South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

[Rickshaw]

Doesn't it really depend on what the role of the armoured car is? For a reconnaissance vehicle, I'd agree, a 120mm is an overkill. However, if like the Italian Centuro, the role of the vehicle is to act as a tank destroyer, then a 120mm gun is a must.

As to the need for a muzzle brake, that is also questionable. Increasing the recoil travel would decrease the need for it. However, that invariably means a long, unwieldy recoil system and a turret to contain it. The blast from a 120mm by itself is not inconsiderable, nor that of a 105mm. All the muzzle brake does is redirect the gases rearwards to help decrease the recoil.

Apart from the aforementioned Centuro, there was also a German 10x10 chassis with a 120mm gun in a modified early Leopard II turret which never got beyond the prototype stage but who's name presently escapes me.

There are though, I agree practicable lower weight limits which do make it difficult to put large calibre guns on lighter chassis. Thing is, those practicable lower weight limits are getting lower and lower through the use of improved technology. What isn't possible today might well be possible in 10 years time.

 

[CostasTT]

German 10x10 armored car with a Leopard 2 turret? The only 10x10 I know of is the long variant of the Swiss MOWAG Piranha, and that had a French TML-105 turret.
As for Leopard turrets on armored cars, these were Leopard 1 turrets, cast on the 6x6 Thyssen-Henschel TH400 and welded on the Daimler EXF, both with 105mm guns.
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_radkw_90_daimler_benz_exf-a.htm
http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number1102.asp
http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number1479.asp
http://www.multi-board.com/board/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=31344
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esGVKQx8otw#t=0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAK3M6Oysok

 

[kaiserbill]

Another picture below.

I had been intrigued ever since Herman first posted this Rooikat variant about the launcher on the turret roof, as well as the various bumps or cylinders that he described, and which can be seen scattered around the vehicle.

The launcher on the turret looks like an early LEDS-150 active protection hard-kill system by Avitronics, which is now a subsidiary of Saab.
I wonder if those cylinders had something to do with the development of the system?

Another question: Can the vintage of vehicles be roughly fixed by looking at the paint colour scheme?
This Rooikat is Nutria Brown, like the SADF vehicles were before the newer camouflage scheme came in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEDS-150

 

[kaiserbill]

And another, closer pic of the MC-90 on the move.

 

[xiaofan]

Reply to post #848:
Regarding the 120mm guns, personal think the 120mm gun is little bit too big for the wheeled vehicles.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. This whole business of putting enormous guns into armoured cars is silly. The only facet where a 120mm will besuperior to a NATO 105mm gun is if the car engages a modern, Western MBT. This is obviously not a role for a lightly armoured, armoured car. In all other aspects the 105 will be superior or equal to the120: the 105 is lighter allowing a lighter vehicle, has less inertia allowing lighter layer and trainer motors and easier stabilizing and the 105 equipped vehicle will carry more ammunition. Furthermore, the 105 Rooikat has no muzzle brake. If you fit a 120 to a vehicle <30 tons, it has to have a muzzle brake, resulting in enormous blast an noise when the piece is discharged.

Doesn't it really depend on what the role of the armoured car is? For a reconnaissance vehicle, I'd agree, a 120mm is an overkill. However, if like the Italian Centuro, the role of the vehicle is to act as a tank destroyer, then a 120mm gun is a must.

As to the need for a muzzle brake, that is also questionable. Increasing the recoil travel would decrease the need for it. However, that invariably means a long, unwieldy recoil system and a turret to contain it. The blast from a 120mm by itself is not inconsiderable, nor that of a 105mm. All the muzzle brake does is redirect the gases rearwards to help decrease the recoil.

Apart from the aforementioned Centuro, there was also a German 10x10 chassis with a 120mm gun in a modified early Leopard II turret which never got beyond the prototype stage but who's name presently escapes me.

There are though, I agree practicable lower weight limits which do make it difficult to put large calibre guns on lighter chassis. Thing is, those practicable lower weight limits are getting lower and lower through the use of improved technology. What isn't possible today might well be possible in 10 years time.

Yes it does depend on what the role wich the armoured car be used, but it also depend on how the armoured car is be used in field. Currently most wheeled vehicles (that is compare to a tank) lightly armoured, so try to hit a even a old MBT or other vehicle has a gun big than a automatic cannon head on is suicidal, because of this most wheeled vehicles use in hit and run against other armoured vehicles or in infantry supporting role. For these purpose 105 mm gun or even D-10 is certainty powerful enough. Since 100/105 gun can hit hard enough to at least to disable a MBT at close range or from side of enemy vehicles, next thing to do is to run fast enough to get out trouble. Bigger gun means heavier weight, and heavier weight may lead to lost in maneuverability, and that can be the difference between life and death.

