South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

[Rickshaw]

They appear to have a hatch on their top for crew ingress/exgress. This is not in line with the turret ring. Unless the turret crewman is expected to undertake a rather circuitous route, I find it rather unusual. The turrets don't appear to be unmanned, either.

 

[Herman]

Risckshaw wrote, referring to the Mbombe (post # 41): Its turning circle would be enormous!

I think it may steer with the front and rear wheels. That would decrease the turning circle substantially.

 

[kaiserbill]

Herman, do you know the history behind the 6X6 vehicle Reply 5 on Page 1? It is currently at the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein I believe. I've heard it variously described as a control vehicle for the G-6, and more convincingly as a low slung air transportable. It appears to have an opening in the rear hull roof.

 

[Herman]

Kaiserbill says (post 122):
Herman, do you know the history behind the 6X6 vehicle Reply 5 on Page 1? It is currently at the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein I believe. I've heard it variously described as a control vehicle for the G-6, and more convincingly as a low slung air transportable. It appears to have an opening in the rear hull roof.

Don't have a clue. It's an odd thing.

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks Herman.

Any idea on the un-named vehicles in Reply 12 on Page 1?

 

[Herman]

Any idea on the un-named vehicles in Reply 12 on Page 1?

Nope. Very interesting photograph. Doesn't look like an official photograph at all; more like something a troopie took with his private camera during a smoke break.

 

[Herman]

Kaiserbill wrote: The Okapi was a large 6x6 armoured mine protected vehicle. I'm unsure of the timeframe of it's development, or of its purpose or role, although I've seen it described as a mobile command post.

The Okapi is discussed in Jane's Armoured Fighting Vehicles in the command vehicle section, as you suggest. I would guess the development time frame to be late eighties, possibly early nineties.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was wondering if anyone here could clarify the status of the South African Army’s Centurion tank fleet before the major upgrade programs. In particular the buying and selling of Centurions after the initial acquisition.

As I understand it South Africa ordered some 200 Centurion Mk 3s for delivery from 1952. During the late 50s or early 60s a large number of these Centurions were seen as surplus and sold to Switzerland. Later after the start of the Bush Wars in the 1970s over 100 early mark Centurions were acquired from Jordan and/or India. Resulting in a tank park of some 200-250 for upgrade to Olifant in the 1980s.

I was hoping someone would have more definitive dates, numbers and destinations of these sales and acquisitions of Centurions.

 

[kaiserbill]

Not to sure AG. Everything I've seen has said that after half of the initial Centurions were sold off, great pains were taken to procure additional Centurions, with the main source being both India and Jordan. Some of these were in such poor condition that they required a complete reconstruction from the ground up. I've seen a number quoted as a total of 294 Centurions/Olifants before, as well as over 300 on occasion. Not too sure whether this total included trials/test vehicles, or the actual army operable total.

Israel was a major Centurion user, with well over a thousand vehicles, but I have never heard of any Centurion purchased from them by South Africa. Perhaps the Israelis valued them too much to sell?

Perhaps somebody else knows a little more?

 

[Rickshaw]

Depending on time frame the South Africans and the Israelis may well have been competitors for the purchasing of Centurions. The Israelis in the 1960s and 70s were importers, not exporters of that MBT.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've seen a number quoted as a total of 294 Centurions/Olifants before, as well as over 300 on occasion. Not too sure whether this total included trials/test vehicles, or the actual army operable total.

That would align with the Olifant holdings in the 1990s. Some 220 gun tanks, 25-30 bridge layers and a non specified number of ARVs (would have to be 20-40 to support the number of tanks). Anyway I'm still looking for that allusive figure of Centurion Mk 3/5s held during the 1960s...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I’ve found answers to my own question re the South African buying and selling of Centurions.

1955-59 Acquisition of 168 Centurion Mk 3 from UK
1961 Disposal of 100 Centurion Mk 3 to Switzerland (as Pz 60)
1973 Acquisition of 41 Centurion Mk 3 from Jordan
1978-79 Acquisition of 90 Centurion Mk 3 from India via Spain and Jordan

Source: SPIRI

This is somewhat out of sync in terms of initial supply of Centurions and final number of Olifants. However the same listing says 40 Comet tanks were supplied to South Africa but most other sources say only 26. So this extra 14 Comets could have been Centurions?

