Page 8 of 66 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161858 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 984

Thread: Egyptian Army

  1. #106
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default El-Fahda (the cheetah)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIPRI View Post
    That Saudi, UAE, Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, USA use the Fuchs (in particular the NBC recce variant) is known, that Egypt has been would be something new.

    Can the TPZ-1s on the picture be from any of the other mentioned countries being used in during some exercise in Egypt? (save for Israel of course)
    Quote Originally Posted by scimitar View Post
    Egypt is using the ABC-variant of the Fuchs
    Never found any source saying that Egypt has the Fuchs. Egypt already has it's Fahd APC, which is similar to the Fuchs.
    Some pics for the Fahd:



    [SIZE=4]During Egyptian SFOR participation:


    [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=4]Armed with BMP-2 turret:

    British and Egyptian soldiers. Front view
    [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=4][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=4] Other versions (note the number of gun ports):


    Armed with AT-4 or AT-5 (sources do not agree on a specific type):

    In IDEX 2005 or so:

    In service with the CSF (Central Security Forces[/SIZE][SIZE=4], a para military force in Egypt, Run by the ministry of interior affairs)

    Armed with BTM-308 turret:



    Mine Layer vehicle:

    Border Patrol:




    Kuwaiti service:




    Bangladesh service, patrolling Iraq-Kuwait border during UN sanctioned Peace keeping Missions:


    United Nations:

    Isn't she such a beautiful cheetah

    [/SIZE]
    Last edited by just some guy over there; 12-04-2009 at 12:23 PM. Reason: replacing images with better versions

  2. #107
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default Eifv

    Egyptian Infantry Fighting Vehicle

    [SIZE=4]Top: Egyptian modified T-62; new sighting equipments, smoke grenades, probably better ammunition, and/or British 115mm gun tube.
    Bottom: Modified T-55, up-gunned with 105mm gun firing NATO standard ammo.

    Nile-23 using Sakr Eye (Egyptian version of the Strela)
    Sinai-23 using Stingers

    Self Propelled D-30 on M109A2 chasis:

    A really old pic of T-34:

    Soldato Egyptiano

    Egyptian soldier guarding Iraqi POW's during the Egyptian participation in the first gulf war:

    SH-2G Super Sea Spirit:

    Mil Mi-17 (to identify easily, the rear rotor is to the left on the Mi-17 and to the right on the Mi-8):

    [/SIZE][SIZE=4]This one is not Egyptian, but i just love this tank

    Egyptian soldiers in Bright Star 2001:



    [/SIZE]

  3. #108

    Default

    (just soMe guy over there) I love you very Much Man
    Nice reports and beautiful Fahd.

  4. #109
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zekas View Post
    (just soMe guy over there) I love you very Much Man
    Nice reports and beautiful Fahd.
    Thanks man!

  5. #110

    Default Egyptian Whiskey Class:

    Egyptian Whiskey Class Pr.613:




    This photo represents a Whiskey Class Pr.613 in Floating Dry Dock, Ras El-Teen Naval HQ, Alexandria, Egypt - 1976 (taken by a british naval officer)

  6. #111
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,544

    Default

    I remember reading some thing about Egyptian Abrams using a French fire control system. Perhaps that is why there is that thing mounted on the gun mount in this photograph. Wikipedia says that tankers preferred the thermal imager used by the late M60A3 on the one used by the Abrams.
    BS, US never allow to mount other FCS than their own... Yeah it's true that TIS is worses than TTS but TIS is more reliabale.

    BTW now US M1 tanks have completely new FCS with much, much newer thermal sight, new FCS is called FCEU, also Autralian modified M1A1SA's got them, probably also Saudi M1A2S's and Iraqi M1A1M's got this new FCS, dunno Kuwait M1A2's and Egyptian M1A1's and M1A2's got them.

