Tag Archives: commentary

Parvusimperator Reviews the LMT MARS-L

Posted by

It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of bullpups. I don’t think that shorter overall length is worth all of the other compromises you get with bullpups, like awkward reloading and godawful triggers and no place to put accessories. I am also a huge fan of the AR-15 platform, so when the New Zealand Defence Force picked a direct-impingement AR-15 in the LMT MARS-L to replace their Steyr Augs, I was thrilled. Ecstatic even. This is also a victory for direct impingement over op-rod systems. It was a very good day. Let’s take a closer look at the MARS and see what improvements LMT has made.

The MARS-L is an offshoot of the CQB16. The biggest changes to the stock CQB16 are in the lower, which is now totally ambidextrous. Ambi safeties are easy to do, you just add a lever on the right side. With a little bit of work with a lever and cam, you can get an ambi mag release without too much trouble. The ambi bolt release requires a bit of extra work to the receiver, and there are a handful of companies out there who will make one for you, including LMT, Knight’s Armament, and Mega Arms.1 The changes are relatively minor, and while they add a couple machining steps and small parts to complete final assembly of the lower, it doesn’t substantively change any of the interfacing parts, so you can add any old upper to the ‘ambified’ lower.

In terms of the rest of the lower, it’s pretty simple. It uses LMT’s SOPMOD-pattern stock, which is an excellent choice. Most pictures I’ve seen also come with an ‘ergo grip’ which is a much better choice than the lame A2-pattern pistol grip. I’m not sure if that’s what’s being delivered to New Zealand though, or if that’s just on the display models because that’s what LMT usually uses on the rifles they build for guys like me. The trigger group is safe/semi/full auto.

The upper has a few differences from a regular M4. The most obvious is LMT’s monolithic upper. The picatinny quadrail handguard and upper receiver are one piece of aluminum, which is clearly stronger than having two separate pieces. It also looks cool, and means you never have to worry about sights getting jacked up because your handguard got knocked around or sucks. The barrel is held in place by a pair of torx screws, which makes barrel changes easy. Not that this is a big deal for most troops, but it’s still pretty cool. It does lock you in a lot more to picatinny rail interfaces on your accessories, but that’s not a bad thing. That interface isn’t going anywhere for a while–it’s got a ton of momentum and lock-in from being around for a while. A lot like the 5.56 round. Note that the regular grunts get a CQB-length (9″) handguard, and the special forces guys get a longer (12″) one. The regular grunt version has a bayonet lug mounted on the right side of the barrel. This way, it doesn’t get in the way of a grenade launcher mounted under the barrel on the quadrail.

While in the civilian world, Picatinny rails aren’t the most popular thing, and quadrails are decidedly old-school, for the military they’re still the right choice. They have lots of picatinny-rail accessories in the system already. Many of these do not have Mlok or Keymod versions, so adapters would be required. Which gets you back a bunch of weight that you got rid of by going to Mlok/Keymod. Plus, you can’t get rid of picatinny rails entirely, because optics mount to *those*. Mlok and Keymod aren’t designed to let optics retain zero after mounting/dismounting. And you can’t get a receiver with those. Plus, you can get a 40 mm grenade launcher to attach to quadrails. No such luck for Keymod or Mlok. So why bother with a bunch of redundant attachment methods. Suck up a bit of weight, and stick to quadrails, if you’re an army.

Internally, it’s got the LMT improved bolt. The Special Ops one has the LMT improved bolt carrier. I’ve already talked about these2, so I’ll just summarize and say that they are redesigned a bit to improve the life of these small parts. I like the design. Anyway, you might be wondering why not an op-rod AR design? There are a lot of those out there, and lots of people seem to like them. And that’s basically what the HK 416 is. But it doesn’t really get you anything, and it has its own downsides. Most of the HK 416’s ability to take sustained fire longer is due to the heavy barrel profile. Colt can get you almost the same thing for less trouble on your AR-15 with the SOCOM-pattern barrel used on the M4A1. More barrel, more fire. And LMT does not use lightweight barrels on their builds.

The op-rod is a conversion, and it adds issues in that you’re applying forces in ways the bolt carrier wasn’t designed to take, so it can tilt and have issues with wear. Also, the op-rod adds weight. The direct impingement system puts the ‘piston’ bit inside the bolt carrier, so there’s no op-rod to deal with. Which means no op-rod weight. Even if you’re concerned about the gas tube melting, you can beef that up a bit and still come out way ahead in the weight department. Adding an op-rod to an AR is a solution in search of a problem. Not that op-rods are bad, just design the gun from the ground up around the operating system. Like you should. Or just crib from the AR-18 design like everyone else.

But enough about technical gun engineering discussions. What does this give the Kiwis that they don’t have with their AUGs. Well, it’s replacing the Aug A1, which had a fixed 1.5x optic. This was revolutionary in the 70s when the Aug was introduced, but it’s eclipsed now by much more capable optics. The MARS can accommodate the fancy optics of today and tomorrow with it’s rail interface for adding sights. It also can mount (and comes standard with) folding backup iron sights, which is piece of mind.

Further, the conventional layout means that in recent urban warfare engagements, you can switch shoulders to take opposite corners at will without eating brass. Plus, you get a better trigger, and although we’re not talking match triggers here, godawful triggers make for politically embarrassing hits on bystanders. Just look at the NYPD’s 12 lbs pull weight triggers on their Glocks.

One more thing comes to mind, and this one isn’t thought of a lot, probably because most people don’t shoot very much. If your gun hasn’t malfunctioned, you haven’t shot it enough. Fact. And, because of where the bullpup action is, and how sealed up it has to be to keep your face safe, when a bullpup malfunctions, clearing it is a massive pain. Tearing a weapon apart on the range sucks because you’re always losing things. Have fun doing it under fire.

It’s nice to have a real-world military agree with you. Go Kiwis! Say, the MARS-L looks an awful lot like the rifle I specced out for issue.

This is the best 5.56 service carbine around, bar none. Better than the SCAR, better than the G-36, better than a regular M4, better than any lame-ass bullpup, even better than the 416. Better than the XM-8 if that was still a thing. Sorry HK. We’d take them in a heartbeat. Specifically, the regular infantry version, with the bayonet lug and shorter handguard, but we’d specify that enhanced carrier.

1.) Check out my build notes here.
2.) See my Milspec Challenge article

The FBI Selects Glock!

Posted by

The FBI has announced the results of their 9mm handgun solicitation a few days ago. Their choice is Glock!

Let’s look at some history, and see how we got here. The last time the FBI issued 9mm handguns, they were S&W 459s. These were issued to FBI SWAT men; regular agents got revolvers. J. Edgar Hoover liked revolvers. Revolvers were what cops carried. But let’s talk about the semiautomatics. The 459 had a 15 round, double-stack magazine, aluminum frame, adjustable sights, and a frame mounted safety/decocker. Trigger was a double action trigger, and it also came with a magazine disconnect, which was popular with police forces. Pretty typical 1970s-designed wondernine.

Of course, then came the 1986 Miami shootout, and the FBI decided that 9mm semiautomatics1 didn’t have enough stopping power. So they upgraded to the big 10mm Auto cartridge, in a new gun, the S&W 1076. This gun was another double action semiautomatic, again with a frame-mounted safety/decocker. But because the 10mm was much bigger, it only held nine rounds in a single-stack magazine.