Also I do agree with continue improving of technology, we can turn something that is impossible today in something possible tomorrow. About 20 years ago it is seem impossible or difficult to put a 100/105 gun on a wheeled vehicle, now just everybody can do that and everybody have one.

 

[curious george]

*Nicked of f/book again! B)

Cant remember in which thread we may have posted in referring to this containerised project of the early 90's.

 

[Rickshaw]

Interesting that the tube cap blows off at the start of the launch sequence. I've always assumed it was a frangible cap that the missile went through, as does the Roland. Thanks for the pictures.

 

[GTX]

Interesting that the tube cap blows off at the start of the launch sequence. I've always assumed it was a frangible cap that the missile went through, as does the Roland. Thanks for the pictures.

Ditto.

 

[kaiserbill]

Hadn't given it any thought, but on reflection, there is a photo I've seen after the Cactus/Crotale was fired operationally in the field against Migs in Southern Angola conflict, where the deployed crew are holding an intact cap whilst posing for a photo after the action.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

RBS 70 pops the top cap off as well.

 

[curious george]

Off f/book: very early Casspir

 

[kaiserbill]

Cool picture Curious George.

I seem to recall that Peter Stiffs Taming the Landmine (excellent book, if now a little old) had a few pics of some of the early mine protected vehicles, including prototypes/early editions of the Casspir and Buffel.

 

[curious george]

F/book pirate me lol.

This very very early,as you can see this is even before the roof over the troop compartment was "cut open" at the request of "koevoet",so I'd guess close to a prototype as any we;ve seen.

 

[curious george]

*Off f/book*

" Grootfontein show,1984 - 101Workshop" is the album title,I'm trying to get more info.

 

[miker]

Damn that looks awkward, how did the crew serve the gun?

 

[Rickshaw]

Carefully?

I wonder if it's an actual attempt at creating an SP gun or just a gun dumped on the back of the truck or even behind it?

 

[JFC Fuller]

I wonder if it's an actual attempt at creating an SP gun or just a gun dumped on the back of the truck or even behind it?

It's obviously an attempt at an SP gun, there are spade supports attached to the rear of the vehicle and the load-bed appears to carry shells. How well it would have/did work and how serious it was is a different matter

 

[CostasTT]

The rear edge of the platform on which the gun (a 5.5" Medium Gun by the looks of it) is fitted to appears to have a cutout to enable full elevation for the gun. In addition to the ammunition stowage along the sides of the cargo bed, I think I can see a double back-to-back bench seat for the gun crew behind the cab. My guess is that it was more of a proof of concept prototype.
P.S.: Curious George, can you post links to the f/book albums you get the pics from? TIA.

 

[curious george]

I wonder if it's an actual attempt at creating an SP gun or just a gun dumped on the back of the truck or even behind it?

It's obviously an attempt at an SP gun, there are spade supports attached to the rear of the vehicle and the load-bed appears to carry shells. How well it would have/did work and how serious it was is a different matter

I would say this is indeed mounted on the loadbed,based on my experience and exposure on that vehicle type vs scale of gun,etc.

Other unusual aspect is the camo paint job on a SA Army vehicle at the time,very seldom did this occur with the exception of SF and some 32Bn vehicles.

Interesting is the arrangement of the benchseat(for the gun crew?).The benchseats could be removed,etc as per normal practice,BUT the attachment points only allowed these to be fitted down the lenght (facing outwards) from memory so would've had to been field modified to do this(facing forward/backwards(.

"101 Workshop" unit was the main technical/mechanics base just south of the "operational area" in the then SWA,so this could be some field expedient coversion of some sorts to test out some concept?

I checked with an arty-boffin of the time,and this is new to him aswell.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Organic fire support for cross-border incursions, perhaps?

 

[curious george]

P.S.: Curious George, can you post links to the f/book albums you get the pics from? TIA.

Will do,dont know it will work as most of these groups are "closed".

:-[ wont copy link,but this group is called "SADF Tiffies".

 

[curious george]

Ok,

so a false alarm I'm afraid!

The owner of the pic says it was pretty much a once-off for the specific show,they had time to kill and this was schemed up by some of the pf's.They also did a few other weird and wonderfull displays for this show.(other pics in album)

They had a gun in the shop and basically just bolted it onto the loadbed after removing the undercarraige, added the rails onto the back of the vehicle and added a few cosmetics for the occasions.he is also of the opinion that firing the gun most likely would've wrecked everything on the spot.