 

[kaiserbill]

Who knows. The apartheid-era weapons procurement programmes are a byzantine maze still shrouded in secrecy.

That overall figure looks a little low from all the others I've seen. I was under the impression, as you've mentioned, that the initial Centurion purchase from Britain actually numbered 200, of which half (100) were sold relatively shortly after. These were to equip a force that would fight in North Africa/The Middle East if the Cold War went hot.

On a side note to the above AG, not all the Centurions found in SA's inventory were Mk3's as far as I'm aware, so there must be additional purchases from somewhere? I was chatting to an ex SADF tanker who said he would be very surprised if the total numbers were ever made public, as he didn't even know precisely apart from an educated guess.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The next vehicle is an enigma as far as I'm concerned.

It is what has been described as the Mechem Krokodil, and is a 6x6 mineprotected vehicle. I have seen a person describe it as a support vehicle (ammo?observation?command?) for the G6 SP howitzer, but I'm not so sure. It appears too low-roofed for these roles? It obviously is closely related to the 8x8 vehicle next to it in the first picture, called the Mechem Gator, which appears to be an infantry combat vehicle. This Krokodil seems to have space, or an opening in the middle of the vehicle for a turret or mortar, no firing ports, but armoured vision ports at the back of the vehicle .... truly interesting.

Of course, it could also be a proof-of-concept vehicle.

The vehicles in this picture - AC-100, AC-200, Krokodil, Gator and Mantis - were all prototypes for a SADF era Ratel replacement project. The program was cancelled for cost reasons before a downselect and the Ratel refurbished instead. Apparantly the vehicles were really good cross country performers.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Here are some more pictures of the AC200. Looks like the AC100 was the IFV vehicle and the AC200 would cover a range of supporting roles.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The 'Holy Grail' of SADF wheeled vehicle projects: the Truck With No Name or LZN (Lorry Zonder Naam). More formally known as the High Mobility Logistic Vehicle (HMLV) the LZN was developed by LIW's Special B-Vehicles and was a logistics version of the G6 SP artillery gun. Only two prototypes were built of this 55 tonne monster. Was planned as a gun limber and support vehicle for the G6 and any other role needing a truck with super cross country ability that could carry 26 tonnes of cargo. I have only found one very small picture to date...

 

[Herman]

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 the 1975-1988 SA Army, he refers to the LZN as the MLZN (Moerse Lorrie Zonder Naam) which translated loosely means "humongous truck without a name". Aside from the comical aspects of the name, it is also curious. "Zonder" is the Dutch spelling; in Afrikaans it would be "sonder". There is another picture of the MLZN in the book, next to a G6. One can see that the truck uses the same, enormous 21x25 tyres used on the G6. I assume it also used the same Deutz BF12L413C 525hp air-cooled engine and the same transmission.

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.

 

[Apophenia]

Herman,

http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/1991/09/13/999/13.html

This 1991 article says that the name derived from the Dutch band BZN (Band Zonder Naam) which I guess explains the Dutch spelling. The article also claims that Armscor was trying to sell the LZN as a civilian vehicle. A few details on the LZN from the article:

Cost was listed as R2M.

DWT was 29 tonnes. That 26t load included 1000 L of fuel and five occupants. The LZN could handle 50% vertical slopes, 20% side slopes, 1m trenches, and 600 mm vertical barriers.

Power provided by a twin-turbo, air-cooled V12 diesel of 386 kW @ at 2300 rpm at sealevel. I presume that refers to the 518 hp, 19 L Deutz BF12L413FC V12.

Maximum speeds are listed as 88 mph on hard sand, 30 mph in soft sand. The LZN's crane could lift 18 tons.

Question: is LZN related to the 'Project Wrinkle' Beestrok TEL for RSA-series missiles?