The big 10mm round had no complaints about stopping power to speak of, but agents who weren’t very experienced, especially those of smaller stature, had trouble shooting the brisk-recoiling 10mm load. So the FBI went from the original Norma loading2 to the “FBI lite” load. Less recoil, more hits. And it’s the hits that count. Then someone realized that if you were happy with less powder in the cartridge, you could shorten the 10mm Auto round a bit and get something with a similar case length as a 9x19mm Luger round. Which would help a lot with having smaller agents, especially women, get a good grip on the gun. Plus, you could get back to that double-stack magazine goodness.

The result was the .40 S&W cartridge. You get double-stack magazines with slightly reduced capacity when compared to 9mm Luger, but still way better than guns chambered for 10mm Auto or .45 ACP. Great! Plus, you get a pretty hot round that’s got plenty of stopping power. So the FBI adopted this new round in a new S&W semiautomatic.

Or, you might like to think that. It would make sense. .40 S&W. They’re name’s in the cartridge designation! But no, they had their thunder stolen by that great new Austrian gunmaker, Glock, specifically the Glock 22 (full size) and Glock 23 (compact).

See, Glock actually managed to beat S&W to market with a .40. And polymer-frame Glocks are cheaper to make than S&Ws, and the guys at Glock are very effective marketers. Plus, the striker-fired trigger on a Glock only has one kind of pull, rather than the two of a double action3. So that’s what FBI agents carried.

Until now. See, bullet design was improving too, and by 2014, 9x19mm Luger hollow points weren’t giving very much up to .40 S&W or .45 ACP hollowpoints. A well designed 9mm hollowpoint4 actually performs about the same as a .40 or .45 hollowpoint in ballistics gel testing. And several police departments5 have had great results for years with well-designed 9mm hollowpoints in officer-involved shootings. And switching to 9mm means a couple more rounds in a magazine, plus less felt recoil. Less recoil means better qual scores. Everybody shoots a 9mm better than a .40, all else equal.

But the FBI could not simply ask for a different model Glock. Other companies would get upset. There would be legal challenges. So the FBI wrote a solicitation for a new 9mm handgun. And asked for a couple things they didn’t have in their current Glocks, specifically no finger grooves and an ambidextrous slide release.

The full RFP was for a Full Size gun (at least 16 round capacity, 4.26-5.2″ barrel) and a Compact gun (at least 14 round capacity, barrel length 3.75-4.25″), plus simunition and dummy training models. They wanted a beveled magwell and a lip on the front of the magazine baseplate to assist in forcibly removing a magazine from a jammed gun. Trigger pull weight between 4.5 and 6 lbs. Only striker-fired pistols were permitted.6 No grip safeties were permitted. A trigger safety was only permitted if it was in the trigger bow. Magazine catch was explicitly requested to be the pushbutton, 1911 type. No HK-style paddle releases were acceptable. No external manual safeties were permitted.7 Trijicon HD sights were preferred.

Out of the box, the SiG P320 met all of these requirements. S&W would have to change their trigger design, and probably tighten up the QC on their 9mm models. HK would need a longslide version of the VP9, longer grip for 16 or 17 round magazines, and a new mag release. Glock would have to add an ambidextrous slide release and get rid of the finger grooves. Not really insurmountable for anyone.

Of course, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room was Glock. Glock had the previous contract. And this contract wasn’t just for the FBI. A number of other government agencies would be allowed to purchase the new pistol under the new contract. Plus, a bunch of other, smaller agencies would inevitably follow the FBI’s lead. Why do a whole bunch of expensive testing yourself when the FBI has done some pretty elaborate testing of their own?

And here we are, eight months later. Not a bad turnaround time for a federal evaluation. And Glock has kept the contract. Good for them. Well, more than good for them. Great for them. I’m a huge Glock fan, so I’m thrilled in that totally irrational, ape-brain pleasing way. Someone with elaborate testing protocols has validated my purchasing decisions. Not that I had anything to do with the gun design or the testing, but yay all the same.

Cheerleading aside, what does it mean? Well, the FBI was pretty darn sensible for once. They’ve been happy with their Glocks, have plenty of armorer training for Glocks, and in general just wanted some in 9mm. And they even got a bunch of minor changes they wanted. Glock gets the big fat FBI contract, and tons of agencies will keep buying Glock.

As for you, the shooter, well if you remember my Striker-Fired Pistol Battle Royale, I told you to wait for the FBI to choose which one they liked best. Why? Because that one would get more accessories and holsters developed for it, since there’d be a guaranteed significant market share. And they chose Glock.

Of course, 65% of law enforcement agencies already carry Glocks. Glocks are already super popular. The only gun that has more accessories and things available for it than a Glock is a 1911. And none of that is changing any time soon with this contract. Glocks are still going to have giant market share, tons of accessories, and all the weird, wacky, and sometimes wonderful new things first. Glocks are still the right decision for striker-fired pistols, despite all of the new ones that have come out in the past couple of years. Here’s the one that made them popular. It’s got a phenomenal track record for reliability, and the trigger is pretty good.

So yeah. Pistol Roundup? To hell with that. I’ll have what Mr. Foxtrot, Mr. Bravo, and Mr. India are having: a Glock with Trijicon HDs. Make mine a 19.

Of course, I did pick it from the lineup first.

1.) And .38 caliber revolvers.
2.) 200 grains at a speed of 1,260 feet per second from a 5″ test barrel. Real magnum stuff.
3.) One heavy double action pull and one light single action pull. If you’ll notice, I’m not writing DA/SA, or double-action/single-action. Because it’s self-evident to any idiot who knows what double-action is that if I’m not saying double-action only then there’s a single-action mode of operation as well. DUH.
4.) If you’re looking for recommendations, my two favorite hollowpoint loads are the Speer 124 grain +P Gold Dots and the Federal 147 grain HSTs. Yes, they both pass all FBI gel tests, including the very important four-layer-denim test.
5.) The NYPD and the LAPD are two such examples. Both issue the 124 grain +P Gold Dot.
6.) Sorry Fishbreath.
7.) Sorry, again, Fishbreath. Maybe you should come over to the dark side. Join the 21st century. We have cheap magazines, plentiful sights, and slide-mounted red dots.

The AR-15 You Should Buy: The Colt 6920

Posted by

A common question I hear is “What AR-15 should I buy?” This might come from a gun owner new to the platform or someone looking to get more ARs. But fear not! Parvusimperator is here to answer this question for you. For both the new gun owner, and the guy looking to expand his collection, the right answer is the Colt 6920.

Why Colt? Why this old-school looking gun? Why not something cheaper like a DPMS? Why not something with more features people want these days like a ‘mid-length gas system’ or ‘mile-long handguards’?

We’ll get to those. First, a brief bit of background. Don’t worry, it’ll be relevant, I promise. Eugene Stoner developed the AR-15 as a follow on to the AR-10, a lightweight competitor that lost out to what would become the M-141 in the US Army’s competition for a rifle in the new 7.62x51mm caliber in 1957. The AR-15 was designed to use a small-caliber high-velocity round to maximize controllability when firing fully automatic and to be easy to aim across the ranges that infantry combat was generally expected to take place at.2 Anyway, both designs were cooked up while he was working at Armalite, hence ‘AR’, which stood for Armalite Rifle. Armalite was a small company out of Hollywood, California, and it was made to apply the latest high tech aerospace3 materials, like forged aluminum and fiberglass, to the firearms industry. The AR-15 was developed for a contract for the US Air Force’s airbase security forces, but Armalite didn’t have much in the way of manufacturing capability on their own. So they sold the design and the rights to it to Colt, who had plenty of arms manufacturing capability.

