BTR Namer: the heaviest armored personnel carrier in the world


Combat buses. Israel is anxious about the life and health of its military. The country, which is located in the ring of unfriendly Arab states, cannot afford to be scattered by trained military personnel, the most expensive and limited resource for Tel Aviv. It is no coincidence that heavy tracked armored personnel carriers built on the base took root in Israel. tanks. These machines, by their mass, amount of armor and security, have no analogues in the global arms market. Palm by weight and level of protection today belongs to the Israeli armored personnel carrier Namer.


The history of the appearance of the Namer armored personnel carrier


The Namer armored personnel carrier (from Hebrew - “Leopard”) is a continuation of the tradition of creating heavy tracked armored personnel carriers built on the chassis of the main battle tanks. The predecessor of this combat vehicle is the tracked armored personnel carrier "Ahzarit." The latter has been mass-produced in Israel since 1988. The Ahzarit was built on the basis of Soviet-made T-54 and T-55 captured tanks. These war machines were seized in large numbers by Israel from the Arab states during the many Arab-Israeli wars.

The new combat vehicle was created as a product exclusively of the Israeli defense industry. The main battle tank Merkava was taken as a basis. The first work on a new heavy tracked armored personnel carrier began in Israel in 2004, and already in 2005, the first armored personnel carrier built on the chassis of the Mk1 tank was presented to the military for testing. The car was originally called Namera. Translated from Hebrew - a female leopard, but later the name was changed.


Already in 2006, the Israeli army decided to start mass production of a new armored personnel carrier. The first armored personnel carriers entered service in 2008. At the same time, deliveries are carried out rather slowly, given the high cost of armored vehicles. In total, up to 130 units were manufactured. And in the future, their number in the IDF is planned to be increased to at least 500 pieces. At the same time, no more than 30 such military vehicles were produced in Israel for a long time a year, but in 2016 they decided to double the production of armored personnel carriers. In the future, they should completely replace the M113, which is still operated by the Israeli military.

The Israel Defense Forces in the person of the new armored personnel carrier received an excellently protected combat vehicle, characterized by an impressive fighting mass. The armored personnel carrier is almost 1,3 times heavier than the modernized Russian T-72 and T-90 tanks, despite the fact that the Israeli armored personnel carrier does not have a tower. Like its predecessor, Akhzarit, the new Namer heavy tracked armored personnel carrier was created on the basis of the chassis of the tank. From Merkava, the combat vehicle received a chassis, a hull, armor, a power plant and a transmission. The tower, of course, was dismantled, and in the aft part of the car at the place of the fighting compartment and the compartment for ammunition, a full-fledged landing compartment appeared.

The first version of the armored personnel carrier was built on the basis of the Merkava Mk1 tank, but very quickly the Israeli military switched to the idea of ​​building an armored personnel carrier on the chassis of the most advanced Merkava Mk4 tank with a power unit borrowed from the Mk3 version. The resulting heavy tracked armored personnel carrier surpasses the Akhzarit in all its characteristics: it is better protected from all types of threats, has better mobility, is well managed and controlled, compares favorably with the crew’s convenience and the availability of modern information systems. At one time, the first motorized infantry brigade, the Golani, was the first brigade to adopt the Akhzarit heavy tracked armored personnel carriers. With Namer, the situation repeated itself, the Golani first began receiving new APCs in 1.


Technical features of the Namer armored personnel carrier


The Namer armored personnel carrier has a classic layout for its class. An engine is located in front of the hull, behind it are the workplaces of the crew of a combat vehicle, consisting of three people: commander, driver, and weapons operator. This is followed by the landing squad, designed to transport 8-9 soldiers in full gear. To exit the APCs they use a descending ramp with a hydraulic drive in the stern of the combat vehicle. The crew leaves the combat vehicle through hatches in the roof of the hull.

The main feature of the Israeli Namer armored personnel carrier is the level of protection that is unattainable for vehicles of this class. The armored personnel carrier built on the basis of the Merkava tank was specially adapted for the transport of soldiers with the highest possible level of protection. Weight gain from dismantling the turret with cannon armament went to strengthen the reservation of the combat vehicle. According to Israeli general Yaron Livnat, the armored personnel carrier has a heavier reservation than the Merkava Mk 4 tank, on the basis of which it was built. The total weight of the Namer combat vehicle exceeds 60 tons.

This is one of the few armored personnel carriers in the world that have projectile armor in the frontal projection. According to Israeli soldiers, an armored personnel carrier and its crew will survive the hit of the Kornet and Bassoon anti-tank missiles when they hit the frontal armor. And from the sides and the roof, it is reliably protected from damage by RPG-7 grenades. At the same time, the designers took care of the mine protection, initially turning to the bottom of the V-shaped. An element of the mine’s defense is the seats, which are made on a special suspension and are not fixed to the bottom of the armored personnel carrier. Since 2016, all new Namer armored personnel carriers have been supplied to the army only with an Israeli-made Trophy active defense system installed. This further enhances the security and survivability of the armored personnel carrier on the battlefield.


An armored personnel carrier with a combat mass of more than 60 tons is driven by a 1200 hp diesel engine, similar to that used on the Mk 3 Merkava tanks. Most armored personnel carriers have an American Teledyne Continental AVDS V-shaped 12-cylinder air-cooled diesel engine 1790-9AR. Engine power is enough to accelerate a heavy armored personnel carrier to a speed of 60 km / h when driving on a highway. Cruising range - 500 km. Despite the heavy weight, the APC has a good power density of 20 hp. per tonne, so the Namer remains quite maneuverable and agile.

As the main weapons on the Israeli "Leopards" installed remote-controlled weapon module Katlanit (RCWS). Usually it is equipped with a large 12,7 mm M2HB Browning machine gun (200 rounds of ammunition), options are also available with the installation of a single 7,62 mm FN MAG machine gun or a 40 mm Mk automatic grenade launcher. 19. In addition, a 7,62 mm FN MAG machine gun with manual control can be mounted on the hatch of the armored personnel carrier commander on a special pin support. On the sides of the APC in the aft part there are six-barrel launchers for firing grenades.

The remote-controlled combat module has a modern combined sight with a thermal imaging camera. As noted by the Israeli military, the installed thermal imager is a very worthy solution, since it allows you to recognize a person at a distance of up to 2,5 km. And here the scope capabilities are already superior to the capabilities of the 12,7 mm M2HB machine gun. This machine gun is already too old and is not the most effective weapons, especially at such a battle range. In Israel, they are working to create an uninhabited turret with cannon weapons.


Namer got a desert tower


One of the latest upgrades of the Namer armored personnel carrier is a variant with an uninhabited turret, which houses the 30-mm automatic gun Mk44 Bushmaster II, which today is presented on many models of military equipment. With such a composition of weapons, the combat capabilities of the machine significantly increase. At the same time, the armored personnel carrier already claims to be a BMP niche, while at the same time its capabilities for transporting troops have not diminished. The tower is remotely controlled and uninhabited, it has no crew, and there is no turret compartment and other systems in the body of the combat vehicle, so the useful volume of the airborne compartment was not affected in any way.

A model with cannon armament hit the camera lenses in early 2017. In addition to the automatic cannon, a 7,62 mm machine gun coaxial with it is installed in the turret, and there is also a 60 mm mortar, similar to those that began to be installed in the towers of the Merkava tank, starting with the Mk2 version.


Another option for enhancing the combat capabilities of the Namer armored personnel carrier is to deploy modern anti-tank systems on the machine. In 2018, Israel published videos of launches of anti-tank guided missiles of the Gil complex, which are included in the uninhabited combat module of an armored personnel carrier. Their distinctive feature is that the launcher is hidden in the tower and rises only at the time of launch. This placement option protects the ATGM from being hit by fragments of shells and mines, as well as bullets and small-caliber shells. If the crew detects a suitable target, the container with ATGM simply rises from a specially organized niche, and after the shot is again hidden in the hull.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

162 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. lexa333 13 March 2020 18: 10 New
    • 32
    • 11
    +21
    Well done worry about their soldiers
    1. Snail N9 13 March 2020 19: 06 New
      • 36
      • 57
      -21
      Indeed, the real embodiment of the concept of "people are more valuable than machines." hi (This does not concern Russia, in this country there is always one concept - "people-mussor", "cannon fodder", "women still give birth" ....)
      1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 19: 31 New
        • 29
        • 13
        +16
        Quote: Snail N9
        this does not apply, in this country there is always one concept - "people-mussor", "cannon fodder", "women still give birth" ....)

        Ага.
        That's the thing to put infantry on the ultra-protected HMMWV and M113 .... Immediately see that it is not "garbage" at all
        1. nemez 16 March 2020 05: 42 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          So it’s not the Americans who serve them, but those who want to become him.
      2. Dart 13 March 2020 20: 28 New
        • 7
        • 5
        +2
        Hmm ..... but the case is what?
      3. bk0010 14 March 2020 10: 00 New
        • 6
        • 6
        0
        Nonsense, the Jews actually have no rear and no BMP, so their APCs should be designed to work under fire. Normal APCs have no such need, this is not an IFV.
      4. Gosha Smirnov 14 March 2020 13: 36 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        there are simply very few Euros, so everyone is valued
        1. Doliva63 14 March 2020 19: 13 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: Gosha Smirnov
          there are simply very few Euros, so everyone is valued

          It is not valued; it is taken into account. A big difference.
    2. Doliva63 14 March 2020 19: 11 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      You, apparently, are a civilian, it’s excusable for you to freeze this.
    3. 5-9
      5-9 16 March 2020 10: 51 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Yeah, about all 130 * 9 = 1 soldiers ... the rest come out not a pity ...
      Is it really not clear that the price of this thing is prohibitive? And the question is which is better - it is very good to protect 1 soldiers, and to send 170 on foot or at least somehow or medium to protect all 11 people is extremely debatable and provocative ..
  2. kjhg 13 March 2020 18: 19 New
    • 15
    • 29
    -14
    Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created as an analogue of this Israeli Nemara.
    1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 18: 33 New
      • 20
      • 18
      +2
      Quote: kjhg
      Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created as an analogue of this Israeli Nemara.

      But what about the other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namera?
      For example, BTR-T was presented to the public in 1997 at an exhibition in Omsk

      BMO-T since 2001 in service.



      Plus a bunch of Ukrainian TBTR and TBMP, which is too lazy to collect ...
      Up to such original ones as BMT-72

      1. Aaron Zawi 13 March 2020 18: 47 New
        • 12
        • 12
        0
        Quote: Spade

        But what about the other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namera?
        For example, BTR-T was presented to the public in 1997 at an exhibition in Omsk

        I think that all this has been studied at least from photographs and video films.
        1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 18: 56 New
          • 17
          • 15
          +2
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          I think that all this has been studied at least from photographs and video films.

