South African prototypes, projects, concepts, etc.

[kaiserbill]

I was looking at this picture of one of the New Generation Armoured Car prototypes being tested that led to the Rooikat. This is the Ratel based prototype that can be seen in the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein.

What caught my eye was the vehicle in the backround. It confused me as it didn't look familiar, especially among the vehicles being tested in this period, circa 1979. Then it struck me that this looks like a Soviet BTR vehicle but with differences. The hull covering the engine at the rear has been extended when compared to a BTR 60, and the foot rungs between the wheels have been faired over into V-shape panniers, and the turret looks new, and is not the same as the original squat conical-like BTR turret, being larger with what looks like facets instead of the usual conical-type rounded shape.

A little further digging on the Armour Museum site says under their BTR-60 exhibit:

"This vehicle was a gift, in 1976, from the Israeli Armoured Corps and was extensively used during trials for a Infantry Combat Vehicle and the new generation armoured car project for the South African Armoured Corps. Circa 1979 The BTR-60 performed extremely well in wet and muddy conditions but fell short in South Africa’s desert and rocky areas."

So it appears a modified BTR-60 was used as a trials vehicle to aid in determining vehicle characteristics for the two programmes, an IFV and the armoured car project. An engine replacement of the two petrol GAZ engines of the original BTR-60 would have been a no-brainer in my view, hence the different hull rear/engine compartment. Apart from the different shaped rear, the side mounted exhaust found on the vanilla BTR-60 is also absent.
The problem is the BTR-60 on display in Bloemfontein is a completely unmodified, original BTR-60, with none of the modifications shown in the pic below. It beggars belief that it would be expensively remodified back to it's original state, especially as the one in the armour museum, unlike this vehicle below, is still wearing it's original battered different-coloured paint scheme.... so they must be two different vehicles.

 

[Dinges]

Recently there has been a strange development between LIW and 4VRP Zwartkops Pretoria. It looks like a new museum being set up. At least 5 Mirage 3/Cheetah's are visible, an Impala and many other indistinguishable objects. Maybe some prototype funnies? Anybody with more gen? (See dates on photos below) Coords also visible.

It is actually a paintball venue hosted by Denel.

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=denel+paintball&biw=1282&bih=889&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvm6Cx_9bKAhVF8RQKHYh9CPcQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1#imgrc=_


http://www.denelwargames.co.za/

https://www.facebook.com/Denel-Combat-Paintball-Tournament-1451186791865095

 

[Herman]

Reply to #1491.
The flat-bed "MAN" 8x8 looks very similar to the one-off 8x8 artillery tractor. The axles are definitely not MAN but Magirus and they are mounted on leaf springs, not coils like the MAN. The axle spacing is also unlike any MAN 8x8 truck I've ever seen although not unlike the Ratel Log, and this did use MAN axles. In my opinion the chassis is a South African development based on Magirus axles. It may that the engine is a MAN. The Rooikat is fitted with a MAN V10 engine and so was the 8x8 Ratel log. The SA Army did apparently have some instances of the air-cooled Deutz engines over-heating in the operational area when working very hard (pulling the G5) when very hot. The 8x8 artillery tractor was obviously substantially heavier than the standard Samil 100 based artillery tractor and the builder may have chosen for the more powerful tubocharged MAN, liquid-cooled engine. The other engine in the over 400hp class that was used by SA, was the Deutz V12 air-cooled unit. This was used in the G6 and the LZN.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post #1494
The Israeli Saymar company builds modified BTR-60, with part of the modification program being replacement of the twin petrol engines with a single diesel engine. One can google them.

 

[kaiserbill]

Reply to post #1494
The Israeli Saymar company builds modified BTR-60, with part of the modification program being replacement of the twin petrol engines with a single diesel engine. One can google them.

This is 1979, which precedes the Saymar company by a few years. Their later offering looks different.
I found it interesting in that I'd not heard of this before. You would understand testing a vanilla BTR-60 as a baseline, but this vehicle above appears as if some effort was put into modifying/upgrading it.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Recently there has been a strange development between LIW and 4VRP Zwartkops Pretoria. It looks like a new museum being set up. At least 5 Mirage 3/Cheetah's are visible, an Impala and many other indistinguishable objects. Maybe some prototype funnies? Anybody with more gen? (See dates on photos below) Coords also visible.

