Family of Land Combat Systems) program:
http://www.casr.ca/bg-army-combat-systems-flcs.htm#tapv
http://www.casr.ca/doc-dnd-armour-tapv.htm

 

[Apophenia]

That, my friends, is the BAE submission for the Canadian TAP-V requirement...

It is indeed. But, just to be anal-retentive, no hyphen in DND's TAPV designation (not sure if that errant hyphen got stuck in by Aviation Week or Defense Update).

It'll be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces' overall experience with product support for the APV (RG 31) will be a detriment or work in South Africa's favour. It'll also be interesting to see what RWS BAE will pair the RG35 with. The SD-ROW is too small for TAPV and the TRT-25 may be too big.

 

[Herman]

Reply to posts 205 and 208

Never seen this vehicle before. I would guess it might predate the Ratel, i.e. an ICV based on Magirus components (funny front axles though) in a conventional lay-out. Biggest problem is poor forward visibility; always the case with a front-engined vehicle with solid axles, unless the vehicle is very high.

 

[Herman]

The TAPV has independent suspension, like the RG 41 and unlike the solid axles of the RG 35. The suspension units of the TAPV look a bit like TAK 4 units.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The TAPV has independent suspension, like the RG 41 and unlike the solid axles of the RG 35. The suspension units of the TAPV look a bit like TAK 4 units.

To me at least, the crew compartment looks narrower as well, there has clearly been a deliberate effort to make sure the wheels are outside the footprint of the crew compartment. The more I look at this vehicle the less it seems to have in common with its supposed 6x6 family member.

 

[RAD72]

I would like to see Canada go for the Textron Mobile Survivability Vehicles. It is an improved version of the M1117. I have post a link below that shows both the MSV and the RG-35 RPU.

http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php?topic=14740.0

 

[sa_bushwar]

The vehicle in the background is the same one I posted photos of in post 205. it apears to have a Magirus Deutz aircooled V8 engine. The Rooikat photo must have been taken at Armour School in Bloemfontein.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Nice pics, sa-bushwar.

That last vehicle you posted, I've never seen it before.
It has vision firing ports on the sides, as well as bench type seats at the back, with outward opening roof hatches over the troop(?) compartment. Rear and side doors for dismounting. There also appears to be an aperture for a turret over the centre part of the hull. So probably an Infantry combat vehicle prototype? Maybe based on Samil components?

Fascinating.

I'm due to go to South Africa in December, and feel that a trip to the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein is an absolute must. Just got to keep the wife and daughter occupied with something else at the same time....

Better drop the wife and daughter at the Boer War Museum (also fascinating!) or Waterfront shopping centre!

 

[curious george]

Always wondered about in the vehicle in the background...,I have to wonder tho if this proto took at least some inspiration from captured FAPLA BTR152's in Angolsch?

http://gallery2.ipmssa.za.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=9403&g2_serialNumber=6


*my eyes always "saw" a saracen,and only much later picked up on the 8 x 8 bit.*

take it then that you're from Bloem SAbushwar

Also,how accesable to the public is the Armour museum and those protos at 1SAI?Dont pass through Bloem too often,so it will take planning from my side.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Always wondered about in the vehicle in the background...,I have to wonder tho if this proto took at least some inspiration from captured FAPLA BTR152's in Angolsch?

http://gallery2.ipmssa.za.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=9403&g2_serialNumber=6


*my eyes always "saw" a saracen,and only much later picked up on the 8 x 8 bit.*

take it then that you're from Bloem SAbushwar

Also,how accesable to the public is the Armour museum and those protos at 1SAI?Dont pass through Bloem too often,so it will take planning from my side.

Not from the city of roses, but use every opportunity to visit the armour museum. Just go to the gate and say you are going to the museum. Sometimes inhouse exhibits closed on weekends, but sometimes weekend the best as no one stopping one climbing in or on the exhibits!, it just depends who is on duty at the gate! The hoefyster/Ratel/Rooikat/Olifant prototypes are scattered around parade grounds and gate entrances and are fully accessable, just ask permission before you go through a gate!

