Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DaveBB on January 04, 2019, 04:05:42 PM
-
Has anyone here watched "Pentagon Wars"? It's the true story of the U.S. Army's attempt to force the aluminum armored, explosive filled APC into service. Anyhow, the Israelis have made an APC out of their main battle tank, the Merkava. It is called the Namer. It has a steel matrix armor, the trophy active defense system, and carries 9 troops (more than the Bradley).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/IDF-Namer003.jpg/306px-IDF-Namer003.jpg)
-
Is it electric or petrol?
-
Yeah, but I'm sure the Bradley is much cheaper. (Yes, sarcasm.)
-
Has anyone here watched "Pentagon Wars"? It's the true story of the U.S. Army's attempt to force the aluminum armored, explosive filled APC into service.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having ridden in a few M113 APCs in the 60's and seen what a single RPG round can do to it, I would be a big fan of riding in the tank armored type.
.. A Redcatcher M113 (whats left of it) TET 68.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/51/45/84/5145845f687e26a49ebf00da8834904b.jpg)
Haven't watched 'Pentagon Wars, but History channel in one of the Aces of WW2 episodes this morning showed the Douglas Bader bio, great stuff. 'Reach for the Sky' was one of the first WW2 books I read as a young pup and I reread it till the binding parted.
-
Per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
3 Mil each and 1,200 HP supercharged turbo diesel.
-
Per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
3 Mil each and 1,200 HP supercharged turbo diesel.
A lot more than I expected.
The Bradley is perhaps about the same.
I am hoist by my own petard.
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having ridden in a few M113 APCs in the 60's and seen what a single RPG round can do to it, I would be a big fan of riding in the tank armored type.
.. A Redcatcher M113 (whats left of it) TET 68.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/51/45/84/5145845f687e26a49ebf00da8834904b.jpg)
Haven't watched 'Pentagon Wars, but History channel in one of the Aces of WW2 episodes this morning showed the Douglas Bader bio, great stuff. 'Reach for the Sky' was one of the first WW2 books I read as a young pup and I reread it till the binding parted.
M113 armor gives good protection agaist gravel and bodkin arrows.
It also protect the soldiers from falling out of the vehicle.
Not much else though...
APCs are a flawed concept at their core. If infantry are under fire they should not be inside a vehicle. To extract 2-3 soldiers from under fire, tanks like the Merkava have a rear hatch that can take (squeeze) these soldiers in - but this is for emergencies not for moving troops around.
APC are better as low-profile fast vehicles for redeployment of troops in relatively safe areas. The only times when troops are hiding inside armored vehicles are kinds of “police action” where they expect to be hit by no more than gravel and bodkin arrows.
-
APCs are a flawed concept at their core. If infantry are under fire they should not be inside a vehicle. To extract 2-3 soldiers from under fire, tanks like the Merkava have a rear hatch that can take (squeeze) these soldiers in - but this is for emergencies not for moving troops around.
You might actually be on to something there.
-
They could be lieing at wiki but here:
Namers took part in Operation Protective Edge. During the fighting, Namers (which at the time were not fitted with an Active Protection System) were hit multiple times by RPGs and ATGMs, including suffering direct hits by 9M133 Kornet ATGMs, but the vehicles emerged undamaged and in no instances was the armor penetrated or injuries caused. In another case, an explosive charge weighing between half a ton and a ton of explosives was detonated near the Namer and a house collapsed on the APC, nothing happened to it and the soldiers, continued their mission as planned. As a result of its success on the battlefield, there were calls for the number of vehicles to be increased (beyond the 170 on order), and for them to gradually replace the many M113s currently fielded by IDF combat units.[26]
The US looked at it in 2012.
The U.S. Army conducted non-developmental vehicle operational assessments of current combat vehicles in 2012 to evaluate capabilities against requirements for purchase of a new IFV for the Ground Combat Vehicle program. One of the vehicles validated was the Namer.[31] On 2 April 2013, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that advised purchasing current vehicles instead of developing a new vehicle for the GCV program. Buying the Namer would cost $9 billion less, and meet the required nine-man carrying capacity.[32] The Army responded by saying that although the Namer and other vehicles assessed in 2012 met some GCV requirements, no currently fielded vehicle met enough without needing significant redesign.[33]
-
APC are better as low-profile fast vehicles for redeployment of troops in relatively safe areas. The only times when troops are hiding inside armored vehicles are kinds of “police action” where they expect to be hit by no more than gravel and bodkin arrows.
Anytime we had a few attached they were used mainly for plowing through bamboo thickets, knocking over palms to clear fields of fire and such. Best ride I had was thru elephant grass that was as high as the thing and you couldn't even see the APC from 10 feet away and would have been impossible to slog thru on foot. Other than that they were a great mobile machine gun nest with the ma deuce and the two M60's laying down fire and great perimeter defense position holders. The absolutely best and last use I personally got out of an M113 was pulling my shot up posterior through the firefight without obtaining any additional holes in the bod. :aok
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having ridden in a few M113 APCs in the 60's and seen what a single RPG round can do to it, I would be a big fan of riding in the tank armored type.
.. A Redcatcher M113 (whats left of it) TET 68.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/51/45/84/5145845f687e26a49ebf00da8834904b.jpg)
Haven't watched 'Pentagon Wars, but History channel in one of the Aces of WW2 episodes this morning showed the Douglas Bader bio, great stuff. 'Reach for the Sky' was one of the first WW2 books I read as a young pup and I reread it till the binding parted.
