South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

Abraham Gubler · 6 June 2015

Kadija_Man said:
Either yours or mine are distorted or the vehicle underwent a hull change/turret change at some point.

None of the above. The only difference in the pictures is perspective. Looking downwards pictures of the rear tend to look different to looking upwards pictures of the front.

kaiserbill · 6 June 2015

Kadija_Man said:
kaiserbill said:

Kadija_Man said:

Your photos look rather different to the photos available elsewhere on the web:

Click to expand...

I went through my computer for pics to attempt to show the rear and the engine deck.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It just appears that the vehicle in your pictures looks wider and longer than the pictures I posted. Either yours or mine are distorted or the vehicle underwent a hull change/turret change at some point.

Yes, I see what you mean.
I suppose the best pics in regards to that would be those with humans, as below.
Interestingly, from available info, the hull width and length of the TTD is within a 5 to 15cm range of both the Abrams and Leopard Mk2, which is pretty negligable, so perhaps some of the pics out there do give a somewhat distorted picture.
EDIT: Or as Abe Gubler points out above, it is probably simply a matter of perspective.

kaiserbill · 6 June 2015

Abraham Gubler said:
The TTD's engine has never been officially unveiled because it is most likely a sanction buster. Based on data released about its performance it is pretty obvious it is an MTU (ex Maybach) MB838 V-10 engine (same as the Leopard 1). Calling it a V-8 would be a rather simple way of confusing the source of origin and its something that one can't really tell from observation outside the vehicle. Apart from the number of cylinders all the other figures published about the engine align with that of the MB838. The West Germans provided a lot of military technology assistance to RSA during the last 20 years of Apartheid.

Abe, do you mean the Leopard 1 or Leopard 2 engine?

The figures given for the TTD engine make it 400hp more powerful, or half as much again, as the Leopard 1 engine.

The South Korean K1 88 tank, from roughly the same period, is fitted with the below according to info from various sources:

"with an MTU MB-871 Ka-501, an 8 cylinder water cooled diesel of 1,200hp at 2600rpm, which is a compact version of the 1,500hp MB-873 Ka-503 V-12 used on Leopard 2."

Also, I think there was a Spanish prototype tank called the Lince around the same time period again, that was also powered by this engine. The Lince, developed with heavy German input, was basically a Leopard 2 "Lite", and was smaller than the Leopard or TTD.
It was 10 tons lighter, and had only 6 wheels per side as opposed to the 7 which the heavier bigger Leopard 2 and TTD had.

I'd assumed that this engine, or a variant thereof, was possibly the closest match....but then engines aren't really my forte, to put it mildly. ;D

Abraham Gubler · 6 June 2015

I didn't even know there was a V8 version of the MB873. It (the MB871) would appear to be a swept volume (31.7 L) match to the V10 MB838 and its figures more closely align with the TTD engine. The MB871 is also a much better fit for the TTD engine because it is a V8, 1970s tech rather than 1960s, 250kg lighter and also 46cm shorter.

kaiserbill · 6 June 2015

Thanks for those figures, Abe...amazing the difference in engine size with only a decade between them.

Of course, with regard to the engine choice, it is pure speculation from my side.
I'd been racking my brains for an engine that matched the description given in brochures and public, and that was the best I could come up with.
Interestingly, on one of the sources of info I tapped in my original post, Army Guide, they make the point that:

The engine drives through an automatic gearbox with four forward and two reverse gears. The final drives incorporate a planetary gear reduction with an offset configuration. They are capable of handling a 1,500 hp power pack should additional power be needed later.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4421.html

...I'd idly wondered whether because it was designed from the beginning with built in readiness to take a more powerful unit if needed, what sort of family of engine we were looking at. The MTU line seemed obvious, and the engines of the K1 Type 88 and Lince (albeit it seems wiki gets the cylinders wrong for it) from roughly the same time period, give or take a few years, seemed to fit the bill quite closely.

Again, pure speculation and guesswork...

Abraham Gubler · 6 June 2015

Here are some more detailed figures about the engines (from the MTU webpage) attached.

The V8 MB 871 could be replaced by the "EuroPak" V12 MT 883 to provide a 1,500 hp engine. This engine has a much smaller footprint than even the V8 MB 871 but provide the additional horses. In fact it is 1.8 cubic metres smaller than the previous generation's V8.

For the late 1980s West German proposal to fit this engine to a new build Leopard 2 the engine was mounted transversely (compared to laterally). This saved so much volume compared to the V12 MB 873 that this new Leopard 2 had a much shorter hull with only six road wheels and shaved 5-10 tonnes (from memory?) from the GVW.

