Figured I'd open a topic here, at the very least for suggestions and collaborations on alternate camo schemes. I've seen a handful of pictures, but I'd be damned if I can find them now. Alternately, any suggestions that might be suggested for T-72 related projects. I was originally going to put up a T-90 thread, then I figured why not go for the T-72 as well, but hey.
I'm just trying to find something other than the tan/brown or tan/green camo right now, my T-90 is sitting half started, and I don't want to work more because I want to make an interesting looking camo. Anybody has a profile suggestion, go ahead and drop it here too.
Berlin Brigade? That always looks good. :) Or one of the Scandinavian winter camo schemes (Finnish maybe?).
How about a Kenyan one? A friend e-mailed me a TV report about a Ukrainian freighter that was hijacked off the coast of Somalia. It was carrying 30 MBTs and was on the way to Kenya. Don't know whether these tanks (no further type specified, but I'd assume it's something T-72...) were supposed to be for the Kenyan Army, but their Vickers Mk3s sur ecould use replacement.
So how about an East African T-72? :thumbsup:
Something appropriate for jungle use?
Regards,
Greg
Well, I got it in my head last night for a scheme to use, and it's mostly an urban-style colour pattern I'm going to be applying - light grey base, dark green, and because I just got it and haven't used it, German Field Grey. I'll give that a test run on the hull before I go ahead and declare it a success, I'll snap a shot and get opinions as well.
If anybody we have on the board wants to pop me a Kenyan scheme idea, I might just go for that too. I'm not sure I have colours on hand suitable for a Berlin Brigade scheme though. Jungle scheme sounds interesting, I might apply that on my TOS-1, after all, that thing's thermobaric warheads would be quite useful in a jungle for clearing chunks of heavily wooded terrain in short order.
Alright, first paint coat's down, I'll clean it up if I decide to keep it up, there's a few gaps in it. Green and Field Grey blend a little too much, unless you pay attention, so it has an interesting shadowing effect on the green because of the close darkness of the colours.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe58%2FSauragnmon%2FT-90HullPaintjob1.jpg&hash=90fcdecf7eaf7402075538ba4b31f56d0aa91f48)
Thoughts, questions, comments, queries, rude remarks welcome.
I have had this project in my wish list for years. But some did it already and very WELL indeed: :banghead: :blink:
Here is 1/72 model of this tank, built by one Russian modeller with some parts of Revell T-80:
http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=3016
http://www.dishmodels.ru/gshow.htm?p=3017
Now I do not realy get into things that do not have wings, but I do recognise one Hell of a tank when I see one.
Please will somebody do a kit so I can WhIf it.
JimB
Outstanding! and in 1/72?!?! :bow:
Wow!
As is always the case with such extensive scratchbuilt details it seems a damn shame to put paint on all that work!
Nicely done! Thanks for sharing the link to it.
Madoc
He put raised rivets on a 1/72nd..... :blink: :blink: :blink:
Lovely piece of work! :wub:
Wow! :o Awesome! :bow:
EDIT: Thinking about "Black Eagle", I remembered they were referenced in "Total War 2006" by Simon Pearson. Google promptly came up with this: T-100 "BLACK EAGLE" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eagle_tank). It seems it was a prototype for a new MBT for the Russian Army.
Damn fine work!
Reards,
Greg
Take the Slovakian T-72M1 Moderna and the Ukrainian T-72-120 MBTs.
Do both tanks still base their modification on stock T-72 turret?
I was originally planning to at Logan Harke's Geriatric Military thread do a "kitbashing", combining the T-72M1 Moderna's twin 20mm cannons together with T-72-120's 120mm gun and bustle autoloader...... would be easier to imagine if both "sources of parts" are straightforward modifications of stock T-72 turrets......
Does anyone know the turret ring size of the T-72?
Hum...... what if the Leopard 2 turret can be as GTX suggested installed onto T-72 hull? It'll look a lot like the Indian Tank-EX if the A4 turret is used.