          I mean that the idea of ​​creating TBTR / TBMP with us has ripened long before the appearance of "Intent"

          If you imagine something as a source of inspiration, then “Ahzarit”
      2. Operator 13 March 2020 18: 53 New
        • 14
        • 24
        -10
        For the truth: all domestic TBTs up to the T-15 were created in one place - with the rear engine compartment (therefore, they did not take off).

        On the other hand, the IDF plans to replace the tracked APC "Namer" with the wheeled APC "Eitan", which indicates other jambs in the design of the first.
        1. Aaron Zawi 13 March 2020 18: 58 New
          • 24
          • 12
          +12
          Quote: Operator

          On the other hand, the IDF plans to replace the tracked APC "Namer" with the wheeled APC "Eitan", which indicates other jambs in the design of the first.

          Faq “Eitan” will go to the light mechanized brigades “SHOULDER” and “Kfir”. And the "Namer" goes to the heavy mechanized "Golani" and "Givati", as well as to separate engineering assault battalions. As the regular parts are saturated, the equipment will also go to reservists.
        2. Lopatov 13 March 2020 19: 00 New
          • 11
          • 14
          -3
          Quote: Operator
          For the truth: all domestic TBTs up to the T-15 were created in one place - with the rear engine compartment (therefore, they did not take off).

          But cheap.
          And Ukrainian even with the front MTO and rear exit "did not take off"
          1. Operator 13 March 2020 19: 14 New
            • 7
            • 11
            -4
            Ukrainian armored vehicles are oxymoron bully
            1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 19: 15 New
              • 6
              • 8
              -2
              Quote: Operator
              Ukrainian armored vehicles are oxymoron

              But why?
              Georgia or Azerbaijan could well buy
              1. Operator 13 March 2020 19: 20 New
                • 6
                • 11
                -5
                Before the first cracking of the armor laughing
                1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 19: 22 New
                  • 10
                  • 7
                  +3
                  Quote: Operator
                  Before the first cracking of the armor

                  They say that “armor cracking” only happens after a competitor from across the ocean appears. With M113 at the price of “free, pay only for transportation” laughing
              2. kotdavin4i 14 March 2020 13: 11 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Good day. Azerbaijan took several BTR-3s for testing and refused to purchase both BTR-3 and BTR-4, they didn’t work much for the highlands.
        3. Lopatov 13 March 2020 19: 02 New
          • 9
          • 10
          -1
          Quote: Operator
          On the other hand, the IDF plans to replace the tracked APC "Namer" with the wheeled APC "Eitan", which indicates other jambs in the design of the first.

          And I heard that this is a replacement for M113
          1. Operator 13 March 2020 19: 26 New
            • 5
            • 7
            -2
            Two years ago, a major IDF major general announced the launch of an Israeli program to develop an entire line of armored vehicles, including MBTs and armored personnel carriers, on the basis of a single wheeled platform - such as American money ended up in the purchase and operation of tracked vehicles, and the Trophy SAZ will help reduce armor weight laughing
        4. Simargl 14 March 2020 05: 38 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          For the truth: all domestic TBTs up to the T-15 were created in one place - with the rear engine compartment (therefore, they did not take off).
          Bullshit! T-15 and everything on the basis of “Merkava” - with a front location, only the captured T-55 and Leo did not begin to deploy.
      3. YOUR 14 March 2020 02: 32 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Of all of these, only BMO-T has been put into service. And that can be said conditionally. Because it was released on 01.01.2020 no more than 2 dozen cars. And this is not quite what the question is. BMO-T is a heavy combat vehicle of flamethrowers.
        Unfortunately, everything else did not go beyond the prototypes.
        Skolko in our old military equipment rusts at storage bases. Why not replace all of the T-15, 54, 55, 62, and even the first T64 and T72 releases, instead of the expensive and never delivered a single unit to the T80 troops.
        For some reason they don’t want to
        1. ccsr 14 March 2020 15: 54 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Quote: YOUR
          For some reason they don’t want to

          All of this is expensive and not effective, which is why we have relied on the VKS and the small-tonnage fleet for operations, like the Syrian one. The only application of this technique is to tidy up and sell it cheaply in third countries, in the hope that they will study with us, purchase supplies and spare parts, and naturally ammunition at reasonable prices.
        2. They are not interested, Vladimir. The Jews of Israel are interested in having high-quality armored vehicles. These are matters of life and death for them. Real soldiers, warriors, fighters ... And can you imagine "our" Jew Dimon on the "armor", at least in the exercises? Or with a parachute at the open door of the An-2 at a kilometer height? Lazy, fat-assed, not interested in anything .. "Water murmurs - my water, tanga flows - my tanga ..." - that’s all the perception of the surrounding reality. Well, unless for the sake of .... And the Ukrainian "Rabbit" in the place of the BMP-1 commander was a matter of fotka - "cinema and Germans" ...
          In addition to profit and young "heifers" and m nothing is interesting! ... Stalin was about seventy years old, and he, as a rookie, was climbing armor, personally inspecting, provided by BTT designers in the Kremlin. But he respected artillery and aircraft more. But it was HIS country, HIS people, HIS armor. And these ....
          Who would do ... Any important idiot, even in form, even in a civilian, can be taught to "love the motherland." Let him sit down in place of the T-62 driver, put on a respirator, block “his” hatch, smoke bomb for 30 seconds in the tank .., all “time has gone” ... “Leaving the damaged tank through the tower hatch”. A fly would have opened the "third eye" and the brains "aired." And if you put a loafer in the place of the MTLB mechanic’s drive, and a couple of bursts of 7,62 in the airborne compartment (on board) ... Actually, the outlook on life would change dramatically.
          In Russia, you need a state FOR PEOPLE. That’s when it appears, then the interested, competent, respectable PEOPLE will seriously engage in armored vehicles, including
      4. Simargl 14 March 2020 05: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        But what about the other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namera?
        Probably not:
        The predecessor of this combat vehicle is the tracked armored personnel carrier "Ahzarit." The latter has been mass-produced in Israel since 1988. The Ahzarit was built on the basis of Soviet-made T-54 and T-55 captured tanks.
        With TBMP they nevertheless started the experiments first.
        Quote: Brechopedia
        Appreciating the soldier’s life above the safety of technology, Israel created a series of Merkava heavy tanks that have an unusual front-engine layout with a stern hatch, allowing safer unloading of the crew in the event of enemy fire. During the Israeli-Lebanese conflict of 1982, these tanks (with racks removed) were used as armored personnel carriers, which confirmed the value of such equipment with its resistance to destruction by means of anti-tank weapons with cumulative ammunition. After lengthy tests of heavy armored personnel carriers made from refitted hulls of various tanks, such as the British Centurion and Merkava, the Ahzarit was adopted by the Israel Defense Forces and put into production in 1988.
        1. Lopatov 14 March 2020 17: 53 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Simargl
          Probably not:

          That is, are you sure that the information about these machines was deleted from the memory of the T-15 developers?

          Quote: Simargl
          With TBMP they nevertheless started the experiments first.

          Attention, the photographs are not Israelis.
      5. Grigory_45 14 March 2020 13: 35 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        But what about the other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namera?

        all these machines were created based on Israeli heavy armored personnel carriers. It is after their successful application. Starting from the cougar

        and Ahzarita. The latter, as you know, was created on the basis of the T-54/55 tank.


        and then it started here and in Ukraine - all kinds of BTR-T, BMP-55 and others.
    2. Eskobar 13 March 2020 19: 15 New
      • 15
      • 11
      +4
      And where is that armata? In 2015, the parade showed cap to leave the air, and things are there. Until now, soldiers in tin cans made their way from DShK / KVPT / RPG-7, which are abundant even in African countries
      1. ccsr 14 March 2020 17: 04 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        Quote: Eskobar
        Until now, soldiers in tin cans made their way from DShK / KVPT / RPG-7, which are abundant even in African countries

        Tell us about your concept of the war of the Russian army against African countries, but not on the example of Syria, which we entered at the request of their government, but on the example of how we will fight for natural resources, for example. I look forward to a fascinating story, in the spirit of "1000 and one night" ...
        1. Eskobar 18 March 2020 21: 36 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          In the words of Kozma Prutkov, "See the root" is not the concept, but the fact that almost the entire history of the Russian armored personnel carrier structure the infantry rode on the armor, because there was no sense in this armor, and at least you could make up
          1. ccsr 19 March 2020 11: 57 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: Eskobar
            that almost the entire history of the Russian armored personnel carrier structure, the infantry rode on armor,

            Before the war, infantry was transported by truck very rarely, and more often it stomped on foot, while the Germans already had their armored personnel carriers for transporting personnel. So nobody can deny the usefulness of this technique on the march.
            Quote: Eskobar
            because there’s no use in this armor,

            From a tank gun - yes, but from bullets and fragments it’s quite a normal defense. It’s just that they began to use armored personnel carriers in us where a guerrilla war was fought, and there really when their ambushes and mines were set their effectiveness decreased. But this does not mean that this technique is not needed at all.
            Quote: Eskobar
            as well as at least you can make up and lie down behind the case

            The machine gun on the armored personnel carrier also helped the infantry, unless of course it was immediately undermined.
    3. businessv 13 March 2020 20: 10 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: kjhg
      Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created as an analogue of this Israeli Nemara.

      I wonder who borrowed the idea of ​​an uninhabited tower from anyone. An interesting car, but very heavy, only for slightly rough terrain, apparently. Although, armored personnel carriers do not participate in anti-tank ambushes, it means that everything is normal.
      1. kjhg 13 March 2020 20: 30 New
        • 6
        • 3
        +3
        Quote: businessv
        An interesting car, but very heavy, only for slightly rough terrain, apparently.

        The idea of ​​using the T-15 infantry fighting vehicle says that it should go in line with tanks. Tanks must break through the enemy’s defenses, and infantry in the BMP will have to clear the area and gain a foothold there. But this is in big wars. In wars like the Syrian, these infantry fighting vehicles under enemy fire must deliver infantry to the very front line of hostilities and support it with their fire. In the footage of the Syrian war, we see that BMP-1 and 2 have to do it there. We can imagine the danger the infantry inside these poorly protected vehicles is at.
        1. businessv 13 March 2020 20: 48 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          Quote: kjhg
          In the footage of the Syrian war, we see that BMP-1 and 2 have to do it there. We can imagine the danger the infantry inside these poorly protected vehicles is at.