It is actually a paintball venue hosted by Denel.

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=denel+paintball&biw=1282&bih=889&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvm6Cx_9bKAhVF8RQKHYh9CPcQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1#imgrc=_


http://www.denelwargames.co.za/

https://www.facebook.com/Denel-Combat-Paintball-Tournament-1451186791865095

From www: It seems a few funnies/prototypes have indeed been relegated to paintball obstacles.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post #1494
It is possible that the original BTR-60 modification program was an Israeli Army project and that the private Saymar company is a spin-off from that. This has happened in many cases in SA. The modified BTR seen in the photo could well be an early version, built in an Israeli government installation, before Saymar came into being. The vehicle probably went back to Israel after testing.

 

[kaiserbill]

Reply to post #1494
It is possible that the original BTR-60 modification program was an Israeli Army project and that the private Saymar company is a spin-off from that. This has happened in many cases in SA. The modified BTR seen in the photo could well be an early version, built in an Israeli government installation, before Saymar came into being. The vehicle probably went back to Israel after testing.

It is of course possible, but I very much doubt it.
Look at the features of that modified BTR. It has features that are found on all the South African vehicles from the time period, from the V shaped panniers to the faceted turret found on most South African designs at the time, as can be seen on vehicles through this thread, and indeed, on the other vehicle being tested in the photograph.
None of those features are found on the later Saymar vehicles, which again, is a later company formed a few years after this time period.
There were plenty of South African armoured vehicle designers or manufacturers at the time, so I can't think of any real reason to think otherwise.

This points directly to a local modification in line with the other various indigineous vehicles at the time.

 

[sa_bushwar]

I was looking at this picture of one of the New Generation Armoured Car prototypes being tested that led to the Rooikat. This is the Ratel based prototype that can be seen in the Armour Museum in Bloemfontein.

What caught my eye was the vehicle in the backround. It confused me as it didn't look familiar, especially among the vehicles being tested in this period, circa 1979. Then it struck me that this looks like a Soviet BTR vehicle but with differences. The hull covering the engine at the rear has been extended when compared to a BTR 60, and the foot rungs between the wheels have been faired over into V-shape panniers, and the turret looks new, and is not the same as the original squat conical-like BTR turret, being larger with what looks like facets instead of the usual conical-type rounded shape.

A little further digging on the Armour Museum site says under their BTR-60 exhibit:

"This vehicle was a gift, in 1976, from the Israeli Armoured Corps and was extensively used during trials for a Infantry Combat Vehicle and the new generation armoured car project for the South African Armoured Corps. Circa 1979 The BTR-60 performed extremely well in wet and muddy conditions but fell short in South Africa’s desert and rocky areas."

So it appears a modified BTR-60 was used as a trials vehicle to aid in determining vehicle characteristics for the two programmes, an IFV and the armoured car project. An engine replacement of the two petrol GAZ engines of the original BTR-60 would have been a no-brainer in my view, hence the different hull rear/engine compartment. Apart from the different shaped rear, the side mounted exhaust found on the vanilla BTR-60 is also absent.
The problem is the BTR-60 on display in Bloemfontein is a completely unmodified, original BTR-60, with none of the modifications shown in the pic below. It beggars belief that it would be expensively remodified back to it's original state, especially as the one in the armour museum, unlike this vehicle below, is still wearing it's original battered different-coloured paint scheme.... so they must be two different vehicles.

The modified version could be in storage. The 2 BTR 60's on display at the museum are original and date from the Ops Modular, Hooper Packer era of 1987/88. The one is a command vehicle BTR PU with 10m Hawkeye mast, comms equipment and inside perspex map board. It was also tested in SA as can be seen from the translated dashboard descriptions.

