Note: Tank-net is one of those places on the internet that is a resource for those interested in armored vehicles. Check out their forums under the current Israeli operation and you'll find a ton of pics. Make sure you do it daily. Hot linking is not allowed and most pic hosting sites impose limits so the pics are being posted and then deleted frequently.
Sidenote: I'm seeing reports that IEDs have shown up in this conflict. I've received pictures of destroyed Merkava's but want to nail down details before I post them. Suffice it to say that if the pictures are real then even the mighty Merkava is vulnerable. I'm waiting to see if the Namer is adequately protected against the threat.
Sidenote: I'm seeing reports that IEDs have shown up in this conflict. I've received pictures of destroyed Merkava's but want to nail down details before I post them. Suffice it to say that if the pictures are real then even the mighty Merkava is vulnerable. I'm waiting to see if the Namer is adequately protected against the threat.
What do they do with the weight saved when they take out the turret to make the Namer? The turret with gun system, ammo, machine guns, turning ring mechanism, electrical systems, sights, periscopes etc must weigh atleast 20 tons of weight saved. Do they put in extra armor for that weight saved ?
ReplyDeleteAnd if they do, what kind of armor ?
"Namer has been designed for survivability and rapid repair, with modular armor, V-shaped belly armor pack, and NBC protection. According to Brigadier general Yaron Livnat, “The weight saved by eliminating the turret was ‘reinvested’ in beefing up the armor... this has resulted, with Namer having better protected from belly charges"."
DeleteFrom the Namer Wiki article. The weight difference between current gen Namers and the Merkava IIIs from which they are based is 5 tons, 60 tons vs 65 tons respectively.
Not that much weight is saved in the first place as Namer has much higher profile and volume than Merkava hull , so to armor that hull to equal level you need much more steel.
DeleteJust as an FYI, its pretty much impossible to make a vehicle that is immune to IEDs. V-shaped hulls only do so much and there is only so much armor you can put on something. Bury enough 155mm shells and you'll blow up pretty much anything.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is an OPSEC issue, so the word from my young neighbor is they've decided to use M113s less. Of course, that leaves guys like him in a soft vehicle (driving a jeep) and on foot while moving from place to place. I also hear on the other hand that (some of) Givati is being used as mechanized infantry. I can't imagine they have (many of) the newer APCs.
ReplyDeleteThe idea behind a Personnel carrier is to transport Infantry to and into the battle arena where they disembark and fight, the personnel carrier then finds someplace safe and hull down where it can if needed support the Infantry in the attack/defense and be supported by the Infantry in it's defense as well as defend itself.
ReplyDeleteThe Personnel carrier is not a tank, even a Fighting personnel carrier is not a tank.
The Infantry if they decline to exit the APC/AFV due to it's armor protection they become targets in a barrel and can no longer do their infantry work. The Russian's say "Infantry skulking in their taxis" to describe the event.
Therefore the design of the APC/AFV is such to ensure and encourage the infantry to un ass the vehicle and do their jobs.
There is a reason most APC/AFV have two man crews, less casualties when and if the vehicle gets lit up and the smaller weapons load MG/GL make it less likely to be targeted by anti tank units who are after bigger prey and more dangerous adversaries in heavy armored vehicles.
The IED threat is such that nothing on this earth can survive a large determined explosive device that is made to destroy anything.
A bicycle up to a ship the size of the USS Cole is under threat of this nature, nothing can stand up to an explosion large enough.