According to How SA built six atom bombs by Al J Venter, 39 Beestrokke were planned ("five flights of six TELs" with nine more as 'strategic reserve'). "By November 1989 seven had been built and six deployed."
According t

 

[Herman]

Apophenia, re: (M)LZN.

Ah, your explanation concerning the spelling of the name is without doubt correct. The Dutch band BZN was very popular during that time period. The engine is indeed the big Deutz unit. I do not know anything about project Beestrok and relatively little about the SA nuclear project. Do you have a reference to Al Venter's book?

 

[Herman]

To Apophenia

The curious thing is of course, what has happened to this monster (LZN)? Surely it must be somewhere unless it has been broken up but that sounds highly unlikely to me. The following URL is quite interesting, in this connection.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?64954-South-African-National-Defence-Force/page143

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Here are some more pictures of the AC200. Looks like the AC100 was the IFV vehicle and the AC200 would cover a range of supporting roles.

Is it just me, or does the BAE RG35 bear striking resemblance to the AC100 4x4?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The curious thing is of course, what has happened to this monster (LZN)? Surely it must be somewhere unless it has been broken up but that sounds highly unlikely to me. The following URL is quite interesting, in this connection.

My source on the LZN (old Janes) says two prototypes were built by B-Vehicles. They were probably reduced to parts to support the in service G-6s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are a few more vehicles at that truck bone yard north of Pretoria near the corner of R327 and N1 (25 34' 45.63" S 28 16' 13.09" E). However nothing looks conclusively to be the LZN. It would be quite distinctive because of the MBT width about a meter wider than normal truck lane width (~2.5m). There is one thing near the building that could fit the bill. Needs an on the ground visit…

 

[kaiserbill]

Abraham, well done!

I've been looking for info on the LZN for quite a while now.

Apo, as far as I have researched, there was a wheeled TEL vehicle for an RSA series ballistic missile. Everything I have seen so far seems to link the LZN and the "beestrok" as the same vehicle?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Well it probably would have had the load carrying capacity for the RSA-2, but it seems like the wrong shape (to me anyway) being a bit short and wide rather than longer and thinner. I always imagined the Beestrok to be more like the TEL's used by the Iranians for the Shahab 3? If it was the LZN then South Africa's missiles would have been very mobile considering they were the country's first generation.

 

[Herman]

I'm not sure of the time line but could the LZNs have been broken up/modified to build Beestroks?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I thought the Beestrok was disgusied as a heavy crane carrier so used a more conventional truck chassis (2.5m width) rather than the G6 based LZN. Also the TELs were destroyed as part of the nuclear weapons decomissioning ordered by FW De Clerk before the ANC settlement. The LZN was around long enough after this to be promoted for further use. While the LZN would make a great cross country TEL I just don't see it as being crucial to the Project Arniston plans for the SADF IRBM capability.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Kaiser,

What are your sources for LZN being the Beestrok? South Africa clearly went for mobile TEL's and the next evolution of that is to move to off-road capable vehicles.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A picture of the TEL is on the cover of "Those Who Had The Power: South Africa: An Unofficial Nuclear Weapons History" by Pierre Lowe Victor. It shows a standard 8x8 heavy truck as TEL.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Could be a MAN 8x8 or, less likely given the timeframe, the Kynos SA Aljaba. I guess it is plausible that the LZN was developed into an 8x8 and then became the Beestrok- the cab looks similar. Would probably have been easier to get some MAN trucks and say they were for the construction industry though- might explain where the crane disguise story comes from.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I was not aware of Magirus Deutz ever making anything with a particular resemblance to the MAN series though FAUN is certainly another possibility. I would be inclined to agree about SA using a generic MAN type 8x8- would probably be the path of least resistance.

The Aljaba / Cavallo family is really too late to have been used for Beestrok- unless SA covertly acquired some very soon after production began.

NK/Iranian/Chinese TEL's are a mishmash of various vehicles based on availability as much as anything else.

I am curious to see what Kaiser's sources are for the LZN being the Beestrok.

 

[Privateer]

Great thead so far, especially the pics! It was really worth logging in again.