 

[Apophenia]

The TAPV has independent suspension, like the RG 41 and unlike the solid axles of the RG 35. The suspension units of the TAPV look a bit like TAK 4 units.

Herman: Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that the 6x6 RG35 had live axles.

RAD72: Canada rejected the V-150 (along with the Urutu) when it was put forward for the AVGP contest in 1975-76. What does Textron's warmed over MSV descendant offer that make you believe that it suits TAPV so well?

 

[RAD72]

RAD72: Canada rejected the V-150 (along with the Urutu) when it was put forward for the AVGP contest in 1975-76. What does Textron's warmed over MSV descendant offer that make you believe that it suits TAPV so well?
[/quote]


Just my personal opinion. It seems to have a good suspension, and apparently the US MP's and others that operate the M1117 seem to give it positive reviews. The RG-35 RPU seems to be an excellent vehicle as well. I love the South African designs, and they are excellent makes of MRAPS

Again just my 2 cents, or with the exchange rate 2.1 cents Canadian

 

[RAD72]

Just what I have read. I am in no way an expert.

 

[Herman]

The URL posted by RAD 72 shows several very interesting, modern, medium-sized MRAP vehicles. The best "proven" of these vehicles are the Australian Bushmaster and the US ASV M1117. The Bushmaster has seen extensive service with Australian and Dutch forces in Afghanistan and seems to be highly regrarded by the users. The RG 35 derived vehicle, at 21 tons, is quite a bit heavier than the others. This does mean in excess of 5 tons per wheel. Under hard and dry conditions (read Afghanistan), this is OK but in mud its mobility will suffer. The Rooikat, for instance, only carries about 3.5 tons per wheel.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Bushmaster has seen extensive service with Australian and Dutch forces in Afghanistan and seems to be highly regrarded by the users.

And the UK SAS TF Black in Iraq. The armour design leadership on the Bushmaster was provided by South African émigrés. The initial protection design provided by the Irish company Timoney failed the testing and it had to be redesigned.

The RG 35 derived vehicle, at 21 tons, is quite a bit heavier than the others. This does mean in excess of 5 tons per wheel. Under hard and dry conditions (read Afghanistan), this is OK but in mud its mobility will suffer. The Rooikat, for instance, only carries about 3.5 tons per wheel.

The Bushmaster has an empty weight of 12.4 tonnes (GVW 15 tonnes) only with the monocoque armour of 1cm thick HHS. When you start to add additional armour, weapon systems, CIED jammers, mine rollers the GVW climbs and so does the axle weight. It then becomes an issue of how the vehicle can handle the additional weight. The 6x6 RG-35 has a much more powerful engine and a third axle so is designed for this high weight to being with. The 4x4 version of the RG-35 as a GVW of 21 tonnes but an empty weight of 12 tonnes. So its axle loading can be as low as the Bushmaster. But with its bigger engine it can motor at higher GVW without loss of on road performance.

 

[Apophenia]

Just my personal opinion. It seems to have a good suspension, and apparently the US MP's and others that operate the M1117 seem to give it positive reviews. The RG-35 RPU seems to be an excellent vehicle as well. I love the South African designs, and they are excellent makes of MRAPS

Thanks for the reply RAD72. Good suspension is one of the definers for TAPV. The Mobile Survivable Vehicle has the same Timoney system as ASV. The Cougar 4x4 and Oshkosh prototype have TAK-4. The RG35 RPU has AxleTech ISAS, etc. I'm not sure that any of this independant suspension systems give an edge to a particular contender.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post #227
I'm not sure that any of this independant suspension systems give an edge to a particular contender.
They are all double wishbone setups with coil springs. You're probably right; all much of a muchness.

 

[Apophenia]

Yes, that was my sense too Herman. The Timoney system has been around a bit longer perhaps. Has anyone heard of any problems with the Timoney suspension, Axletech 4500 series ISAS, or TAK-4?