This means Colt has what’s called the Technical Data Package, or TDP. It’s the plans for the gun in the sort of nauseating detail that only engineers can appreciate. Materials list, dimensions, and crucially, tolerances. Colt has been forced to send this TDP out to other manufacturers for the process of making M4s for the US Military, but those other manufacturers are contractually forbidden from using the TDP to make guns for civilians. So only with Colt are you getting everything as you’re supposed to be. This is most important with little things involving tolerances. Everyone else can reverse engineer the dimensions, but tolerances are harder to come up with if you don’t have the plans. Which means Colt rifles are going to have a correctly sized gas port,4 among other things.

Colt makes M4s for the Army, and given the desire to not fuck up this crucial contract, they’re going to make them right. So they’re going to make your rifle right too, because it’s not worth the trouble to set up a whole new production line. What does this mean for you? Well, it means that all the critical fasteners, specifically the castle nut and the screws for the gas key are going to be properly staked. Staking is deforming a little bit of metal to prevent something from backing out. You could “just use loctite” on the castle nut, I suppose, though those threads are a trifle fine and not really suited to it. Loctite won’t work on the gas key screws though, since that’s where a ton of heat is going. And if those screws come undone, you’re gun is junk. And fine, on the range, that’s just annoying. But it could mean you’ve lost a match. Or, if you’re using the gun professionally, you could end up deader than Elvis. Don’t end up a dead loser. Stake your gas key screws. Which Colt does for you.

You’re also paying for that US Military grade QC with Colt. Which means a Colt rifle is less likely to have out of the box issues. They build their carbines right and inspect every one.

All that said, there are some downsides. The 6920 has exactly two differences from an issue M4. First, it’s got a 16″ barrel to comply with the damnable NFA laws about barrel length. Second, there’s no burst fire/autofire functionality. Those are the only differences. This means the stock is pretty basic, the pistol grip is that infernal A2 jobber that I hate, and you get boring round handguards. Fortunately, the stock and pistol grip are easy to swap out, and that’s fine, because those are intensely personal choices. The handguard contains two heat shields, as is right and proper and standard issue. But it predates all those cool accessories, and it’s not free float5. You also get a fixed front sight block. On the one hand, that’s good, because it’s held in place with two pins. It isn’t going anywhere. On the other hand, that’s going to get in the way of all kinds of handguards you might like to mount.

So even though I’d caution that the stock handguards handle heat of a good extended shooting session very well, and you probably don’t need to attach a ton of crap to your carbine, and that the free float obsession is silly, and that the money spent on a fancy handguard might be better spent on ammo or a class or a good optic, you’re still gonna want one. No problem, I’ll enable you and tell you how to make it work. You’re almost certainly going to need to remove the stock barrel nut, or at least the delta ring and handguard cap, which is going to entail removing the FSB among other things. No problem. When you’ve removed the FSB, you can actually cut the sighting portion off with a hacksaw, file/dremel it to fit under your new handguard without spoiling the gas-collecting bit, and then refinish it with some grill paint. It’s so easy a caveman can do it. Seriously, it’s super easy. Don’t worry if it doesn’t look professional, it’s going to be under a handguard anyway. Make sure it fits, don’t cut the gas part open, and you’re fine.

Colt even will oblige you by doing this from the factory on the 6920 OEM2 model. This rifle ships with no stock, no handguard, no delta ring, no handguard cap, and no trigger guard, so you can swap these parts out yourself. The gas block is cut down and reparkerized from the factory. (This is a nicer way to do it than using grill paint, but grill paint is way easier and cheaper for the amateur). The OEM2 model still has the A2 handguard, because that holds in the spring and detent for the safety, so it has to ship with something there.

As for midlength gas, I don’t get the fuss. The rifle and carbine length gas systems are proven with an absolutely ridiculous number of rounds. It will work. Always. Midlength seems to work too. It’s not as proven. It might be “softer shooting”, but that’s very subjective. Plus, we’re talking about 5.56mm here. This is not an elephant gun. This is an easy rifle to shoot. Really. It is. And just in case, you can always add a comp to reduce muzzle rise that little bit.

So, what have we learned today, class? Stop overthinking it. Stop worrying about it. Just buy a Colt. And ammo. And quality mags. And get some range time.

1.) It’s still probably the best battle rifle of the era on a technical basis, but that’s another story.
2.) For more on small caliber high velocity rounds and why they’re great, see here.
3.) Armalite was funded by Fairchild Aircraft. Back in those days, California manufactured actual things like airplanes, and not just stupid.
4.) Colt does not drill out a giant gas port so that your gun will function correctly with crap ammo. The US army doesn’t use the worst reman and lowest quality dumping ground ammo. Maybe you shouldn’t either.
5.) Insert loud sigh here. I don’t understand the obsession with free floating for 95% of rifle shooters. Most people shoot at a range of 100 yards or less, with at best milsurp M855 or M193 ammo, or possibly that underpowered crap I mentioned above, at targets rather larger than a man’s torso, but god forbid their handguards touch the barrel. Seriously, it doesn’t matter. There are more important things to worry about and bigger fish to fry, like proper technique and practice. And if you’re sitting on a bench trying to split a gnat’s ass at 100 yards with your entry-level carbine and cheap chinese knockoff optic, you’re also being dumb. Get off your butt.

Meet Maryanne, a Product Improved SCAR 16S

Posted by

So I’ve spent some quality time shooting my SCAR 16S, which has been named Maryanne.1 And the more I shoot it, the more I like it. There are a lot of good things here, and some that I’ve changed, because I can’t not tinker with something. So let’s go through what I’ve found, what I’ve changed, what I’ve kept, and what might change in the future.

The more I shoot Maryanne, the more I like that charging handle. No, it hasn’t hit my thumb yet. Still not sure how that keeps happening to other people.2 Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, locking the bolt back for a right handed shooter is super easy. Grabbing the charging handle, palm-down, and pulling the charging handle back puts your support hand thumb in perfect position to hit the bolt catch. Easy. This makes administrative handling and malfunction clearing3 a breeze. There are a bunch of aftermarket charging handles out there, but I don’t see myself buying one. I haven’t scraped my knuckles on anything yet.

Also, the reciprocating charging handle makes it easy to tell if the gun has stopped firing because of a malfunction or because the mag is empty, without having to rotate it for a chamber check. And, if you like a forward assist, it’ll do that job too. Reciprocating charging handle can stay.

I also like the safety, which is a 45-degree jobber, as opposed to the 90 degree design of a regular AR. I like it better because it’s a bit faster, and indulges some laziness. There are aftermarket safety levers available, but I haven’t bothered with any of those yet, because I can’t tell how they improve upon the factory part. What am I getting with my money besides a tiny bit that says “MAGPUL” on it?

