.jpg)
via Globes.co.il
The APC, which carried nine soldiers, became immobile as a result of a malfunction. Two soldiers got out before it was hit by a deadly missile that killed the other seven crew members. At least three APCs of this type suffered serious hits from RPG rockets fired at them in the course of IDF operations in the Gaza Strip during the second intifada.Read the whole story but I consider this a heartbreaking development...and something I can see happening to the USMC.
In early 2011, the Ministry of Defense announced a grandiose NIS 10 billion plan to procure many hundreds of new generation of APCS, called the Namer (Leopard), which is based on a Merkava tank chassis. The Tank Program Directorate, which is also leading the development and production of the Merkava tank on which Israeli armor is based, developed the Namer. The Ministry of Defense defined the Namer as an APC adapted to the most up-to-date forms of warfare on the battlefield, which provides a solution for the threats to which IDF forces were also exposed during the Second Lebanon War. The innovative APC's armor also has the Trrophy (In Hebrew "Meil Ruah" or "Windbreaker") active armor system developed byRafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., that automatically intercepts anti-tank missiles and RPGs. The system is also installed on Mark IV Merkava tanks and upgraded earlier generation tanks.
The Marine Corps is facing with its own self inflicted budget woes when it comes to procuring decent armor and if you've looked at the land battlefields of the Pacific then you can see that future battles will entail the same challenges facing the IDF.....But on steroids.
The issue? Fighting in built up areas, urban areas, cities and slums.
Think Gaza is a complex battlefield? You ain't seen nothing yet. Compare it to a potential fight in Manila, or any other Asian city.
Marines will die because we're holding on to the antiquated AAV too long and we don't have a proper plan to replace it.
Question.
Have you heard anything from the ACV 1.1 industry day? Have you heard anything about when they would re-start the competition?
I haven't and the reason is clear. Industry has been yanked by the balls once again and supposedly the program is being delayed for the new Commandant to come on-board. I would like to believe its to allow him to make a decision on where we go but I've been told its to protect additional funding for the F-35....the plane that keeps placing a communicable disease into the body of the USMC. Its past time for some penicillin. Kill that fucker and lets get some armor for our grunts.
Any APC in that kind of AT envelop is in deep trouble.
ReplyDeletei'm not so sure Eric. the Namer has been performing quite well in this conflict.
DeleteI have to admit, I've not heard much specifics about the Namer's utility in the streets of Aza. What I do know is that the Merkava is a BIG chassis all the way 'round (especially from the foot soldier's awed or fear-filled eye's view!). I don't think I'd want to move around tight Middle Eastern city streets with such a big vehicle. My experience in urban operations was quite limited; but even in our jeeps and patrol trucks it was tight at times.
ReplyDeleteMordechai, I read one time that IDF work on autonomous weapon stations for Namers and Markava. In case of Namer that was two weapon systems in front on both side of vehicle that would observe and autonomous track targets and attack. They would be based on Hughes M230 Chain Gun with wide selection of ammo.
DeleteFor me it's pretty cool idea for urban combat but I doubt that this was legit, probably some fantasy of armchair general behind PC monitor. You hear about that or it's just indeed only a fantasy?
I just read the Globes article, and it is potentially a bit misleading. It mentions how under protected the M113 is; but it doesn't mention that all the M113s in use at least have updated armor additions. Hell, we had that already in the early 80s. That isn't to say that the armor is entirely adequate for 2014; but it also isn't the meager aluminum hull that the original vehicle had. If fact, the 'boltanim' added in the early 80s proved to protect pretty well against RPGs in Lebanon at the time. (On the other hand, when a Bardelas went up it burned like a box of matches.) My understanding is that the add-on used now is better; though I don't know how it is against modern anti-tank weapons.
ReplyDeletewell my take on things is that the M113 is ok (and i mean only ok) in a border protection scenario but in the pitched combat that IDF is involved in now its going to take Namers! additionally while you can upgrade the M113 it reaches a point of diminishing returns and i think we hit that point in the 1990s. its totally outclassed by modern munitions and its time to get that house in order.