          Yes, the war dictates the conditions of use, that's right! BMP, in comparison with this thing, is just a children's toy!
          1. ccsr 14 March 2020 17: 07 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Quote: businessv
            BMP, in comparison with this thing, is just a children's toy!

            Of course, a toy, because 60 tons for transporting personnel is a little expensive for the budget, and for operation in our conditions it is simply ruinous for the army. By the way, can you at least explain why we need such a technique?
            1. businessv 14 March 2020 20: 57 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: ccsr
              By the way, can you at least explain why we need such a technique?

              If we talk about the safety of personnel, then for this. After all, it is not in vain that the Israelis rivet it so much! And I don’t even know for our army, at first I wrote that it is a very heavy machine, not for rough terrain, which means that its use is very limited, including with us.
              1. ccsr 15 March 2020 11: 11 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Quote: businessv
                After all, it is not in vain that the Israelis rivet it so much!

                They rivet her for police operations inside the country, near the border or in the Gaza Strip, because for fighting against the regular army these are too convenient targets for the enemy.
                Well, the banal cut of the military budget - the Israelis were masters in this matter, they created planes, and then abandoned this, now they began to bother with heavy armored personnel carriers.

                Quote: businessv
                which means that its use is very limited, including with us.

                Even as limited - not even all automobile bridges withstand the passage of such a column, and that requires a railway to transport them.
            2. Eskobar 15 March 2020 09: 42 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              The Jews first realized that the most expensive part of the tank / BMP is its crew
            3. Nameless 15 March 2020 18: 51 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Because the letter "B" in the name of the armored troop carrier no longer fulfills its function - i.e. its armor is absolutely not able to protect the landing inside. It turns out that the entire initial idea of ​​the BTR (and the BMP, too - even if B means Combat) is lost - an armored vehicle for infantry squads. Why make armored cars, which with their armor in places are not able to protect even from armor-piercing bullets of 7.62x39mm caliber? With the same success, the infantry could run after the tanks in the attack as in the Second World War.
              Heavy armored personnel carriers based on the tank chassis are an evolutionary path for the development of this type of armored vehicles. From the far rear, replenishment to the front line can also be carried out on ordinary trucks and railway trains. But to attack along with tanks in a bare field or to storm the city it is better to use a vehicle that can protect the squad not only from pistol bullets, stones and fragments, but also from rifle bullets, land mines and rocket-propelled grenades. Those. BTR \ TBMP should serve the infantry not only as a vehicle, but also as a reliable mobile shelter.

              The fact that in the end they will weigh more than usual is not fatal: just now the tactics of their application will change. This will slightly affect the speed of movement - it is difficult to drive along the intersection at speeds of 70-80km / h.
              1. ccsr 15 March 2020 19: 08 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: Nameless
                It turns out that the entire initial idea of ​​the BTR (and the BMP, too - even if B means Combat) is lost - an armored vehicle for infantry squads.

                Firstly, these are means of transportation on the march, and as part of battle formations, at best, it supports the infantry following the tanks with their fire - this is how military science designated the use of this type of weapon.
                Secondly, this technique has anti-fragmentation and prototype armor and the ability to swim independently overcome water obstacles. You won’t be able to do this on a tank or car, so don’t have to blame for what was being developed for our conditions.
                Quote: Nameless
                Heavy armored personnel carriers based on the tank chassis are an evolutionary path for the development of this type of armored vehicles.

                This is a fallacy, if only because no army in the world has this in service.
                Quote: Nameless
                But to attack along with tanks in a bare field or to storm the city is better on a vehicle,

                Actually, in a vehicle, infantry does not attack - it’s you who apparently invented a new tactic for the Ground Forces, but apparently only in Israel they understand it.
                Quote: Nameless
                The fact that in the end they will weigh more than usual is not fatal: just now the tactics of their application will change.

                You don’t even understand that in order to overcome the water barrier it will be necessary to build a pontoon bridge for such equipment, and this immediately puts an end to the mobility of infantry units. So it’s not the tactics that will change, but they simply won’t take these monsters into service - that's for sure in the Russian army.
                1. Nameless 15 March 2020 19: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  You still say that the infantryman has enough of his grandfather’s pouch for 4 stores for AK-74 (and the ammunition will be brought to the front trucks), and that the attack must be shouted with a bang. On what was written in the charters of the USSR, our guys got burned back in the first Chechen campaign.
                  This is your anti-fragmentation and bulletproof (maximum - from pistol and low-pulse bullets. Starting with armor-piercing 7.62x39 we can assume that the armor is shit) is no longer enough to protect the landing. It has come to the point that the infantry prefers to ride on equipment that is designed for the infantry to ride inside it.

                  How often have the ability to force water barriers been used in our troops? I won’t say this for BMD - for airborne vehicles, the equipment must be airborne, and therefore there must be enough weight to lift it into the air, for the marine corps, the equipment must be floating. But for MSV this is not fatal - units of the engineering troops can direct a pontoon ferry or lay a bridge of the required tonnage.

                  Yes, yes, yes - "but in the USSR everything is better!" laughing

                  And on the basis of what then are Israeli armored personnel carriers made? On the chassis of motor boats or tractors? lol

                  Well, yes, yes, the infantry is still running to attack the tanks. You would rather not be too lazy to watch a video of some major exercises, and you would see in what cases the landing is dismounted.

                  It’s you that you don’t understand that a gentle slope on the shore of a water barrier is an exception and not a rule. You don’t understand that with tin cans a la “placebo effect” there are two choices - in the old way, running after tanks and walking on a march to front, or make an armored personnel carrier from a tank.

                  Threat - by the way, do not overeat so much for your ability to force water barriers - tanks are able to do this along the bottom.
                  1. ccsr 15 March 2020 19: 34 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Nameless
                    You still say that the infantryman has enough and the grandfather’s pouch for 4 stores for AK-74

                    There are scientifically substantiated loading standards for a fighter, and it’s exactly four stores that enter them;

                    Quote: Nameless
                    It has come to the point that the infantry prefers to ride on equipment that is designed for the infantry to ride inside it.

                    This is on a march in territories where there is no war for which an army is being prepared, but there are terrorists who cannot be destroyed together with the population that supports them, as was the case in Afghanistan or in Chechnya, where the army was tied hands ..
                    Quote: Nameless
                    How often have the ability to force water barriers been used in our troops?

                    On all exercises this is practiced. As an example, we can recall the actions to evacuate our citizens in Abkhazia.
                    Quote: Nameless
                    And on the basis of what then are Israeli armored personnel carriers made?

                    What are we talking about on the basis of the tank.
                    Quote: Nameless
                    Well, yes, yes, the infantry is still running to attack the tanks. You would rather not be too lazy to watch a video of some major exercises, and you would see in what cases the landing is dismounted.

                    Do you yourself even understand the essence of these teachings and at what positions is the deployment taking place? You see only part of the teachings, and draw naive conclusions.
                    Quote: Nameless
                    That you do not understand well

                    Maybe I don’t understand something well, but how many years you yourself have served in the army, tell us more in detail, especially in what positions, so that I can believe in your conclusions.
                  2. Saxahorse 15 March 2020 20: 13 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Nameless
                    Starting with the armor-piercing 7.62x39, we can assume that the armor is shit) is not enough to protect the landing. It has come to the point that the infantry prefers to ride a vehicle,

                    You repeat the set of old stamps. Armor-piercing 7.62, armored personnel carriers penetrate only when firing at close range. This means that the enemy is allowed too close. In a big war, such an extreme rarity and even a jamb, and for counter-guerrilla actions invented MDIs (useless in a real war). Well, the infantry rides because there are no windows in the APCs! Cradles .. Sami try in the trunk for a ride for example. smile
                    1. Nameless 15 March 2020 20: 50 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      Silly stamps are what 7.62x39 are capable of breaking through the rail. And I'm talking about the fact that the armor of the Soviet armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles is such that in some cases it breaks through even with these bullets (even though armor-piercing)! Okay, 12.7mm would pierce at point blank range - so it breaks through armor-piercing automatic ammo! Then it would be better if they were without armor - would it be easier, faster and cheaper.

                      fool And evil officers mean torturing their subordinates, forcing them to climb inside this box. laughing
                      1. Saxahorse 15 March 2020 23: 30 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Nameless
                        And I'm talking about the fact that the armor of the Soviet armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles is as follows

                        The first armored cars of the WWI times had 4 mm armor, and nothing was considered enough. We went to the enemy and extinguished. From far away of course.

                        Quote: Nameless
                        And evil officers mean torturing their subordinates,

                        Evil officers ride in the same box. Five to ten minutes in a breakthrough under fire, on adrenaline, this is not a problem. But a few hours on the march is a completely different story. Stop other people's nonsense to repeat thoughtlessly. No one rides a battle on armor. There are no fools.
                      2. Nameless 15 March 2020 23: 37 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        You say nonsense: I was always surprised and annoyed by people who, from their warm and comfortable little world, talk about what is enough for the military, as if knowing it better in advance of him.
                        “Not a problem” - it’s easy for you to talk pathetically from the couch. To drive you a little in bronik and a helmet in a forest of about ten kilometers.
                        Although it will be enough on the parade ground - all the same in the armor plate, but with a piece and with a folded mattress on outstretched arms above the head - so that only bright thoughts come into it!

                        Yeah, where am I, the template thinker, to such a sophisticated outstanding intellectual like you!
                2. bk0010 15 March 2020 20: 47 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Nameless
                  On what was written in the charters of the USSR, our guys got burned back in the first Chechen campaign.
                  For a war like the Chechen one, it is not armored personnel carriers that are needed, but MRAPs (the original ones, based on heavy trucks with a bunch of heavy machine guns). And the chances of survival are greater and cheaper.
                  1. Nameless 15 March 2020 20: 58 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    You still suggest gantraki riveting. Everything would be cheaper for you.
                    1. bk0010 15 March 2020 23: 41 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Cheaper is not important. But against partisans / saboteurs it is necessary that all wearable non-tank keep (i.e., up to 12.7 inclusive) and multi-channel round-robin weapons (from 4 to 14.5 plus AGS will normally be). But off-road patency, swimming, means of anti-nuclear protection, and others like that can be (in this case, neglected).
                    2. Nameless 15 March 2020 23: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      You are a terrible person ... give you free rein - you and Mosinki will return, and their overcoats, and footcloths, and carts.
                      You have excellent makings of an effective manager!
          2. bk0010 15 March 2020 20: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The armor of an APC should provide protection against fragments of bombs / shells on the march. More is good, but not fundamentally.
            1. Nameless 15 March 2020 21: 04 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Here I am about the same! What is armored personnel carrier \ BMP must protect not only from bullets of a pistol and low-pulse caliber with fragments, but also from bullets of 12.7mm, 23mm and 30mm shells, rocket-propelled grenades, mines and all other joys of modern life. But in practice, the conspiratorial infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers do not even protect against automatic bullets (even if it’s even armor-piercing and even if it is point blank - but in fact it is) - i.e. are essentially tin cans.
      2. Nameless 15 March 2020 13: 42 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        BMP is the Mass Grave of the Infantry
    4. Simargl 14 March 2020 07: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: kjhg
      But this is in big wars.
      In Syria, they are doing something like this.
    5. Doliva63 14 March 2020 19: 22 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: kjhg
      Quote: businessv
      An interesting car, but very heavy, only for slightly rough terrain, apparently.