I haven’t touched the factory stock either. Again, I don’t see the point, the factory unit works great as it is. It even has an adjustable riser. And it sits against my shoulder, and it’s adjustable for length of pull, and it folds. Great! 5.56 doesn’t need much of a recoil pad. Also, alternatives tend to be even uglier, so why bother? Maybe if someone made a shoulder thing that goes up for it, I’d get one so I can have another feature to make the antigunners pee their panties, but no one has made one yet. I’ll have to settle for collapsible and folding, as opposed to collapsible, folding and “goes up”. Oh darn.

You’re probably wondering what the devil I have changed. Well, the pistol grip for starters. I hate the A2-style pistol grip. It’s too small and has a nub in a stupid place. Stupid cheap thing. I’ve replaced it with a TangoDown BG-17 grip. This grip is curved and large, for those of us with big hands. It fits my hand great and is comfortable. Plus it puts the distance to trigger in a great spot. It’s a more traditional grip angle though. I don’t understand the ‘vertical style’ that a lot of newer ARs have, but maybe that’s because I’m not kicking doors with an SBR. Shrug. The important thing is that I have a grip I like.

I also replaced the stock gritty trigger with Geissele’s fancy Super SCAR trigger. Trigger replacement on the SCAR is a bit of a pain, but I got there eventually. The end result is a lighter, crisper pull. It’s not too light, and it makes shooting the gun more fun. I’m a civilian. I get to enjoy luxury triggers. This thing is now totally awesome. It feels a lot like my other Geissele triggers, which is fine by me. Mr. Geissele does good work.

I’ve played around with rail covers and the like on Maryanne. I’m currently running Magpul XTMs on the side rails and a Magpul AFG2 on the bottom rail. I’m not sure about this setup. I haven’t shot the rifle to get a feel for how much I like the AFG2 on the handguard, and the XTMs are a pain to work with. I might replace them with the Tango Down rail covers or something. I don’t know yet. It’s easy enough to mess with.

I have not gotten an extended rail yet, because I don’t see the point. Maybe it’s because I don’t have ape-arms, but I haven’t figured out why people like to grip the gun super far out on the handguard yet. Plus, there’s plenty of room for a light if I need to mount one. No extension means I don’t spend money on that and the weight doesn’t go up, woohoo.

The iron sights on Maryanne are really well done. I’m not a big iron sight guy, but these are as good as the high-end KAC sights you might put on your AR if you’re into fancy builds. Range adjustable and everything. Of course, I went optic, because duh. Right now, I have an Aimpoint Comp M4S on there in a Larue QD mount. The Comp M4S is Aimpoint’s flagship red dot. It’s got a 30mm tube, is basically unkillable, takes AA batteries, and has a battery life of about a hojillion hours on a medium setting. I don’t turn it off, and change the battery every few years, if I have to, I guess. It’s easy to adjust brightness, super quick like all red dots, and works great for the generally short ranges I find myself shooting at. Especially in wintertime, I’m stuck on short indoor ranges. Plus, I really don’t like sitting on a bench like a loser and trying to get my groups to be the size of a dime at 50 yards. I have better things to do than carbine masturbation, thanks.

Red dots are simple and cool. We’ll see how it shakes out at some multigun or carbine classes in the near future. I might also get fancy and get an Elcan SpecterDR 1x/4x for it, get some magnification for target identification and those longer shots. I love the 1.5x/6x that I got for another gun project, and the 1x/4x is a little lighter and a little cheaper. Also faster on the low end, because actual 1x. The SpecterDRs some prisms to switch magnification from low to high super fast, because intermediate magnification levels are barely used on most low power variable optics. So, we’ll see. The SpecterDR is a bit heavy, but the mount is built in, so it’s weight is pretty competitive with equally-tough conventional low-power variable optics. I will keep you posted on how the red dot does and if I do go Elcan.4

1.) Yes, I know Fabrique Nationale de Herstal is a Belgian company. And yes, final assembly was completed in Fredricksburg, VA because US firearms import laws are stupid. I do not care. Her name is Maryanne. Feel free to argue with the business end.
2.) If you know how this is happening, please mail a picture of your support hand grip technique to:
c/o I’m a dumb idiot who can’t be arsed to run my gun properly
Ste. 213
82 Stupid Moron Drive
Sewickey, PA 15143

3.) Maryanne hasn’t malfed on me yet, but I’ve done some drills to learn the full manual of arms.
4.) Quick, possibly helpful note on Elcan. Elcan is short for Ernst Leitz Canada. You might Ernst Leitz GmbH as Leica, super awesome camera company. So Elcan makes some phenomenal glass, even though they’re not actually in Europe. They also make the SpecterOS, which is like an ACOG with way better glass. They’re what happened when the Leica guys didn’t want to work for the Soviets after the Second World War. Unlike most optics companies that you’ve heard, they’re a military contractor first and foremost, and are a subsidiary of Raytheon. They’re not known for super crazy long warranties or fabulous customer service. Sorry. Not that you’ll be able to kill a Specter without explosives or shooting it.

BREXIT!

Posted by

The sun has risen on a new day for my friends in the UK. I would like to congratulate them on choosing independence, control, and self-determination over pie-in-the-sky notions and an unseemly, obnoxious bureaucracy.

It is good to see democracy triumph. Congratulations!

Fishbreath Watches: Zootopia

Posted by

I went into Zootopia with moderate expectations—I had heard good things, but even as a fan of animated movies, I wasn’t expecting anything to boggle the mind. Ultimately, I was still expecting a kids movie with crossover appeal.

This is not what Disney delivered. Zootopia starts out a cheerful-seeming puff piece; by the end, it has taken on an almost noirish feel, telling a pitch-perfect buddy cop story in an exquisitely-detailed world. I can’t say much more without giving away plot points, and the plot is so well-crafted I would feel guilty doing so, but really. If you’re skeptical, fear not: it is not what the previews suggest it is. It’s much better. Go see it. I have not yet heard anyone credible claim to be disappointed.

Done? Cool. I’m going to employ a piece of sorcery most arcane known as ‘the fold’ to hide possible spoilers from casual readers. (Very minor—I’m extremely allergic to spoilers. If you don’t mind non-specific remarks about the flow of the plot through the three acts, you’ll be fine.) Join me on the other side.

Continue reading →

Parvusimperator reviews the T-15 HIFV

Posted by

Fishbreath wrote an excellent bit defending the BMP-3, the traditional, rather lightly-armored IFV. You should go read it here. In it, he’s replying to my discussions in favor of heavy APCs like Namer, and my own design sketch for a heavy IFV. But I can hardly leave it there. I should reply to him, because argument is interesting and fun. Plus, recent developments bear some pondering.

As you are no doubt aware, the BMP-3 is Russian. Duh. It’s from a similar school of thought as the previous BMPs, heavily armed, cramped, lightly armored. It’ll float. It’s easy to move. Splendid.

Or is it?