For the TTD it potentially be mounted laterally but would require only 14cm in extra length in the engine bay. Either way the savings in volume without major change to the hull would enable an additional fuel tank of about 1,500 litres to be mounted in the engine bay. Or with a transverse mounting the engine bay could be reduced in length allowing an additional magazine to be fitted between the turret ring and the engine which could hold 18 rounds of 120mm ammunition and more if the magazine used the legacy space around the rear of the turret ring (like with the hull magazine proposed for the initial M1E1 design).

I've also included the spec sheet for the V8 version of the MT 880 series to show just how much these three generations of Maybach/MTU engines reduced in size from the 1960s to 1980s while providing the same power output. Of course these days they are up to the MT 890 series!

kaiserbill · 9 June 2015

Thanks for those pdfs, Abe.

Quite the family of engines.... sort of almost the go-to company for tank diesels.

The TTD's name actually implies quite a bit.....Tank Technology Demonstrator.
One would assume that the operational or service version would show some changes.

One which interests me is the armour package.
I get the impression that the flat turret faces, in particular the front, would have seen additional armour components?
If one looks at certain pictures, particularly of the turret front and the gun mantlet/surround, it looks like space (and attachment points?) was left for these modules.

I wonder whether the thick sloped armour modules, as seen on the Olifant Optimal, would have been the sort of thing envisaged?
Or whether the drivers hatch would have only allowed a flatter array, assuming of course that a production vehicle would have remained unchanged...

curious george · 9 June 2015

*off fb

Abraham Gubler · 9 June 2015

kaiserbill said:
Quite the family of engines.... sort of almost the go-to company for tank diesels.

Panzer II, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, Leopard 1, Leopard 2, TAM, K1, Challenger 2E, Arjun, Merkava Mk 4… And that’s just the tanks. Plenty more self-propelled guns, tank destroyers, APCs, IFVs and even amphibian assault vehicles (the EFV) with Maybach/MTU engines. They are owned now by Rolls-Royce so I guess the British have solved their long lasting tank engine shortfall.

kaiserbill said:
I get the impression that the flat turret faces, in particular the front, would have seen additional armour components?
If one looks at certain pictures, particularly of the turret front and the gun mantlet/surround, it looks like space (and attachment points?) was left for these modules.

The mantlet area looks a bit ‘open’ from the front probably to enable ease of access to changing the trunnion cradle so the TTD could easily have the main gun changed. Part of the technology demonstrator role.

kaiserbill said:
I wonder whether the thick sloped armour modules, as seen on the Olifant Optimal, would have been the sort of thing envisaged?

I seem to recall there is an attached brochure earlier on in this thread which shows some turret shells being welded up for the TTD. There are large hollow pockets for the armour arrays to be inserted. No problems to make these pockets wedge shaped to allow for high obliquity in the array.

kaiserbill said:
Or whether the drivers hatch would have only allowed a flatter array, assuming of course that a production vehicle would have remained unchanged...

Shouldn’t be too much of a problem. The driver’s position is designed to be accessible even with the turret traversed to the rear. The overhang of a frontal wedge is not as bad as the turret bustle when the turret is trained aft.

Herman · 9 June 2015

Reply to post # 1367
MB 871 Ka-501. V8, 170 x 175 mm bore and stroke, capacity 31.7 liters. Compression ratio 18:1. 880kw @ 2600 rpm, 3720 Nm torque at 1800 rpm. Fuel consumption 240g/kWh @ 2600 rpm. Engine dry weight = 1700Kg.

Herman · 9 June 2015

Reply to post #1371:
The petrol engines used in the first Centurion modifications were General Motors Model AV-1790-7C or -8, V12 aircooled engines acquired from either Israel of Germany. These engines were removed from M48 tanks when they were brought up to M48A3 and M48A5 standard in these countries. The petrol engines in these tanks were then replaced by AVDS-1790 diesel versions of the same engine. Later the South African Centurion engines were built with AVDS-1790-2 diesel engines (750 hp) and uprated 1790-5A engines (908hp). These engines were never built in S.A. They were most likely acquired from Israel.

kaiserbill · 16 June 2015

Does anybody have an idea what vehicle this is in the backround?
I can't identify it.

The old style helmet is in use, which means it is probably from before the early/mid 1980's.

GTX · 16 June 2015

Looks to be a variant of the Casspir.

kaiserbill · 16 June 2015

GTX said:
Looks to be a variant of the Casspir.