 

[Herman]

Reply to post #229
Has anyone heard of any problems with the Timoney suspension, Axletech 4500 series ISAS, or TAK-4?

As far as I know the grand daddy of this lot is the Timoney suspension. This was first seen in the Timoney armoured car developed in Ireland in the late seventies or early eighties. The design was sold to Oshkosh who then developed the TAK 4 on the basis of the Timoney. What Timoney/Oshkosh did was not really revolutionary. They simply built a double wishbone suspension with shock absorber and coil spring, such as has been around since at least WW2, but they incorporated it in a unit. The TAK 4 therefore consists of a subframe containing the differential, articulated half shafts, disc brakes, wheel hub with steering attachments, coil spring, shock absorbers, etc.

The first MRAP vehicles, such as the role-defining Casspir, were fitted with solid axles. In the event of a mine encounter, the leaf springs and shock absorbers could be unbolted, the brake lines and tie-rods disconnected and the axle removed to be replaced by a new one by reversing the process: simple and quick. A bit of hull distorsion didn't matter; there was enough play in the system to soak that up. With conventional independent suspension units, all the components were independently attached to the hull. In the event of damage, the upper wishbones, lower wishbones, half-shafts, tie rods, brake lines, differential, etc. all had to be removed seperately and then replaced, and in case of severe damage, the process had to be repeated on the other side. If the hull had been distorted in the blast, and everything did not line up properly, the thing wasn't reparable anyway. All MRAPS until fairly recently had therefore been fitted with solid axles.

With the TAK 4 unit, the whole subframe can be unbolted as a unit and replaced with a new one. This has also made it possible to replace the solid axles on existing MRAP vehicles with TAK 4 units.

WIT

 

[Apophenia]

Fascinating. Thanks Herman.

I hadn't realized that TAK-4 was a direct descendant of the Timoney design. I guess the best example of the evolution process you're describing is the RG31 -- all models up to Mk5 have that Casspir-style live axle, then the TAK-4 and ISAS are introduced into the Mk5 EMs.

 

[JFC Fuller]

There is a prototype next generation TAK-4 that has been displayed by Oshkosh on their diesel electric LCTV (basically a highly modified M-ATV design) technology demonstrator, that variant comes with 20 inches of independent wheel travel compared to 16 inches for the current production version.

Apophenia,

My understanding is that only an RG31 with an M in the designation (ie; RG-31 Mk5EM) have the independent suspension, so even the Mk6 still has the live axle.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I recently came across a comprehensive articles series by Helmoed-Romer Heitman on the Centurion tank in SA Army service in a US Army magazine. Here is a summary of some of the facts in the article.

The original supply of 200 Centurions in Mks 3 and 5 was in 1954-56 to provide a Commonwealth defence armoured division (a similar scheme was also underway in Australia). The Comet tank was ordered for reconnaissance use and Saracen for the APC role. The Centurion was known at this time in the SA Army as the “Meteor” after the engine and was difficult to maintain (mostly the FCS). With South Africa leaving the Commonwealth 100 Centurions were sold to Switzerland as surplus to requirements for African defence.

Because of problems the Meteor engine and the British embargo on defence equipment an engine replacement project was launched in 1972. Project Skokiaan (Afrikaans for home brewed spirits) replaced the Meteor with a 30.3 L, 810 hp at 2,800 rpm, 2,264 Nm torque at 2,200 rpm, fuel injection, air cooled, V-12 petrol motor coupled to a new three speed automatic transmission. Only eight vehicles were converted but extensive training and trials work was conducted.

In 1974 the Skokiaan tanks were upgraded under Project Semel with some engine modifications and new fuel tanks for 1,400 L capacity. The new Semel standard improved performance across the board over the original Mks 3/5 Centurion. Top speed was 50 kph up from 34 kph and range doubled to 200 km on roads and 100 km cross country. Power to weight ratio was 16.5 hp/ton compared to 13 hp/ton making the tank far more ‘driveable’.