I’ve mentioned before the Russian experience in Grozny, but it bears repeating. It was a bloodbath. BMPs were deathtraps. Poorly trained conscripts sent in died in droves because Chechen fighters had thought carefully about urban warfare tactics. Fuel is stored in the egress doors on the BMP-1 and BMP-2. This fuel is supposed to be the first used, but that didn’t always happen. So if the rear was hit, fuel would get sprayed all over the dismounts. And it was likely on fire. Not fun. Plus, given that there’s so much ammo in the BMP, basically any penetration of the turret armor or the forward section meant that the ammo gets hit by the shaped charge jet and blows up too. So, soldiers took to riding on the outside.1

This defeats the purpose of an enclosed vehicle. If they’re just going to ride on top, why not have something like the Sd.Kfz. 251, which had no roof. Of course, that leaves infantry vulnerable to machine gun fire and artillery fragments. Plus, that cold. I hear Russia has a miserable winter. They could suck it up and enjoy their superior deployability. A BMP-3 can float, you know.

This brings us to the T-15. It’s built on that same Armata combat platform as the T-14, except the engine is at the front now, where it belongs for vehicles that carry troops. Two things are of note. First, it’s got an unmanned turret, second, it weighs about as much as the T-14. That’s tank-level protection right there. The Russians have agreed with the Israelis–if you have a vehicle that’s going to get shot at like a tank, it should take hits like a tank. Even outside of urban areas–the Donbass is hardly suburbia. Like most modern armies, the Russians have become much more casualty sensitive2, and shooting an ATGM–even an old one–at a BMP is a great way to inflict casualties.

Armor on the T-15 is typical Russian–a reasonably thick steel and composite structure under a lot of ERA. The reactive armor is a new type, of course, but it’s not clear how good it actually is, because no one has had a chance to shoot it yet. Still, it should be good, since they have lots of experience, and overall protection should be on the order of the protection level of the T-14 given the weight, layout, and the remote turret which I’ll discuss in a moment. Further protection is provided by a hard-kill active protection system, the Afghanit. This system is also in use on the T-14, though again it hasn’t been tested. Not being a fluent reader of Russian, and with the Russians generally keeping things quiet, I don’t know how it compares to other Western competitive systems. I’d guess it’d be similar in performance to Trophy as far as reaction times go, but that’s speculation. They do have a reasonable number of tubes per side, unlike so many western designers who think two per side is enough (it isn’t).

On to the turret. The T-15 has an unmanned turret, just like the T-14. It’s all contained above the turret ring, because a traditional turret basket removes space for dismounts, and carrying dismounts is the T-15’s primary mission. The T-15’s turret is well thought out, and I’m a big fan. It’s got a 30mm cannon with 500 rounds split between a 160 round box and a 340 round box to accommodate the double ammunition feeds. The autocannon is capable of high angle fire, perfect for hitting top-floor rocket teams. The coax gun is in the usual 7.62x54R caliber, and there are 2,000 rounds available. Four tubes for Kornet-EM ATGMs are provided, two on either side of the turret. Kornet-EM has a tandem-HEAT warhead with further improvements, plus automatic command line of sight (ACLOS) guidance, which is an improvement over the usual SACLOS. The gunner has thermal and day sights, plus a laser rangefinder. The commander has his own independent sight which appears to be a duplicate of the gunner’s.

The turret does not appear to be well armored. Since support fires appear to be a secondary tasking, the lack of protection and ease of knocking out the turret is probably not a major issue. I’m fine with this overall, for weight and cost reasons. The IFV’s weapons are much less critical than those of the MBT. For similar reasons, I’m more willing to accept an unmanned turret on an IFV, since any loss of effectiveness is to a secondary mission. Plus, it allows for more hull protection and a full load of dismounts.

The 100mm gun is gone from the T-15. It’s not really needed, as the T-15 has proper, modern ATGMs, and the extravagance is just going to take up turret room which is better spent on more 30mm.

The T-15 carries nine dismounts, plus a crew of three. I do not know enough about Russian tables of organization to know if this is a full squad, but it’s reasonable. It would hold about any current western squad I can think of. This is very good, and is a lot easier than trying to split squads across vehicles.

So what do we think of the T-15? I love it! No, really. Here’s a vehicle that’s on my side in an argument with Fishbreath, and it’s even Russian! They’re replacing their BMP-3s with something much more to my liking. Further, its capabilities aren’t really available anywhere else. We might be able to get close with some modifications to the Namer, but that’s a project for another time. Out of the factory, this is the only HIFV game in town. And I’m a huge fan of the concept, even if I might prefer some minor tweaks. I would prefer missiles with a top-attack profile, and possibly some alternative sensors depending on the particulars. But those are relatively minor points.

 

1.) Russian and Ukranian troops are doing this in the Donbas now too. BMPs are still deathtraps. They were deathtraps in Afghanistan, deathtraps in Grozny, and they’re deathtraps in the Donbass.
2.) Though the Russian Army is still a conscript one.

Lessons from the Donbass

Posted by

Lots of people are observing the fighting in the Donbass and taking notes, and it’s time for me to add my two bits. I’m going to weigh in and try to get some solid lessons from the observations.

Observation: Russian drones are excellent, often-present spotters
Comments/Conclusions:
First, drones are useful for more than pegging terrorist assholes with a hellfire missile while they take a dump. Drones can also spot for airstrikes or artillery, and that’s just how the Russians use them. Bonus that spotting drones can be smaller and cheaper, and there are some interesting questions on what the largest unit size that should have organic drone support. We’ll have a follow-up article on that, but yeah. Drones are useful! So get you some of that, and use them. Second, from a defensive perspective, drones might be watching you. So one should give thought to camouflage and anti-drone measures, both in terms of ECM and anti-aircraft measures that can shoot them down. This is an argument to perhaps revisit the late-war Panzergrenadier organization table, which called for company level organic AAA assets. Third, it’d be a good idea to train with drones and practice using them for spotting, and working against them so that troops are familiar with their limitations and killing them. It can be demoralizing to feel like one is always being watched.

Observation: Russian artillery is a brutal killer
Comments/Conclusions:
The Russians love their artillery. Duuuuh. They’ve increased the number of rocket artillery launchers per artillery unit, and deployed these at the tank/infantry battalion level. They’re also not ruled by stupid hippies, so they’ve kept their cluster weapons. These are very, very effective weapons. Shock, cluster munitions work well. Again, time to consider how best to avoid being seen, and survivability against shaped-charge bomlets. Also, artillery fragments kill. This should be remembered while we’re working up body armor loadouts, and not get too obsessed with big heavy rifle plates. This point also brings up the importance of counterbattery radar systems and drill to stop enemy fires. Also, all those “icky” cluster munitions, thermobarics, and top-attack submunitions might be worth another look. Russia’s buying…are you?

Side note: The Russians are using about three rocket artillery vehicles for every four gun-artillery vehicles.

Side note 2: Range is good. More range is better. Get some range. Get more. It’s never enough.

Side note 3: For different reasons, both sides use their artillery in direct-fire mode. Training in such fire missions shouldn’t be neglected.

Observation: Russians make effective use of ECM
Comments/Conclusions:
This is harder, since ECM capabilities are super-classified. Plus, the Russian ECM systems are pointed at Ukrainian radars/radios, mostly, which have less funding and are based on the same familiar Soviet systems. Not sure how well they’d do against American or Western European stuff. I’m not saying to have no fear, but I’m also not saying to panic. Key takeaways are knowing that excessive emissions can let the enemy pinpoint your position for artillery, and understanding that radios might get disrupted. Practicing with less than perfect comms/datalinks is important. Friendly ECM is also something that shouldn’t be neglected, and can be used for spotting or for disrupting enemy comms. So while the pundits keep babbling about “cyber”, ECM is still awesome. Proof of concept in the Donbass: ECM can be used to ground or otherwise neutralize drones. Something to train with and against, and a very useful capability to have. Also, frequency hopping radios are the kind to buy. Anything to make the life of the jammer more difficult.