I'm not so sure, GTX.

The Casspirs front cab upper sides are vertical, whilst these are sloped.
The Casspir also has a single unitary cab and rear compartment, whereas this appears to have two seperate compartments.
The Casspir also is a monocoque design, whereas this appears to have this cab mounted above the axle on a seperate chassis.

Rear compartment looks very cramped, and as said, the old style helmet sort of shows it's an older concept.
Not seen it before.
I was wondering if it is based on a Kwevoel mine proof vehicle... perhaps a Kwevoel 20 or 50?

curious george · 16 June 2015

kaiserbill said:
Does anybody have an idea what vehicle this is in the backround?
I can't identify it.

I'd guess for a version optimised for arty fire control of a Samil, my best guess would be similar to pic.

kaiserbill · 16 June 2015

Nice one CG.

That looks to be it. The rear door latches and side roof slope match up perfectly.

As you say, it looks like they re-purposed or were testing that vehicle type.

kaiserbill · 16 June 2015

Also stumbled across these rare beasts on my PC, which haven't been posted before.

The Olifant Mk1B Bridgelayer and accompanying 8x8 bridgelaying vehicle (Leguan?) being put through their paces.

curious george · 16 June 2015

Another angle,also from fb.

Herman · 22 June 2015

Something curious on page 69 of "Surviving the Ride". Project Sireb was intended to result in a suitable replacement for the Buffel. It resulted in two vehicles, both based on SAMIL-20 components: the Kieweit and the Wildebees. Both were evaluated against the Buffel and the conclusion was that they were no better than the latter. Two more vehicles were then constructed by the same contractors: Armscor for the Kiewit II and the Chemical Defence Unit of the CSIR for Wildebees II. And here is the curiosity; I quote: "The vehicles were essentially the same in comparison to Kiewiet I and Wildebees I, although SAMIL-30 axles, imported from Egypt, were used in both vehicles"
[/size]
[/size]SAMIL-30?? Egypt?! After having a look at the photo's, it is clear that the axles, both front and rear, are different to SAMIL-20 units, and the tyres are larger. The rear axle hubs look like the hubs on the rear wheels of the bigger Magirus and SAMIL trucks. Looking through older editions of Janes' Armour and Artillery, I happened across the Egyptian Walid APC. This was developed in Egypt during the mid-sixties, and consisted of a Magirus Deutz chassis fitted with an open-topped armoured body, resulting in a vehicle similar to the BTR-40. The chassis of the Walid was produced by the NASR Automotive Plant and the armoured body by a plant at Kader where the vehicle was also assembled. Janes'reported that the vehicle was probably still in production during the early eighties. The axles of the Walid look identical to those of the Kiewiet II and Wildebees II.
[/size]
[/size]My guess is that standard axles instead of the portee units used on SAMIL-20 were required for the Kiewiet/Wildebees. The Egyptian, licence built, Magirus units fitted the bill and the axles were imported from there.
[/size]Apparently arms sanctions make strange bedfellows!

Herman · 22 June 2015

Egyptian Walid APC.

kaiserbill · 22 June 2015

Very interesting Herman.
I still haven't ordered that book (!) which sounds like a must have.

However, a quick google search threw up this sample preview of the book, with the relevant text you mention, as well as pictures of the actual vehicles.

EDIT: I must say, that book looks outstanding. Lot's of pics.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=9OOZBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=armscor+kiewiet&source=bl&ots=6kVtjN7KoO&sig=IXAqitKH1m9IbKB-UqBQ27UNo4g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y26IVfWKMcOisgHlzamYAQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=armscor%20kiewiet&f=false

Abraham Gubler · 22 June 2015

Herman said:
Apparently arms sanctions make strange bedfellows!

I doubt the Egyptians would have been willing suppliers of arms to South Africa. More likely they were probably more than happy to sell truck axles to a commercial middle man. Especially since the RSA had some reasonable contacts in the Arabic Kingdoms and Emirates which are the prime target of most Egyptian commercial ventures. The axles could have easily been greased (sorry had to say it) by some baksheesh to make sure there was no close attention to the eventual customer.