    In the other hand, maybe Arab/Muslim countries that use export "monkey" models M1 tanks don't recievie new FCS at all, or recievie it but maybe without all capabilities, who knows how many downgrades GDLS made in their tanks besides weaker armor and less capabale APFSDS ammo.

  7. #112
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    BS, US never allow to mount other FCS than their own... Yeah it's true that TIS is worses than TTS but TIS is more reliabale.

    BTW now US M1 tanks have completely new FCS with much, much newer thermal sight, new FCS is called FCEU, also Autralian modified M1A1SA's got them, probably also Saudi M1A2S's and Iraqi M1A1M's got this new FCS, dunno Kuwait M1A2's and Egyptian M1A1's and M1A2's got them.

    In the other hand, maybe Arab/Muslim countries that use export "monkey" models M1 tanks don't recievie new FCS at all, or recievie it but maybe without all capabilities, who knows how many downgrades GDLS made in their tanks besides weaker armor and less capabale APFSDS ammo.
    The only difference is that no export models have the special armor package American M1A2's and modified M1A1's have. I mean where did u get those info about downgraded ammo and fire controls?

  8. #113
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,544

    Default

    The only difference is that no export models have the special armor package American M1A2's and modified M1A1's have. I mean where did u get those info about downgraded ammo and fire controls?
    Arab countries export "monkey" models doesen't have US armor inserts, just so called export armor packadge. Ammo is also downgraded in comparision to currently used US APFSDS-T ammo, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 are less capabale to M829A2 and M829A3 but better than old M829 and M829A1. But these countries use standard US M830 and M830A1 HEAT/MPAT-T ammo.

    FCS can be downgraded, it can not have installed some components used today or designed for future use such as data link and software for future GLATGM XM1111 MRM-CE. Think about that, especially about that, US policies are not allow to sell many military tech to other countries, even NATO one's.

  9. #114
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    Arab countries export "monkey" models doesen't have US armor inserts, just so called export armor packadge. Ammo is also downgraded in comparision to currently used US APFSDS-T ammo, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 are less capabale to M829A2 and M829A3 but better than old M829 and M829A1. But these countries use standard US M830 and M830A1 HEAT/MPAT-T ammo.

    FCS can be downgraded, it can not have installed some components used today or designed for future use such as data link and software for future GLATGM XM1111 MRM-CE. Think about that, especially about that, US policies are not allow to sell many military tech to other countries, even NATO one's.
    Ok now i get what you meant.
    still, The armor package that was not exported was that one having depleted uranium plats, with classified RHA equivalence. The program started by producing M1's, then by producing M1A1's and upgrading old M1's, that included upgrading the armor, no notice was made about any downgrading. The tanks produced recently, unlike the ones in American service, do not include the SAP, but still on the same level of protection like American M1A1's without armor upgrades.
    Saying "downgraded ammo" meant some thing like what the soviets did of selling 125mm export ammo which did not include the standard amount of propellant. The newest American ammo are not in use by Egypt, and as far as i know, are still in trial phase and did not enter service in the united states yet. Review PDF's about new contracts between Egypt and General Dynamics.

  10. #115
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,544

    Default

    About armor in M1 series.

    Basic M1, M1IP (Improved Performance) and basic M1A1 got so called Burlington armor (sometimes incorrectly and popular called Chobham), also M1IP have new turret, let's call it "long" turret type 1, the frontal armor thickness was increased from 650mm LOS to 875mm LOS. The M1A1 have "long" turret type 2 with more upgrades like new blow-off panels, probably also this was first M1 model with upgraded CWS, or maybe that was M1IP? I don't remember.