 

[Herman]

The Saymar modifications involve the fitting of a single diesel engine. To do this, requires quite extensive modifications to the driveline. In the Saymar video's one can see that the engine is fitted transversely with the new transmission next to it, using a custom-built transfer case. If, as Kaiserbill suggests, a gift BTR-60 was extensively tested in SA, it was probably fitted with two new powerplants here. That would seem logical as one can assume there were no spare parts available for the engines, even for standard sevices, at that time. Fitting two new engines, with or without new transmissions, would technically not have been overly challenging.

In early seventies, Romania built a modified version of the BTR-60 that was fitted with two 140hp petrol engines rather than the original Russian 90hp versions. I believe the engines were French Peugeot V6 units. The vehicle was built by the company RATMIL and the modified vehicle was known as the TAB-71. In the late seventies, the company switched to building a modified version of the BTR-70. This was called the TAB-77 and was fitted with two 130hp diesel engines instead of the original two 120hp petrol engines found in the original Ruissian vehicle. It may very well be that the SA BTR-60 was fitted withb two new engines and possibly automatic transmissions.

The "ties" between SA and Romania during the border war period are quite interesting. Romania was building the Puma helicopter and the engines under licence from France, at that time. The Romanian fuselage was actually more modern than the original Franch version and incorporated more composites. The Oryx is actually built on a modified Romanian fuselage. During the eighties, the SA army used large numbers of RPG launchers and ammunition. These weapons were never captured in sufficient numbers. SA bought considerable numbers of RPG-7 launchers and ammunition from Romania in the early eighties.

 

[Herman]

As far as the LZN is and the TEL vehicles are concerned, they were mechanically probably based on the Faun FS 42.75/42 heavy equipment transporter. This truck was/is a 6 x 8 but building an 8x8 version would have been a relatively simple matter. The Faun was also powered by the 520hp Deutz V12 engine used in the G6 and the LZN and the latter probably used the same ZF 4S-150GPA transmission and ZF WSK 400 torque converter, with 8 forward and one reverse gear. The track of the Faun was about 2.6 meters and it used 18 x 22.5 tyres. The Spanish and South Africam Cavallo/Kynos Aljaba trucks use a later version of the same engine and the same axles, with 24 x 20.5 tyres. The G6 uses slightly larger wheels however (21 x 25).

 

[panzerskool]

"The Bomb- South Africa's Nuclear Program "by Dr Nic Von Wielligh who was intimately involved in the program. Read the reviews and its far more detailed than the other 6 or 7 books I have on the subject, released last month

Book arrived in Dubai and its chunky, not too many new pics but lots and lots of pages to read

 

[panzerskool]

half way through book and only small mention of Project Husky (Jerrico/RSA IRBM) and nothing about TEL's

 

[sa_bushwar]

South Africa’s armoured vehicle success steeped in impressive design, manufacture history:

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/south-africas-armoured-vehicle-success-steeped-in-impressive-design-manufacture-history-2008-10-10

 

[sa_bushwar]

Can anyone identify this that looks like an air transportable/droppable sabre vehicle? From FB.

 

[curious george]

Not a gelandewagen based Denel Mechem BAT, or the Hornet prototype?

 

[curious george]

Whatever this was,looks the same as ...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's the recce's Hornet rapid deplyment vehicle.ļ

 

[Skyscout]

So, to recap and from what is being intimated, the TEL vehicles were an 8x8 vehicle that lent its components ("engine, transmission, axles and wheels") as the basis for the later vehicle that became the 6x6 LZN G6 artillery support vehicle?

Going by the attachment Graugrun posted earlier on the LZN, it was constructed by the "Special B Vehicles" department of Armscor, which is also the department that was apparently responsible for the TEL vehicles.
The LZN also has an air-cooled diesel of roughly the same power as the G6, both have a 6 speed auto transmission, and both have 21x25 tyres, so one could also say that there appears to be a strong family connection then between the G6, the LZN, and the TEL vehicles components-wise.

It would be interesting to know what then became of the actual TEL vehicles that were known to be constructed, as opposed to the derived LZN.

Here is a spec on the HMLV(or LZN) that were built in the 90's by SBV.
(Apparently- the only TEL vehicle left in SA was reduced to scrap metal - before 1994)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The LZN spec is here allready in this thread. Somewhere between page 25 and 75!