sa_bushwar · 23 June 2015

Herman said:
Something curious on page 69 of "Surviving the Ride". Project Sireb was intended to result in a suitable replacement for the Buffel. It resulted in two vehicles, both based on SAMIL-20 components: the Kieweit and the Wildebees. Both were evaluated against the Buffel and the conclusion was that they were no better than the latter. Two more vehicles were then constructed by the same contractors: Armscor for the Kiewit II and the Chemical Defence Unit of the CSIR for Wildebees II. And here is the curiosity; I quote: "The vehicles were essentially the same in comparison to Kiewiet I and Wildebees I, although SAMIL-30 axles, imported from Egypt, were used in both vehicles"

SAMIL-30?? Egypt?! After having a look at the photo's, it is clear that the axles, both front and rear, are different to SAMIL-20 units, and the tyres are larger. The rear axle hubs look like the hubs on the rear wheels of the bigger Magirus and SAMIL trucks. Looking through older editions of Janes' Armour and Artillery, I happened across the Egyptian Walid APC. This was developed in Egypt during the mid-sixties, and consisted of a Magirus Deutz chassis fitted with an open-topped armoured body, resulting in a vehicle similar to the BTR-40. The chassis of the Walid was produced by the NASR Automotive Plant and the armoured body by a plant at Kader where the vehicle was also assembled. Janes'reported that the vehicle was probably still in production during the early eighties. The axles of the Walid look identical to those of the Kiewiet II and Wildebees II.

My guess is that standard axles instead of the portee units used on SAMIL-20 were required for the Kiewiet/Wildebees. The Egyptian, licence built, Magirus units fitted the bill and the axles were imported from there.
Apparently arms sanctions make strange bedfellows!

The SADF also came across some Walids in Angola during Ops Savannah in 1975/76. It is not clear if this vehicle belonged to the FNLA, MPLA or UNITA. It is suspected that none were returned to SA after Ops Savannah at this has never been mentioned in declassified literature.

Herman · 23 June 2015

Reply to post #1393:

You are absolutely correct Abraham: the Walid/Magirus axles are simple comercial off the shelf (COTS) items and would not have been subject to an arms embargo. The track of the SAMIL 20 is somewhat narrower than the that of the the bigger SAMILs and when the builders of the Kiewiet and the Wildebees needed standard axles for their vehicles, the Walid items apparently fitted the bill. Being produced in Egypt probably made them much cheaper than equivalent German made items as well.

Herman · 23 June 2015

Reply to post #1394:
Thanks Bushwar. Never saw that photo before and did not realize that Walid's had made it this far South!

sa_bushwar · 24 June 2015

Herman said:
Something curious on page 69 of "Surviving the Ride". Project Sireb was intended to result in a suitable replacement for the Buffel. It resulted in two vehicles, both based on SAMIL-20 components: the Kieweit and the Wildebees. Both were evaluated against the Buffel and the conclusion was that they were no better than the latter. Two more vehicles were then constructed by the same contractors: Armscor for the Kiewit II and the Chemical Defence Unit of the CSIR for Wildebees II. And here is the curiosity; I quote: "The vehicles were essentially the same in comparison to Kiewiet I and Wildebees I, although SAMIL-30 axles, imported from Egypt, were used in both vehicles"

SAMIL-30?? Egypt?! After having a look at the photo's, it is clear that the axles, both front and rear, are different to SAMIL-20 units, and the tyres are larger. The rear axle hubs look like the hubs on the rear wheels of the bigger Magirus and SAMIL trucks. Looking through older editions of Janes' Armour and Artillery, I happened across the Egyptian Walid APC. This was developed in Egypt during the mid-sixties, and consisted of a Magirus Deutz chassis fitted with an open-topped armoured body, resulting in a vehicle similar to the BTR-40. The chassis of the Walid was produced by the NASR Automotive Plant and the armoured body by a plant at Kader where the vehicle was also assembled. Janes'reported that the vehicle was probably still in production during the early eighties. The axles of the Walid look identical to those of the Kiewiet II and Wildebees II.

My guess is that standard axles instead of the portee units used on SAMIL-20 were required for the Kiewiet/Wildebees. The Egyptian, licence built, Magirus units fitted the bill and the axles were imported from there.
Apparently arms sanctions make strange bedfellows!

Walk-around of the SIREB.

kaiserbill · 25 June 2015

Nice pics SABushwar.

Where and when were they taken?
There appear to be Impala fuselages in the backround, as well as another vehicle, which might be the Hippo MkII if I recall from previous pics of yours?

Herman · 25 June 2015

Reply to post # 1397:

Interesting! Appear to be photo's of Wildebees I.

sa_bushwar · 26 June 2015

Herman said:
Reply to post # 1397:

Interesting! Appear to be photo's of Wildebees I.

