Military Review

Israel has tested the combat module for the Bamer Namer

39
In Israel, the first stage of testing of an uninhabited combat module designed for installation on the “Timer” and “Eytar” armored personnel carriers has been completed. The tests were carried out by the Merkava and BTT (MANTAK) development department in the Israeli Defense Ministry, this stage was recognized as successful, the bmpd blog reports citing oleggranovsky.


Israel has tested the combat module for the Bamer Namer


A video of the use of the Namer armored personnel carrier of the Gil anti-tank complex (Spike-MR or Spike-LR) has appeared on the network. A feature of this system is the internal placement of the launcher, which allows it to be protected from bullets and shell fragments. It is noteworthy that missile launches were made when the armored personnel carrier stopped. It is possible that the tests of the complex in motion are provided during the next test phase, because modern BTR and BMP have long been using rocket armament in motion. Moreover, Israeli companies have long won international recognition in the production of anti-tank missile systems.


"Namer" - a heavy armored personnel carrier, also classified as a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, created on the basis of tank Merkava MK4. It is currently considered the most protected armored personnel carrier in the world. The first copies were armed with a large-caliber machine gun of 12,7 mm caliber, but the serial "Namer" is equipped with a combat module armed with a 30 or 40 mm automatic cannon.

39 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 14 December 2018 13: 36
    +6
    Well done, the Israelis, they did the right thing by hiding the ATGM under the armor. It is strange that our developers have forgotten about this, although they have long been using ATGM "Shturm" and "Attack" in the ground version
    1. just exp
      just exp 14 December 2018 14: 17
      +6
      so the Chrysanthemum also hides the PU inside the case.
      and BC at Chrysanthemum is also there.
  2. feokot1982
    feokot1982 14 December 2018 13: 49
    +4
    I remember reading the Professor’s comment here that nothing should be on the armored personnel carrier except a machine gun ...
    1. Professor
      Professor 14 December 2018 14: 04
      +5
      Quote: feokot1982
      I remember reading the Professor’s comment here that nothing should be on the armored personnel carrier except a machine gun ...

      Exactly. Otherwise, the elders have a desire to send armored personnel carriers (and he is, by definition, full of soldiers) into the very heat where only tanks are expensive. Look at this Namer. He's almost like a tank. What ...?
      1. svp67
        svp67 14 December 2018 14: 21
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        Look at this Namer. He's almost like a tank. What ...?

        It's ridiculous to hear this from a representative of a country that has a Merkava tank ... In general, it turned out to be a normal "armored vehicle" for trips to the Gaza Strip.
        1. Ramatkal
          Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 16
          +2
          Why only strip? It will soon be actively applied in Syria.
      2. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 14 December 2018 14: 21
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: feokot1982
        I remember reading the Professor’s comment here that nothing should be on the armored personnel carrier except a machine gun ...

        Exactly. Otherwise, the elders have a desire to send armored personnel carriers (and he is, by definition, full of soldiers) into the very heat where only tanks are expensive. Look at this Namer. He's almost like a tank. What ...?

        Well, Oleg, apparently, you and I remained in the past of AOI. New threats, new tactics, and therefore other weapons.

        “The head of the special department of the armored forces under the Ministry of Defense, Brigadier General Baruch Matsliakh, said in this regard that“ an armored personnel carrier with a turret and a cannon is the best answer to the challenges posed by fighting the enemy in urban areas. The caliber of the gun is 30 mm. , and, thus, the gun is designed to provide fire support for infantry units, covering the fighters and allowing them to be more independent on the battlefield, namely, to reduce dependence on help from other units. "
        At the same time, the "gun turret" is installed in such a way as not to violate the "integrity" of the armored personnel carrier (DUM) and thereby not endanger the crew and the soldiers being transported. Simple and easy to use, the tower also includes an active defense system (KAZ) and other systems, adding significant capabilities to the combat vehicle, ”he added.

        1. Professor
          Professor 14 December 2018 14: 28
          +2
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Well, Oleg, apparently, you and I remained in the past of AOI. New threats, new tactics, and therefore other weapons.

          Yeah. Until the new Sajaria. One APC and there is no whole compartment. Then they start scratching turnips.