 

[kaiserbill]

It is.
However, I'm interested in Skyscouts interesting tidbit about there being only one TEL left in SA and it was scrapped before 1994.
I know you used the word apparently, but i'd be interested to know where you got that interesting info/rumour from?

 

[panzerskool]

she is a beautiful truck in my opinion. So many unknowns like how many TELS did SBV make? if 1 was destroyed I assume rest shipped to a friendly ME country. So sad that something so interesting is still so secret

 

[Graugrun]

Panzerskool - maybe the huge secrecy is because it's much more to do with the current country using them than with us...?

 

[panzerskool]

agreed but so much is known about jericco which is really what its all the secrecy is about so why not the TEL which is just a big ass truck . Seems SA nuclear secrets slowly leaking out so just a matter of time till TELS come out.

Interesting part of the Book the Bomb is how close we came to a coup after bombs were told to be dismantled and the front and back parts were stored separately but at the circle and how senior military figures tried to have them moved illegally to Roedtan to the Nuclear bunkers that were built there and FW found out and had it stopped and them all fired. never knew that and that there were alternative nuclear storage facilities

 

[Herman]

However, I'm interested in Skyscouts interesting tidbit about there being only one TEL left in SA and it was scrapped before 1994.

Wasn't there a fire engine conversion of a TEL that was also featured earlier in this thread?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

However, I'm interested in Skyscouts interesting tidbit about there being only one TEL left in SA and it was scrapped before 1994.

Wasn't there a fire engine conversion of a TEL that was also featured earlier in this thread?

A couple of LZNs were built as regular trucks (with armoured cabs) to support the G6. This version never received a production order despite the requirement for 1.167 LZNs per G6 (as per the spec attached to previous page and somewhere else in one of the previous 100+ pages!). The fire truck is a re-purposing of one of the two or so prototype cargo LZNs built.

 

[sa_bushwar]

agreed but so much is known about jericco which is really what its all the secrecy is about so why not the TEL which is just a big ass truck . Seems SA nuclear secrets slowly leaking out so just a matter of time till TELS come out.

Interesting part of the Book the Bomb is how close we came to a coup after bombs were told to be dismantled and the front and back parts were stored separately but at the circle and how senior military figures tried to have them moved illegally to Roedtan to the Nuclear bunkers that were built there and FW found out and had it stopped and them all fired. never knew that and that there were alternative nuclear storage facilities

Does the book mention anything about prototype work to use artillery as a means to deliver nuclear devices? With the artillery technology available in SA at the time and connections with Israel, a 155m or even 175mm nuclear shell delivered by a G6 or even G7??? 175mm system was surely feasible and less costly than Jericho? Such a 175mm gun is conceptualized below.

 

[Herman]

The sheer size of the TEL/LZN is astonishing. I have suggested in the past that it was probably derived from the German Faun heavy trucks, but this thing is much bigger: a track of 2.8 meter and an unloaded weight of >30 tons, never mind a loaded weight of 45 tons!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Does the book mention anything about prototype work to use artillery as a means to deliver nuclear devices? With the artillery technology available in SA at the time and connections with Israel, a 155m or even 175mm nuclear shell delivered by a G6 or even G7??? 175mm system was surely feasible and less costly than Jericho? Such a 175mm gun is conceptualized below.

If you can build a nuclear weapon to fit inside a 175mm shell then it’s not a big leap to build one that can fit inside a 155mm shell. Especially a long shell like the 155mm ERFB used by the SADF in the G5 and G6. As to any nuclear artillery shell being cheaper to develop and build than the Jericho missile I doubt that very much.

Nuclear artillery shells use very different warhead designs than the more typical implosion bomb as built by South Africa for their WMD program. This is because such typical nuclear warheads require large diameters to enclose their circular or spherical implosion device. Nuclear artillery shells use either “gun-type” nuclear warheads (like that used on Hiroshima) or linear implosion warheads. Gun-types are simple to build but require large amounts of HEU to work and linear implosion warheads also have low efficiency (low explosive output compared to fissile material used) and are very complex.