Speaking of which, Tank-EX was quite an interesting item, too...... I've always found the idea of using turrets of an elite indigenous or import tank to upgrade relatively aging ones to be infinitely cool. Ajeya MK2 looks too plain for me. ;D
Recently I revisited the Enigma armour upgrade for the Iraqi T-55 and Type 59/69 (which sounded tough, being able to withstand multiple ATGM hits)...... and wondered if such an armour array would have improved the survivability of the T-72 as well.
The Enigma armours certainly looked the part though. :tank:
While researching another subject I found this odd looking T-72 derivative
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi016.radikal.ru%2F0811%2F00%2Ff6e66525c7be.jpg&hash=6ada5eaf6fee4a17890cbc0f4fd989cb8af0ab8a)
(source page for the above image (http://yomi.mobi/read.cgi/army/anchorage_army_1233743932/a))
Link to the same image on a different web page (http://i016.radikal.ru/0811/00/f6e66525c7be.jpg)
T-72 with 140mm gun???!!! :blink: :o Where do you put the 2 crew members that were in the old turrent??? :huh:
Very Interesting.
Quote from: Fulcrum on January 08, 2010, 11:54:17 PM
T-72 with 140mm gun???!!! :blink: :o Where do you put the 2 crew members that were in the old turrent??? :huh:
Somewhere below the turret ring maybe.
Quote from: Fulcrum on January 08, 2010, 11:54:17 PM
T-72 with 140mm gun???!!! :blink: :o Where do you put the 2 crew members that were in the old turrent??? :huh:
Very Interesting.
Funny, i thought the Germans were upgrading to 140mm on the Leo because the Russians are upgrading to 152mm... :huh:
Some real world T-72 proposals:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FT72120.jpg&hash=ad04cf27a1c00d23d9c34c95a205cf769bb1c393)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FT72120pics.jpg&hash=fa166514c3fa68d15d22b96616ccc1d53a0f0e60)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FT72IFVspec.jpg&hash=cfdf0f25b257e8f75dc12436a9cbc82082a56b0b)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FArtic%2FT72IFVpics.jpg&hash=724d494c1b1c851ff2693f3cb490a3a410adb581)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: B787 on January 09, 2010, 09:13:49 AM
Quote from: Fulcrum on January 08, 2010, 11:54:17 PM
T-72 with 140mm gun???!!! :blink: :o Where do you put the 2 crew members that were in the old turrent??? :huh:
Very Interesting.
Funny, i thought the Germans were upgrading to 140mm on the Leo because the Russians are upgrading to 152mm... :huh:
No, NATO had planned to upgrade to 140mm in the gun/armour race during the Cold War. The fear being of course that the WARPACT was going to go to even better armoured MBTs than the T-80 represented. As the 120mm gun was found to have problems penetrating the T-72 with conventional in use ammunition, it was felt that a larger calibre and higher MV weapon was needed. The reason why they needed to go to 140mm was because of the need to have a high velocity and the only way that could be achieved in a reasonable length barrel was to increase the chamber and hence bore size to allow a great enough volume for propellant and its efficient burning. This in turn, of course drove the need then for an autoloader, as the 140mm rounds were considered too large for most loaders to load efficiently and quickly enough over a sustained amount of time. So, coupled with demographic problems in Western Europe (as the Baby-boom generation grew up), that drove the change to a smaller crew and as now, no longer were big, burly, strong men required to load the gun, women could be more easily employed. This would then have allowed the armoured volume to be reduced (no six foot tall men loading the gun, standing beside it) and so the armour thickness could in turn be increased and so that in turn would have forced the WARPACT to a larger gun calibre of their own. However, it should be noted that the loss of the loader from the vehicle would have require the supply train of the armoured units to actually increase in size as the extra crewman would still be required for day-to-day maintenance tasks and guard duty.