Apologies gents!

 

[Herman]

The idea was good; the execution probably less so. Numerous similar setups have since the light, including the CEASAR (France), ATMOS 2000 (Israel), the Denel Condor and systems from Norinco (China), the Ukraine, Serbia, etc.

 

[CostasTT]

P.S.: Curious George, can you post links to the f/book albums you get the pics from? TIA.

Will do,dont know it will work as most of these groups are "closed".

:-[ wont copy link,but this group is called "SADF Tiffies".

You're right. I'm not even registered in Facebook, lol.

 

[miker]

Over the years I chatted with SAA blokes & they told me that the G5 was a lead brick to "bundu bash" with. It had all sorts of do-hickies on the trail which just got knocked off all the time & it was too low in any case.

On the other hand the old 140mm towed well. It was a very simple gun & the bush didn't damage it much at all & it had better ground clearance, but it was still not easy to bush bash with. Early on the range of the 140s was a bit short but with the later introduction of BB & modern shape [similar to the 155] the range was okay to do counter battery against the D30s FAPLA had.

Our photo may well be the start of the SAA's design process which eventually led to the Condor. The best way to move guns about the back blocks of Africa was found not to be towing. A SP design was far superior, but the G6s cost a fortune, so maybe the truck mounted design was looked into on the grounds of economy.

The eqpt in the photo wouldn't have been good in the bush I think but it may well have been the birth of an idea.

 

[Herman]

Reply to # 877.
The G4 (Soltam M71) gun apparanty did particularly poorly during towing operations in the bush. The track was different to that of the towing vehicle and the suspensions apparently also failed badly. I also heard that the G5 was certainly not all happiness and light during towing operations. For starters, it weighed 13 tons and over-heating of the SAMIL 100 gun tractors occurred frequently. The G2 was much lighter and the gun tractors could cope much better.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Can anyone ID these two Buffel variants?

 

[curious george]

1st impression is that they are samil 20 based chassis.

 

[kaiserbill]

Interesting vehicles.

At first they look like they have the standard Buffel troop compartment, but the Buffel compartment was a separate module to the driver cab, whereas these troop compartments and cabs are a single unit.

I thought perhaps they had Rhino, Bulldog, or Rinkhals cabs, but these are different from these above again.

Was there any context or additional info wherever these pics were found, SAbushwar?
Do you know whereabouts these pics were taken?

Perhaps Curious George is correct, and these are based on SAMIL 20 components?
Perhaps a Buffel replacement, like the Rhino and Bulldog were mooted to be, and which were also based on SAMIL 20 components?

I seem to recall that the point of the Rhino and Bulldog was to create a Buffel type vehicle, but using SAMIL 20 instead of Unimog components, so as to ensure better fleet/spares commonality.

So perhaps these two are from the same era as the Bulldog and Rhino?
One wonders if it is from the same era as that single pic (posted by curious George I think?) from earlier in the thread which was labelled as the "Wilderbeest", and which is posted again below?
This has differences from all the vehicles mentioned in this post, but also seems to have an open Buffel'esque troop compartment.

Was there an earlier official programme to replace the Buffel (apart from the Veldskoen)?

 

[Herman]

Reply to post #879
The wheels are SAMIL 20. I also think these were prototypes for the SAMIL 20 based variant of the buffel (Rhino?)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Can anyone ID these two Buffel variants?

Looking at the chassis and suspension units the top photo has leaf suspension so would be a SAMIL 20 derviative. The driver's part of the hull also looks like the Rhino APC which was based on the SAMIL 20. So perhaps a half way point to the Rhino? Using a more of an unaltered SAMIL 20 chassis with the new hull front but with a Buffel hull rear. The second picture looks like it has spring suspension and a UNIMOG chassis. So perhaps an advanced version of the Buffel with improved engine and driver armour but with the legacy chassis and hull rear.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post # 883
I'm not sure the bottom vehicle has leaf springs. The wheels are definitely Samil 20 and quite different from 'Mog wheels, which we see on the MC 20 earlier in this thread.

 

[curious george]

*Off f/book*

Date unknown

 

[kaiserbill]

It seems the LZN was already reported on much earlier. This from Die Beeld newspaer on 31st August 1991.

