StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://uk.geocities.com/sasolboy/abens30.html

Take a look at abens103 on that webpage. "ARV in disguise."

Apparently, this is a photograph of a South African armored recovery vehicle based on the Olifant chassis (itself a derivative of the British Centurion). Can anybody identify the pair of missile-launcher-looking devices atop the hull? Is that what they are? An attempt to disguise the vehicle as an anti-aircraft platform? Or are those faux active-defense systems of the kind the Russians mount on their newer tanks? Any help would be appreciated.

The website is over transfer limit. And I'll post this in HAB for you.

The slightest little uptick in bandwidth on a Geo$$$hitties site Will kill it.

Moral: Always mirror the pics on a site with less greed on the brain and less Pointy-Haired Bosses ru(i)nning the show...

EDIT: Fuck this godsdamned keyboard!!

Axis Kast wrote:http://uk.geocities.com/sasolboy/abens30.html

Take a look at abens103 on that webpage. "ARV in disguise."

Still over its bandwidth limit

Apparently, this is a photograph of a South African armored recovery vehicle based on the Olifant chassis (itself a derivative of the British Centurion).

Rebuild is a better way of putting it, derivative suggests that South Africa built them outright, something which is beyond its capability.

Can anybody identify the pair of missile-launcher-looking devices atop the hull? Is that what they are? An attempt to disguise the vehicle as an anti-aircraft platform? Or are those faux active-defense systems of the kind the Russians mount on their newer tanks? Any help would be appreciated.

Since it's an ARV there most likely blatant dummies, South Africa doesn't have any form of active defence system for vehicles.

Of course, almost nobody else does either.

I can't imagine why an ARV would mount anything more than a machine gun (demolition weapons aside).

I thought I remembered posting this ... oh well.

In any case, although Olifant main battle tanks were rare, and armored recovery vehicles based on that derivative even rarer, I have seen photographs of one such vehicle. It does make sense that whatever such units did exist would have been deployed to the Angola battlefields for most of the late '80s, and that securtiy regarding their movement would have been high (it was routine for the Apartheid governments to attempt to conceal their actual armored strength, and in South Africa's case, to make especial efforts to extradite Olifants damaged in the field).

According to one source, the ARV was unique not merely in that was a special-purpose vehicle, but also in that it possessed smoke-grenade launchers at the four diagonals - although I daresay the items in question in the photograph are a far cry from grenade launchers, if you ask me.

The RADAR aerial is another mystery; it fingers the vehicle as something of an anti-aircraft platform - although, again, the missile tubes are distinctly reminiscient of pictures of active-defense systems.

Axis Kast wrote: Apparently, this is a photograph of a South African armored recovery vehicle based on the Olifant chassis (itself a derivative of the British Centurion). Can anybody identify the pair of missile-launcher-looking devices atop the hull? Is that what they are? An attempt to disguise the vehicle as an anti-aircraft platform? Or are those faux active-defense systems of the kind the Russians mount on their newer tanks? Any help would be appreciated.

Here's the pic hosted by me. And those look like they could be individual Starstreaks but in dual launchers.

Unfortunately the Radar dish is a fake from what I can make out, so this is likely a deception plan for a vehicle move to make tracking assets by Sat./air more difficult.

Sea Skimmer wrote: South Africa doesn't have any form of active defence system for vehicles.

Technically not true. The TTD has a laser suppression system that launches smoke grenades into the path of a detected laser disrupting the beam. Of course hardly any TTD's exist, but S.A. does have them and they incorporate active defence systems (primitive admittedly, but they are there).

Oh, TTD = Tank Technology Demonstrator. A series of tanks showing what add-on systems S.A. wants to incorporate into the Olifant mk2 should the funding be available. That TTD's themselves are fully working tanks in their own rights and part of the S.A. Orbat.

The TTD and Olifant Mk2 each boast certain accoutrements and additions about which I'm wary.

The original Olifants were little more than kit-bashes, if you want to be honest. From what I've seen and read, the new designs make little use of anything particularly innovative - they merely add a handful of armored plates, a computer-controlled fire-detection and suppression system, and angle spaced armor where once there was vertical plate only. The handful of laser range-finders and other targeting equipment introduced aren't exactly ground-breaking either.

By the way ... where did you read upon the TTD?

Axis Kast wrote: By the way ... where did you read upon the TTD?

Here's some weblinks.

quick info

piccy

The rest came from reference books.