Also note that GPS is pretty easy to jam. We’ll have another post up to talk about alternatives, but for now it’s important not to assume GPS will always be there. Because it won’t. Go buy a map.

Observation: Russian IADS grants air superiority
Comments/Conclusions:
Nothing new here, other than we get to see this in action. Again, these aren’t peer opponents, so this isn’t surprising. Similarly, we expected the USAF to have no trouble establishing air superiority over Iraq. The Russians have sunk a lot of money into their air defenses and it shows. So, SEAD is a key capability to have, as is stealth. This is a big reason why I love the F-35. But this is nothing new. SAMs are useful and the Russians have lots of them, news at 11. You’ll have trouble too if you’re not prepared.

Observation: Tanks generally survivable against the artillery/missile threat
Comments/Conclusions:
Again, nothing new. Minor checks ought to be done to make sure sufficient overhead armor is placed on tanks and other heavy armored fighting vehicles, and active protection systems should also be strongly considered. But the late-Soviet stuff with a full ERA kit seems to be doing just fine. Of course, it should be noted that because this is Not A Peer Conflict, the ATGM threat is pretty old-school. The Ukrainians do not have TOW II or Javelin, both of which are designed to put the hurt on tanks equipped with ERA.

Further, lacking any kind of ATGM equalizer, light infantry is at a tremendous disadvantage against the tank threat. There’s a lot of good, mobile, fighting retreat tactics out there that go out the window when your ATGMs are old and don’t work. So get the good missiles. And perhaps consider mounting them on vehicles so you can move and shoot.

Observation: IFVs and other lightly armored vehicles aren’t survivable
Comments/Conclusions:
Nothing new here, but people apparently need reminding of this one. Again. Ukrainians and Russians are riding on the outside of their BMPs in the Donbass, because those are thin-skinned deathtraps. The Russians did the same in Chechnya. Americans rode on M-113s in Vietnam. Almost makes you question if roofs are worth it. IFVs fall to old school mid-Cold War era, single-warhead ATGMS, to submunitions, and to 30mm autocannons. Maybe we should have an infantry carrier with proper armor. I wonder where we could get one of those?

The Russians and the Ukranians are developing heavily-armored IFVs. Hmm. Seems they agree with the Israelis on survivability.

Of note here is the lack of ERA kits on the vehicles. I’m not sure if this is a question of cost or if the base armor somehow isn’t enough to take advantage of ERA or if the suspension can’t take the weight. Anyway, no ERA is to be found here, and slat armor kits aren’t enough against the bigger missiles. Or against 30mm gunfire, obviously. There’s not a lot of armor on a BMP to start with, and they’re not built around a lot of weight. If you like your IFVs, consider their armor. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Americans added multilayer ERA kits to the Bradley and the sides of the Abrams, and found these very effective against RPG type threats. They’d likely prove effective at least against the missiles encountered in theater.

Observation: The Russian Army is relatively small, and conscript based
Comments/Conclusions:
The Russian Army is based on conscripts, and as such morale is low. They don’t fight hard, they die in droves. And here is a weakness–the Russian mothers. Casualties are an issue. The Ukranians haven’t rolled over as expected. Smaller nations in Eastern Europe should make plans to make an offensive as bloody as possible.

Oracle v. Google: Apocalyptic Subhead

Posted by

Bringing you only the finest in topical writing, it’s your Soapbox contributors.

So, Oracle v. Google. First, some backstory. In 2009, Sun Microsystems, the creator of Java, was acquired by Oracle, Inc., Larry Ellison’s database outfit. At around the same time, Android was in the middle of taking off. (The HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 was released in October, 2008.)

Android, of course, is the most widely-used mobile operating system in the world, and something your humble author works with on a daily basis. Developed by Google, Android has two parts: a low-level operating system, powered by Linux, and a framework running on top of it, written in Java. … but not exactly. Google re-implemented some of Java’s APIs, for reasons of developer familiarity. I’ll pause for a moment here and give you some metaphors for APIs, in case you aren’t also a developer.

At its most basic, an API (which stands for application programming interface) is a list of capabilities a certain piece of code exposes to the world. First consider a racing rowboat, with a team of oarsmen and a coxswain in the back. The rowers have a simple API: there is one function (sometimes called a method or a procedure) called ‘stroke’. The coxswain doesn’t necessarily need to know how the oarsmen row, but he does need to know that, when he says ‘stroke’, the oarsmen will all row at once.

Next, consider a car. It presents a slightly more complicated API: ‘go faster’, ‘go slower’, and ‘turn’. In modern cars, the API is implemented by the gas pedal, the brake pedal, and the steering wheel. In the early days of motoring, this wasn’t necessarily so: the Model T, for instance, used a very different control scheme. The important point is that both the Model T and a Tesla Model S implement the same API, no matter how different they may be in the details.

Finally, consider a dictionary. Say you invent a language and create a dictionary for it. Your dictionary is protected by copyright, but your language is not. US copyright law says that you can copyright expression, but not information or data. Your language is information, but the definitions in your dictionary are expressive, creative content. So, although your dictionary is copyrighted, someone can come along and rewrite all your definitions. By doing so, they have created a new work, and you have zero rights to it: they’re using the freely-usable data (the words which compose your language) that you have collated, and making new content where copyright would otherwise be an issue (the definitions).

So, what does an API entry look like in Java?

public String toString()

There are three parts here. ‘Public’ means that anyone who includes this piece of code in their own piece of code can ‘see’, and therefore use, the function. ‘String’ means that the function returns a value of type String. (A String is a piece of text.) toString() is the method name. (There is a fourth part; the parentheses enclose the arguments, the information which someone who wants to call the function must send to the function. In this case, there are no arguments.)

An API is something like a mixture of all of those metaphors1. It’s a way to lay out the functionality of a piece of software, and functional works are generally not subject to copyright. On the other hand, an API is also a description of the functionality of a piece of software, and descriptions (like dictionary definitions) can be copyrighted.

That brings us back to the matter at hand, re-implementations of Java. Two other projects with that aim predated Android: GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony. You’ll note that neither calls itself Java: Oracle, by way of Sun, owns the trademark for the term ‘Java’. Now, Java’s APIs are organized in groups called packages, which have names, for instance, like java.lang (core functionality in the Java language). Crucially, Sun never thought it could copyright those names. It could copyright the implementations: for instance, there’s a method called Math.max(number, number), which returns the larger of two numbers, belonging to the java.lang package. Its full address is java.lang.Math.max. Despite the occurrence of ‘java’ in the package name, Sun never asserted ownership over the structure of the API: it was broadly accepted in the software industry that API definitions were functional, not expressive, and therefore not subject to copyright.