Realistically South Africa would require a second nuclear warhead design program and fissile material production line to produce nuclear artillery. Or go without the kind of high yield warhead that they built which can be dropped by an aircraft (or fired by a Jericho) to destroy a theatre level target like a port or airbase. Which was the strategic requirement to enable South Africa to defeat any major Soviet intervention into Southern Africa. The cost of building the Jericho class rocket to provide an assured delivery means is nowhere near that needed to develop an entirely different nuclear warhead and fissile material production capability.

And even if South Africa did build a warhead able to fit into an artillery shell it would have to be hardened to survive the far higher G forces of artillery launch compared to rocket launch. Such a warhead would likely be quite big by artillery standards. An 8-12” gun is far more likely. The smallest gun-type warheads for artillery built by the USA required an 8” gun to fire.

8-12” guns provide the added advantage of longer range to enable better standoff and deep fires of the likely 10-40 kt yield. Since it is likely to be a limited issue weapon operated in no more than pairs to provide the nuclear capability (with backup) it doesn’t need to have many of the capabilities of conventional direct support artillery. Something more like the M65 Atomic Annie than the G6 Rhino would be needed. The G6 chassis or LZN would make for a likely deployment tractor but there would be no need for an enclosed turret to enable sustained fire and protect a large on-board unit of fire.

Such a weapon would only be needed if South Africa faced a massed conventional invasion with the enemy holding total air superiority. Even the Soviet Army is unlikely to achieve the later in southern Africa considering the large areas between usable airbases. In which case the SAAF would still be able to sortie low level air strikes to delivery toss bombs of nuclear warheads. Which would achieve the same (actually better) effect as the nuclear artillery.

Also since massed conventional invasion of South Africa would only require 10-20 divisions (at the most) and would be spread over distances measured in the thousands of kilometres there would be no need for a large number of nuclear warheads to service the kind of target density faced by NATO in central Europe. In which case the NATO argument for nuclear artillery would not apply. TACAIR or IRBM delivered bombs would be sufficient for the entire set of targets in theatre.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The sheer size of the TEL/LZN is astonishing. I have suggested in the past that it was probably derived from the German Faun heavy trucks, but this thing is much bigger: a track of 2.8 meter and an unloaded weight of >30 tons, never mind a loaded weight of 45 tons!

The "Elzeden" (see attached image) was bigger than the Faun 8x8 crane and tank transporter trucks. These guys are the same size as the Spanish Kynos Aljiba (aka Cavallo) at 9m (L) by 3m (W). But there are a range of trucks that compare to the Elzeden in size (12m x 3.5m) that predate it by some time. Mostly used in construction and mining industries. The French however applied some of them to military use including the Creusot Loire T40A which was built to carry a 40 tonne tank on its flatbed.

"Survive the Ride" by Camp and Heitman has LOTS of great new pictures of South African armour. I'll sneak in one or two in lores here to illustrate this point.

 

[Dinges]

Does the book mention anything about prototype work to use artillery as a means to deliver nuclear devices? With the artillery technology available in SA at the time and connections with Israel, a 155m or even 175mm nuclear shell delivered by a G6 or even G7??? 175mm system was surely feasible and less costly than Jericho? Such a 175mm gun is conceptualized below.

If you can build a nuclear weapon to fit inside a 175mm shell then it’s not a big leap to build one that can fit inside a 155mm shell. Especially a long shell like the 155mm ERFB used by the SADF in the G5 and G6. As to any nuclear artillery shell being cheaper to develop and build than the Jericho missile I doubt that very much.

Nuclear artillery shells use very different warhead designs than the more typical implosion bomb as built by South Africa for their WMD program. This is because such typical nuclear warheads require large diameters to enclose their circular or spherical implosion device. Nuclear artillery shells use either “gun-type” nuclear warheads (like that used on Hiroshima) or linear implosion warheads. Gun-types are simple to build but require large amounts of HEU to work and linear implosion warheads also have low efficiency (low explosive output compared to fissile material used) and are very complex.