With the deployment of Cuban tanks to Angola in 1975 the Centurion projects were given greater emphasis and resourcing. 35 tanks were upgraded to Semel standard and deployed to northern South West Africa in 1976 to equip a tank regiment to counter any southern movement of the Communist tanks. A new Mk 2 Semel project was launched with a diesel engine. No engine was immediately available so a larger scope, longer term upgrade was launched in 1976. It was called Project Olifant which I will cover in a later post.

 

[Apophenia]

My understanding is that only an RG31 with an M in the designation (ie; RG-31 Mk5EM) have the independent suspension, so even the Mk6 still has the live axle.

sealordlawrence: Good point. I didn't mean to imply a one-way, ratcheting evolutionary process. The extra weight of the RG31 Mark 6 may explain the live axle. The extra expense of independents would be another. Still, I'd expect an 'RG31 Mk6EM' to be offered eventually.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In 1976 the SA Army launched Project Olifant to upgrade the Semel/Centurion tank’s mobility, firepower and reliability to provide a tank combat effective against the new Communist threat into the 1990s. A series of prototypes were built and trialed at the SA School of Armour. “Proto 1” in 1976 was followed by Protos 2 and 3 in 1977 and 78 with the last vehicle passing the acceptance trials and being ordered into production as the Olifant Mk 1. Crew training began straight away in 1978 on several pre-production vehicles.

The new engine was a 29 L turbo charged V-12 diesel delivering 750 hp at 2,300 rpm and 2,332 Nm of torque at 1,800 rpm. The same three speed automatic transmission as the Semel was used but modified for the diesel engine. The suspension was improved but the larger engine required only 1,240 L fuel tanks which of course feeding a diesel engine increased range. Compared to the Semel power to weight ratio was down from 16.5 hp/ton to 13.4 hp/ton reducing top speed to 45km. But range was much better at 250 km on roads and 200 km cross country. All of the South African Centurions were Mks 3/5 with a shorter hull compared to later Centurions so limited in their fuel volume. Combat weight was increased to 56 tons but centre of gravity shifted to the rear improving trench crossing to 3.45m (from 3.35m).

The 84mm ’20 Pounder’ cannon was replaced by the 105mm L7 gun and 72 rounds were carried (compared to 64 105mm in the Centurion Mk 13). A minor cosmetic difference was the fitting of a different fabric shield between the turret and the mantle which exposed the mantle plate on the Olifant compared to covering it on most other Centurions. The fire control system was improved and a Metascope IR sight fitted for use with a spotlight. The commander was issued a hand held laser range finder as an interim measure. A squadron of Olifant Mk 1s was deployed to South West Africa in 1984 but they did not see action.

The new step was the Olifant Mk 1A which entered production in 1983 with a new fire control system. The gunner’s sight was replaced with a dual channel Eloptro MZS-2 unit with integral laser rangefinder (10 km range). The right hand sight channel ad a 8 degree field of view (FOV) sight with x8 magnification. The left hand sight channel had a night firing image intensification unit with x7.2 magnification and 7 degree FOV. This could be replaced with a day surveillance unit with x1 magnification but 40 degree FOV. The Mk 1A received a new electrical system, metric fasteners and new storage bins. Mk 1s were upgraded to Mk 1A standard but did not receive the new electrical system or metric fasteners.

The Mk 1A was used in combat in Angola during 1987/88 during the battles that defeated FAPLA and their Cuban allies. The tank was used extensively as a bush basher clearing paths for other vehicles. An indication of how extreme the bush was one unit of Olifants were only able to penetrate 800m of bush in four hours of hard driving. The Communist forces deployed T-54/55 with 100mm guns, RPG-7, B-10 and some Sagger ATGMs against the Olifants. Also BM-21 122mm MRLs were used in direct fire against tanks but not the D-30 122mm field gun. No anti tank weapons penetrated the Olifant’s armour but several were damaged. One T-55 100mm shell destroyed the front idler of an Olifant and similar was caused by direct fire of BM-21. The only Olifant crewman killed in action was a driver who was killed after a direct hit on the front of his tank by an indirect fire BM-21. It did not penetrate the armour but he was unable to close his dual hatches in time and was killed by blast and fragments. In return the Olifants shot out 32 T-54/55 tanks and destroyed numerous other targets. Most engagements were at short range due to the forested terrain and the new FCS was hardly tested. One T-55 was destroyed at only 50m range leaving the APDS sabots embedded in its armour plate.

