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.

Comments

[lexa333]

Well done worry about their soldiers

[Snail N9]

Indeed, the real embodiment of the concept is "people are more valuable than machines". (This does not apply to Russia, in this country there is always one concept - "people are trash", "cannon fodder", "women are still giving birth" ....)

[Lopatov]

Quote: Snail N9

this does not apply, in this country there is always one concept - "people are trash", "cannon fodder", "women still give birth" ....)

Ага.
Is it really the case to put the infantry on super-protected HMMWV and M113 .... Immediately you can see that it is not "garbage" at all

[nemez]

So it’s not the Americans who serve them, but those who want to become him.

[Dart]

Hmm ..... but the case is what?

[bk0010]

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.

[Gosha Smirnov]

there are simply very few Euros, so everyone is valued

[Doliva63]

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.

[Doliva63]

You, apparently, are a civilian, it’s excusable for you to freeze this.

[5-9]

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 ..

[kjhg]

Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created as an analogue of this Israeli Nemara.

[Lopatov]

Quote: kjhg

Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created as an analogue of this Israeli Nemara.

But what about other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namer?
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

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Spade

But what about other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namer?
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.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

I think that all this has been studied at least from photographs and video films.

What I mean is that the idea of ​​creating TBTR / TBMP was ripe for us long before the appearance of Namer

If you imagine something as a source of inspiration, then "Akhzarit"

[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 Namer tracked armored personnel carrier with the Eitan wheeled armored personnel carrier, which indicates other jambs in the former's design.

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Operator

On the other hand, the IDF plans to replace the Namer tracked armored personnel carrier with the Eitan wheeled armored personnel carrier, which indicates other jambs in the former's design.

FAQ? "Eitan" will go to the light mechanized brigades "NAHAL" and "Kfir". And "Namer" goes to heavy mechanized "Golani" and "Givati", as well as to separate engineering and assault battalions. As the regular units are saturated, the equipment will go to the reservists.

[Lopatov]

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 the Ukrainian ones, even with a front MTO and a rear exit, "did not take off"

[Operator]

Ukrainian armored vehicles are oxymoron

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

Ukrainian armored vehicles are oxymoron

But why?
Georgia or Azerbaijan could well buy

[Operator]

Before the first cracking of the armor

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

Before the first cracking of the armor

They say that "armor cracking" happens only after a competitor from across the ocean appears. With M113 at the price "free, just pay for the carriage"

[kotdavin4i]

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.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Operator

On the other hand, the IDF plans to replace the Namer tracked armored personnel carrier with the Eitan wheeled armored personnel carrier, which indicates other jambs in the former's design.

And I heard that this is a replacement for M113

[Operator]

Two years ago, a specialized major general of the IDF announced the launch of the Israeli program for the development of the entire line of armored vehicles, including MBT and armored personnel carriers, based on a single wheeled platform - such as American money ended for the purchase and operation of tracked vehicles, and the Trophy SAZ will help reduce the weight of armor

[Simargl]

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! The T-15 and everything that was on the base of the "Merkava" - with a forward location, only the captured T-55 and Leo did not begin to deploy.

[YOUR]

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

[ccsr]

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.

[evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru]

