via Times of Israel.
The military is allocating funds for the construction of a large number of ‘Namer’ (leopard) APCs, introduced in 2008, which sport the durable chassis of the army’s renowned Merkava tanks.The Israeli's suffered a tragic lesson that every land force on the globe would do well to make note of. Precision fires are no substitute for armored protection. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Israeli's have chosen to keep the .50 cal instead of increasing the APC's firepower.
While army officials say Namer APCs performed beautifully during Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, resisting bomb blasts and saving many soldiers’ lives, too few of the vehicles were available to infantry units. In one incident early in the conflict, soldiers in an old Vietnam War-era M-113 APC were hit with an anti-tank missile, resulting in the deaths of seven soldiers.
“The only issue is funding,” Brig. Gen. Baruch Mazliach, head of the Defense Ministry’s Namer and Merkava department told Channel 2. “We can construct dozens of vehicles a year.”
The rate of construction could be doubled or tripled in the near future, according to the report. “We are already preparing to pick up our pace and in the coming years to construct a larger number of Namers for the IDF and other infantry forces,” Mazliach said.
Will these Namers be built on a completly new Chasis or will old Merkava's be converted into this ?
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine if we took Israel's example of converting tanks to APC's?
ReplyDeleteInstead of billions on a new GCV, we could take older M1A1s...and yea, we actually have some in boneyards...and do the Israeli conversion: Take of the turret (which takes tons off the weight), move the engine to the front of the tank, install rear doors and put on a remote 50 cal (maybe two, the M1 is a big mother). Maybe replace the turbine engine with a more economical diesel for greater range. M1's are the hardest tank to kill ever made. An ied made from a 500lb bomb might take out a track but not the soldiers inside.
Any M1 crew out there that could speculate how much space for troops we'd have once the motor is in front?
Heck, if you replace the standard turret with an uparmored Bradley turret I'm betting we could still have as much room as an LAV does.
STOP!!! you're giving away my post for weds!!!
DeleteThats what the Russians are apparently doing with their new Armata, depending on how reliable the russiandefence threads are (and I think they're very reliable IMO).
DeleteBut its really a old school idea; Think of the Sherman and Churchill Kangaroo or T-55 based Achzarit.
I can certainly see the value in a heavy APC/IFV using a tank chassis. With the number of Bradleys and Abrams tanks in storage, not being used, this is probably going to be a better option than buying foreign vehicles or designing another from the ground up.
I remember when right before the war they determined they did not need anymore Namers and were stopping production.
ReplyDeleteSo instead we have seen the same lesson replay over again. Nothing beats heavy ground fire power when engaged close up.
Also I would guess that the Israeli's keep the .50 cal instead of going bigger because the number of tanks they deploy. Why bother with a bigger gun on the APC when you have MBT all around?
i had forgotten that. its really amazing when you consider that the fighting in the north against hezbollah supposedly taught them lessons but they had to refine them still for the fighting in the gaza strip. i would love to know their rules of engagement. it really seems like they were fighting with one hand behind the back.
DeleteThe biggest lesson that Hezbollah should have taught everyone is the power of the ATGM and that the ATGM can also be defeated by the active protective system.
DeleteFrom what I have seen, tank infantry teams are still the most dominant form of ground fighting especially when you can protect the vehicles with active protection systems. As long as you have high quality indirect fire weapons to be the big hammer when needed, those tank infantry teams keep rolling along.
It worked for the USMC from Tarawa to Fallujah.
I can only guess and then not accurately on what ROE the IDF operates under. I would guess that their ability to recieve indirect fire in a timely manner has been degraded by their ROE though. But that is a guess and not a very well educated one.
Where are they going to be made? Israel or in the US? General Dynamics
ReplyDeleteI don't know what to think: I am please the IDF is building Namers, OTOH, it's a lesson the IDF has had to learn twice in 8 years. It makes me wonder just how fucked up the IDF is if they can't remember lessons learned the hard way
This story was saying in Sept that Namer production would continue at 30 per year (300 in ten years? stupid)
The new story you posted above is saying this will double to 60-90 Namer per year. Originally, they were supposed to buy 800, then this was cut to 300. Now they are going to up it to 500.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4573814,00.html
To me, that's still too few but hopefully they will be built by General Dynamics. Three-fifths of the cost of the Namers could be paid for thru US military aid that way.