I already posted this on another board:

The current Armada 1-2011 issue (available online) reports of the ongoing competition in India for up to 180 self-propelled artillery systems. The trials started in June 2010, and two wheeled systems were tested: the Rheinmetall RWG-52 (Rheinmetall Wheeled Gun) and the Konstrukta Zuzana. The RWG-52 is an improved version of the South African Denel G6-52 with number of changes: the biggest difference is that the turret now features the 155mm 52-calibre, 23-litre JBMoU artillery system of the tracked PzH 2000. The chassis looks quite similar to the one used on the original G6, but it was redesigned by the South African company Industrial Automotive Design and now features a rear door in the hull which allows for easier entry to the fighting compartment.

Note the same gun (and muzzle velocity radar) as in the PzH 2000.

Note the rear door in the hull in comparison to the original G6.

Access hatches in the turret to the vehicle's automatic ammunition handling system. The two replenishment arms are being used to raise the projectiles and modular charges (also seen in the pic) off the ground and load them into the two carousel magazines.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post nr 150
Also one does not use a 3.3m wide vehicle as an IRBM TEL in a defensive force in being strategy because they stand out like sore thumbs on satellite

The G6 was/is 3.4 meters wide and stands on a track of 2.8 meters, suspension being all independent. The LZN had solid axles and it would seem highly likely to me that the truck used the same axles as the FAUN FS 75.42 and SLT 50-2 trucks. These trucks stood on solid axles with a track of 2.6 meters and the trucks were 3 meters wide (3.07 to be axact). Still wider than a normal 2.5 meter wide conventional truck but not quite as big as the G6.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post nr 152:
I would bet the RWG's were mainly built in South Africa. After the fiasco with the sale of the NTW 20 anti-material rifles, it would have been very difficult for the South Africans to sell the G6 to India. Now that it is being marketed by Rheinmetall, it should be easier.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was not aware of Magirus Deutz ever making anything with a particular resemblance to the MAN series though FAUN is certainly another possibility. I would be inclined to agree about SA using a generic MAN type 8x8- would probably be the path of least resistance.

The key difference of a Magirus truck is they used Deutz air cooled engines. So they need a forward grill. However they did develop a family of forward cab trucks including a number of four axle (8x4x4) trucks. These would have been fine for the TEL role. Of course this is all speculative. The only insight I have read is the disguise as crane transporters.

Edit: Removed my responses to further ignorant trolling.

 

[JFC Fuller]

That is an 8x8 but it is certainly not in the same category as the MAN/Aljaba/Faun/LZN in terms of off-road capability and probably ability to carry weight. Its more a generic commercial truck- does not preclude one from using it as a TEL but it is not going to be as useful as the others.

Herman, thanks for the information, that to my mind makes it more likely that the LZN was related to the Beestrok.

 

[JFC Fuller]

There is also no evidence that the Beestrok was not an off-road capable vehicle.

Also, mobility and stealthiness are obviously enhanced by off-road performance, thus a cross-country TEL is more suitable as it increases operational area. Hence why Iraq/DPRK/PLA use off-road TEL's when they are available- check the TEL's that appeared in the latest NK parades (Musudan and a new No-Dong variant) or the latest Chinese TELs (DF-21C mounted on the WS2500) all show considerable MAZ influence and clearly have a degree of cross-country performance in mind. Iraq seems to have just used whatever it could get its hands on for TELs.

Finally, by the late 80s the MAN Category I A1 could carry up to 25,000kg if fitted with 13,000kg rated axles.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Would South Africa have used its artillery vehicle programme to feed its nuclear weapons TEL programme? - Yes.

How is Iran geographically constrained? It is larger than France.

Virtually every country that has pursued land based ballistic missiles has pursued off-road TEL's. Providing greater mobility to missile TEL's greatly enhances their survivability by increasing available operational area and reducing infrastructure requirements irrelevant of the range of the missile (in fact a longer range missile will increase the size of the area from which you can fire your missile and thus potentially increase the desirability of a cross-country TEL). South Africa would have wanted a cross-country capable TEL.