    (estimated protection for M1 Burlington armor is 400mm RHAe vs. KE and 700-800mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front, for M1IP and M1A1 it is 450-500mm RHAe vs. KE and 800-990mm RHAe vs. CE)

    Then in 1987 US.Army has fielded M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) with major armor upgrade, 1st. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers (it gives estimated protection about 660-680mm RHAe vs. KE and 1080-1320mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front), it was infact probably based on older Burlington armor, just new materials like DU were added. In early 90's two new variants were fielded in US.Army and U.S.M.C., first was M1A1HC (Heavy Common) with 2nd. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers (880-900mm RHAe vs. KE and 1310-1620mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front), I think it was new armor, not based on Burlington but as I can assumpt have more common to British Dorchester armor known from FV4034 Challenger 2, as we know US and UK have very good relaitionship so cooperation in designing new technologies is more than certain. Of course there were more upgrades in this variant, like redesigned ammo racks in bustle ammo magazine, new digital engine software for better fuel economy etc. second variant was M1A1HA+ (Heavy Armor Advanced), as I believe it is only small upgrade for older tanks, in other words armor packadge from M1A1HC. But probably in later years all M1A1's in active service were upgraded to M1A1HC standard.

    M1A1HC is also base for M1A2.

    The later upgrades for M1A1 series were M1A1D (Digital) upgrade to make M1A1's more compatibile with M1A2's, but there were only 2 Bn. armed with these tanks, no more reported as I know.

    In early 2000's almost all M1A1's in US.Army and ARNG active sercie are upgraded to M1A1AIM (Abrams Integrated Management) v.1, this means zero hour-mile condition, major repairs, sometimes instalation of FBCB2-BFT system, etc.

    Now all these M1A1's are upgraded to M1A1AIM v.2 or as it is other designation M1A1SA (Situational Awerness). This means 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers (940-960mm RHAe vs. KE and 1320-1620mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front), new FCS, TIGER AGT-1500C engine, FBCB2-BFT as standard equipment, TIS for CWS, TIP and other upgrades.

    Also all M1A2's, oldest M1A1's and all (?) M1IP's will be upgraded to M1A2SEP (System Enchancement Packadge) v.1 and M1A2SEP v.2.

    This means 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers, FBCB2-EPLRS, new FCS, new hoffman batteries, upgraded AC system, and other upgrades.

    But, there is probability that M1IP's turret are not converabale to new standard, so only hulls are upgraded and turret's are new produced one's from low rate production.

    Australia bought modified M1A1SA's, there are no DU in armor, we can assumpt it is somewhere on M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2 level.

    Arab countries recieve export "monkey" models of M1A1 and M1A2 variants, we can assumpt that both export variants have same level of protection. These tanks are newer than M1A1HA from 1987, we can assumpt that their protection is similiar to M1A1HA or somewhere between M1A1HA and newer 90's variants.

    About downgrading ammo. Well it is not in pure meaning downgraded, but have less armor piercieng capabilities than US currently used APFSDS ammo. More KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 ammo have nothing common to US used M829, M829A1 and currently used M829A2 and M829A3. US use DU alloy penetrators, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 are tungsten alloy.

    Some estimations:

    US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km;
    US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm);
    US M829A2 120mm DU 730mm at 2km (1994);
    US M829A1 120mm DU 610mm at 2km (1991) (Russian estimate 700mm);
    US M829 120mm DU 552mm at 2km (1987).


    The newest American ammo are not in use by Egypt, and as far as i know, are still in trial phase and did not enter service in the united states yet. Review PDF's about new contracts between Egypt and General Dynamics.
    You mean what US newest ammo is not in use? M829A2 and M829A3 that seen combat in Iraq?

    Or you mean AKE (Advanced Kinetic Energy) sometimes called as M829E4 that when will be fielded recievie M829A4 designation or other.

    There is also AMP (Advanced Multi-Purpose) that will supercede M830A1 MPAT.

    And US never allow anybody to use their curently based ammo. But ok, you can believe in any PDF, but foreign policy is foreign policy, and for US currently ally can be in future a foe, so there is better to not gave them the best equipment that US have... the other hand is also Israel, and Israel surely don't wan't US give any Arab country the best ammo, the best tank armor packadge etc. More You can be certain, this never happen that US give anybody their best technology.