      The idea of ​​using the T-15 infantry fighting vehicle says that it should go in line with tanks. Tanks must break through the enemy’s defenses, and infantry in the BMP will have to clear the area and gain a foothold there. But this is in big wars. In wars like the Syrian, these infantry fighting vehicles under enemy fire must deliver infantry to the very front line of hostilities and support it with their fire. In the footage of the Syrian war, we see that BMP-1 and 2 have to do it there. We can imagine the danger the infantry inside these poorly protected vehicles is at.

      If, when breaking through the enemy’s defense, the infantry will go to the BMP in the same ranks as the tanks (with the exception of the option of using special ammunition), then it will not clear anything and will not be fixed anywhere. Learn the materiel, citizen "colonel". In frames from Syria we see one mess, alas, this is not an example.
      1. kjhg 14 March 2020 19: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Doliva63
        citizen "colonel"

        Rude then why? request
        1. Doliva63 15 March 2020 18: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: kjhg
          Quote: Doliva63
          citizen "colonel"

          Rude then why? request

          If you have the military rank of Colonel, please accept my apologies hi and I will contact you "Comrade Colonel", and if not, then what did you dislike about "Citizen Colonel" (I would have understood if I called "Citizen" laughing)? For, judging by the "idea of ​​using the BMPT T-15," you are clearly a civilian.
  3. Simargl 14 March 2020 05: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: businessv
    I wonder who borrowed the idea of ​​an uninhabited tower from anyone.
    All at the aviators.
  4. Grigory_45 14 March 2020 19: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: businessv
    I wonder who borrowed the idea of ​​an uninhabited tower from anyone.

    the question is too vague. Who was the first to propose the idea of ​​such a tower? Who was the first to create the prototype? Who first launched the series or installed on the machine? What kind of towers of the armed forces are we talking about - tank, aviation, naval? Should the machine-gun ZPU remotely controlled by mechanical drives be considered uninhabited? The gun on the gun mount?

    I have been using remote-controlled automated installations on ships for a long time. In aviation, too.

    They began to develop armored vehicles from the end of the 80s, in connection with the development of electron-optical devices. The Israelis (on the armored personnel carrier) began to put them first in bulk - to reduce personnel losses. They were followed by the Americans (after Iraq, again on light armored vehicles), and then - and the rest.

    Now BM is not only lazy. There were also prototypes at one time
    Jordanian South African TARIQ Falcon 1 (2003)


    M1 Abrams Block III (late 1980s)


    The main reason for the popularity of uninhabited towers is their smaller size and weight compared to inhabited structures. Most uninhabited towers are distinguished by a small diameter of shoulder straps, and also do not require additional volume in the turret space of the hull, which makes it possible to install such modules on armored vehicles on which the inhabited tower can not be set without damage to other characteristics (for example, the number of troops). In addition, such towers make it easy to isolate ammunition from the crew, increasing its survival.
  • Nikolaevich I 14 March 2020 02: 02 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Quote: kjhg
    Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created, as an analog of this Israeli Nemara

    Waiting! Well, one must think before writing (from writing a text ...) "something like that!" The idea of ​​a "heavy armored personnel carrier" is in the minds of the military and weapons designers a long time ago (!) ... from the last century! And in Russia they decided that it was time ... that it was already necessary to "stir up" a heavy infantry fighting vehicle (APC)! So where does the Israeli "intent"? “Namer” - on the basis of “Merkava” ... “Barberry” - on the basis of “Almaty”! In your opinion, “Armata” is the analogue of “Merkava”? belay Why, for some, "specialists" all the time seems to be ... either an Israeli footprint or an American moccasin? fool
    1. Simargl 14 March 2020 07: 57 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In your opinion, “Armata” is the analogue of “Merkava”?
      The T-15 concept is an analogue of Nemara, not Merkava.
      Merkava herself - M-60 deployed. T-15 - deployed T-14. Remote Modules started to apply on helicopters (gun / machine gun watching the helmet - even cooler).

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Why, for some, "specialists" all the time seems to be ... either an Israeli footprint or an American moccasin?
      It does not seem. They were the first, if not prejudiced to reason - “everything” will be similar to Nemar. Just like everything that looks like a T-14 - to Armata ... and the concept of Armata (remote control) - from fleet tongue The gun’s calculation of the tower does not control the shot — they are charging (on battleships), but in modern towers there are no charging ones.
      1. English tarantas 14 March 2020 10: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So you decide where the remote control, from the fleet or aviation? Or maybe you’d better name the first project of an armored car with remote control of something, or even better, name the first car with an uninhabited BO. And where did you find this nonsense about the fact that Merkava is an expanded M60? In general, I once heard that Merkava is a deployed Centurion. So who was deployed?
        1. Simargl 14 March 2020 12: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: English Tarantas
          So you decide where the remote control, from the fleet or aviation?
          Why be determined? Initially, the management of the towers was remote in the fleet. Then they began to use it in aviation in the form that the "earthlings" picked up.
          Quote: English Tarantas
          And where did you find this nonsense about the fact that Merkava is an expanded M60? In general, I once heard that Merkava is a deployed Centurion. So who was deployed?
          Was wrong. Centurion, of course.
          1. English tarantas 14 March 2020 13: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Why be determined? Initially, the management of the towers was remote in the fleet. Then they began to use it in aviation in the form that the "earthlings" picked up.

            In my opinion, coastal defense batteries received remote control before aviation.
            Was wrong. Centurion, of course.

            As they were, they remained wrong.
            1. Simargl 14 March 2020 14: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: English Tarantas
              In my opinion, coastal defense batteries received remote control before aviation.
              These are the ones that were removed from the battleships?

              Quote: English Tarantas
              As they were, they remained wrong.
              The engine is from him, the suspension is also Christie (and, yes! T-34)! ...
              1. English tarantas 14 March 2020 20: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                These are the ones that were removed from the battleships?

                Nonetheless. Yes, some, at first, were similar to the ship ones, but still with changes for land use, further and different from the ship ones.
                The engine is from him, the suspension is also Christie (and, yes! T-34)! ...

                Um, and now what? Powerplant and suspension is the whole tank? Then the T-55 is the T-62
      2. Nikolaevich I 14 March 2020 14: 47 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Quote: Simargl
        The T-15 concept is an analogue of Nemara, not Merkava.
        Merkava herself - M-60 deployed. T-15 - deployed T-14.

        Quote: Simargl
        sho "will be similar to Nemar. Just like everything that looks like a T-14 - to Armata ... and the concept of Armata (remote control) - from the fleet

        Sorry, but I can not answer you now! I still translate your answer into Russian ... I can’t handle it yet! request
    2. Python 57 15 March 2020 16: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The first TBTR hit Israeli. Nagmashon, Nakpadon, etc.
  • knn54 13 March 2020 18: 25 New
    • 5
    • 13
    -8
    And here we are T-15 indulge .. six years.
    1. Uncle Izya 13 March 2020 18: 30 New
      • 5
      • 18
      -13
      Well, Israel also did not create in a day. Israel mainly fights with the Palestinians Russia and NATO
      1. Aaron Zawi 13 March 2020 18: 34 New
        • 17
        • 12
        +5
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        Well, Israel also did not create in a day. Israel mainly fights with the Palestinians Russia and NATO

        Um. crying And when did the Russian Federation fight with NATO? Fortunately for the whole world, it has not yet reached this point.
        1. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 07: 28 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Russia has a confrontation with NATO and I didn’t mean fighting a hypothetical
        2. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 14: 45 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          For punitive operations, it’s possible that the thread is easier for Russia.
  • IS-80_RVGK2 13 March 2020 18: 49 New
    • 8
    • 11
    -3
    One of the latest upgrades of the Namer armored personnel carrier is a variant with an uninhabited tower, which housed the 30-mm automatic gun Mk44 Bushmaster II

    I’m waiting, from Jewish comrades, for explanations why they put up a tower with a cannon. Last time they explained why this should not be done. laughing
    1. Aaron Zawi 13 March 2020 19: 00 New
      • 10
      • 10
      0
      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

      I’m waiting, from Jewish comrades, for explanations why they put up a tower with a cannon. Last time they explained why this should not be done. laughing

      Not yet set. This is just a project. But apparently one of the reasons is the sharp reduction in old tanks in the army.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2 13 March 2020 22: 55 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        That is, suddenly it turned out that the commanders are not so stupid and reckless as told earlier? I am glad that there is some progress in evolution. laughing
      2. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 07: 29 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Is this your assumption correct?
        You might think you work at a tank factory
    2. bk0010 14 March 2020 10: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      BMP want, apparently. Why couldn’t it be done? Because they will shoot at the APCs? So after all and so, and so they will shoot at him. But the gun greatly increases the cost of the car.
    3. Grigory_45 14 March 2020 14: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
      I’m waiting, from Jewish comrades, for explanations of why they put up a tower with a cannon.

      I’m not a Jew, but I’ll try to guess what the gun is for.
      Complaints from the IDF fighters about the weak weapons of Namer and Ahzarit are known. I would like something more substantial than the large-caliber Browning. For example, a 30-mm gunshot and mortar. Which is present in the new BM. On it, you can also screw Spikes.
      The projectile flies further than the bullet, has much greater power and can pierce the relatively thick walls of buildings.

      However, I don’t think there will be many cannon cars. They will probably be given only to commanders, while the bulk of the armored personnel carrier will remain with machine guns and grenade launchers.
  • alien308 13 March 2020 19: 06 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The bassoon is not new.
  • Operator 13 March 2020 19: 18 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    What?

    The same - follow the messages of your MO: in the future, "Namer", like "Merkava" are intended to be replaced with wheeled armored vehicles.
  • ccsr 13 March 2020 19: 21 New
    • 8
    • 11
    -3
    Author:
    Yuferev Sergey
    The resulting heavy tracked armored personnel carrier is superior to Akhzarit in all respects: it is better protected from all types of threats, has better mobility, is well managed and controlled, compares favorably with the convenience of the crew and the availability of modern information systems.