That Infantry T-72 is fascinating. :thumbsup:
It's kind of a shame that the IFV configuration appears to be practical only for the 125mm-gun-armed model with carousel autoloader.
The turret bustle of the 120mm-gun-armed model would likely block the infantry hatches......
I seem to remember seeing something on utube about a prototype AFV designed as a support vehicle armed with a 35 mm auto cannon SAMs and ATGMs after experiance in Grozny. But I cannot remember which hull it was on - might have been a T-80.
Quote from: Taiidantomcat on March 06, 2010, 04:10:25 PM
That Infantry T-72 is fascinating. :thumbsup:
Rather pointless though. The vehicle is intended to be an MBT, not an IFV. Exactly what are the infantry meant to do? Dismount over the top of the tank and then assault the enemy's position? Three isn't a large enough number to be worthwhile. Closed down in that sightless box, they'd be badly disoriented after some sharp maneauvring (you have no idea how bad it is in a normal APC/IFV, let alone an MBT) and not much use at all. They look to me like three more dead soldiers if/when the tank brews up.
Quote from: rickshaw on March 08, 2010, 03:26:54 AM
The vehicle is intended to be an MBT, not an IFV. Exactly what are the infantry meant to do?
The Eastern-bloc MBT-based IFV concept was said to be born following the experience of Chechen Wars (where Russia's then-current lineup of IFVs and APCs were judged to be even more vulnerable to enemy anti-tank teams in urban combat scenarioes than MBTs). The MBT-based IFVs are meant to be another type of tank escorts, the infantry being there to provide close-in protection to the MBT formations that the IFVs are a part of.
I wonder if the concept would also make good heavily-armed scouts though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80
Thinking in a T-80 hull with a western turret...
I think I remember reading that the turret ring diametre of the T-80 is like 2500mm, so anything is possible after some re-engineering IMHO. :thumbsup:
Is the turret of the Ukrainian T-72-120 project (which uses a bustle autoloader) to be a reconditioned old one with the autoloader refitted/welded/mounted/however-it's-added or a newly-built one with the autoloader already integrated?
There's a fairly recent issue of Military Modelling (UK) which has a couple of conversions into IFV/Engineers vehicles; like what the Israelis did to theirs, but Russian-made.
Makes sense, from an economic- and resource-based point of view; why build something new, when you have a mountain of surplus chassis?
Cheers
Rick
Quote from: Taiidantomcat on March 06, 2010, 04:10:25 PM
That Infantry T-72 is fascinating. :thumbsup:
I wonder if the engine can be rotated (with appropriate change of gearing scheme as it still has to drive the sprockets) such that its compartment can be offset to one side, leaving the other side dedicated to the troop compartment equipped with a rear door (like the Achzarit) and therefore allowing for the use of T-72-120 turret.
Might need an even more compact engine for the baseline T-72-120 first though. And the infantry cannot just lean out of some roof hatch (the turret bustle autoloader could get in the way, making any roof hatch rather less meaningful in the first place) to function; they will have to dismount when they are needed in any way.
EDIT: It seems the BTMP-84 is already to use a rear door.
Remember that the Achzarit doesn't just have a rear door, it also has a long elevating roof panel so that the infantry can get enough head clearance to get over the gearbox casing at the back. That might cause a problem with a big overhaning turret.
You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you? :unsure:
Quote from: rickshaw on August 09, 2010, 02:53:00 AM
You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you? :unsure:
That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.
Cheers,
Logan
Quote from: Weaver on August 09, 2010, 12:27:59 AM
Remember that the Achzarit doesn't just have a rear door, it also has a long elevating roof panel so that the infantry can get enough head clearance to get over the gearbox casing at the back. That might cause a problem with a big overhaning turret.
So I can be a slow thinker at times- that could explain why the Ukrainian ideas either raise the aft hull roof or use hull roof hatches for access altogether...... :banghead:
Is this an Oplot or a Yatagan?