          Quote: Per se.
          Quote: Professor
          Otherwise, the older ones have a desire to send an armored personnel carrier (by definition, it’s full of soldiers) to the very infernal where only tanks are dear.
          In this "Namer" is turned from a heavy armored personnel carrier into a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. It was much more reasonable to separate the "flies from cutlets" by making a "tandem BMP", where specialized fire support is given to such vehicles as BMPTs, and the transport function is left to the armored personnel carrier. It would hardly be difficult to make a purely BMPT on the Namer base, removing the landing force, with a powerful fire component.

          For the BMP, this tower was conceived. It is a crime to put her on an armored personnel carrier.

          PS
          KAZ on the tower is good, but KAZ without a tower is better.
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 14 December 2018 14: 49
            +3
            Quote: Professor

            Yeah. Until the new Sajaria. One APC and there is no whole compartment. Then they start scratching turnips.
            Well, you can go so far. Nobody cancels the rule that infantry fights on their feet, but the extension of its fire capabilities is welcome. Do not forget that, compared with the 2000 year, we have halved the number of tank units and almost doubled the number of infantry.
            [For BMP, this tower was conceived. It is a crime to put her on an armored personnel carrier.
            PS
            KAZ on the tower is good, but KAZ without a tower is better.

            I do not agree. In today's conditions, it can be argued that the concept of OBTR is being developed, as MBT appeared at one time.
            PS KAZ is good anyway. wink
            1. Professor
              Professor 14 December 2018 15: 18
              +1
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              Well, you can go so far. Nobody cancels the rule that infantry fights on their feet, but the extension of its fire capabilities is welcome. Do not forget that, compared with the 2000 year, we have halved the number of tank units and almost doubled the number of infantry.

              Do not give the general such a temptation.

              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              I do not agree. In today's conditions, it can be argued that the concept of OBTR is being developed, as MBT appeared at one time.

              We agree on our disagreement.
              1. Krasnodar
                Krasnodar 14 December 2018 18: 02
                +1
                I agree with Mr. Sokolov about the fact that armored vehicles in the occupied area occupied by the enemy can not be done.
      3. Per se.
        Per se. 14 December 2018 14: 21
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Otherwise, the older ones have a desire to send an armored personnel carrier (by definition, it’s full of soldiers) to the very infernal where only tanks are dear.
        In this "Namer" is turned from a heavy armored personnel carrier into a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. It was much more reasonable to separate the "flies from cutlets" by making a "tandem BMP", where specialized fire support is given to such vehicles as BMPTs, and the transport function is left to the armored personnel carrier. It would hardly be difficult to make a purely BMPT on the Namer base, removing the landing force, with a powerful fire component.
        1. Ramatkal
          Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 18
          0
          The failure of the Terminator showed that the concept of individual fire engines is vicious
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 14 December 2018 20: 42
            +1
            Quote: Ramatkal
            The failure of the Terminator showed
            Failure? Quite the opposite, everything is just beginning in the recognition of machines such as BMPT. It is wrong to think that 12-13 living souls can be crammed into a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a turret with powerful weapons can be installed, thick armor can be made, and all without damaging anything. What to expect from a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, that after the landing, it will become better than a specialized BMPT? No, it won't, you can't add anything without worsening anything, the BMPT has much more chances for more powerful weapons and more powerful protection than a heavy BMP, in addition, it has no need to wait for the infantry to land, it can provide support to tanks right away, both in line with them, so, if necessary, in front of them. A heavy infantry fighting vehicle will not be better than a heavy armored personnel carrier, which, again, being not burdened with additional weapons, can have better characteristics for the immediate task, protection and transportation of infantry, without getting out to the tanks, without risking to burn out along with all the landing force in the first line. The concept of "fire vehicles" should take into account their interaction, both in helping their tanks and their infantry. This will be their harmonious addition to tanks and heavy armored personnel carriers.
      4. 1810BM86
        1810BM86 14 December 2018 15: 00
        -1
        Quote: Professor
        Exactly. Otherwise, the elders have a desire to send armored personnel carriers (and he is, by definition, full of soldiers) into the very heat where only tanks are expensive. Look at this Namer. He's almost like a tank. What ...?