Realistically South Africa would require a second nuclear warhead design program and fissile material production line to produce nuclear artillery. Or go without the kind of high yield warhead that they built which can be dropped by an aircraft (or fired by a Jericho) to destroy a theatre level target like a port or airbase. Which was the strategic requirement to enable South Africa to defeat any major Soviet intervention into Southern Africa. The cost of building the Jericho class rocket to provide an assured delivery means is nowhere near that needed to develop an entirely different nuclear warhead and fissile material production capability.

And even if South Africa did build a warhead able to fit into an artillery shell it would have to be hardened to survive the far higher G forces of artillery launch compared to rocket launch. Such a warhead would likely be quite big by artillery standards. An 8-12” gun is far more likely. The smallest gun-type warheads for artillery built by the USA required an 8” gun to fire.

8-12” guns provide the added advantage of longer range to enable better standoff and deep fires of the likely 10-40 kt yield. Since it is likely to be a limited issue weapon operated in no more than pairs to provide the nuclear capability (with backup) it doesn’t need to have many of the capabilities of conventional direct support artillery. Something more like the M65 Atomic Annie than the G6 Rhino would be needed. The G6 chassis or LZN would make for a likely deployment tractor but there would be no need for an enclosed turret to enable sustained fire and protect a large on-board unit of fire.

Such a weapon would only be needed if South Africa faced a massed conventional invasion with the enemy holding total air superiority. Even the Soviet Army is unlikely to achieve the later in southern Africa considering the large areas between usable airbases. In which case the SAAF would still be able to sortie low level air strikes to delivery toss bombs of nuclear warheads. Which would achieve the same (actually better) effect as the nuclear artillery.

Also since massed conventional invasion of South Africa would only require 10-20 divisions (at the most) and would be spread over distances measured in the thousands of kilometres there would be no need for a large number of nuclear warheads to service the kind of target density faced by NATO in central Europe. In which case the NATO argument for nuclear artillery would not apply. TACAIR or IRBM delivered bombs would be sufficient for the entire set of targets in theatre.

SA never went the implosion route , all 7 were gun types

 

[Abraham Gubler]

SA never went the implosion route , all 7 were gun types

Well then that makes nuclear artillery more accessible. But they would still need to go a lon way down the road of miniaturization and hardening to turn a 1,000kg air bomb warhead into a 100kg artillery shell warhead.

 

[compton_effect]

One guy I chatted to about the ICBM project admitted that we were sticking to gun-barrel designs, but where looking at using tritium to boost the yield.

But - I heard a really strange tale - not from one- but from three different sources over the years. That Potch Artillery had nuclear shells, and that a high ranking officer actually stole a number of them and hid them somewhere in the bushveld. But that he was killed when they raided his farm to retrieve them. Thing is - all three gents never told tall tales, and all three told the same story.

Its probably part of that coup tale, but a bit muddled up with hearsay.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Having read up on the RSA nuclear program (which I should have done before my last post) it seems very unlikely that they had produced nuclear warheads for artillery shells. Only 7+1 aerial bomb sized. (1000kg) warheads had been built before decommissioning. It is very difficult to image a program that had only progressed only so far had also developed an artillery shell sized warhead. Especially as with only 155mm sized guns it would struggle to fit even an advanced double gun warhead like that used in US 8" shells not to mention the linear implosion warhead. Also surely developing a 40-80kg super hard, small diameter warhead for 155mm or 203mm use would come second to the ~350kg warhead they needed for use on the IRBMs.

If these three Pots Arty shells were of a nuclear nature it is highly unlikly they were warheads. But they could have been some kind of dirty bomb or chemical weapon. They are far more feasible and also far more likely to have issued forward to a unit as they don't require that same sort of high precision preperation in order to work. But every army has its Zombie Myths...

 

[Herman]

But every army has its Zombie Myths...

I agree with your post. The nuclear artillery shell story is an "urban legend". South Africa definitely did not have the technology to build nuclear artillery shells. Has anybody ever built a 155mm nuclear shell? As mentioned, the US ones were 203mm shells.

 

[Herman]

Such a 175mm gun is conceptualized below.