There seem to be some space between the box structure (which would likely house an autoloader if the tank is a Yatagan) of the turret rear and the hull top...... not that I'm sure if it'd offer enough of a clearance for the raised aft hull roof.
Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 09, 2010, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on August 09, 2010, 02:53:00 AM
You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you? :unsure:
That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.
Cheers,
Logan
Even the Israelis with their Acharet make it real hard to get out of the vehicle. I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.military-today.com%2Fapc%2Ftemsah.jpg&hash=3042216a0c503a59ecb9a8ee2dc6cdde81acf3c1)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.military-today.com%2Fapc%2Ftemsah_l6.jpg&hash=5bbc7ac4aaa92bcbd8bfd75a75cacce2bc929ada)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.military-today.com%2Fapc%2Ftemsah_l2.jpg&hash=b1b5be4275250ba087df4fd34a5d970e1dbc72f1)
Quote from: rickshaw on August 10, 2010, 02:58:37 AM
Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 09, 2010, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on August 09, 2010, 02:53:00 AM
You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you? :unsure:
That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.
Even the Israelis with their Acharet make it real hard to get out of the vehicle. I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.
Sure, but at least the Israeli HAPCs were tough and well-protected. Before that they tended to favor the lightly armored, but easily disembarked APCs like the M3 Halftrack and M113. The Cold War Red Army APCs and IFVs were generally that deadly combination of lightly armored and tough to get out of. You had the BTR-50 that required you to go "over the side" Tarawa-style. You had the revolutionary BMP that at least had doors at the back, but no ramp and the doors were filled with fuel. Then you had the wheeled BTR-60/70/80 that just had hatches on the sides...little ones. The infantry always seemed to be an afterthought.
Cheers,
Logan
Quote from: rickshaw on August 10, 2010, 02:58:37 AM
I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.
Temsah has its chassis adjusted for a layout more traditional of a Western APC...... actually, I found it almost like a Merkava without the tank turret.
The BMP's doors were not always filled with fuel - they were auxiliary tanks used for range extension, and if you consider, they could in theory add some degree of protection against chemical-energy warheads due to the large space within to disperse blast energy while empty. The lack of a ramp is seriously not that bad, the rise is only a couple of feet anyways. As to the BTR's, only the 60 had the top exit hatches - the 70 had low-mounted access hatches between the second and third axles, and the 80 has a two-piece hatch in that position. The 70 had firing ports on the upper side.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on August 10, 2010, 09:32:28 AM
The BMP's doors were not always filled with fuel - they were auxiliary tanks used for range extension, and if you consider, they could in theory add some degree of protection against chemical-energy warheads due to the large space within to disperse blast energy while empty. The lack of a ramp is seriously not that bad, the rise is only a couple of feet anyways. As to the BTR's, only the 60 had the top exit hatches - the 70 had low-mounted access hatches between the second and third axles, and the 80 has a two-piece hatch in that position. The 70 had firing ports on the upper side.
Well aware of all these things, but that space was typically filled with fuel, and certainly would have been in any Cold War gone hot scenario, as the BMPs were part of a mechanized force designed for breakthroughs. Furthermore, the main tank is between you and your buddy at your back--right in the middle of the troop compartment. Add to all that the fact that it is incredibly cramped, and you can see that the infantry stuffed inside of those coffins were not in a great position.
With the BTRs, the BTR-70/80's hatches aren't much better. I'd rather be in the back of a Saracen or OT-64 any day. Again, the Red Army didn't place the same value on the individual infantryman that other armies did and it's reflected in their AFV design.
Cheers,
Logan
Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 10, 2010, 10:45:22 AM
Furthermore, the main tank is between you and your buddy at your back--right in the middle of the troop compartment. Add to all that the fact that it is incredibly cramped, and you can see that the infantry stuffed inside of those coffins were not in a great position.