In 2012, though, Oracle looked at Google and thought to itself, “Hmm. I want a piece of that sweet, sweet Android pie. How can I get my hands on that?” The answer? Assert copyright over the Java API. Oracle sued Google in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The jury ruled that there was infringement, but hung on Google’s fair use defense. Rendering the jury’s verdict moot, Judge William Alsup4 additionally ruled that APIs aren’t copyrightable at all, under a certain clause in the Copyright Act5 which states that procedures, processes, systems, and methods of operation, among other things, are not subject to copyright. Oracle appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which overturned Alsup’s ruling that APIs are not copyrightable, and remanded the case back to Alsup’s court to hear arguments over fair use, which is where we are today.

Before I go on, I want to remind readers that, from a practical standpoint, I’m on Google’s side. I don’t think that APIs ought to be copyrightable, for reasons I’ll get into later. That said, having read Judge Alsup’s decision in the original case, and the CAFC’s decision overruling that decision, I think that the CAFC probably ruled correctly, exclusively as a matter of law, in Oracle’s favor. Oracle argued—convincingly—that, although a method like toString(), the example above, may not be copyrightable in itself, the arrangement of methods into classes and those classes into packages constitutes a taxonomy, which an earlier case found to be subject to copyright. In the same way that writing, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” would not infringe on Charles Dickens’ copyright, but inserting the whole text of A Tale of Two Cities into this post would, copying a single method from an API is different than copying an entire API.

Unfortunately for the world of software, Oracle’s argument—that the organization of the API is expressive, and therefore subject to copyright—seems correct to me. There are infinite ways to organize an API, and deciding on one of those is an expressive process which takes creativity. Certainly, there are well-structured APIs and poorly-structured APIs, and there are no hard and fast, mechanical rules for how to design the former as opposed to the latter. An API is not like a general-purpose English dictionary, where there is only one reasonable arrangement for the words and definitions, the alphabetic and that arrangement is therefore purely functional. It’s more like a Chinese dictionary, where there is no purely alphabetical arrangement for the words. To arrange words in a Chinese dictionary, the dictionary author has to design a taxonomy or an arrangement, and that, again, is a creative process6.

Up until now, I’ve spoken of the law as it stands. How the law stands is, in this case, different from how the law ought to be. Although the organization of an API is taxonomic, and therefore subject to copyright, APIs need a special exemption. I’ll provide a few examples of products which, under the case law established by the CAFC, would be infringing.

First, and most ironic, we have… Oracle’s flagship database product. Almost every database in wide use today uses a programming language called SQL to manage and query the database. Oracle DB is no exception. Oracle did not, however, invent SQL: that honor falls to IBM, which created the language in the early 1970s. Oracle re-implemented it, evidently without obtaining a license, in the late 1970s, and SQL was not released as an ISO standard until 1986. Since Oracle was founded, and went through its initial growth, by infringing IBM’s copyright on the SQL API, IBM has plausible grounds to literally sue Oracle out of existence7.

Second, we have Linux, as well as all the GNU utilities. In the 1980s, Unix was an AT&T product, and antitrust judgements had forced AT&T to license Unix freely. When AT&T spun off Bell Labs, those judgements no longer applied, and Bell Labs began to sell Unix as a commercial product. The GNU project, and eventually Linus Torvalds, wrote clean-room implementations of the Unix kernel, which became Linux, which now powers the larger part of the Internet. Nokia, the owner of Bell Labs, can now hold the whole Internet hostage. (Fortunately, I doubt they will. Nokia tends to be pretty chill.)

Third, and most compelling, we have literally every non-Apple computer in existence today8. In the 1980s, IBM released the IBM Personal Computer, from which we get ‘PC’. Almost immediately after that, dozens of competitors released IBM PC-Compatible computers, which re-implemented the low-level API by which programs written for the IBM PC interacted with the operating system and the computer hardware. The presence of a de-facto standard allowed competitors to enter the marketplace, and as the PC market grew, Microsoft released MS-DOS and Intel figured out its own expansion card standard. When IBM tried to go proprietary, the consumer PC market—now almost entirely independent from IBM—moved to the Windows/Intel standard that has persisted to this day. Without IBM’s initial innovation, and the freedom of other manufacturers to re-implement IBM’s standard, we wouldn’t have the vibrant personal computer market we have today.

So, the law is wrong. We can’t fix that in this case. What can we do? Google is trying to claim a fair use defense, and may yet prevail, but I don’t want to speculate on the odds. Provided that APIs are copyrightable (and, right now, as a matter of law, they are), Google’s use was probably not protected by fair use. My read of the trial suggests that, in general, Google argued well and Oracle argued poorly. With any luck, the jury will agree.

What if they don’t? The result is bad for the software industry, but not as apocalyptic as some might claim. There is no copyright concern as far as using an API goes: that isn’t the issue at hand here. The issue is reimplementation, which is a driver of innovation and market expansion. We will likely see fewer products which are designed to take the place of other products, because such projects are now risky on copyright grounds, and depend on the good will (or free licensing) of the copyright holder.

We’ll also probably see a return to ‘not invented here’ as an objection to using open products—unless they were designed from the ground up to be different from other, existing products covered by copyright, the risk, for corporate entities, is too great.

Finally, it’s also bad for Java. Closing a platform tends to kill it; see the IBM example above. Even if that doesn’t happen, Oracle’s behavior here will undoubtedly have a chilling effect. Although I just said that this suit doesn’t have a major impact on day-to-day usage of Java, what it does do is demonstrate that Oracle is willing to push the boundaries of IP law in pursuit of a quick buck. If that’s the way they want to behave, they’ll have to deal with the consequences: people are going to run away from Java.

Fortunately, Google appears to have won, according to the news today. More on what that might mean after I read enough to synthesize an opinion.

1. My wife, who holds a seminary degree, often talks about heresies2 as regard the Trinity, and how most common metaphors for the Trinity end up espousing one of those heresies. My usual response is, “Yes, but there’s no such thing as a perfect metaphor; a perfect metaphor is just the thing you’re trying to describe.”
2. In the technical sense; that is, beliefs incompatible with lower-case orthodox Christian doctrine.
3. (There is no third footnote. I forgot to update the numbering when I removed it, and can’t be bothered to change it now.)
4. His middle name is ‘Haskell’, which the programmers and computer scientists in the audience will find amusing.
5. See here for more; you’re looking at section b.
6. To my knowledge, which is very limited, because I am not a lawyer, this has never been tested in a US court, but my feeling is that the arrangement of a Chinese dictionary would also be copyrightable. See this article and point 5 in this blog post for more on Chinese dictionaries.
7. Your author would watch that case.
8. I don’t know if Apple computers count here, so I’ll leave them out.

On the Merkava Mark IV

Posted by

I’ve already mentioned my fondness for the Namer. But let’s look at the other famous piece of Israeli heavy armor, the Merkava. Once again, Israeli experiences, especially in the wars of 1967 and 1973 featured heavily in designing a tank for their needs.

Despite being some of the staunchest devotees of Orthodox Maneuver Warfare, the Israelis have historically favored British tanks, which emphasize protection first, firepower second, and mobility third. The Israelis collaborated with the British on the design of the Chieftain, but after the Six Day War, the British refused to sell them to the Israelis, since the Israelis had struck first.1 The Israelis were incensed, and set about developing their own tank, the latest version of which is the Merkava Mark IV.