    The author is clearly exaggerating the capabilities of this product, because its creation is unlikely to be anything promising in the development of armored vehicles.
    Firstly, it is not protected from ATGM attacks from the upper sphere, which means that the crews will not receive any special advantages in combat conditions.
    Secondly, the cost of the product is too great, maneuverability is not very strong, huge fuel consumption with weak weapons and all its advantages are manifested against Arab extremists, and even then against those who do not have modern ATGM systems, the same American "Jewelin":
    The target attack mode from above is the default mode when the GOS is activated. In this attack mode, the rocket hits the target on the upper part of it. This feature allows the operator to attack armored vehicles from the front, rear or sides and significantly increases the likelihood of destroying the target. The upper part of the armored vehicles are usually less secure.

    https://topwar.ru/35953-srednyaya-broneboynaya-oruzheynaya-sistema-javelin.html
    I think that such systems will appear in them much earlier than the release of the entire series of these heavy armored personnel carriers.
    By the way, this heavy armored personnel carrier was already discussed at the VO, and the main disadvantages of this product were indicated there, which indicate that the mountain gave birth to a mouse - this direction is unpromising, and this is understood in other armies of the world.
    1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 19: 45 New
      • 12
      • 5
      +7
      Quote: ccsr
      and all its advantages are shown against Arab extremists

      You are not right.
      Its advantage is manifested just in the war with a normal opponent.
      And against the "Arab extremists" MRAPs would be enough

      Because the TBTR is capable of delivering infantry to the very object of attack.
      In this case, the artillery will be able to carry the fire at the last moment. What is 200 meters for Namer? Seconds And the assault infantry is pouring on the enemy who has not yet recovered.
      1. ccsr 13 March 2020 19: 58 New
        • 5
        • 14
        -9
        Quote: Spade
        Its advantage is manifested just in the war with a normal opponent.

        When did the Israeli army fight against a normal adversary? Usually these are poorly trained troops and even with problems in their command and control system.
        Quote: Spade
        Because the TBTR is capable of delivering infantry to the very object of attack.

        Do you think that they will go on a bayonet attack? So no one has been acting for a long time, even the Americans in Iraq at first completely destroyed the enemy’s positions, and then infantry units went there. And for this they do not need heavy armored personnel carriers at all, you can even get by with the Hammers.
        Quote: Spade
        In this case, the artillery will be able to carry the fire at the last moment. What is 200 meters for Namer? Seconds And the assault infantry is pouring on the enemy who has not yet recovered.

        In fact, modern artillery systems and aviation in the field will destroy any entrenched enemy, so it is unlikely that the Israeli command would come up with the idea of ​​throwing their infantry units against an unsuppressed enemy, even on heavy armored personnel carriers.
        I think that you are mistaken about the organization of modern combat in the armies of the leading states of the world - the experience of recent wars in the Middle East has shown that even Americans use different tactics.
        1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 20: 14 New
          • 5
          • 5
          0
          Quote: ccsr
          When did the Israeli army fight against a normal adversary? Usually these are poorly trained troops and even with problems in their command and control system.

          But Israel does not have money to have two sets of equipment, “for normal” and “for poorly trained”.

          Quote: ccsr
          Do you think that they will go on a bayonet attack? So no one has been acting for a long time

          Where will they go? During the war with the enemy who was more or less prepared for war. For example, with Egypt. With his "Abrams" and other nishtyaks, the Palestinians are absent. Or with Jordan (Challengers and Rately)
          Fighting "with feeling, really, with the arrangement" will not work. There will be no time.

          Quote: ccsr
          experience of recent wars in the Middle East

          laughing
          And were they?
          1. ccsr 13 March 2020 20: 19 New
            • 3
            • 7
            -4
            Quote: Spade
            And were they?

            At least two wars in the Gulf, the Americans conducted.
            Quote: Spade
            Where will they go? During the war with the enemy who was more or less prepared for war.

            They will not act this way - there are too few of them to deal with their human resources so much.
            Quote: Spade
            There will be no time.

            With the real threat of Israel, they will simply use nuclear weapons, and they will not need any heavy armored personnel carriers, even for entering the infected zone.
            1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 20: 27 New
              • 4
              • 4
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              At least two wars in the Gulf, the Americans conducted.

              And? Tell me, from the experience of which wars they are so concerned about protecting their soldiers from bullets. It is bullets. not fragments.

              Quote: ccsr
              They will not act this way - there are too few of them to deal with their human resources so much.

              But earlier they acted like that. When you really had to fight.

              Quote: ccsr
              With the real threat of Israel, they will simply use nuclear weapons, and they will not need any heavy armored personnel carriers, even for entering the infected zone.

              laughing
              And then move to Mars?
              1. ccsr 13 March 2020 20: 39 New
                • 2
                • 8
                -6
                Quote: Spade
                And? Tell me, from the experience of which wars they are so concerned about protecting their soldiers from bullets. It is bullets. not fragments.

                They took care of this after the Vietnam War - it was the losses in it that led the Americans to the idea that we should avoid direct clashes between infantry units and fight only due to technological superiority. Israel follows the same path, but they came to this a bit later, especially since the flow of returnees has dried up.
                Quote: Spade
                But earlier they acted like that. When you really had to fight.

                They already have a different psychology - they will not repeat the scenario of past wars, which is why they began to receive more weapons from the Americans and reduced their military development.
                Quote: Spade
                And then move to Mars?

                In Hiroshima, it seems, more than one generation of the Japanese live and live, and no one leaves.
                1. Lopatov 13 March 2020 20: 46 New
                  • 4
                  • 3
                  +1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  They took care of this after the Vietnam War.

                  No.
                  Bullet protection, all these caps instead of helmets and “tiles” instead of bulletproof vests with a large area of ​​protection - this is a recent experience

                  Just look at the photos of American soldiers of the times "Desert Storm" and you will understand

                  Quote: ccsr
                  They already have a different psychology

                  Ага.
                  And the Americans will not be able to press the "red button" because they have a different experience. And they will try to fight with China in the same way as with the Taliban laughing laughing laughing


                  Quote: ccsr
                  In Hiroshima, it seems, more than one generation of the Japanese live and live, and no one leaves.

                  And they also live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. But I would not call such a life normal.
                  1. ccsr 13 March 2020 21: 12 New
                    • 2
                    • 5
                    -3
                    Quote: Spade
                    No.
                    Bullet protection, all these caps instead of helmets and “tiles” instead of bulletproof vests with a large area of ​​protection - this is a recent experience

                    You probably don’t know what exactly the Vietnam War made them refuse the draft, that’s why they completely changed the tactics of using the ground forces. What bullets, what are you talking about, if the Americans had to face the Vietnamese army in the battles, which involved heavy weapons from both sides, and the losses of troops were huge. This completely changed their views on the future war.

                    Quote: Spade
                    Just look at the photos of American soldiers of the times "Desert Storm" and you will understand

                    I don’t have to watch this because I studied this from documents of that time, and I know very well how in the second war they couldn’t storm some settlements for weeks, and they didn’t use any infantry for the assault. In the first war, they didn’t use ground troops against the Iraqis in clashes until Saddam left Kuwait.

                    Quote: Spade
                    Ага.
                    And the Americans will not be able to press the "red button" because they have a different experience.

                    The Taliban are not a regular army - you do not seem to understand that there will be no frontal battles. Against China, they, too, will not fight the ground forces - this is obvious.
                    Quote: Spade
                    And they also live in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. But I would not call such a life normal.

                    When Iran has its own nuclear weapons, the Israelis will no longer be able to use nuclear weapons or not - they will have no other choice. So you have to make a choice, and I think about Chernobyl, they will not think anymore.
            2. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 14: 52 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Nuclear weapons, if Iran appears, it will most likely be in Saudi Arabia, then in Turkey, if in Turkey it means in Egypt
              1. ccsr 14 March 2020 15: 45 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Uncle Izya
                Nuclear weapons, if Iran appears, it will most likely be in Saudi Arabia, then in Turkey, if in Turkey it means in Egypt

                This is not excluded - the whole problem is in finance and training for this. Back in Soviet times, an analysis was made of the potential of countries for the production of nuclear weapons, and even then, about two dozen countries were considered, and even more. An example of North Korea showed that Soviet analysts were not mistaken.
                1. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 19: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  It’s not good if they scare each other with a nuclear club.
      2. English tarantas 14 March 2020 10: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You are wrong.
        And against the "Arab extremists" MRAPs would be enough

        The fact is that in practice, the enemy who has the production of finished mines, tries not to bother, but simply puts them. Here are against ready-made industrial mines Mrap and good. And when the enemy makes the charges individually, he will prefer to make it bigger so that the stronger, more demoralizing effect would blow, nevertheless. That's just the protection of Israeli cars can be counted in the amount of TNT.
        Because the TBTR is capable of delivering infantry to the very object of attack.
        In this case, the artillery will be able to carry the fire at the last moment. What is 200 meters for Namer? Seconds And the assault infantry is pouring on the enemy who has not yet recovered.

        Well, if the enemy can not shoot down the caterpillar, then yes, nothing will help him. Artillery is certainly the god of war, but all of it cannot. And your infantry can storm the positions occupied by the enemy, not destroyed by artillery, an unexpected close battle with a motivated prophet, in his own field, will leave high losses after.
      3. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 19: 47 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        For Israel there are no opponents in the BV and with the Palestinians you are right, something easier can be
    2. BREAKTHROUGH READY 13 March 2020 20: 42 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Firstly, it is not protected from anti-tank attacks from the upper sphere
      In fact, in addition to Israel, “Kryzheboi” is produced by only two countries: the United States and France, and such weapons are sold very selectively, it will fall into the hands of the enemies very soon.
      all its advantages are shown .... against those who do not have modern anti-tank systems
      those. against everyone, including China and Russia, but except for the NATO bloc and some other "close friends of America."
      I think that such systems will appear in them much earlier than the release of the entire series of these heavy armored personnel carriers.
      until third countries develop, until they put them into production, until they are saturated with troops — tens of years will pass, all this time the “intention” will be improved and supplemented by modernization blocks.
      this direction is futile, and it is understood in other armies of the world
      so unpromising that almost all countries develop and implement heavy (adjusted for territorial specifics) armored personnel carriers.
      1. ccsr 13 March 2020 20: 58 New
        • 4
        • 10
        -6
        Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
        “Kryzheboi” is produced by only two countries: the USA and France,

        Let me remind you that France delivered even more serious Exoset anti-ship missiles to Argentina in the seventies - so do not think that they will not sell ATGMs to any country from where they can get into third parties. Well, China and Russia will also sell such systems to those who wish.
        Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
        those. against everyone, including China and Russia,

        What makes you think that in Russia there are no systems capable of destroying heavy armored personnel carriers and such weapons will not appear in Syria or Iran? Russian MLRSs have long ago had cluster bombs that have homing warheads that attack tanks from the upper sphere.
        Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
        while third countries develop, until they put it into production, until the troops are saturated -

        They will not do this, and they will either be purchased or acquired a production license.
        Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
        All this time, “intention” will be improved and supplemented by modernization units.