  11. #116
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    About armor in M1 series.

    Basic M1, M1IP (Improved Performance) and basic M1A1 got so called Burlington armor (sometimes incorrectly and popular called Chobham), also M1IP have new turret, let's call it "long" turret type 1, the frontal armor thickness was increased from 650mm LOS to 875mm LOS. The M1A1 have "long" turret type 2 with more upgrades like new blow-off panels, probably also this was first M1 model with upgraded CWS, or maybe that was M1IP? I don't remember.

    (estimated protection for M1 Burlington armor is 400mm RHAe vs. KE and 700-800mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front, for M1IP and M1A1 it is 450-500mm RHAe vs. KE and 800-990mm RHAe vs. CE)

    Then in 1987 US.Army has fielded M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) with major armor upgrade, 1st. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers (it gives estimated protection about 660-680mm RHAe vs. KE and 1080-1320mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front), it was infact probably based on older Burlington armor, just new materials like DU were added. In early 90's two new variants were fielded in US.Army and U.S.M.C., first was M1A1HC (Heavy Common) with 2nd. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers (880-900mm RHAe vs. KE and 1310-1620mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front), I think it was new armor, not based on Burlington but as I can assumpt have more common to British Dorchester armor known from FV4034 Challenger 2, as we know US and UK have very good relaitionship so cooperation in designing new technologies is more than certain. Of course there were more upgrades in this variant, like redesigned ammo racks in bustle ammo magazine, new digital engine software for better fuel economy etc. second variant was M1A1HA+ (Heavy Armor Advanced), as I believe it is only small upgrade for older tanks, in other words armor packadge from M1A1HC. But probably in later years all M1A1's in active service were upgraded to M1A1HC standard.

    M1A1HC is also base for M1A2.

    The later upgrades for M1A1 series were M1A1D (Digital) upgrade to make M1A1's more compatibile with M1A2's, but there were only 2 Bn. armed with these tanks, no more reported as I know.

    In early 2000's almost all M1A1's in US.Army and ARNG active sercie are upgraded to M1A1AIM (Abrams Integrated Management) v.1, this means zero hour-mile condition, major repairs, sometimes instalation of FBCB2-BFT system, etc.

    Now all these M1A1's are upgraded to M1A1AIM v.2 or as it is other designation M1A1SA (Situational Awerness). This means 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers (940-960mm RHAe vs. KE and 1320-1620mm RHAe vs. CE over turret front), new FCS, TIGER AGT-1500C engine, FBCB2-BFT as standard equipment, TIS for CWS, TIP and other upgrades.

    Also all M1A2's, oldest M1A1's and all (?) M1IP's will be upgraded to M1A2SEP (System Enchancement Packadge) v.1 and M1A2SEP v.2.

    This means 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium layers, FBCB2-EPLRS, new FCS, new hoffman batteries, upgraded AC system, and other upgrades.

    But, there is probability that M1IP's turret are not converabale to new standard, so only hulls are upgraded and turret's are new produced one's from low rate production.

    Australia bought modified M1A1SA's, there are no DU in armor, we can assumpt it is somewhere on M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2 level.

    Arab countries recieve export "monkey" models of M1A1 and M1A2 variants, we can assumpt that both export variants have same level of protection. These tanks are newer than M1A1HA from 1987, we can assumpt that their protection is similiar to M1A1HA or somewhere between M1A1HA and newer 90's variants.

    About downgrading ammo. Well it is not in pure meaning downgraded, but have less armor piercieng capabilities than US currently used APFSDS ammo. More KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 ammo have nothing common to US used M829, M829A1 and currently used M829A2 and M829A3. US use DU alloy penetrators, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 are tungsten alloy.

    Some estimations:

    US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km;
    US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm);
    US M829A2 120mm DU 730mm at 2km (1994);
    US M829A1 120mm DU 610mm at 2km (1991) (Russian estimate 700mm);
    US M829 120mm DU 552mm at 2km (1987).