They are not interested in this, Vladimir. The Jews of Israel are interested in having high-quality armored vehicles. These are life and death matters for them. Real soldiers, warriors, fighters ... Can you imagine "our" Jew Dimon on "armor", at least on exercises? Or with a parachute at the open door of An-2 at a kilometer height? Lazy, fat-ass, not interested in anything .. "The water is murmuring - my water, the tanga is flowing - my tanga ..." - that's all the perception of the surrounding reality. Well, unless for self and .... The Ukrainian "Rabbit" in place of the BMP-1 commander was just taking pictures - "cinema and the Germans" ...
Except for profit and young "heifers" and m nothing is interesting! ... Stalin was in his seventh decade, and he, like a recruit, climbed on the armor, personally examined the armor provided by the BTT designers on the territory of the Kremlin. But he had more respect for artillery and aviation. But this was HIS country, HIS people, HIS armor. And these ....
Who would do ... Any important idiotic, even in uniform, even in civilian life, can be taught to "love the Motherland." Let him sit in the place of the mechanic drive T-62, put on a respirator, "block his" hatch, a smoke bomb for 30 seconds into the tank .., everything - "time has passed" ... "Leaving the damaged tank through the tower hatch" With a swing, the "third eye" would open and the brains were "aired". And if you put a slacker in the place of the MTLB mechanic drive, and a couple of queues in the troop compartment (on board) from 7,62 ... In general, outlook on life would have changed 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

[Simargl]

Quote: Spade

But what about other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namer?

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.

[Lopatov]

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.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Spade

But what about other Russian TBTRs that appeared before Namer?

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.

[Escobar]

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

[ccsr]

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 using the example of Syria, where we entered at the request of their government, but using the example of how we will fight with them for natural resources, for example. I look forward to a fascinating story, in the spirit of "1000 and One Nights" ...

[Escobar]

As Kozma Prutkov said, "Look at the root" is not the concept, but the fact that almost the entire history of the domestic armored personnel carrier of the structure of the infantry on armor went, because there is no sense from this armor, and so at least you can make up and lie behind the hull

[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.

[businessv]

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.

[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.

[businessv]

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!

[ccsr]

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?

[businessv]

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.

[ccsr]

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.

[Escobar]

The Jews first realized that the most expensive part of the tank / BMP is its crew

[Nameless]

Because the letter "B" in the name of the armored personnel carrier no longer fulfills its function - i.e. its armor is absolutely incapable of protecting the landing party inside. From this it turns out that the entire original idea of ​​an armored personnel carrier (and an infantry fighting vehicle too - even though B means Combat) is lost - an armored vehicle for infantry squads. Why make armored cars that, with their armor in some 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.

[ccsr]

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.

[Nameless]

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 - "and everything is better in the USSR!"

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

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.

You do not understand well that a gentle slope on the shore of a water barrier is an exception and not a rule. You do not understand that with cans with armor a la "placebo effect" there are two choices - in the old-fashioned way by running after tanks and on foot on the 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.

[ccsr]

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.

[Saxahorse]

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.

[Nameless]

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.

And evil officers mean torturing their subordinates, forcing them to climb inside this box.

[Saxahorse]

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.

[Nameless]

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 say pathetic from the sofa. To drive you a little in armor and a helmet through the forest about a dozen 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!

[bk0010]

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.

[Nameless]

You will also suggest riveting gantrucks. Everything would be "cheaper" for you.

[bk0010]

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).

[Nameless]

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!

[bk0010]

The armor of an APC should provide protection against fragments of bombs / shells on the march. More is good, but not fundamentally.

[Nameless]

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.

[Nameless]

BMP is the Mass Grave of the Infantry

[Simargl]

Quote: kjhg

But this is in big wars.

In Syria, they are doing something like this.

[Doliva63]

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 defenses, the infantry will go to the BMP in the same formation with the tanks (except for the option of using special ammunition), then it will not clean up anything and will not gain a foothold anywhere. Examine the materiel, Citizen Colonel. On footage from Syria, we see one mess, alas, this is not an example.

[kjhg]

Quote: Doliva63

citizen "colonel"

Rude then why?

[Doliva63]

Quote: kjhg

Quote: Doliva63

citizen "colonel"

Rude then why?

If you have the military rank of "colonel", please accept my apologies. and I will address you "Comrade Colonel", and if not, what did you dislike about "Citizen Colonel" (I would have understood if I had called )? For, judging by the "idea of ​​using the BMPT T-15", you are clearly a civilian.

[Simargl]

Quote: businessv

I wonder who borrowed the idea of ​​an uninhabited tower from anyone.