Rob Wilson wrote:
Technically not true. The TTD has a laser suppression system that launches smoke grenades into the path of a detected laser disrupting the beam. Of course hardly any TTD's exist, but S.A. does have them and they incorporate active defence systems (primitive admittedly, but they are there).

That sounds like a crappy version of the Russian Shtora-1. No IR searclights to dazzle incoming optically tracked SACLOS missiles? (TOW, Konkurs etc).

That first website's nice because the author puts some national names to the obsecure vehicles, things like "Buffel" or "Yestervark". Unfortunately, it's meant to suppliment a role-playing game. Some of the information contained therein references the so-called "Twilight Wars," a conflict in the imagined future.

Considering that the information about the active-defense system doesn't check out with other sources - unless your books mention them -, I'd say this is a reference to the game rather than reality.

Axis Kast wrote:That first website's nice because the author puts some national names to the obsecure vehicles, things like "Buffel" or "Yestervark". Unfortunately, it's meant to suppliment a role-playing game. Some of the information contained therein references the so-called "Twilight Wars," a conflict in the imagined future.

Considering that the information about the active-defense system doesn't check out with other sources - unless your books mention them -, I'd say this is a reference to the game rather than reality.

My info came from books. I found that website after you asked for some info. The book is too bulky to properly fit in my crappy scanner, so it was easier to find a website with the relevant info. The info on the TTD is limited on there, but accurate (the 140mm gun is suspect though as I can't find any reference in my books for it). But the active measures are correct.

Vympel wrote:
That sounds like a crappy version of the Russian Shtora-1. No IR searclights to dazzle incoming optically tracked SACLOS missiles? (TOW, Konkurs etc).

If only a smoke screen could obscure a tank from vision, then Optically guided missiles would have a harder time hitting them.

Of course you need to deploy the smoke-screen on warning of a missile launch, but there are ways to detect that. Why on earth use IR spotlights when you can obscure the enemies vision with smoke (especially as most SACLOS systems need to hit the sides to have a chance against modern tanks unless they let them get real close.

My info came from books. I found that website after you asked for some info. The book is too bulky to properly fit in my crappy scanner, so it was easier to find a website with the relevant info. The info on the TTD is limited on there, but accurate (the 140mm gun is suspect though as I can't find any reference in my books for it). But the active measures are correct.

Which book listed the active-defense system?

Can you provide the quotation, please?

Rob Wilson wrote:
If only a smoke screen could obscure a tank from vision, then Optically guided missiles would have a harder time hitting them.

Of course you need to deploy the smoke-screen on warning of a missile launch, but there are ways to detect that. Why on earth use IR spotlights when you can obscure the enemies vision with smoke

The Shtora-1 uses laser-warners, IR-obscurant smoke grenade launchers *together* with IR spotlights, not just IR spotlights. The reason you put IR spotlights as well is because smoke isn't as useful against optically tracked weapons as it is against laser weapons- the presence of a human operator means there's still a chance he can direct the missile into the tank, notwithstanding the smoke from the grenades- either because he's got good eye-sight, or the coverage of the smoke is not optimal, or whatever. IR emitters create a large hot spot which fool the SACLOS missile into catastrophically missing. It also saves the special anti-laser smoke grenades for the laser guided missiles.

(especially as most SACLOS systems need to hit the sides to have a chance against modern tanks unless they let them get real close.

Distance isn't relevant to anti-tank missiles- the penetration is the same from any distance.

Vympel wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:
If only a smoke screen could obscure a tank from vision, then Optically guided missiles would have a harder time hitting them.

Of course you need to deploy the smoke-screen on warning of a missile launch, but there are ways to detect that. Why on earth use IR spotlights when you can obscure the enemies vision with smoke

The Shtora-1 uses laser-warners, IR-obscurant smoke grenade launchers *together* with IR spotlights, not just IR spotlights. The reason you put IR spotlights as well is because smoke isn't as useful against optically tracked weapons as it is against laser weapons- the presence of a human operator means there's still a chance he can direct the missile into the tank, notwithstanding the smoke from the grenades- either because he's got good eye-sight, or the coverage of the smoke is not optimal, or whatever. IR emitters create a large hot spot which fool the SACLOS missile into catastrophically missing. It also saves the special anti-laser smoke grenades for the laser guided missiles.

Having fired MILAN I can tell you that smoke works just fine, the travel time to target is less than 6 seconds and the prescence of smoke and a moving target at range can very easily lead to misses (that's why Laser guided missiles were developed in the first place). Next up, any smoke grenade from those carried by Infantryman to the specialist Anti- TI phosperous ones carried by tanks (the only specialist smoke grenades they have) will obscure a Laser beam. The Smoke agent burns dirty, ensuring particulates in the Smoke in the case of ordinary Smoke Grenades, these plus the heavy covering of smoke ensures a scatter of a laser beam deriding if not removing it's accuracy.