        Come on, tell tales - this stillborn child is just a misunderstanding in the development of armored vehicles, and the operating costs will destroy him sooner than the time for writing off the products.
        1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 13 March 2020 22: 00 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Let me remind you that France delivered even more serious Exoset anti-ship missiles to Argentina in the seventies - so do not think that they will not sell ATGMs to any country from where they can get into third parties.
          They probably learned a lesson and made conclusions. For 20 years of active export, the “kombieboys” have not yet fallen or fallen into the wrong hands.
          What makes you think that in Russia there are no systems capable of destroying heavy armored personnel carriers and such weapons will not appear in Syria or Iran?
          What one person built can always destroy another, the only question is efficiency. So far, Russia (and especially Syria) does not have anti-tank systems with guaranteed, ultimate penetration.
          Russian MLRSs have long ago had cluster bombs that have homing warheads that attack tanks from the upper sphere.
          self-aiming anti-tank warheads have a tiny chance of hitting, no (less than 100mm) penetration by the impact core, and, as a result, conditional performance.
          1. ccsr 14 March 2020 15: 38 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
            For 20 years of active export, the “kombieboys” have not yet fallen or fallen into the wrong hands.

            The reason is completely different - there will be no mass tank battles of the Great Patriotic War period, that’s why interest in tanks is falling, and therefore less money will be allocated to combat them, limited to existing systems. Yes, and drones showed how cheaply it is possible to fight with armored vehicles, and this proves how vulnerable heavy armored personnel carriers are.
            Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
            So far, Russia (and especially Syria) does not have anti-tank systems with guaranteed, ultimate penetration.

            In Russia there is a long time ago - tactical nuclear charges and thermobaric, not counting anti-tank systems with a complex design of the warhead to destroy multi-layer armor and dynamic protection.
            Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
            , nonexistent (less than 100mm) penetration by the impact core, and, as a result, conditional performance.

            Shards of armor inside the tank will destroy everything after such a blow and the fire will be guaranteed in case of such a hit.
            1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 14 March 2020 18: 42 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              The reason is completely different - there will be no massive tank battles of the Great Patriotic War period, that is why interest in tanks is falling
              That's right, but here, as it were, not a tank at all. Yes, and modern MBTs are not so well accustomed to the tactical role of self-propelled guns of direct support, so burying heavy armor is premature.
              Yes, and drones showed how cheaply you can fight with armored vehicles
              Drones showed that they are not a harmless toy, they are extremely useful and there is a niche in the army for them. But they can’t be considered as prodigies: they can easily get out of the way, broadband channels are suppressed, and if they can get a bit of smoke during positional warfare, they simply will not be able to resist the rapid throw of the regular army (and Israel has traditionally practiced just such a tactic of warfare).
              In Russia there is a long time ago - tactical nuclear charges
              well, for sure ... every tank has a nuclear bomb, and that’s what I used to mean by “efficiency and rationality” ... It’s good that the troops are led by people who can assess risk and consequences, so before the threat of the direct destruction of the political elite , about any use of nuclear weapons is out of the question.
              not counting anti-tank systems with a complex design of the warhead to defeat multilayer armor and dynamic protection.
              it was precisely to counter these ATGMs that the "Merkava 4" with the "intent" were originally created.
              Shards of armor inside the tank will destroy everything after such a blow and the fire will be guaranteed in case of such a hit.
              High-carbon homogeneous steel armor that has been used to clean scale and chips has not been used for a long time in the construction of armored vehicles. Modern armor is a sandwich of metal and nonmetallic composites, it does not repel shells, but absorbs all the energy, respectively, without breaking through the armor it does not form fragments inside the machine.
              1. ccsr 15 March 2020 10: 51 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                Yes, and modern MBTs are not so well accustomed to the tactical role of self-propelled guns

                It seems like this to you - self-propelled guns are firstly cheaper, secondly they have larger calibers, and thirdly they can use tactical nuclear shells.
                Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                therefore, burying heavy armor is premature.

                60 ton monsters buried themselves, just as armored cavalry lost to firearms.
                Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                (and Israel has traditionally practiced just such a tactic of warfare)

                Israel is fighting against illiterate people with home-made drones, that's where all their success comes from. And they still didn’t have to fight against serious shock drones, that's where all your hatred is coming from.
                Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
                Modern armor is a sandwich of metal and nonmetallic composites,

                But what are no longer using sub-caliber shells, or is depleted uranium already out of fashion? Maybe I missed something, enlighten how they are going to fight this.
                It is good that the troops are led by people who are able to assess risk and consequences, therefore, until the threat of the direct destruction of the political elite appears, there can be no talk of any use of nuclear weapons.

                Naive people believe in this whim, and experienced carefully study what is hidden under the statement of the first persons of the states. And if you understood their speech, then you would have guessed that both the United States and Russia would use tactical nuclear weapons without looking at the whole world, if they only felt a threat to their security.
    3. voyaka uh 14 March 2020 02: 18 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      "Firstly, he is not protected from ATGM attacks from the upper sphere" ////
      ----
      The thickness of the armor on top is the same as on the sides and back.
      Circular protection. The RPG holds grenades well, and the ATGM 50-on-50 missiles.
      150 mm will be pierced, but 105-125 is not a fact.
      1. ccsr 14 March 2020 15: 39 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        and anti-tank missiles 50-on-50.
        150 mm will be pierced, but 105-125 is not a fact.

        And where will the fragments of armor fly - out or what?
        1. voyaka uh 14 March 2020 15: 59 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          Out. These are hinged metal-ceramic panels. Sandwiches.
          When hit cum jet or "crowbar" they are literally broken
          "to pieces," to smithereens. But they save from breaking through in many cases.
          When hit on board Merkava-4 in Lebanon in 2006, a large 150 mm missile
          Cornet’s ATGM penetrated 50% of the time (tanks then hit
          ambushes on a narrow mountain road and could not turn and maneuver).
          KAZ Trophy was not then.
          1. ccsr 14 March 2020 16: 29 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Out. These are hinged metal-ceramic panels. Sandwiches.
            When hit cum jet or "crowbar" they are literally broken
            "to pieces," to smithereens. But they save from breaking through in many cases.
            When hit on board Merkava-4 in Lebanon in 2006, a large 150 mm missile
            Cornet's ATGM penetrated 50% of the time

            Those. you need two missiles to hit the target - this is not such a big expense for hitting armored vehicles. But there are more advanced means in the Russian army - won't they hit the sandwiches too?
            The Fagot complex was modernized several times and today the Russian military uses it in conjunction with missiles 9M113M Konkurs rocket with a caliber of 135 mm with a cumulative warhead. This ammunition flies to a range of two and a half kilometers and penetrates armor up to 800 millimeters.

            Well, how do you escape from this rocket?
            1. bk0010 14 March 2020 18: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: ccsr
              Those. you need two missiles to hit the target - this is not such a big expense for hitting armored vehicles.
              Unrealistic: you need to get in, survive and get to the same place. Consider this less effective, but less dangerous analogue of dynamic defense for infantry.
              1. ccsr 15 March 2020 10: 42 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Quote: bk0010
                Unrealistic: you need to get in, survive and get to the same place.

                But is it impossible to get into another, more vulnerable?
                Quote: bk0010
                Consider this less effective, but less dangerous analogue of dynamic defense for infantry.

                Tell me honestly, how do you imagine the commander of a motorized rifle company (battalion) who instead of the light armored vehicles, which he studied at the school and prepares his subordinates to fight on it, give tanks without guns and say, teach subordinates to tank affairs. But this is not all - where in a separate motorized rifle battalion to find a rembase for tanks? About this at least one "specialist" thought? Where to get so many new tankers and fuel storage tanks for, if instead of the usual armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, the motorized rifle battalion is transferred to heavy armored personnel carriers? So it turns out that we will lose even in mobility, and the maneuverability of troops is one of the main criteria of a modern army. And what should we do in this case? We are not Israel with their tiny territory, we have to move troops far ....
                1. bk0010 15 March 2020 13: 16 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  But is it impossible to get into another, more vulnerable?
                  And you are an optimist. Give it a try.
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Tell me honestly, how do you imagine the commander of a motorized rifle company (battalion) who instead of the light armored vehicles, which he studied at the school and prepares his subordinates to fight on it, give tanks without guns and say, teach subordinates to tank affairs.
                  Are you still about the Jews or already about us? If about the Jews, then I think that everything has been thought out and prepared for a long time. And if about us, then argue with that: I am not a supporter of heavy infantry fighting vehicles and, especially, armored personnel carriers. Just because it seems to me that driving infantry to where tank armor is required for survival is a bad idea.
                  1. ccsr 15 March 2020 17: 21 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And you are an optimist. Give it a try.

                    The pessimist will type in the search engine "video tank destruction ATGM" and get a clear answer how this happens.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Are you still about the Jews or already about us?

                    About us, of course - Israeli trepakers present all kinds of nonsense as the most advanced, and do not understand that their butt with the Arabs is a children's game for our army.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    If about the Jews, then I think that everything has been thought out and prepared for a long time.

                    Propiarno, and no more - they also know how to cut budget money there. I think there will still see how the Israelis themselves will reduce the release of this equipment.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    And if about us, then argue with that: I am not a supporter of heavy infantry fighting vehicles and, especially, armored personnel carriers.

                    Anyone who has encountered a bit of armored vehicles immediately understands what those who get it in the army will encounter. That's why they are skeptical about this Israeli whim.
                    Quote: bk0010
                    Just because it seems to me that driving infantry to where tank armor is required for survival is a bad idea.