Nice artwork for the 8 x 8, 175mm "G7" vehicle. Would probably be feasible but it would be a humongous vehicle! The hull would be about 10.4 meters long, width 3.4 meters and the combat weight would be well in excess of 50 tons. The powerplant fitted between the wheel-wells of the second pair of wheels will be a tight fit but with modern, high-powered diesels, a unit of around 750 hp should be possible.

 

[TomS]

But every army has its Zombie Myths...

I agree with your post. The nuclear artillery shell story is an "urban legend". South Africa definitely did not have the technology to build nuclear artillery shells. Has anybody ever built a 155mm nuclear shell? As mentioned, the US ones were 203mm shells.

The US built and fielded the W48 nuclear warhead in the M45 round for 155mm howitzers in the 1960s. The yield was incredibly small--reported as just 72 tons (0.072kt) in the first live test--which makes me think it was more of a controlled fizzle than a high-order detonation. But they made nearly 1000 of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

 

[sa_bushwar]

Does the book mention anything about prototype work to use artillery as a means to deliver nuclear devices? With the artillery technology available in SA at the time and connections with Israel, a 155m or even 175mm nuclear shell delivered by a G6 or even G7??? 175mm system was surely feasible and less costly than Jericho? Such a 175mm gun is conceptualized below.

If you can build a nuclear weapon to fit inside a 175mm shell then it’s not a big leap to build one that can fit inside a 155mm shell. Especially a long shell like the 155mm ERFB used by the SADF in the G5 and G6. As to any nuclear artillery shell being cheaper to develop and build than the Jericho missile I doubt that very much.

Nuclear artillery shells use very different warhead designs than the more typical implosion bomb as built by South Africa for their WMD program. This is because such typical nuclear warheads require large diameters to enclose their circular or spherical implosion device. Nuclear artillery shells use either “gun-type” nuclear warheads (like that used on Hiroshima) or linear implosion warheads. Gun-types are simple to build but require large amounts of HEU to work and linear implosion warheads also have low efficiency (low explosive output compared to fissile material used) and are very complex.

Realistically South Africa would require a second nuclear warhead design program and fissile material production line to produce nuclear artillery. Or go without the kind of high yield warhead that they built which can be dropped by an aircraft (or fired by a Jericho) to destroy a theatre level target like a port or airbase. Which was the strategic requirement to enable South Africa to defeat any major Soviet intervention into Southern Africa. The cost of building the Jericho class rocket to provide an assured delivery means is nowhere near that needed to develop an entirely different nuclear warhead and fissile material production capability.

And even if South Africa did build a warhead able to fit into an artillery shell it would have to be hardened to survive the far higher G forces of artillery launch compared to rocket launch. Such a warhead would likely be quite big by artillery standards. An 8-12” gun is far more likely. The smallest gun-type warheads for artillery built by the USA required an 8” gun to fire.

8-12” guns provide the added advantage of longer range to enable better standoff and deep fires of the likely 10-40 kt yield. Since it is likely to be a limited issue weapon operated in no more than pairs to provide the nuclear capability (with backup) it doesn’t need to have many of the capabilities of conventional direct support artillery. Something more like the M65 Atomic Annie than the G6 Rhino would be needed. The G6 chassis or LZN would make for a likely deployment tractor but there would be no need for an enclosed turret to enable sustained fire and protect a large on-board unit of fire.

Such a weapon would only be needed if South Africa faced a massed conventional invasion with the enemy holding total air superiority. Even the Soviet Army is unlikely to achieve the later in southern Africa considering the large areas between usable airbases. In which case the SAAF would still be able to sortie low level air strikes to delivery toss bombs of nuclear warheads. Which would achieve the same (actually better) effect as the nuclear artillery.

Also since massed conventional invasion of South Africa would only require 10-20 divisions (at the most) and would be spread over distances measured in the thousands of kilometres there would be no need for a large number of nuclear warheads to service the kind of target density faced by NATO in central Europe. In which case the NATO argument for nuclear artillery would not apply. TACAIR or IRBM delivered bombs would be sufficient for the entire set of targets in theatre.