All at the aviators.

[Grigory_45]

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]

Quote: kjhg

Our heavy BMP T-15 on the Armata platform was just created, as an analog of this Israeli Nemara

Gospidya! Well, you have to think before you write (from writing the text ...) "something like that"! The idea of ​​a "heavy armored personnel carrier" has been hovering 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 BMP (armored personnel carrier)! So where does the Israeli "intend"? "Namer" - based on "Merkava" ... "Barberry" - on the basis of "Armata"! In your opinion, "Armata" is an analogue of "Merkava"? Why, then, some of the "spzlists" always dream of ... either an Israeli trace or an American moccasin?

[Simargl]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

In your opinion, "Armata" is an 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, then, some of the "spzlists" always dream of ... either an Israeli trace or an American moccasin?

Doesn't seem to. They were the first, if not biased reasoning - "everything" will be like Nemar. Just like everything that looks like the T-14 - to the Armata ... and the concept of Armata (remote control) - from fleet 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.

[English tarantas]

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?

[Simargl]

Quote: English tarantass

So you decide where the remote control, from the fleet or aviation?

Why decide? Initially, the control of the towers was remote control in the fleet. Then in aviation they began to use it in the form that "earthlings" picked up.

Quote: English tarantass

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.

[English tarantas]

Why decide? Initially, the control of the towers was remote control in the fleet. Then in aviation they began to use it in the form that "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.

[Simargl]

Quote: English tarantass

In my opinion, coastal defense batteries received remote control before aviation.

These are the ones that were removed from the battleships?

Quote: English tarantass

As they were, they remained wrong.

The engine is from him, the suspension is also Christie (and, yes! T-34)! ...

[English tarantas]

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

[Nikolaevich I]

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

this "will be similar to Nemar. Just like everything that looks like 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!

[Python 57]

The first TBTR hit Israeli. Nagmashon, Nakpadon, etc.

[knn54]

And here we are T-15 indulge .. six years.

[Uncle Izya]

Well, Israel also did not create in a day. Israel mainly fights with the Palestinians Russia and NATO

[Aaron Zawi]

Quote: Uncle Izya

Well, Israel also did not create in a day. Israel mainly fights with the Palestinians Russia and NATO

Um. And when did the Russian Federation fight with NATO? Fortunately for the whole world, it has not yet reached this point.

[Uncle Izya]

Russia has a confrontation with NATO and I didn’t mean fighting a hypothetical

[Uncle Izya]

For punitive operations, it’s possible that the thread is easier for Russia.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

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.

[Aaron Zawi]

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.

Not yet set. This is just a project. But apparently one of the reasons is the sharp reduction in old tanks in the army.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

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.

[Uncle Izya]

Is this your assumption correct?
You might think you work at a tank factory

[bk0010]

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.

[Grigory_45]

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]

The bassoon is not new.

[Operator]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

What?

The same thing - follow the messages of your Ministry of Defense: in the future "Namer", as well as "Merkava", are intended to be replaced by wheeled armored vehicles.

[ccsr]

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 high, the maneuverability is not particularly strong, the 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 Jewelins:

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.

[Lopatov]

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 MRAPs would be enough against "Arab extremists"

Because the TBTR is capable of delivering infantry to the very object of attack.
In this case, the artillery will be able to transfer fire at the last moment. What is 200 meters for Namer? Seconds. And the assault infantry is pouring into the enemy who has not yet come to his senses.

[ccsr]

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 transfer fire at the last moment. What is 200 meters for Namer? Seconds. And the assault infantry is pouring into the enemy who has not yet come to his senses.

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.

[Lopatov]

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 has no money to have two sets of equipment, "for normal" and "for poorly prepared".

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? In a war with an enemy 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 "Ratels")
To fight "with feeling, sensibly, with arrangement" will not work. There will be no time.

Quote: ccsr

experience of recent wars in the Middle East

And were they?