Photos taken at SAAF museum in 2005. Yes it is the Hippo MkII in the background.

I do not have the book Surviving the Ride (yet!), so cannot verify the other vehicle with the same axles in the picture below. The Wildebees I? can be seen here in a much better condition. These were taken at Fort Klapperkop in the late 1980's. (Re-post).

Herman · 26 June 2015

According to the book, the top vehicle would be Kiewiet I and the bottom one, Wildebees I. As far as I can tell, the Kiewiet II and Wildebees II were practically identical to the "type I" vehicles, aside from the axles.

Herman · 26 June 2015

Sorry, the other way around: the top one is Wildebees I and the bottom one is Kiewiet I.

kaiserbill · 29 June 2015

Earlier in the thread, there was speculation about the actual amount of Centurions, and which marks, were originally ordered by South Africa in the 1950's.

This is one of a series of articles written by the now defunct VEG magazine that throws light on this.
Some interesting detail, as well as older period photos, in the articles that I've not seen elsewhere.

Ordered in 1952, it seems from the article that there were 203 battle tanks originally purchased, comprising of 87 Mk3 and 116 Mk5 vehicles.
Along with 201 mono fuel trailers for the battle tanks, there were also 17 ARV's purchased at the same time, as well as 26 Comet tanks.

It seems the first re-engining programme, as mentioned in this thread briefly, used the Detroit diesel of 710hp. Earlier, it was alluded to that the engine pushed out around 500hp, which seemed strange to me, as that was even less than the Meteor, and is hopelessly too little for a tank of this size. This article seems to confirm that suspicion, and it seems that the 529kW was translated into horsepower erroneously by the articles I've previously seen.
This was done all the way back in 1968, so must be one of the earlier diesel upgrades, preceding the Israeli efforts, and in the same timeframe as the Dutch fiddling around with a diesel Centurion.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't say how many were converted before the engines purchase (sanctions) true intention was discovered.

This is the first in the series of articles which covers the various upgrades up to the Olifant Mk2, which I think small portions of which have been posted here before.
I'm not sure what the story is regarding posting the others in the series of articles, even though the magazine is now (sadly) no longer around.

Herman · 29 June 2015

The Detroit Diesel engine is the 12V71T engine, nominally producing 720hp. It is a V12, two-stroke diesel engine and was offered by several companies for diesel conversions for the Centurion. This engine was also offered in the Vickers MBT during the seventies and eighties and it powers the Vickers tanks supplied to Nigeria, I believe. Afaik not many countries elected to use this engine for their Centurion conversions. The air-cooled Continental 4-stroke diesels, such as used by Israel, South Africa and a number og other countries were more popular.

Herman · 29 June 2015

Reply to post #1403:
The Israeli's also experimented with the Detroit Diesel (General Motors) engine before deciding to go with the Continental engine. I think the main reason most modifyers of Centurions chose for the 4-stroke engine is economy. Two-stroke diesels are significantly less economical than 4 stroke engines. The advantage of 2-strokes in the past was that they delivered more power for a given engine size than 4-strokes. Once turbocharging became the norm however, this difference largely disappeared. Nowadays, two-stroke diesels have largely disappeared. Modern monorail injected 4-strokes, with variable geometry turbocharging, have become enormously powerful and infinitely cleaner than the 2-strokes.

If SA did indeed experiment with modifying the Centurions to diesel power in the late sixties, it would be interesting to know why they did not continue. Sanctions only came into being in November 1977, I believe. I think there was simply so little interest in tanks, in SA, in this period that they couldn't be bothered. It was the time of irregular warfare and guerilla actions and the conventional forces were greatly neglected. If there was any incling over what was to happen 10 years later, there would have been much greater investments in new artillery and the acquisition of new tanks (Leopard I or AMX 30), for instance, in my opinion.

Abraham Gubler · 30 June 2015

kaiserbill said:
Earlier in the thread, there was speculation about the actual amount of Centurions, and which marks, were originally ordered by South Africa in the 1950's.

Thanks for the Centurion numbers data.