                    Absolutely right. But local visionaries decided that they would launch such equipment together with tanks, as if it was invulnerable and ensure the survival of the infantry. Although none of them will give an example of the same Israeli army (recent decades), so that it would attack Gaza in battle formations - there they simply put tanks in position and fired on Palestinians.
                2. qobnvmog 19 March 2020 01: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Tell me honestly, how do you imagine the commander of a motorized rifle company (battalion) who instead of light armored vehicles, which he studied at the school and prepares his subordinates to fight on it, give tanks without guns and say, teach subordinates to tank business.
                  - The fact that an armored personnel carrier has become heavier than an infantry fighting vehicle, which the commander is used to, does not mean that it should be used as a tank. The tactics of use remain the same, but now the armored personnel carrier is better protected than the tank and this will give more chances to complete the task.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  But this is not all - where in a separate motorized rifle battalion to find a rembase for tanks? About this at least one "specialist" thought? Where to get so many new tankers and fuel storage tanks for, if instead of the usual armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, the motorized rifle battalion is transferred to heavy armored personnel carriers?
                  - Just instead of bases and equipment for parks of different weight categories, you will have to unify everything up to the level of tanks. With the right approach, this will simplify logistics.

                  Quote: ccsr
                  So it turns out that we will lose even in mobility, and the maneuverability of troops is one of the main criteria of a modern army. And what should we do in this case? We are not Israel with their tiny territory, we have to move troops far ....
                  - 500km power reserve, 60km / h speed; if the army can provide an offensive of 500 km of front per day, then there is no difference on which equipment it does. If it can’t, it’s better if it enters into a protracted confrontation with the enemy on the technique of the most protected level.
                  1. ccsr 19 March 2020 12: 06 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Quote: qobnvmog
                    - The fact that the armored personnel carrier has become heavier than the BMP, to which the commander is used, does not mean that it should be used as a tank. The tactics of use remain the same, but now the armored personnel carrier is better protected than the tank and this will give more chances to complete the task

                    And the driver of such an armored personnel carrier will immediately be able to service and repair it, or training will be required - for example, loading and fixing the tank on the railway the platform requires more skill, this is a fact.
                    Quote: qobnvmog
                    Usage tactics remain the same

                    In overcoming water barriers, which on our territory are unmeasured? Or do you think that on all automobile bridges you can move such a technique?
                    Quote: qobnvmog
                    - Just instead of bases and equipment for parks of different weight categories, you will have to unify everything up to the level of tanks.

                    They will have to increase the staff of such battalions, and to the detriment of combat units.
                    Quote: qobnvmog
                    - 500km power reserve, 60km / h speed; if the army can ensure the advance of the 500km front per day,

                    Do not fantasize - there were no such plans that in one day the army could overcome 500 km on its own - only along the railway and then if everything is worked out. And it’s better not to talk about the offensive - there are no such standards from the word in general, because this is not real, if only because of the rear support.
                    1. qobnvmog 19 March 2020 17: 13 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ccsr
                      And the driver of such an armored personnel carrier will immediately be able to service and repair it, or training will be required - for example, loading and fixing the tank on the railway the platform requires more skill, this is a fact.
                      - It will take study, but if you have experience with tracked vehicles, then the threshold for entering the technology will be low.

                      Quote: ccsr
                      In overcoming water barriers, which on our territory are unmeasured? Or do you think that on all automobile bridges you can move such a technique?
                      - Overcoming water barriers is beautiful in theory. In reality, in the European part of the Russian Federation, rivers are arranged so that the eastern shore is gentle and the western shore is steep. So in the western direction there can be no talk of any crossing during the battle. Only on the prepared shore, which is prepared by engineering units; and they will prepare for heavy machines.

                      Quote: ccsr
                      They will have to increase the staff of such battalions, and to the detriment of combat units.
                      - Any modernization of the army costs time and money.

                      Quote: ccsr
                      Do not fantasize - there were no such plans that in one day the army could overcome 500 km on its own - only along the railway and then if everything is worked out. And it’s better not to talk about the offensive - there are no such standards from the word in general, because this is not real, if only because of the rear support.
                      - Just the confirmation of my words. If the army cannot actively advance, it is better if it enters into a protracted confrontation with the enemy on the technique of the most protected level.
                      1. ccsr 19 March 2020 19: 07 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: qobnvmog
                        It will take study

                        It is with such trifles that problems arise - it will be necessary to train commanders, and this changes the whole system of training officers for the Ground Forces.
                        Quote: qobnvmog
                        Overcoming water barriers is beautiful in theory. In reality, in the European part of the Russian Federation, rivers are arranged so that the eastern shore is gentle,

                        We have many lakes, and not all rivers on the plain have steep banks - have you ever seen the Neva or the Moscow River in your eyes?
                        Quote: qobnvmog
                        Any modernization of the army costs time and money.

                        That is why it is impractical to make such expensive armored personnel carriers, and it is better to spend money on improving tanks and self-propelled guns.
                        Quote: qobnvmog
                        If the army cannot actively advance, it is better if it enters into a protracted confrontation with the enemy on the technique of the most protected level.

                        Yes, our army will not advance until we deliver at least a nuclear tactical strike - do you even understand this, or are you planning to fight on the carts?
                      2. qobnvmog 20 March 2020 02: 04 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: ccsr
                        We have many lakes, and not all rivers on the plain have steep banks - have you ever seen the Neva or the Moscow River in your eyes?
                        Yeah. Squadron of horse divers. They will force the lake at 3km / h for half a day to force the lake under enemy fire, losing the entire composition without having started the battle, instead of going around at the normal speed for half an hour and entering the battle. Or force the Neva and Moscow there, forgetting about the rest of the territory, on which there are rivers with natural steep western slopes.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Yes, our army will not advance until we deliver at least a nuclear tactical strike - do you even understand this, or are you planning to fight on the carts?
                        Yeah. Radioactive ashes, the Stalin Strait and all that.
                      3. ccsr 20 March 2020 10: 55 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        Quote: qobnvmog
                        Yeah. Squadron of horse divers. They will force the lake at 3km / h for half a day under enemy fire

                        There will be no enemy fire - you are too far from modern realities and do not know that we no longer plan front-line battles. Well, if only for the study of command personnel, and then with reservations.

                        Quote: qobnvmog
                        Yeah. Radioactive ashes, the Stalin Strait and all that.

                        In the Soviet armed forces, tactical nuclear weapons were provided even for formations - this is to whether you understand what it is about or not.
        2. voyaka uh 14 March 2020 20: 15 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          "That is, you need two missiles to hit a target - this is not such a big expense for hitting armored vehicles" ////
          ---
          To get two missiles into the same small rectangle is practically
          unreal. A missile scouring about a meter in the backlight laser corridor.
          Even from a tank gun with a projectile it is very difficult to lay two shells at one point.
          A rocket is impossible.
          ----
          The bassoon is 135 mm weaker than the Cornet.
          1. ccsr 15 March 2020 11: 05 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            To get two missiles into the same small rectangle is practically

            In fact, they don’t have to get to one point, it’s about the probability of a tank defeat, and on this basis the necessary number of missiles is calculated.

            Quote: voyaka uh
            A rocket is impossible.
            ----
            The bassoon is 135 mm weaker than the Cornet.

            There are many videos on the net how to hit tanks with one missile:
            https://youtu.be/ISj06RhaL-g
      2. Uncle Izya 14 March 2020 19: 45 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Fuck into a caterpillar, immobilize even a hit of 152 mm HE shell concusses
  • Thrifty 13 March 2020 19: 38 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    I am only interested in one question - is there any experience of their practical reconciliation?
    1. Zeev Zeev 13 March 2020 19: 52 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      There is experience in using Merkava MK.4.
    2. Grigory_45 14 March 2020 14: 15 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Thrifty
      Is there any experience of their practical reconciliation?

      Intentions? There is almost all of the Israeli armaments run in battle. For example, the Namers took part in the 2008 battles against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
  • Pepsvoker 13 March 2020 20: 51 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Tracked bunker .....
    1. Zeev Zeev 14 March 2020 00: 19 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Bunker. With shelves for equipment, air conditioning, a fountain with water and TVs.
  • WapentakeLokki 13 March 2020 20: 58 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I looked through it; all comments have <-> ... and that everything is so sad .. that no one is worthy <+> .. ???
  • svp67 13 March 2020 21: 13 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    And I like this machine, purely outwardly like, with the exception of one - the width of the ramp. Nevertheless, it was necessary to do her breadth.
    1. bk0010 14 March 2020 10: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And side exit
      1. svp67 14 March 2020 10: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        And side exit

        Here I can not imagine how to do it here ...
      2. Grigory_45 14 March 2020 14: 19 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: bk0010
        And side exit

        and tinted glass) And the suspension is understated)

        Side hatches will significantly weaken the armor. In its current form, Namer is circularly protected from RPG shots, in the forehead and sides - from ATGM caliber up to 150 mm. Machine security - there is one of its "chips". Yes, and the tactics of action of the machines as part of the IDF does not allow us to talk about the need for side hatches
  • Cats 13 March 2020 21: 50 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    We must pay tribute to the Israelis, they came closest to the concept of the optimal use of armored vehicles. For a long time following the line of "world trends", they attacked the same rake as the rest of the army, regarding the use of lightly armored armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles in assault operations. Although, in fairness, it is worth noting that the Israelis did not have much choice before.
  • impostor 13 March 2020 22: 10 New
    • 7
    • 6
    +1
    It's sad another. The Israelis have Namer in the series, and we have the T-15 not even in Syria, but on Red Square once a year. Our imagination is struck only by yachts of friends with a displacement of more than those that are handed over to the fleets of the Navy
    1. ccsr 14 March 2020 16: 10 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      Quote: impostor
      The Israelis have Namer in the series, and we have the T-15 not even in Syria, but on Red Square once a year.

      Why do we need it at all - well, at least tell us where you are going to apply this technique. I believe that taking advantage of the illiteracy of our Supreme and the Minister of Defense in military affairs, the industry imposed the development of this technique, and now that the military realized that they needed it like a goat button accordion, they slowly let the production go on the brakes, so that later they wouldn’t look for extreme funds in squandering budget funds. All this is as old as the world - those who were engaged in armaments at the customer level would confirm this because in Soviet times there were similar cases.
    2. Nameless 15 March 2020 13: 50 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      You probably live in some kind of magical reality, if you think that from the beginning of the development of military equipment to the moment of the beginning of its mass deliveries to the troops, a couple of years are needed. The same T-64 was developed from the mid-end of the 50s, and began mass production since 1969. as you see, from an idea to its practical implementation - about 10-15 years. So calm down already.
      1. ccsr 15 March 2020 17: 24 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Nameless
        You probably live in some kind of magical reality, if you think that from the beginning of the development of military equipment to the moment of the beginning of its mass deliveries to the troops, a couple of years are needed.