[ccsr]

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.

[Lopatov]

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.

And then move to Mars?

[ccsr]

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.

[Lopatov]

Quote: ccsr

They took care of this after the Vietnam War.

No.
Protection from bullets, all these caps instead of helmets and "platelets" instead of bulletproof vests with a large area of ​​protection - just a recent experience

Just look at the photos of American soldiers during 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 China the same way they fight the Taliban

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.

[ccsr]

Quote: Spade

No.
Protection from bullets, all these caps instead of helmets and "platelets" instead of bulletproof vests with a large area of ​​protection - just 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 during 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.

[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

[ccsr]

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.

[Uncle Izya]

It’s not good if they scare each other with a nuclear club.

[English tarantas]

You are wrong.

And MRAPs would be enough against "Arab extremists"

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 transfer fire at the last moment. What is 200 meters for Namer? Seconds. And the assault infantry is pouring into the enemy who has not yet come to his senses.

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.

[Uncle Izya]

For Israel there are no opponents in the BV and with the Palestinians you are right, something easier can be

[BREAKTHROUGH READY]

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.

[ccsr]

Quote: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

“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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

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.

[BREAKTHROUGH READY]

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. In 20 years of active export, the "roof-fighters" have not yet 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.

[ccsr]

Quote: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

Over 20 years of active export, "roof-fighters" still have not 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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

, 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.

[BREAKTHROUGH READY]

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, exactly ... each tank has a nuclear bomb, this is what I meant earlier by "efficiency and rationality" ... It's good that the troops are led by people who know how to assess the risk and consequences, therefore, before the threat of the direct destruction of the political elite appears , there can be no question of any use of nuclear weapons.

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 "intent" was 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.

[ccsr]

Quote: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

therefore, burying heavy armor is premature.

60 ton monsters buried themselves, just as armored cavalry lost to firearms.

Quote: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

(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: READY FOR BREAKTHROUGH

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.

[voyaka uh]

"Firstly, it is not protected from ATGM strikes 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.

[ccsr]

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?

[voyaka uh]

Out. These are hinged metal-ceramic panels. Sandwiches.
When a jet or "crowbar" hits, they literally break
"to pieces", to smithereens. But they are saved 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.

[ccsr]

Quote: voyaka uh

Out. These are hinged metal-ceramic panels. Sandwiches.
When a jet or "crowbar" hits, they literally break
"to pieces", to smithereens. But they are saved 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 a target - this is not such a big expense for hitting armored vehicles. But in the Russian army there are also more sophisticated means - won't they hit the "sandwiches" either?

The Fagot complex has been modernized several times, and today the Russian military uses it in a set with missiles, the 9M113M Konkurs rocket, 135 mm in caliber, with a cumulative warhead. This ammunition flies at a distance of two and a half kilometers and penetrates armor up to 800 millimeters.

Well, how do you escape from this rocket?

[bk0010]

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.

[ccsr]

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 light armored vehicles, which he studied at the school and prepares his subordinates to fight on it, are given tanks without guns and they say, teach subordinates to tank business. But that's not all - where in a separate motorized rifle battalion to find a repair base for tanks? Has at least one "specialist" thought about this? Where to get so many new tankers and tanks for storing fuel and lubricants, if instead of conventional armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, a 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 our troops far ...

[bk0010]

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.

[ccsr]

Quote: bk0010

And you are an optimist. Give it a try.

The pessimist will type in the search engine "video of the defeat of ATGM tanks" and will receive a clear answer as it 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.

[qobnvmog]

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 that's not all - where in a separate motorized rifle battalion to find a repair base for tanks? Has at least one "specialist" thought about this? Where to get so many new tankers and tanks for storing fuel and lubricants, if instead of conventional armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, a 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.

[ccsr]

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.

[qobnvmog]

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.

[ccsr]

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?

[qobnvmog]

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.