I've come under the impression that most IFVs have their turret located right next to the fighting compartment and that the problem lies as to their armours being sufficient or not to begin with.
Of course the cramped interiors of the BMPs made the problem worse since they'd hamper passangers' ability to bail out when the vehicles are in danger of exploding.
A good picture of the Soviet Heavy Tank in C&C: Red Alert.
Looks kinda based on hull of the T-80 hull and turret of the predecessor T-64, but since the game manual speaks of the equivalent firepower of two 105mm guns, that's in real-life terms two 115mm?
Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 10, 2010, 07:30:25 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on August 10, 2010, 02:58:37 AM
Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 09, 2010, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on August 09, 2010, 02:53:00 AM
You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you? :unsure:
That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.
Even the Israelis with their Acharet make it real hard to get out of the vehicle. I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.
Sure, but at least the Israeli HAPCs were tough and well-protected. Before that they tended to favor the lightly armored, but easily disembarked APCs like the M3 Halftrack and M113. The Cold War Red Army APCs and IFVs were generally that deadly combination of lightly armored and tough to get out of. You had the BTR-50 that required you to go "over the side" Tarawa-style. You had the revolutionary BMP that at least had doors at the back, but no ramp and the doors were filled with fuel. Then you had the wheeled BTR-60/70/80 that just had hatches on the sides...little ones. The infantry always seemed to be an afterthought.
Cheers,
Logan
Remember, the requirements have changed. Originally an APC was merely a battlefield taxi, designed to move infantry around and offer light protection against small arms and shell fragments. The infantry dismounted before the objective and were supported onto it by the APC's (usually) MMG/HMG and other armour. Then the Soviets decided to introduce the MICV with the BMP-1 which was designed to carry the infantry onto and if necessary past the objective and they were to fight mounted, protected against NBC environments. Neither was intended to be able to survive an MBT or ATGM. Then came the need for a HAPC - something that could keep up with the tanks (afterall, they were suddenly more mobile than the MICVs) and offer similar levels of protection. So, it really is a bit much to try and compare an early APC to a HAPC or even an MICV.
The infantry weren't an afterthought, they were the purpose and each and every design though was a compromise like all AFVs. The BMP-1 was small and cramped but it was a revolutionary leap over the APC which preceded it. The HAPC similarly is a revolutionary leap over the MICV.
Quote from: dy031101 on August 10, 2010, 09:02:39 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on August 10, 2010, 02:58:37 AM
I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.
Temsah has its chassis adjusted for a layout more traditional of a Western APC...... actually, I found it almost like a Merkava without the tank turret.
Of course it has been "adjusted". What do you expect it do, have a tank turret as well as carry infantry? Its better to have a properly designed tank and a properly designed HAPC than something that is neither Arthur or Martha and does neither job properly.
Now, if you want a really badly designed APC like vehicle, I don't think you can go past the BMP-3.
Quote from: rickshaw on September 07, 2010, 02:18:18 AM
Remember, the requirements have changed. Originally an APC was merely a battlefield taxi, designed to move infantry around and offer light protection against small arms and shell fragments. The infantry dismounted before the objective and were supported onto it by the APC's (usually) MMG/HMG and other armour. Then the Soviets decided to introduce the MICV with the BMP-1 which was designed to carry the infantry onto and if necessary past the objective and they were to fight mounted, protected against NBC environments. Neither was intended to be able to survive an MBT or ATGM. Then came the need for a HAPC - something that could keep up with the tanks (afterall, they were suddenly more mobile than the MICVs) and offer similar levels of protection. So, it really is a bit much to try and compare an early APC to a HAPC or even an MICV.
The infantry weren't an afterthought, they were the purpose and each and every design though was a compromise like all AFVs. The BMP-1 was small and cramped but it was a revolutionary leap over the APC which preceded it. The HAPC similarly is a revolutionary leap over the MICV.