Anything esle wrong you'd care to tell me about my old job?

Vympel wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:(especially as most SACLOS systems need to hit the sides to have a chance against modern tanks unless they let them get real close.

Distance isn't relevant to anti-tank missiles- the penetration is the same from any distance.

But the closer you are the less time for the protection systems to start jamming your Optics/ruin your shot. PLus the closer they are the better the chance of a hit to the turret ring as you can see it better, at range you aim for the turret sides or tracks to ensure a clean hit.

Or did you really think I was talking about armour protection?

Axis Kast wrote:

My info came from books. I found that website after you asked for some info. The book is too bulky to properly fit in my crappy scanner, so it was easier to find a website with the relevant info. The info on the TTD is limited on there, but accurate (the 140mm gun is suspect though as I can't find any reference in my books for it). But the active measures are correct.

Which book listed the active-defense system?

Can you provide the quotation, please?

Janes Tanks & Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide

"Laser-detection and counter-measure system, implementing Smoke dischargers."

That's it in full, and the only way you can directionally discharge smoke is smoke grenades (can you imagine if they tried to use the engine exhaust system? ), so I mentioned those.

Rob Wilson wrote:
Having fired MILAN I can tell you that smoke works just fine, the travel time to target is less than 6 seconds and the prescence of smoke and a moving target at range can very easily lead to misses (that's why Laser guided missiles were developed in the first place). Next up, any smoke grenade from those carried by Infantryman to the specialist Anti- TI phosperous ones carried by tanks (the only specialist smoke grenades they have) will obscure a Laser beam. The Smoke agent burns dirty, ensuring particulates in the Smoke in the case of ordinary Smoke Grenades, these plus the heavy covering of smoke ensures a scatter of a laser beam deriding if not removing it's accuracy.

Anything esle wrong you'd care to tell me about my old job?

You smarmy bastard, you were a sniper ! Seriously though, I wasn't presuming to tell you your job, the point I was making was that IR spotlights together with smoke grenades and laser warners were better than just laser warners and smoke grenades- the conditions on the battlefield may very well lead to misses, or they may not, depending on the skill of the operator- better to almost definitely send the missile diving into the ground or off into the blue yonder, and save smoke grenades while you're at it. In regards to the grenades, from what I gather, the Shtora grenades are specially designed to degrade laser beams, though I don't know if they're different grenades from those that normally equip FSU tanks- I'd assume they'd do a better job.

(The IR spotlights also double as the active illumination for an image intensification system, as only a portion of the few T-90 tanks in Russian service have TI- ever practical yet sadly behind the times)

But the closer you are the less time for the protection systems to start jamming your Optics/ruin your shot. PLus the closer they are the better the chance of a hit to the turret ring as you can see it better, at range you aim for the turret sides or tracks to ensure a clean hit.

Or did you really think I was talking about armour protection?

I won't lie, I really did think that- brain fart.

Janes Tanks & Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide

"Laser-detection and counter-measure system, implementing Smoke dischargers."

That's it in full, and the only way you can directionally discharge smoke is smoke grenades (can you imagine if they tried to use the engine exhaust system? ), so I mentioned those.

Which one? I own three of the things, and they say not a word on counter-measures.

Also - Vympel, don't many tanks have IR spotlights for night-fighting? Or are they all for anti-missile defense?

Axis Kast wrote:

Janes Tanks & Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide

"Laser-detection and counter-measure system, implementing Smoke dischargers."

That's it in full, and the only way you can directionally discharge smoke is smoke grenades (can you imagine if they tried to use the engine exhaust system? ), so I mentioned those.

Which one? I own three of the things, and they say not a word on counter-measures.

3? But there's only ever been 2 editions. However there have been 3 editions of 'Janes Recognition Guide - Tanks and Combat Vehicles Recognition Handbook' and I'm betting that's what you have - about $25, rectangular, Page per vehicle (compressed stats and history), So thick it could be substituted for a brick, laughingly refered to as pocket versions (if your pocket is the size of a daysack )?

Yes I have one of those as well. They are the digest versions of the bigger books I have. Seriously get yourself down to a library and see if they have a copy of the Big versions.