The Merkava has many unique features, most obviously a front-mounted engine. I’m not entirely sold on this idea, but the Israelis didn’t have access to composite armor technology when they first developed the Merkava, so they put the engine forward to maximize protection. The engine will stop a HEAT round, at the expense of dying. But a mobility-killed tank is a lot easier to replace than a tank crew, and the front mounted engine allows for a rear hatch, plus space at the back that can be used for plenty of ammo or the emergency transport of troops. A rear hatch makes it easy for the crew to safely escape a knocked-out tank, or to resupply the tank with ammo. Perfect for a defensive struggle with hordes of Syrian tanks as they surge across the Golan heights. This has stuck around, and the Merkava IV has a 1,500 hp engine up front, and a door at the back. I like the ammo capacity, but I think I’d prefer a more traditional layout and to load up with composite armor at the front.

The 1,500 horsepower engine is the MTU 883, probably the best diesel tank engine in the world today. It’s powerful, reliable, cheap, and relatively fuel efficient. And the Mark IV needs every one of those horsepowers. Wikipedia says the Mark IV weighs 65 tonnes, which is heavy. Heavier than an M1A2, heavier than a Leopard 2E, heavier than a standard Challenger 2, all of which come in around 63 tonnes. And yet, I call bullshit. The IDF is very secretive, even about the weight of their tanks. You could get fewer lies about weight if you asked Hillary Clinton how much she weighs. I have a much better source from an expert on the Merkava, who served in the IDF armored units, and he lists the weight of a Mark IV at “more than 70,000 kg”. That’s a good bit heavier. That’s heavier than the Leopard 2A7 with all the supplemental armor kits.

I might suggest the tank is heavier still. Photos of the turret with some of the armor modules removed shows that they’re mostly solid armor. I don’t know the competition, but that indicates a lot of weight, especially considering how big the Merkava is. And the 1,200 horsepower engine of the Merkava Mark III wasn’t enough. If that weighed about 63-65 tonnes, we could go from 78 to 81 tonnes without too much trouble as far as power/weight is concerned. That’s beastly. Remember, the British have been perfectly happy to add 12 tonnes of armor to the Challenger 2, and that only has a 1,200 horsepower engine. The Israelis have always thought like the British as far as tank design goes.

But enough rampant speculation. It is a big, heavy, very well-armored tank, that much is clear. I really like the turret design; the armor is very thick, even on traditionally less protected areas. There’s plenty of side armor, and more roof armor than on the turret of any other tank. And that’s in addition to a very thick looking turret face. Excellent! Hull armor is reasonably good too, with armored sponsons and plenty of armor on the hull front. The latest versions of the Mark IV even add a Trophy active protection system. More hull front armor might be nice, but the engine is there. The turret is a good shape. Protection of the hull sides, especially where the ammo is stored, leave something to be desired, since a hit in this area can cook off the stowed ammo.

I don’t have a ton of information on armor composition. Not that I’d believe it, given how much I question even the weight figures. Early marks used lots of spaced steel armor, trading weight for cost and protection. More recent marks probably use some kind of composite, something that works well in a highly sloped arrangement. It’s also used in multiple layers with air gaps in between in the turret. But given the published cost numbers, it’s probably not anything particularly exotic. It’s also not explosive reactive armor, despite extensive Israeli work on that. The Israelis are probably still trading thickness and weight for cheapish protection. However, I’m a little concerned about the armor design. Usually, composite modules are contained between inner and outer steel plates, to contain the modules. The Merkava doesn’t have the outer containing plates, so weapon hits tend to cause significant structural damage to the area around the impact point. Structural compromise beyond the area hit directly by the shaped charge jet indicates a limited ability to withstand multiple hits in the same armor module. Other designs are much better at not coming apart in the area around an impact.

I should take a moment to point out that most of the armor on the Mark IV is modular, and is easy to remove and replace for repair or upgrade, as long as a convenient crane is handy.

On to the firepower. The Merkava Mark IV has a 120mm gun, designed for high pressure rounds with an improved recoil system and stronger chamber over the 120mm gun on the Mark III. There’s also a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun, provision to mount an external coaxial 12.7mm machine gun, and another 7.62mm machine gun on the roof for the commander. There’s no machine gun for the loader though. Instead, his duties include loading a breach-loading 60mm mortar. This mortar comes from the lessons of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and was also retrofitted to the other, foreign-built tanks in the Israeli inventory. It was used to launch starshells in the days before night vision. It’s also useful for engaging anti-tank teams in defilade, since it’s an indirect fire weapon. I really like this feature. I’m not sure about the external 12.7mm extra coax. I’d probably prefer a 12.7mm machine gun for the commander, though the Germans also seem to favor a GPMG for the roof.

Now, let’s talk survivability and ammo stowage, since those two go together. The Merkava’s large size is a big help to reducing how many crew are going to get injured in the event the armor is penetrated. About 8,000 rounds of machine gun ammo is carried, plus 40 rounds for the 60mm mortar. But that’s less of a big deal. Let’s look at main gun ammo. That’s what you’re here for. The Mark IV carries ten ready rounds in the bustle, in a pair of automatic five-round drums. The loader can select ammo type, and the drums will rotate and push it out a small hatch so he can grab it. Blow-out panels are provided over the ammo, of course. The smaller hatch makes the crew that much safer from ammo cook-off, and the automated system for selecting rounds is pretty sweet. But, 10 ready rounds is not a lot, the Leopard 2 has 15 and the Abrams has 17. I’d prefer it if there was more ready ammo.

The Mark IV carries 38 other rounds, six in the floor under the turret basket, and 32 in individual containers, 16 per side in the rear of the tank. These rounds can be removed to create space to evacuate tank crews or move infantry around, but aside from the protective containers, there’s not a lot of internal separation for these rounds. I’m not the biggest fan of this arrangement. It does predate heavily armored APCs like the Namer, and I’d prefer more isolation of ammo from crew, even at the expense of being stuck with the arrangements. Hull blow-out panels would be great here, or at least some isolation so you could get a halon extinguisher in each reserve magazine. On the other hand, the Israeli arrangement does make reloading easier, and tanks being shot at from behind are never going to fare well.

In terms of electronics, the Mark IV is right up there with the best of the West, with thermal sights and laser rangefinders for the commander and gunner, a battle management computer system, and a modern fire control computer complete with automatic target tracking. The Israelis also are the only Western country to produce the LAHAT, a gun-launched ATGM with semi-active laser homing guidance, providing extended range for the main gun. Currently, they’re fitting Trophy active protection systems to the Mark IV, because it’s not yet hard enough to kill.

So, when all is said and done, would we buy, if they were available? Would we prefer them to our chosen Leopard 2E?

No.

The Leopard 2E is better suited for conventional warfare, with massive frontal protection2 and the best production tank gun in the world. The Leopard 2E’s 120mm L55 gun is rated for more pressure than even the enhanced, Israeli-made 120mm L44 on the Mark IV. The Leopard 2E’s armor is properly encapsulated, so it won’t come apart around a hit area. It’s not difficult to add active protection
to the Leopard 2E, or the Abrams, or any other new tank. And the Leopard 2E even comes with improved roof armor and supplemental armor kits for the turret sides, hull skirts, and underbelly. So it can become almost as good at urban warfare. It’s just a better tank all-around, not being excessively optimized for incursions into Beirut.

1.) Apparently, striking first isn’t cool anymore, even if your enemy is preparing to strike you. Lame.
2.) As it should be.