[ccsr]

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.

[voyaka uh]

"Ie you need two missiles to hit the target - this is not such a big expense to hit 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.

[ccsr]

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

[Uncle Izya]

Fuck into a caterpillar, immobilize even a hit of 152 mm HE shell concusses

[Thrifty]

I am only interested in one question - is there any experience of their practical reconciliation?

[Zeev Zeev]

There is experience in using Merkava MK.4.

[Grigory_45]

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]

Tracked bunker .....

[Zeev Zeev]

Bunker. With shelves for equipment, air conditioning, a fountain with water and TVs.

[WapentakeLokki]

I looked over here; all comments are <-> ... and that everything is so sad .. that no one is worthy <+> .. ???

[svp67]

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.

[bk0010]

And side exit

[svp67]

Quote: bk0010

And side exit

Here I can not imagine how to do it here ...

[Grigory_45]

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 protected all round from RPG shots, in the forehead and sides - from ATGMs with a caliber of up to 150 mm. The security of the car is one of its "chips". Yes, and the very tactics of actions of vehicles as part of the IDF does not allow us to talk about the need for side hatches

[Cats]

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 in line with "world trends", they stepped on the same rake as the rest of the armies in terms of the use of light armored armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles in assault operations. Although, in fairness, it should be noted that the Israelis did not have much choice before.

[impostor]

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

[ccsr]

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.

[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. 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.

[ccsr]

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.

[7,62x54]

Heavy machine for carrying out punitive operations against the Palestinians. I wonder how this "Leopard" would jump over rough terrain and not along the highway. And the opponents would be Houthis for example?

[indy424]

jumping great.

[Zeev Zeev]

And "Namer" has a cross-country ability like MBT

[bk0010]

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]

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.

[ccsr]

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]

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]

bunker on a harp. what a great.

[Nameless]

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]

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.

[bk0010]

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.

[Nameless]

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!

[bk0010]

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.

[Nameless]

This is all theory. "It was smooth on paper - but they forgot 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]

you can’t break a thing with 1 peter !!! - you need 4-6 !!! YES, so the militants will do !! 21st century however !!

[PDM80]

Of course, an interesting car, but too heavy and too small + slob armed for such a mass and power

[5-9]

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 ....

[bk0010]

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.

[5-9]

Yes, a very specific technique for specifically IDF needs that it perfectly covers ... others (and we especially) do not need this ...

[qobnvmog]

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]

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]

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!

[Nameless]

But it is 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 you will not be able to pass for the "savior of the Motherland" by turning everything upside down a la "1984" - that is, posing as a "fighter against 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 compromise ordinary users who did not even speak a word about politics - you should have blinked when you meet.

[trahterist]

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 Namer tracked armored personnel carrier with the Eitan wheeled armored personnel carrier, which indicates other jambs in the former's design.

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 the cherry on the cake - 'Front-wheel drive' tracked vehicles It is much easier to 'take off their shoes', especially in the muddy roads so dear to our hearts, and if the mechanic missed the gusli with an interference fit.

[Grading]

Quote: Nameless

But it is 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 you will not be able to pass for the "savior of the Motherland" by turning everything upside down a la "1984" - that is, posing as a "fighter against 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 compromise ordinary users who did not even speak a word about politics - you should have blinked when you meet.

Davalka kremlebot not dry?

[Madjestik85]

Great car. We really don’t have enough of such heavy infantry fighting vehicles now

[ZuekRek]

Quote: ccsr

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?

How many boys who were burned in the BMP-1, BMP-2 do not agree with you now. The first task is to protect the crew. That is why the Israelis even put KAZ on Namer now

[ZuekRek]

Quote: sinoptic

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.

The Israelis never spoke like that. Merkava is a tank for the specific conditions of the Middle Eastern desert and a certain "set" of potential opponents. Under these conditions, I think yes - it is the best, as it most closely matches the specialization.