Die 'Lorrie Zonder Naam' is 'n egte SA kragreus DIE ''Lorrie Zonder Naam'' (LZN) is Suid-Afrika se nuutste vragmotor
van 50 ton wat binne agt maande deur 'n span van sewentig werkers van
die Krygkor-filiaal Special B Vehicles ontwerp en gebou is.
Dié kragreus is veral geskik vir reddingsoperasies en
rampondersteuning, lui 'n artikel oor dié voertuig in die tydskrif
South African Transport wat aanstaande week verskyn.
Volgens die berig het die ontwerpers 1 340 tekeninge gemaak, 45
bladsye met spesifikasies en 20 verslae opgestel, en was 12 groot en
550 kleiner komponente en 38 verskaffers nodig om die LZN te ontwerp
en te bou.
Dit sal tussen R1,5 miljoen en R2 miljoen kos.
Die voertuig is aan strawwe toetse onderwerp en die eindproduk
is 'n sterk, betroubare en plaaslik vervaardigde voertuig wat veral
geskik is vir reddingsoperasies, lui die berig.
Die LZN is byna 12 m lank en 3,5 m hoog, en is toegerus met 'n
hyskraan, 'n brandstoftenk met 'n inhoud van 1 000 liter en 'n kajuit
met plek vir vyf bemanningslede.
Die eienaardige naam het ontstaan toe die span ontwerpers nie
oor 'n geskikte naam vir die ou grote kon besluit nie. Daar is
besluit om dit aanvanklik ''Lorrie Zonder Naam'' - na aanleiding van
die Nederlandse popgroep ''Band Zonder Naam'' - te noem. Dié naam het
byval gevind en is behou.

http://152.111.1.88/argief/berigte/beeld/1991/08/31/1/2.html

the rather rustic google translation:

The'' trolley Without a Name'' (LZN) is South Africa's newest truck
of 50 tons within eight months by a team of seventy workers of
the Armscor subsidiary B Special Vehicles designed and constructed.
powerhouse This is especially useful for rescue operations and
disaster assistance, according to an article on this car in the journal
South African Transport held next week.
According to the report, the designers 1,340 drawings, 45
pages of specifications and 20 reports, and were 12 major and
550 smaller components and 38 vendors need to LZN to design
and build.
This will be between R1, 5 million and R2 million.
The vehicle is tough tests and the end product
is a strong, reliable and locally made ​​vehicle which is
suitable for rescue operations, the report said.
The LZN is nearly 12 m long and 3.5 m high, and is equipped with a
crane, a fuel tank with a capacity of 1,000 liters and a cabin
that sleeps five crew members.
The curious name originated when the team designers
with an appropriate name for the old was great decision. It was
decided to initially Lorrie'' Without a Name'' - based on
the Dutch pop group'' Band Without a Name'' - to mention. The name
caught on, is retained.

 

[kaiserbill]

Much earlier in the thread, there were one or two small pictures of the bridging gear on an Olifant Mk1B tank chassis, and being moved from the Mk1B chassis to the 8x8 Bridge vehicle.

I've just found, what is to me at least, the first clear pics of the Olifant Mk1B bridge layer chassis.

 

[kaiserbill]

Just from a cursory glance, it appears that the bridge Mk1B has a different hull top which is raised a little more, particularly over the rear, when compared to the gun tank.

Also, here are the two 8x8 vehicles first posted by Graugrun a little while back.

 

[curious george]

Just from a cursory glance, it appears that the bridge Mk1B has a different hull top which is raised a little more, particularly over the rear, when compared to the gun tank.

Somebody(ex-service) recently "suggested" that these Olifant bridge layer are actually Leopard1's.

Any thoughts?

 

[curious george]

More pics of that "rescued" proto 9mm smg.

Interesting size comparison to the std Uzi,known as a S1 in the SADF.

 

[CostasTT]

Just from a cursory glance, it appears that the bridge Mk1B has a different hull top which is raised a little more, particularly over the rear, when compared to the gun tank.

Somebody(ex-service) recently "suggested" that these Olifant bridge layer are actually Leopard1's.

Any thoughts?

No way. The Leopard has 7 roadwheels.

 

[kaiserbill]

Just from a cursory glance, it appears that the bridge Mk1B has a different hull top which is raised a little more, particularly over the rear, when compared to the gun tank.

Somebody(ex-service) recently "suggested" that these Olifant bridge layer are actually Leopard1's.

Any thoughts?

No way. The Leopard has 7 roadwheels.

Indeed.

The running gear/tracks/sideskirts/hullfront is Olifant.

It would make sense to keep it thus, instead of inducting a tiny amount of different vehicles which would entail a specialist maintenance trail.

I wonder if the powerplant is the same as the standard Olifant Mk1B?