Is that you front and center in the picture?
I worked with a welder who was in the army in the 1970s. He welded on M113s. They are just made of soft aluminum, I'm actually surprised that they can stop rifle rounds.
-
Is that you front and center in the picture?
I worked with a welder who was in the army in the 1970s. He welded on M113s. They are just made of soft aluminum, I'm actually surprised that they can stop rifle rounds.
Not me, one of the guys in D Troop 17th Cav of the 199th. I was just one of the grunts in the 4th Btn 12th Inf. in the 199th. I did find the pic of the front of the APC. That is a really thin door, I feel for the driver that was sitting there.
(http://signal439.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/D-17%20Cav.%20199th%20Apc%20hit%20during%20Tet%2068%20north%20of%20Ho%20Nai%20villag.jpg?1382739542590)
-
Our poor chaps from the tank protection infantery was jammed in the back of our tanks destroyers, up to 6 of them, one had a phone to talk with the crew inside (IKV91)
(http://ointres.se/ikv_91-9.jpg)
-
Anytime we had a few attached they were used mainly for plowing through bamboo thickets, knocking over palms to clear fields of fire and such. Best ride I had was thru elephant grass that was as high as the thing and you couldn't even see the APC from 10 feet away and would have been impossible to slog thru on foot. Other than that they were a great mobile machine gun nest with the ma deuce and the two M60's laying down fire and great perimeter defense position holders. The absolutely best and last use I personally got out of an M113 was pulling my shot up posterior through the firefight without obtaining any additional holes in the bod. :aok
:salute Glad you used it,Sir! I like having you around...I know sometimes I have a funny way of showing it :devil That is HT's fault though, he lets me have bombs on my Spitfire :devil Cant imagine what you VETS went through..THANK YOU :rock
-
:salute Glad you used it,Sir! I like having you around...I know sometimes I have a funny way of showing it :devil That is HT's fault though, he lets me have bombs on my Spitfire :devil Cant imagine what you VETS went through..THANK YOU :rock
I spend a lot of time looking up from my m4 hatch for lone spits circling :joystick:
For some vets in my group (I went in the Army on my 17th birthday and shipped to Vietnam 2 months after my 18th birthday), the whole thing for me was a lot like a 7 months long camping trip where most of the time it was boring patrolling, riding in a chopper to the next LZ, but you got to blow up things and shoot a lot. At 18 it took a few times like the APC pictures above with the accompanying blood and guts splattered, or some really nasty days at a time running firefights like Feb thru May TET68 to bring the realization that this crud is real. But in defense of the teenage mindset (of the times), keeping it from consuming you in the boonies kept you from going nutz. Had more than a few guys blowing their toes off to get sent home.
-
They could be lieing at wiki but here:
Namers took part in Operation Protective Edge. During the fighting, Namers (which at the time were not fitted with an Active Protection System) were hit multiple times by RPGs and ATGMs, including suffering direct hits by 9M133 Kornet ATGMs, but the vehicles emerged undamaged and in no instances was the armor penetrated or injuries caused. In another case, an explosive charge weighing between half a ton and a ton of explosives was detonated near the Namer and a house collapsed on the APC, nothing happened to it and the soldiers, continued their mission as planned. As a result of its success on the battlefield, there were calls for the number of vehicles to be increased (beyond the 170 on order), and for them to gradually replace the many M113s currently fielded by IDF combat units.[26]
The US looked at it in 2012.
The U.S. Army conducted non-developmental vehicle operational assessments of current combat vehicles in 2012 to evaluate capabilities against requirements for purchase of a new IFV for the Ground Combat Vehicle program. One of the vehicles validated was the Namer.[31] On 2 April 2013, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that advised purchasing current vehicles instead of developing a new vehicle for the GCV program. Buying the Namer would cost $9 billion less, and meet the required nine-man carrying capacity.[32] The Army responded by saying that although the Namer and other vehicles assessed in 2012 met some GCV requirements, no currently fielded vehicle met enough without needing significant redesign.[33]
The US will never purchase something like the Namer from another country, allied or neutral. There is too much money and politics involved. The US will purchase from a foreign defense industry only if this is a unique technology that their companies have not developed yet, or when there is a very pressing need and not much time to get it at home. Simply offering a better product or a better deal than what the US companies offer is not enough to win the contrract. When the US and UK deployed to Afganistan and Iraq they bought a lot of stuff from Israel.
-
Remove the turret from either the M60s and M1s we have in the boneyard, install a door on each side of the vehicle. Mount the M60s cupola on the top of the hull for the TC. Put in some seats. Viola! A real APC.
-
Remove the turret from either the M60s and M1s we have in the boneyard, install a door on each side of the vehicle. Mount the M60s cupola on the top of the hull for the TC. Put in some seats. Viola! A real APC.
Your fired for using common sense :D
-
Remove the turret from either the M60s and M1s we have in the boneyard, install a door on each side of the vehicle. Mount the M60s cupola on the top of the hull for the TC. Put in some seats. Viola! A real APC.
Actually this is how many Israeli APC were built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit Based on captured T-54/55
Namer is also based on Merkava - some on Markava I so I assume they reused existing tanks that are no longer in service for this one