The most severe threat to the Olifants were anti tank mines with many tanks losing tracks and roadwheels to this threat. One Olifant spent most of the campaign short-tracked after an anti tank mine hit. Short tracking is when you lose the front road wheel so loop the track around the second road wheel and then back to the return rollers. Three Olifants lost tracks in a mine field towards the end of the campaign. They were left undestroyed because the SA Army expected to recover them immediately but were ordered to withdraw because of the political settlement leaving the tanks to the enemy who paraded them as a great victory. While the Mk 1A was in production the Mk 1B was under development which I will cover later.

 

[Herman]

Re: South African Centurions:

The 810 hp petrol engines used in the initial repowering project (only 8 tanks) were American Continetal AV-1790 units. These 29 liter, air-cooled, petrol engines were originally fitted to the M48 tank. The M48's of many countries were upgraded during the seventies to M48A3 or higher standard. This involved, amongst other things, replacement of the petrol engine with a diesel derivative of the same engine, the AVDS 1790. The South African Centurions were re-engined with AV-1790 units removed from the M48's and the engines almost certainly came from either Germany or Israel. The diesel engines fitted to later modifications of the Centurion (Olifant) were AVDS-1790 units. This engine was widely used to repower the Centurion, notably by the Israelis. It was also the standard engine for the US M60 tank. As a side-note, it is also the engine Britain should have used in the Chieftain instead of that dreadful Leyland L60 two-stroke job.

 

[kaiserbill]

Very interesting stuff Abraham. Waiting in anticipation for your next post.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here's a nice picture of the ZA-35 prototype.

 

[kaiserbill]

That vehicle posted by sa-bushwar in post 205, the 8x8 vehicle that appears to be an ICV with Magirus Deutz components.
I wonder what time frame it is.
It could be, as has already been speculated, a prototype in the original ratel ICV competition, which is back in the 1970's. But I wonder also if perhaps it could have been part of an excercise in parts standardisation? The SAMIL's are modified "ruggedized" Magirus Deutz's, and much like the Buffel APC that was initially frowned upon in some quarters due to it's Unimog components, I wonder if this wasn't a stab at producing something with parts commonality with the large SAMIL truck fleet in the SADF? There was the project to design a Buffel APC type vehicle that used SAMIL 20 components in the Rhino and Bulldog APC's.

Again, just speculation on my part.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The next stage (the third) of the Olifant project was the Mk 1B upgrade with first prototypes ready for evaluation in 1986. The 1B focused on restoring mobility to Semel level, improving protection and maintainability. After this upgrade the only thing left from the original Centurion Mk 3 acquired by the SA Army was the steel hull and turret.

The powerpack was uprated to 900 hp providing a power weight ratio of 15.52 hp/ton at combat weight of 58 tonnes. Third generation AMTRA automatic transmission provided four forward and two reverse gears and double differential steering. The rear hull was also stretched by 20cm to allow for rapid power pack change which only requires 60 minutes for a swap. To further improve driving a new electronic speedometer and a gyro compass were fitted to the driver’s controls. To improve ergonomics the driver’s station was rearranged and three new wide angle fixed periscopes replaced the previous two trainable scopes mounted in twin hatches. The centre periscope can be replaced by a night visions device and a new single piece rotating hatch improved access for the driver.

Matching the improvement in the powerpack was an entirely new suspension system. The old Horstman bogies were replaced by individual torsion bars on all road wheels. Despite weight disadvantages and mine vulnerability torsion bars were chosen over hydro-pneumatic suspension because of their ease of maintenance. The new suspension provided 435mm of wheel travel compared to 146mm available to only one wheel in every paired bogey. Hydraulic bump stops were fitted to all road wheels except the inner pair. Because torsion bars take up internal volume the Olifant solution was to add them under the existing hull bottom and then add a new second bottom over the bars creating a double hull for enhanced mine protection. The crew escape hatch in the hull bottom was retained. This did reduce ground clearance to 34.5cm at the lowest point. A polyurethane coating enhanced wheel life from 300km to 1,200km.