Abraham,

Agree with your arguments, just wondered of any artillery development took place. The SADF was better off with a strategic nuke deterrent, as opposed to tactical nukes. However there is some evidence work on miniaturized implosion devises did take place - see extract from AL Venter's book below. Being able to lob a nuclear device a few 1000km with an RSA 3 to let's say Luanda during a last stand in a possible Cold War conflict was much more of a deterrent than what a tactical nuke delivered by artillery shell would have been.

Did the SA nukes ever serve as any real deterrent, as (virtually) nobody knew about their existence?! Some foreign spy agencies might have known - double-flash in South Atlantic, links with Israel, etc. I suppose the SA Government would have pulled this trick out of the hat if the war unfolded in a different way, or if hardliners in Government wanted to preserve the apartheid regime for longer. Apparently the Buccaneer on display at the Military Museum in JHB was already specifically overhauled (and modified?) to carry the nukes.

 

[Herman]

The US built and fielded the W48 nuclear warhead in the M45 round for 155mm howitzers in the 1960s.

TomS, thanks for the post. The Wiki is interesting. Interesting is that it would, at least theoretically, be possible to build a 105mm nuclear shell; shades of a "briefcase nuke". Size wise it would probably be possible but, according to the Wiki, it'll be a heavy thing.

 

[kaiserbill]

Abraham,

Agree with your arguments, just wondered of any artillery development took place. The SADF was better off with a strategic nuke deterrent, as opposed to tactical nukes. However there is some evidence work on miniaturized implosion devises did take place - see extract from AL Venter's book below. Being able to lob a nuclear device a few 1000km with an RSA 3 to let's say Luanda during a last stand in a possible Cold War conflict was much more of a deterrent than what a tactical nuke delivered by artillery shell would have been.

Did the SA nukes ever serve as any real deterrent, as (virtually) nobody knew about their existence?! Some foreign spy agencies might have known - double-flash in South Atlantic, links with Israel, etc. I suppose the SA Government would have pulled this trick out of the hat if the war unfolded in a different way, or if hardliners in Government wanted to preserve the apartheid regime for longer. Apparently the Buccaneer on display at the Military Museum in JHB was already specifically overhauled (and modified?) to carry the nukes.

SA's nuclear programme was based on secrecy and denials so as to keep inquisitiveness away.
Reading about it in "Those who had the Power" by Pierre Victor and Nic Badenhorst, the policy seems to have been one of silence, to ensure a minimum of external political pressure, inspection, and to maintain a level of secrecy about developments, deployments, etc. One of the authors worked on some of the platforms with Armscor, and his book was absolutely shredded by the powers-that-be, basically leading him to rewriting the entire thing. Even though it dealt with stuff that had happened 2 decades and more earlier.

It seems this silence re the nukes was to be rigorously adhered to, and only in a situation of dire emergency, such as an external force trying to invade, or openly support an invasion, or bomb, would the cat be let out of the bag behind the scenes to the relevant parties to ensure any such action promptly stopped.
The development of a true ICBM was pursued so that any capital on earth could be eventually reached as part of that strategy for just that reason.

On the matter of the actual nukes constructed, the book explains that the initial gun-type devices were just that: Initial types deliverable by air via a platform such as a Buccaneer.
There was a tacit acknowledgement of the pitfalls of such a delivery method.
This is why a range of other delivery methods and platforms were being developed, and hand in hand with those was the next phase, which was the minituarisation (compared to the initial nukes) of the follow on nuclear warheads that would equip those delivery platforms. SA's deterrent was not going to be based solely on a dwindling number of a 1950's aircraft design, obviously. The end game was to be a relatively small amount of nukes compared to larger powers, but able to be delivered by a variety of platforms to ensure survivabilty.
Many of the platforms themselves that were to come online would not have been able to carry the initial devices. The book illustrates, via a lot of peripheral evidence, that such warheads were in the process of being designed, which is supported by the infrastructure expensively put in place.
The official story of only a few primitive gun type warheads only, whilst not an actual lie, omits the entire story of the follow on programme after those initial devices.

I doubt we'll get anything like the true story anytime.