        Actually, the soldiers are where the tanks should be and should be; they don’t go tanks without soldiers. Or is everything else different in your holy land? winked
        1. Professor
          Professor 14 December 2018 15: 06
          +6
          Quote: 1810BM86
          Quote: Professor
          Exactly. Otherwise, the elders have a desire to send armored personnel carriers (and he is, by definition, full of soldiers) into the very heat where only tanks are expensive. Look at this Namer. He's almost like a tank. What ...?

          Actually, the soldiers are where the tanks should be and should be; they don’t go tanks without soldiers. Or is everything else different in your holy land? winked

          The infantry, where the tanks are fighting, must be on foot, and not wait in the bus for an ATGM.
          1. 1810BM86
            1810BM86 14 December 2018 15: 10
            -1
            Quote: Professor
            The infantry, where the tanks are fighting, must be on foot, and not wait in the bus for an ATGM.

            Yes, but she moves with the tanks. Any ambushes canceled there? Or are you completely used to it, that they themselves choose how, where and when to enter the battle?
            1. Professor
              Professor 14 December 2018 15: 20
              +6
              Quote: 1810BM86
              Yes, but she moves with the tanks.

              On foot.

              Quote: 1810BM86
              Any ambushes canceled there? Or are you completely used to it, that they themselves choose how, where and when to enter the battle?

              The infantry is fighting on foot. By definition. An armored personnel carrier is needed to deliver infantry to the battlefield, and not to conduct a battle on an equal footing with tanks with infantry on board.
              1. 1810BM86
                1810BM86 14 December 2018 15: 30
                -1
                Quote: Professor
                The infantry is fighting on foot. By definition. An armored personnel carrier is needed to deliver infantry to the battlefield, and not to conduct a battle on an equal footing with tanks with infantry on board.

                And what are your tanks there purely fighting tanks, huh? And the tanks are always moving alone? Well then fine.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 14 December 2018 15: 32
                  +4
                  Quote: 1810BM86
                  And what are your tanks there purely fighting tanks, huh? And the tanks are always moving alone? Well then fine.

                  Where did I write this? The infantry is fighting on foot. This is an axiom. And do not give anyone the temptation to change it.
                  1. 1810BM86
                    1810BM86 14 December 2018 16: 09
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    Where did I write this? The infantry is fighting on foot. This is an axiom. And do not give anyone the temptation to change it.

                    The war in your understanding is solid Stalingrad, the essence is a continuous battle. But this is not so. War means traveling around potentially dangerous areas to escort a convoy, conduct engineering reconnaissance, etc. Do you want to do this on the tank? A BTR (although this thing is closer to the BMP) will have a better gun. Everyone will think about whether it is worth attacking. Do not scare the machine gun.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 14 December 2018 17: 13
                      +5
                      Quote: 1810BM86
                      The war in your understanding is solid Stalingrad, the essence is a continuous battle. But this is not so.

                      Tell me what the war participant is.

                      Quote: 1810BM86
                      War means traveling through potentially dangerous areas, escorting a convoy, conducting engineering reconnaissance, etc. Do you want to do this on the tank?

                      For these purposes, there is MCI or this:



                      Quote: 1810BM86
                      Do you want to do this on the tank? A BTR (although this thing is closer to the BMP) will have a better gun. Everyone will think about whether it is worth attacking. Do not scare the machine gun.

                      Then it’s better, but also without a super tower duper.
                      1. 1810BM86
                        1810BM86 15 December 2018 07: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        Tell me what the war participant is.

                        This is how a veteran, a tankman will tell. The most necessary equipment in the war, after the tank is a tank that drives fast and with infantry inside. In the article I see exactly him. Your highest military command is on the right track.
            2. Ramatkal
              Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 19
              +1
              Infantry fighting legs.
          2. Spine
            Spine 14 December 2018 17: 59
            -2
            Quote: Professor
            The infantry, where the tanks are fighting, must be on foot, and not wait in the bus for an ATGM.

            That’s for sure, in 2006 in Lebanon, it’s Hezbollah’s fighters who showed it to you .. They burned your tanks and not a little, working in small groups. Israel, of course, took revenge, even the UN was outraged.
            1. Professor
              Professor 14 December 2018 18: 04
              +1
              Quote: Spine
              Quote: Professor
              The infantry, where the tanks are fighting, must be on foot, and not wait in the bus for an ATGM.