With that said, if such a thing was not available to them they may have accepted a road only vehicle as many countries have done with their first generation TELS (Al Hussein / Shahab / DF-31) before trying to move to a cross country capable TEL.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The missile capability was air force not army artillery. Why didn’t they use a Centurion tank for the TEL or even a turretless G6 if this is so important to you? Besides the LZN was not developed by the South African Artillery but separate to the SADF by Special B Vehicles for a logistics role after the RSA-3 TEL was already in service.

G-6 Chassis/Tank Chassis- lack of mechanical suitability perhaps.

There is no reason why the G-6/LZN programme could not have been related to the Beestrok

But it isn’t France. It has significant mountain ranges and deserts and a very limited road network. Also it has little strategic depth for missile basing due to the proximity of threats and comparatively short range of missiles. The threat to Iran’s missile force is enemy strike aircraft operating from bases a few hundred km away.

And it is huge and geographically diverse with plenty of places to hide missiles, there have been reports backed up satellite imagery of fixed missile silos. Even if over half of Iran's total surface area was completely inaccessible to cross-country TELs Iran would still have an area larger than the entirety of France in which to deploy them.

Do you see how this would require them to have a very different basing strategy to someone like China or South Africa who don’t have an air threat to their missile bases but a satellite and strategic weapons threat.

I repeat, virtually every county to have pursued land based ballistic missiles has pursued off-road TELs, including China (DF-21) which is also reported to be developing a cross country TEL for the DF-31 so is clearly not that happy. In fact Iran is probably the only land based ballistic missile wielding country (aside France) for which there is zero evidence of efforts to develop cross-country TEL's.

Because these missiles were either short ranged tactical weapons so needed to be positioned precisely or strategic weapons needing scoot to shoot responsiveness to avoid first strike. These situations are the ONLY reasons they are cross country vehicles and do not apply to South Africa. Israel and China are happy with semi trailer type road capable TELs because it supports their force in being basing strategy.

No, this is because cross-country capable TEL's offer superior survivability and greater deployment flexibility to road only TEL's irrelevant of whether the missile is long or short ranged. I mentioned the Chinese example above, but for Israel, as there are no clear images of Jericho TEL's in the public domain (only ones I am aware of are grainy satellite images of the Sdot Mikha air base) it is somewhat difficult judge exactly what they are.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Except time. I say again: The LZN were built in 1992. South Africa decommissioned their nuclear force including the TELs in 1990-91. Since the LZN is unlikely to be equipped with a DeLorean time travel device it cannot be the Beestrok TEL. Chronology is a bitch and completely unnegotiable.

Indeed, but the G-6 was well under development in the time-frame and use of engineering solutions or even complete components from the G-6 into the Beestrok can not be discounted. The LZN could plausibly have been developed from the Beestrok platform.

China changed their missile deployment strategy in the late 1990s so they could harass Taiwan. Why they built large numbers of short range tactical missiles with cross country launchers. They still keep their strategic assets in caves with road mobile trucks that simply reverse out to shoot and scoot between sites when there is no sat coverage.

And are now trying to develop a cross country TEL for their ICBM, the only reason they dont already deploy ICBM's on cross country TEL's is because they have lacked the ability to manufacture TELs of sufficient size, this is now changing which is why the DF-21C IRBM now sits on a cross-country TEL, the largest PLA missile to date to do so and there have been leaked photos purportedly showing off-road capable DF-31 TELs.

Simply saying everyone else did it and not looking at the core reasons why is not good enough. Survivability is determined by the threat. For the RSA-3 missile how will cross country ability make them more survivable? The survivability system adopted was camouflage. Locating them in the bush just makes them easier to detect by satellite systems.

**edited**Locating them in the Bush makes them harder to find- a much larger area has to be searched and they can be camouflaged in bush areas as easily as they can anywhere else, camouflage is not the sole preserve of road going TEL's. Road only TEL's only have to be looked for on hard surfaces, cross-country TELs dramatically increase the search area by expanding the deployment envelope and thus increasing the survivability of the missile.


**edited**