Deleteif that means delaying the purchase of the F-35 then so be it. Israeli armor is more important when it comes to protecting the nation from current threats. the IAF will have to make do with those more than satisfactory Israeli F-15/16s
I don't really disagree with you. I'm just not sure that the answer is something based on the big Merkava chassis. Of course, the IDF can't realistically have one set of APCs for covering open terrain and keeping up with the tanks (Namer), and another set of narrower, more nimble vehicles for urban warfare. That isn't realistic from financial or logistical standpoints. One thing is for sure: the photos from Aza show an awful lot of M113s. I think there simply still aren't enough Namerim to go around. If budget killed that, then that is really not right.
DeleteUrban fights should be infantry fights. That's just the sort of operation that infantry are best at. Putting 8-10 men in a box just makes them a big fat target. Putting enough armor on that box to protect them just makes it too big and heavy to move around where it needs to.
ReplyDeleteWhere big guns are needed in direct support, we'd be better off building a low-cost specialized platform for that. Something like a modern StuG assault gun. A simple turret-less box where you can armor just the front and top heavily enough to deflect RPGs and man-packed Missiles.
http://youtu.be/OrcMyVxoddA
DeleteWyrm, I don't think you understand actual combat. Granted my own urban experiences were minimal and limited; but I do have some real concept. Even if the APC is only used as a 'battle taxi' (term once applied to the M113); it is still needed for that role. Moving the troops quickly to a new area requires vehicles. So does trying to conserve some of their physical strength reserves for the actual patrols and combat. So does moving in supplies and ammo. Infantry today also need vehicles to keep up with the rest of the battlefield as it moves. And if you're keeping pace with tanks, you probably want a tracked vehicle that can handle the same or similar terrain. It happens that my company, when mounted, was usually in jeeps and patrol trucks; and that made moving with the tanks difficult at times. The IDF infantry in Aza right now aren't fighting from their vehicles, but they do need them for movement and maneuver. So there's still plenty of moments to catch them in those vehicles.
DeleteAs a pudgy civilian, and an American one at that, I will not claim any sort of special competence in Israeli combat operations. But as a student of military history in general, I do have some real concept of how modern armies maneuver and fight, and especially the strategy/doctrine decisions that determine how they are able to move/fight when they do.
DeleteBoth Israel and America have built their current forces around the doctrine of open-field engagements (Iraq, Golan). Which absolutely do require armored APCs and IFVs to both be able to take hits, return fire, and to keep up with the MBTs. You are absolutely right about that.
But…
Both Israel and America have been frustrated when they’ve taken vehicles intended for combat in an open desert, Golan, or the plains of Germany, and used them in Urban actions. Where driving down a street is more dangerous than parking an MBT next to a trench line of enemy troops. As any MBT or IFV can be killed by an RPG fired at close-range.
In the US case at least, this is especially compounded by the lack of high-explosive direct-fire ordinance on US vehicles and in US infantry squads. Preventing them from being effective support systems in that environment.
http://youtu.be/2N-1E2F9pmc
Which is not a failure of the vehicles/weapons themselves, but of doctrine, procurement, and supply. The troops have simply not been supplied with the tools or training to perform in urban combat ops.
In Israel’s case, if the enemy is killing your troops in their transports en-route to disembarkation, then on a tactical level you need to disembark sooner, and not expect the transport to provide fire support at the point of contact. Or you’ll loose a lot of transports/troops.
If not using the transports as much makes your operations ponderous and unworkable, then you need to develop new vehicles/weapons that are designed for urban warfare. Preferably ones that could fill an auxiliary role in open-field operations as well.
Such a vehicle needs to be simple, low-cost, (relatively) lightweight, small enough to navigate rubble-strewn streets, tough enough to take some point-blank RPG hits, and capable enough to punch holes in buildings and destroy barricades. In short, an A-10 Warthog of the streets.
The Russian/German solution to this during WWII was the assault gun. Take an exceptionally well-armored box, loose the turret (because you don't need it), put a good high-explosive lobbing gun on it, add a couple of pop-up AT missiles to engage the odd MBT with, and let it follow the troops into the fight.