On the topic of engine output it is worthwhile noting that if the South African Centurion using a Continental Motors 1790 cubic inch engine powering a Merritt-Brown transmission there will be more torque going into the drive sprocket than the same engine in a Patton or Israeli Centurion powering a hydrostatic transmission. Because the hydrostatic transmission needs to use a fair slice of that engine output to power its cooling system to keep the transmission oil within temperature ranges. A cooling need that is only made worse in dry, high temperature and high altitude environments like those found in Southern Africa.

kaiserbill · 30 June 2015

Herman said:
If SA did indeed experiment with modifying the Centurions to diesel power in the late sixties, it would be interesting to know why they did not continue. Sanctions only came into being in November 1977, I believe. I think there was simply so little interest in tanks, in SA, in this period that they couldn't be bothered. It was the time of irregular warfare and guerilla actions and the conventional forces were greatly neglected. If there was any incling over what was to happen 10 years later, there would have been much greater investments in new artillery and the acquisition of new tanks (Leopard I or AMX 30), for instance, in my opinion.

1977 was the compulsory arms embargo
Voluntary arms embargo was in place from 1964, which the USA "adhered" to.
It's the reason why aircraft such as the C-130 (some of the last aircraft type purchased from the USA in 1963) were later complemented by the C-130 Transall instead of further C-130's, although there were ways around that too, with SAFAIR becoming the largest L-100 (civvy C-130) operator, and a de facto extra SA Airforce squadron.

As the article states, the Detroit diesel was imported using the ploy that it was to be used in harbour patrol boats and agricultural machinery, but this supply dried up when it became known to GM, leading to the project termination in 1970.

Trying to read between the lines, the article then states that the Continental as fitted to the M-46/47 Patton was "becoming available", leading to the second modernisation programme in 1973. It mentions the Continental AV1-1970-8 90 V12 (sic) of 810hp. I assume, looking at the timeline, that these came from (or via?) Israel, as that is the time they started re-engining their M-48's after the 1967 war?
The Israeli M-48's used a slightly different model engine, according to wiki, so who knows.
Either way, the fuel thirst primarily, meant that this was not a successful conversion.

Here is the second article from the now defunct VEG magazine.
Let me know if I should post the follow up articles, or whether that is permissable.

Herman · 1 July 2015

Reply to post #1406:
On the topic of engine output it is worthwhile noting that if the South African Centurion using a Continental Motors 1790 cubic inch engine powering a Merritt-Brown transmission there will be more torque going into the drive sprocket than the same engine in a Patton or Israeli Centurion powering a hydrostatic transmission. Because the hydrostatic transmission needs to use a fair slice of that engine output to power its cooling system to keep the transmission oil within temperature ranges. A cooling need that is only made worse in dry, high temperature and high altitude environments like those found in Southern Africa.

I think the 720hp Detroit Diesel engines installed in the sixties were used with original Centurion gearbox (Meritt-Brown Z51R). A similar conversion was offered by Vickers during the seventeis and eighties for converting Centurions to diesel. The Continental (Teledyne) air-cooled jobs, both petrol and diesel, were used in combination with the CD-850 gross-drive unit from General Motors.

Herman · 1 July 2015

Reply to post #1407:
1977 was the compulsory arms embargo. Voluntary arms embargo was in place from 1964, which the USA "adhered" to.

You are of course correct. SA had problems from the early sixties with the arms embargo (Buccaneers, Westland helicopters, Saladin armoured cars, etc). I also think that even if SA had wanted to buy tanks in the late sixties, Leopards would not have been available. The preference of the SA armoured corps at that time, I believe, was for the Chieftain. This would also have been utterly unavailable. AMX-30's would however have been possible, I think.

In general, it seems that the arms embargo, even after 1977, was as leaky as a basket. Big items were difficult/impossible (aircraft, ships, tanks, howitzers). Small stuff that weren't obvious, were always available, mainly through France, Germany, Israel and apparently Taiwan.

kaiserbill · 2 July 2015

I'm not so sure big ticket items were completely off the menu, at least design and component wise.
A case in point is SA securing the design blueprints for the Type 209, as well as the Type FS1500 frigate plans from Germany.
As far as I can ascertain, these came at the same time as PW Botha's visit to Germany in 1984.

One would assume, as with the TTD tank, that components and design input would be available in some form or another.
We also have that entry into the Rooikat programme, the 6x6 that appears to be a straight variant of the TH400 that was built by Sandock Austral with "German technical assistance".

But your point remains....complete systems would be "no-no", but local production, suitably changed somewhat, doesn't appear to be an insurmountable issue.
Business remains business, I guess, since the dawn of time.

panzerskool · 7 July 2015

Anyone seen the armored MAN 8x8 truck that plies its trade in SA. Seen it many times on M1 and N1 and also at reserve bank in Durban. I believe it carries bullion and typically is escorted by many tactual reaction police vans and cars as well as a chopper . Seen a blue one and yesterday a white one

South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Confidential

Similar threads