Rob Wilson wrote: 3? But there's only ever been 2 editions. However there have been 3 editions of 'Janes Recognition Guide - Tanks and Combat Vehicles Recognition Handbook' and I'm betting that's what you have - about $25, rectangular, Page per vehicle (compressed stats and history), So thick it could be substituted for a brick, laughingly refered to as pocket versions (if your pocket is the size of a daysack )?

Well I never. Just did a search of the Net to get pics of all 3 of the digest versions and what do i find? The 3rd edition of them is simply titled 'Jane's Tanks and Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide' and is square. Still not as detailed as the ones I'm refering to but is more upto date (last edition of my books was 2000). What does it have for the TTD in that? (I'll have to go out and buy it myself, as it appears they aren't going to sell the larger ones anymore )

Vympel wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote: Anything esle wrong you'd care to tell me about my old job?

You smarmy bastard, you were a sniper !

Sniper was a skill I had (snipers can be detached and given individual roles when required), I was still an Infantry soldier and the unit I was in did have an Anti-Tank role tasking for a while.

Vympel wrote:Seriously though, I wasn't presuming to tell you your job,

I didn't think you were, hence the at the end.

Vympel wrote: the point I was making was that IR spotlights together with smoke grenades and laser warners were better than just laser warners and smoke grenades- the conditions on the battlefield may very well lead to misses, or they may not, depending on the skill of the operator- better to almost definitely send the missile diving into the ground or off into the blue yonder, and save smoke grenades while you're at it. In regards to the grenades, from what I gather, the Shtora grenades are specially designed to degrade laser beams, though I don't know if they're different grenades from those that normally equip FSU tanks- I'd assume they'd do a better job.

The problem with IR Spotlights is that they make you a shining beacon for anyone with a TI sight (like NATO tanks ) also they are so over-the-top as a defense it's ludicrous, especially when the addition of a filter to the front of a MIRA makes them utterly useless (unless they hit the exact spectrum bandwidth for the IR light from the back of the missile ). Smoke does the job perfectly well.

Think of the Soviets as the troubled trader at a marketplace. His items don't last as long as others, don't have the tech specs of others, but he needs to sell them to make any money. So he adds glitz and glamour to them in order to help them sell. Got a surplus of IR spotlights that are near useless on the modern battlefield? Got some smoke grenades? Then why not make your item look really special by adding one to the other and calling it an upgrade?

As to the grenades... Tank smoke grenades actually burn dirtier than the Infantry versions (they pack in more, but want it to cover a larger area faster so they ensure a large portion of the powder agent doesn't start to burn until it's actaully a fair distance from the grenade - therefore there is a significantly larger amount of particulates and the smoke screen tends to be much thicker over a larger volume. I'm guessing the soviets just put some small pieces of metallic foil in the grenade and claimed it would reflect the Laser away... unfortunately to make that fit in (if that's what they did) they have to remove some of the Smoke agent, plus the amount of foil when dispersed has to follow the N Squared law so the larger the volume it is dispersed in the larger the gaps between the foil - meaning the chances of a Laser striking foil is small and the real deterrent (smoke) is actually thinner. A literal case of trying to fool buyers with 'Smoke and Mirrors'.

I'm hoping that isn't what they've done, but you never know.

Vympel wrote:(The IR spotlights also double as the active illumination for an image intensification system, as only a portion of the few T-90 tanks in Russian service have TI- ever practical yet sadly behind the times)

What a brilliant idea, turn on a torch in a dark field and let everyone with eye's shoot at you. No wonder they have to add gimmicks to their tanks to make them sell. Hopefully they will get some TI sights on their tanks soonest.

I have a handful of the guides.

The only one that mentions the TTD specifically (the others stop at cursory mention of the Olifant 2 or even the Olifant Mk 1B) is a new, flimsy book by a company other than Jane's. "Modern Tanks and Combat Vehicles" or something. But it says absolutely nothing of an active-defense system. Can you please pull the quote for me?

Axis Kast wrote:I have a handful of the guides.

The only one that mentions the TTD specifically (the others stop at cursory mention of the Olifant 2 or even the Olifant Mk 1B) is a new, flimsy book by a company other than Jane's. "Modern Tanks and Combat Vehicles" or something. But it says absolutely nothing of an active-defense system. Can you please pull the quote for me?

It's already up, that was it in total in the listing of TTD equipment.

Who does the other book? It's about time I started to update my reference books (The most upto date one I have is a in-house Ballistics report from H&K and that's 2001 ). I'll probably restart my subscription to Jane's Defence Weekly as well, get access to their site and see if I can't find something in the archives on the TTD (should be more indepth and help out a bit more). Though that will obviously take a while - remind me in February if i don't PM you before then.