        This is only specialists who understand, and not those who hammer on the keys - take them out and put them down now and right away.
  • 7,62h54 13 March 2020 22: 15 New
    • 3
    • 9
    -6
    A heavy colossus for carrying out punitive operations against Palestinians. It’s interesting how this “Leopard” would jump over rough terrain, and not along the highway. And in opponents would be Hussites for example?
    1. indy424 13 March 2020 22: 34 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      jumping great.
    2. Zeev Zeev 14 March 2020 00: 20 New
      • 7
      • 4
      +3
      And the "Namer" has cross-country ability as in MBT
  • bk0010 14 March 2020 10: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    At the same time, the designers took care of the mine protection, initially turning to the bottom of the V-shaped
    And I kept wondering why they got such a barn ...
  • tech3030 14 March 2020 12: 44 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    This is how the state should worry about its soldiers! You can love or hate the Jews, but take an example from them! Each life is valuable and it is one.
    1. ccsr 14 March 2020 16: 15 New
      • 2
      • 11
      -9
      Quote: tech3030
      This is how the state should worry about its soldiers!

      The state should worry about its soldiers in such a way that they destroy any enemy in a non-contact way, and not develop heavy armored personnel carriers in the hope that they will save the personnel in a modern battle with a well-armed enemy. It's time to look at the war in the 21st century from a different perspective, given the fact that we are leading the world in terms of the quality of weapons.
  • Andrey VOV 14 March 2020 16: 03 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    The machine is good for operations in large Palestinian enclaves, where it will break down the walls of houses perfectly, expand the space, withstand RPG 7, bring fighters for stripping ... I agree that the exit is narrow ... that is, a machine for actions in your region with maximum efficiency, but I can’t imagine it somewhere in the thaw of the black earth, the middle strip, Siberia .... and the weight is 60 tons ..... not every bridge can withstand
  • Puhly67 15 March 2020 11: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    bunker on a harp. what a great.
  • Nameless 15 March 2020 19: 06 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: bk0010
    Just because it seems to me that driving infantry to where tank armor is required for survival is a bad idea.

    Absolutely right. But local visionaries decided that they would launch such equipment together with tanks, as if it was invulnerable and ensure the survival of the infantry. Although none of them will give an example of the same Israeli army (recent decades), so that it would attack Gaza in battle formations - there they simply put tanks in position and fired on Palestinians.


    All kinds of troops do not fight on their own, but in close cooperation. Historically, in open space battles, motorized infantry and tanks assist each other. Tanks are not capable of performing infantry tasks. Therefore, the tanks go along with the infantry. And to reduce the loss of infantry - it must be adequately protected. Therefore, infantry - tank armor.

    There is NO invulnerable technique. But this does not mean that now it is necessary to make armor from cardboard and move on horse-drawn vehicles.
  • Nameless 15 March 2020 20: 39 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    1). You better tell this to those who were forced to sew unloading vests on their own!
    2). For a march along unoccupied enemy territories, ordinary tilt trucks like the ZIL or the Urals will come down. Armor is needed specifically for the territory with the enemy - and it does not matter, in an attack together with tanks at enemy positions or in clashes with terrorists in ambushes. As experience shows, Soviet infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are simply tins.
    3). I ask about the fighting. After all, our products fought in many hot spots of the planet - you should love the statistics of successful applications of this function.
    4). If in your opinion I am so naive that I make hasty and incorrect conclusions based on information, then tell me in this case, why did the infantry mechanized, motorized after the Second World War?
    5). In order to judge the taste of fried eggs - it is not necessary to be a cook. I’m not going to deal with phallometry with you - moreover, I’m completely not stupid to provide any information about myself that will contribute to my deanonymization.
    1. bk0010 15 March 2020 23: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Nameless
      2). For a march along unoccupied enemy territories, ordinary tilt trucks like the ZIL or the Urals will come down.
      They won’t come down: because of such approaches, the battalion often traveled from the regiment to the front line in the Second World War (dive bombers, shelling).
      Quote: Nameless
      4). If in your opinion I am so naive that I make hasty and incorrect conclusions based on information, then tell me in this case, why did the infantry mechanized, motorized after the Second World War?
      Blitzkrieg, a cure for blitzkrieg (mobile defense), throw through the epicenter. A lot of everything. Plus BMP dramatically increase the power of the platoon.
      1. Nameless 15 March 2020 23: 51 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Yeah, now it means how they started to lose trucks from attack aircraft and shelling - so they switched to armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles; but what does it mean that it turned out that on the modern battlefield the infantry is stuffed with everything necessary to fight armored vehicles, and the old armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles are no longer able to provide protection from them - so the cords are not needed. Double standarts!

        No, I asked this to the fact that once a friend says that an armored personnel carrier does not have to be armored - then why did the trucks be replaced with bets!
        1. bk0010 16 March 2020 00: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          On the modern battlefield, infantry, with their own means of fighting against armored vehicles, will be crushed by artillery. Remember the order of the attack: the fire shaft (nuclear strike) is followed by 500 m tanks, behind tanks by 200 m (? Not exactly) BMP. There is no place for an armored personnel carrier.
          1. Nameless 16 March 2020 00: 11 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            This is all theory. "It was smooth on paper — let’s forget about the ravines." In life, it is always different. This paper does not blush.

            I would tell you that the line between the armored personnel carrier and the infantry fighting vehicle is very arbitrary - but I will not provoke you.
  • datur 15 March 2020 21: 15 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    you can’t break a thing with 1 peter !!! - you need 4-6 !!! YES, so the militants will do !! 21st century however !!
  • PDM80 16 March 2020 04: 44 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Of course, an interesting car, but too heavy and too small + slob armed for such a mass and power
  • 5-9
    5-9 16 March 2020 11: 00 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    An armored personnel carrier and its crew will survive the hit of the Kornet and Bassoon anti-tank missiles when hit in the frontal armor.

    Og, and we will have children ... two or five ... they can’t lie ... Cornet I don’t think he holds in the forehead. Newer than 1990 OBPS does not exactly hold this device forehead due to the thin steel component of the VLD. With such a simply giant VLD in terms of area, it is impossible to make it resistant to the latest TCP in the weight of tons up to 80-90 ... and the chassis will not withstand them.
    Why make an APC, and not even an IFV, on such an expensive chassis is a great mystery. I still see the point in T-15 in uniform battle formations with T-14 (in conditions of the use of WMD in addition), but here .... they made 130 TBTR instead of 530 ... 630 ??? ... just modern Armored personnel carrier. Strongly defended 1100 people, and the rest on HamVii?
    The controversial concept in principle ....
    1. bk0010 16 March 2020 20: 45 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: 5-9
      The controversial concept in principle ....
      Just do not take it as an armored personnel carrier. It should be taken for granted that Israel does not have a tank, but a mobile pillbox, not an armored personnel carrier, but a mobile stronghold. Outwardly similar to a tank and TBMP, but the tasks are different. They do not arrange deep raids on the enemy’s rear lines on Merkava, and Namer's task is not just delivering personnel to the front lines.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 17 March 2020 08: 17 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Yes, a very specific technique for specifically IDF needs that it perfectly covers ... others (and we especially) do not need this ...
      2. qobnvmog 17 March 2020 16: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: bk0010
        Just do not take it as an armored personnel carrier. It should be taken for granted that Israel does not have a tank, but a mobile pillbox, not an armored personnel carrier, but a mobile stronghold. Outwardly similar to a tank and TBMP, but the tasks are different. They do not arrange deep raids on the enemy’s rear lines on Merkava, and Namer's task is not just delivering personnel to the front lines.

        - Yeah. Raids on the rear, on the tanks. So that later these kamikaze from the boilers broke back. This only happens in games.
        The power of their motors is enough for a speed of 60 km / h. Adequate speed for the advance of the army.
  • sinoptic 19 March 2020 15: 18 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    survive the hit of anti-tank missiles "Cornet" and "Bassoon" when hit in the frontal armor

    Somewhere we already heard it. Oh yes, about Merkava - the best tank in the world.
  • Grading 19 March 2020 20: 05 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: Eskobar
    that almost the entire history of the Russian armored personnel carrier structure, the infantry rode on armor,

    Before the war, infantry was transported by truck very rarely, and more often it stomped on foot, while the Germans already had their armored personnel carriers for transporting personnel. So nobody can deny the usefulness of this technique on the march.
    Quote: Eskobar
    because there’s no use in this armor,

    From a tank gun - yes, but from bullets and fragments it’s quite a normal defense. It’s just that they began to use armored personnel carriers in us where a guerrilla war was fought, and there really when their ambushes and mines were set their effectiveness decreased. But this does not mean that this technique is not needed at all.
    Quote: Eskobar
    as well as at least you can make up and lie down behind the case

    The machine gun on the armored personnel carrier also helped the infantry, unless of course it was immediately undermined.

    This type of kremlebot-balabol creates parallel accounts for assigning advantages!
    1. Nameless 19 March 2020 22: 13 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      But it’s worth replacing their pearls with “foreigners in power”, “theft, cuts and kickbacks”, “gas station country”, “Raw materials appendage of the West”, “prices are rising” - as if you said about yourself laughing it will not come out for you to pass for the "savior of the Motherland" by turning everything upside down a la "1984" - i.e. exposing oneself as a “fighter with the regime” as a true patriot, and ordinary people who love their country with all its advantages and disadvantages - as Kremlin bots. We have all the moves recorded. And for attempts to discredit ordinary users who didn’t even say a word about politics, you should give them a shuffle at a meeting.
  • trahterist 20 March 2020 00: 03 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Operator
    For the truth: all domestic TBTs up to the T-15 were created in one place - with the rear engine compartment (therefore, they did not take off).

    On the other hand, the IDF plans to replace the tracked APC "Namer" with the wheeled APC "Eitan", which indicates other jambs in the design of the first.

    For crew protection in the Frontal projection (and ONLY), a Front-wheel drive scheme is probably preferable.
    This Deadlock layout cannot boast of anything else.
    By purely kinematic parameters, cross-country ability and weight distribution, front-wheel drive, and even with front MTO-solid Bold Minus.
    Well, like a cherry on the cake, “Front-wheel drive” tracked vehicles Where it is easier to “take off shoes”, especially in the way the road is so sweet to our hearts, and if the driver with a tight fit of gusli missed.
  • Grading 21 March 2020 08: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Nameless
    But it’s worth replacing their pearls with “foreigners in power”, “theft, cuts and kickbacks”, “gas station country”, “Raw materials appendage of the West”, “prices are rising” - as if you said about yourself laughing it will not come out for you to pass for the "savior of the Motherland" by turning everything upside down a la "1984" - i.e. exposing oneself as a “fighter with the regime” as a true patriot, and ordinary people who love their country with all its advantages and disadvantages - as Kremlin bots. We have all the moves recorded. And for attempts to discredit ordinary users who didn’t even say a word about politics, you should give them a shuffle at a meeting.

    Davalka kremlebot not dry?