              That’s for sure, in 2006 in Lebanon, it’s Hezbollah’s fighters who showed it to you .. They burned your tanks and not a little, working in small groups. Israel, of course, took revenge, even the UN was outraged.

              Past. In Lebanon, the loss of armored vehicles was minimal. Irretrievable losses - 5 tanks.

              There were losses in Gaza.
            2. Ramatkal
              Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 21
              +1
              You are mistaken. Most tank hits caused only minor damage. Despite the fact that then the tanks did not have KAZ. And despite this, only 11 tankers died due to the rational layout and good booking.
            3. kiril1246
              kiril1246 14 December 2018 18: 38
              +2
              Quote: Spine
              That’s for sure, in 2006 in Lebanon, it’s Hezbollah’s fighters who showed it to you .. They burned your tanks and not a little, working in small groups. Israel, of course, took revenge, even the UN was outraged.

              You all know Mikhan, you’ve been everywhere.
          3. Per se.
            Per se. 14 December 2018 20: 55
            0
            Quote: Professor
            The infantry, where the tanks are fighting, must be on foot, and not wait in the bus for an ATGM.
            And KAZ does not fire, above its head. In this sense, BMPT in supporting tanks and preferably where tanks are fighting. Where tanks can no longer be without infantry, there must be heavy armored personnel carriers with assault groups, not for the paratroopers 9-10, but for 5-6 for heavy armored personnel carriers. This will make the BTR more compact, more comfortable to place the troops, reduce the time for dismounting and deployment of the assault group of the machine, as a single unit, combat unit. The defeat of such an armored personnel carrier with a smaller assault force minimizes losses, but, in any case, even with such use, heavy assault armored personnel carriers should not climb ahead of the tanks, interacting with the BMPT. Naturally, this is not an alternative to the classic infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, but a supplement, for attack units, with the tactics of assault groups, in conjunction with MBT, BMPT, and TBTR, in various proportions, applied to tasks.
      5. Ramatkal
        Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 23
        0
        Absolutely. BTR turn into an analogue of vicious concepts - BMP and BMPT
    2. chenia
      chenia 14 December 2018 14: 09
      0
      Quote: feokot1982
      that there should be nothing on the APC except the machine gun ...


      Well, this is that expert in the field of tactics.

      And so in this regard, the Jews go the right way, and almost pioneers.
      1. Ramatkal
        Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 29
        0
        I’m an Israeli myself, but I also think that it is unnecessary to confuse an APC with a translation-it’s wrong
  3. Guru
    Guru 14 December 2018 14: 16
    -1
    I understand that under armor you can recharge.
    If so, then this is already abruptly terminator - which as it was and remained raw.
    1. Ramatkal
      Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 21
      -1
      We doubt that the ATGM is rechargeable
  4. Dmitry Alekseev
    Dmitry Alekseev 14 December 2018 15: 21
    0
    ATGM as it is uncertain, ridiculous leaves. Association with the film "Short Circuit"))
  5. Evil echo
    Evil echo 14 December 2018 18: 24
    0
    What is peeping out of the Waal-e hatch?
  6. Ramatkal
    Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 24
    +1
    Quote: 1810BM86
    Quote: Professor
    Where did I write this? The infantry is fighting on foot. This is an axiom. And do not give anyone the temptation to change it.

    The war in your understanding is solid Stalingrad, the essence is a continuous battle. But this is not so. War means traveling around potentially dangerous areas to escort a convoy, conduct engineering reconnaissance, etc. Do you want to do this on the tank? A BTR (although this thing is closer to the BMP) will have a better gun. Everyone will think about whether it is worth attacking. Do not scare the machine gun.

    So you won’t win the war. Infantry fighting legs
  7. Ramatkal
    Ramatkal 14 December 2018 18: 26
    -1
    All this is doubtful. The magnificent armored personnel carrier is turned into a mixture of the tank and BMPT
  8. ljoha_d
    ljoha_d 15 December 2018 00: 00
    0
    Israelis, as always, well done with respect to the protection of the crew.