Where does that leave modern IFVs like the CV90 or Puma which seem able to keep up with the tanks? Are IFVs simply rebranded MICVs without the rifle firing ports? Are IFVs the new non-heavy APC? Or are they just passé?
The CV90/Puma and other heavy MICVs/IFVs are a bit under-armoured to be considered HAPCs. They're at the top end of the traditional APC/MICV/IFV scale. Real HAPCs are converted or purpose built MBT hulls and offer both the increased agility of the newer MBTs and their armoured protection.
Agreed. The Puma is the heavier end of IFVs but no one would confuse it for an HAPC. My question was more as to the current theoretical status of MICV/IFVs. In other words, does the conventional wisdom that IFVs can accompany tanks stand (despite their armour being lighter than HAPCs)? [Sorry if this is straying too far from the topic at hand.]
Quote from: apophenia on September 08, 2010, 12:24:21 PM
Agreed. The Puma is the heavier end of IFVs but no one would confuse it for an HAPC. My question was more as to the current theoretical status of MICV/IFVs. In other words, does the conventional wisdom that IFVs can accompany tanks stand (despite their armour being lighter than HAPCs)? [Sorry if this is straying too far from the topic at hand.]
They'll be able to accompany them but as to whether or not they'll survive the experience is another thing entirely. A HAPC has a much better chance of doing both. ;)
Back to the topic of MBT applications:
Wikipedia states that a prototype of T-64 was built with heavier armours (160mm at their thickest) and a 122mm cannon to demonstrate the tank's firepower and protection potential to be brought to heavy tank class. I think I've found a picture here (http://legion.wplus.net/img.shtml?img=/guide/army/ta/430-1.jpg).
I wonder if the 130mm gun M-65 tested on Object 279 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obyekt_279) and Object 770 (http://www.moddb.com/groups/tanks/images/object-770) heavy tanks would have been a better choice (I couldn't find info on that 130mm gun except for a Wikipedia entry stating that it fires APDS rounds at a muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s) though before the advent of the 125mm gun......
(I'd also assume that the autoloader would likely be designed to accommodate this calibre instead if the M-65 was utilized......)
For a more-recent example, the T-80 formed the basis of a 152mm-gun-armed tank (http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/24710.html).
Browsing over the internet a couple of hours ago, I ran across an archived discussion about Merkava. It was said that, while the superior protection afforded to the Merkava's fighting compartment is a quality appreciated by many countries, the tank also contains a lot of features optimised for Israel's tactical-strategic and industrial realities, features Israel is unwilling to and cannot change without diverting industrial resources from maintaining her own frontline troops. And that meant no export of Merkava tanks so far.
So what if Ukraine incorporates some of the concepts behind Merkava into their export T-72 and T-84: take both tanks' chassis and reverse them, in effect adding the engine to the frontal protection of the fighting compartment?
Also since we mentioned BMT-72 and BTMP-84, make part of the onboard useable space re-configurable like the Merkava, so instead of seperate infantry-carrying tank escort variants, we have the evolved T-72 and T-84 that can be configured to accommodate infantry escort when such a need arises but normally are 100% MBT. And then add a high-elevation automatic grenade launcher to the turret if one wants to give the tanks a further measure of fighting back in urban combat environment......
Possibility. T-72/80 are a bit cramped for most western armies. Hull is a bit low. I refer you to this discussion:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,29707.msg453631.html#msg453631
What if Morocco in MLU proces for their ageing T-72, decides to modify M60s -equally ageing- turrets in order to accept 125 mm gun?
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/MoroccoT72_MLU.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/7c8a8ada-c8f0-4a49-ac4c-7685828fffce)
T-90 and Merkava crossing
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/merkava_t90_x.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/e58f1c54-aee2-42c9-bc15-f72ec22af374/p/b67be61c-11c0-46ef-aca5-b6de3bd40073)
Israel could do a new Tiran option aimed for export. I would buy the bottom one.