The end result of the mobility upgrade was a top speed of 58kph on roads and up to 30kph cross country. Acceleration to 30kph was in 12 seconds and 500m could be covered from the stop in under 50 seconds. Top reverse speed was 36kph and a 2m trench could be crossed at 30kph. At crawl speed a 3.45m trench could be crossed at a 98cm high step traversed. Fuel capacity was 1,468 L providing a road range of 360km, cross country 260km and 200km in heavy sand.

The most noticeable element of the Mk 1B upgrade was a new appliqué armour suite. This consisted of a single array fitted to the glacis and seven “packets” fitted to the turret to provide protection from fire across the frontal 120 degrees. The armour used a passive composite array and was said to be proof against any 100mm gun (T-55) fire from 100m range and RPG-7 class weapons. Total weight of the eight packages was 4.1 tonnes. New external storage boxes of high hardness steel were fitted to provide additional standoff protection and all were fitted with steel hatches designed to be resistant to napalm attack. Inside the tank a fire/explosion suppression system was fitted to the crewed areas triggered by optical detectors. The engine bay also received a new fire suppression system. All ammunition was stored in the hull below the turret ring.

The Mk 1B received only minor firepower improvements from the Mk 1A including a barrel thermal sleeve and a new electric gun training system. The later could rotate the turret at 22.5 degrees a second. The turret bustle was cut out and extended to provide proper balance for the 105mm gun and additional internal space, The torsion bar suspension was also fine tunned to make for good firing stability and rapid levelling after coming to a quick firing halt. The loader’s station was also improved with a new single piece hatch and two periscopes for more surveillance potential.

The final major change was incorporation of add on points at the bow for engineering equipment. This includes a 3.5m wide, 7 tonne electro hydraulic bulldozer blade that can be fitted in 15 minutes by the crew of 7 minutes with a crane. Also an 8 tonne mine roller mounted 1.4m in front of the bow with explosive bolts for rapid removal. Finally a “bush basher” comprising a 1 tonne steel bar in a flat V shape for extreme gardening and reducing the strain and damage on the tank when clearing bush.

 

[DFS 228]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to the forum, however I would like in time to comment on various items being discussed here. For the moment I just wanted to mention that MLZN as per the photo a few posts back was meant to be the support vehicle for the TEL. I will make more info available in due course.

What I really wanted to say is that I am part of a team that is looking seriously at reprinting the real South African nuclear story "Those who had the power". This time we want to print it in A4 size, full colour throughout and on good quality paper too. We feel that this will eradicate most of the shortcomings of the initial publication. We are also looking to update it a little, in particular around two subjects: TEL/Beestrok and project Carver. We felt (also backed up by some of the discussions on this forum/thread) that this is where most of the questions/confusion lay. Also Carver seems to be of high interest to a whole lot of people.

The limited run of the initial publication left many people still wanting copies and not being able to find it. Furthermore it was initially printed by a company that mostly prints school type text books, thus inheriting much of that world's pedigree (read cheap printing, paper etc...).

We therefore hope to satisfy many interested parties out there who are still looking for a copy. Those who have it know that the info contained therein is explosive (pardon the pun) and very detailed to say the least.

Something (a photo) printed in the book however, that has been totally missed by most readers actually reveals the most hair-raising part of the program, as far as I am concerned - those with the Intel understanding and acumen, obviously kept it to themselves.

Anyhow, I must run...

 

[thebig C]

Hey

Abraham, some good info on South African tanking. I really enjoyed reading it.

I don't mean to drap this off topic, but, DFS 228, are you intending to publish any significant additional info? For my own part I would be interested in SA naval projects which I have been told were very much glossed over in the original book.