    You mean what US newest ammo is not in use? M829A2 and M829A3 that seen combat in Iraq?

    Or you mean AKE (Advanced Kinetic Energy) sometimes called as M829E4 that when will be fielded recievie M829A4 designation or other.

    There is also AMP (Advanced Multi-Purpose) that will supercede M830A1 MPAT.

    And US never allow anybody to use their curently based ammo. But ok, you can believe in any PDF, but foreign policy is foreign policy, and for US currently ally can be in future a foe, so there is better to not gave them the best equipment that US have... the other hand is also Israel, and Israel surely don't wan't US give any Arab country the best ammo, the best tank armor packadge etc. More You can be certain, this never happen that US give anybody their best technology.
    What exactly is ur point writing a history review of the tank development? U know u can go to wikipedia and read about that, at least the infos there are cited.
    And no, mr.genius, i did not mean the M830A2 is not in serivce, i was talking about the XM1111 MRM-CE (go to wikipedia for more info)
    Then you come here telling me some crap about foriegn policy and that PDF's cannot be trusted...i mean ..which PDF's did u think i was talking about? Here are some examples:
    http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2016_4/Begasse.pdf
    http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease...gypt_03-27.pdf
    http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressrelease...gypt_07-65.pdf

    U know, it is really helping not to look like some one who do not know whattaheck is he talking about when u actually just try to make sure of what u write.

  12. #117
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,544

    Default

    What exactly is ur point writing a history review of the tank development? U know u can go to wikipedia and read about that, at least the infos there are cited.
    To make some things clear? Or maybe someone will learn from this. More Wikipedia is not good source of informations.

    And no, mr.genius, i did not mean the M830A2 is not in serivce, i was talking about the XM1111 MRM-CE (go to wikipedia for more info)
    What is M830A2?

    And XM1111 MRM-CE is GLATGM not APFSDS-T, and I writing about APFSDS-T ammo all the time, because it is primary anti-tank round used currently in Main Battle Tanks. Of course You right, XM1111 is still in evaluation phase and will be fielded I hope soon.

    Then you come here telling me some crap about foriegn policy and that PDF's cannot be trusted...i mean ..which PDF's did u think i was talking about? Here are some examples:
    http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2016_4/Begasse.pdf
    http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease...gypt_03-27.pdf
    http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressrelease...gypt_07-65.pdf

    U know, it is really helping not to look like some one who do not know whattaheck is he talking about when u actually just try to make sure of what u write.
    Ahh... ok then, Mea Culpa.

  13. #118
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Mother of Civilization, daughter of Africa, and wife of the Nile
    Age
    25
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    To make some things clear? Or maybe someone will learn from this. More Wikipedia is not good source of informations.



    What is M830A2?

    And XM1111 MRM-CE is GLATGM not APFSDS-T, and I writing about APFSDS-T ammo all the time, because it is primary anti-tank round used currently in Main Battle Tanks. Of course You right, XM1111 is still in evaluation phase and will be fielded I hope soon.



    Ahh... ok then, Mea Culpa.
    Wala yehemmak

    Wikipedia is not a source of information, it is a gate to the sources of information; That's to some extent the way Wikipedia describes it self.
    So when i say go to Wikipedia, i mean go see the cited info on Wikipedia, and check their sources.
    And i hope you get my point that PDF's here mean published news releases from some thing like the US department of defense.
    Sorry if my tone in the previous post has been a bit harsh. Matez3alshy

  14. #119
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,544

    Default

    Ok I can agree in some degree. But still, PDF's even from US DoD or something, are not things that we can believe in 100%, You agree with this.

  15. #120

    Default

    Maintenance dry docks for the vessels of the Egyptian Navy.




    Last edited by zekas; 12-10-2009 at 05:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •