'New' IFV/APC
-
Assuming we have the Centurions/Tempests MBTs, they should be quite old by now. Will we be converting them into heavily armoured APC like what the IDF did with their T-55,T-54,Centurion and Merkava MK1 MBTs? We can add a BX turret or an remote control firing station for added fire power.
Here are some examples
Namera (Ex Merkava Mk1):
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm
Achzarit (Ex T-55/T-54):
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/achzarit/Achzarit.html
Puma (Ex Centurion):
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/puma/Puma.html -
APC with merkava level of protection -
I think it is a great idea.
If you're a RPG grenadier, you would obviously go for the APC as it is lightly armoured and not only will you bag yourself a tank, you also kill about 10 of the people inside including the infantrymen.
These heavy Israeli IFV and APC's are especially designed out of a need to fight in urban areas. In urban area behing every window or every street corner is some guy with an RPG. So you need all the armour protection you can get.
The Israelis were always concerned with their own loss of lives as they cannot take the kind of casualty rates that their Arab enemies can absorb without problem. -
Yes but as mentioned here there is no rear entry or exit for the infanty troopers.Originally posted by moca:I think it is a great idea.
If you're a RPG grenadier, you would obviously go for the APC as it is lightly armoured and not only will you bag yourself a tank, you also kill about 10 of the people inside including the infantrymen.
These heavy Israeli IFV and APC's are especially designed out of a need to fight in urban areas. In urban area behing every window or every street corner is some guy with an RPG. So you need all the armour protection you can get.
The Israelis were always concerned with their own loss of lives as they cannot take the kind of casualty rates that their Arab enemies can absorb without problem.
As a result, the mounted troops had to egress over the roof and the top of the hull, exposing the disembarking troops to enemy fire. The risk of exposing the troops was found to be a very important drawback so much that the vehicle was judged unsuited for the APC (armored personnel carrier) role.... -
The vehicle was named Puma, which is an acronym for Poretz Mokshim Handasati (minefield break through vehicle).
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/puma/Puma.html
Actually cannot be strictly called an APC because it is designed to be an SCE vehicle. I include Puma as an example because they can transport at least 5 troops and it is modified from Centurion which we are supposed to have. -
aiyo vehicles so troublesome throw everything away and everybody start walking lah
vehicles u must worry abt petrol lah, parking lah, coe, parking fines and armor protection
why can't they have soldiers like before and live off the land
-
If we stick strictly to warfare centred around infantry, we'll revert back to trench warfare.
Tanks must always be supported by infantry. Infantry being to kill other infantry & reduce the threat of rpg & shoulder fired enemy weapons. -
This is the Achzarit... has rear exit door.
The lesson the Israeli learnt from combat - especially the Yom Kippur War - was that EVERY tank was hit at least once during the war by tank shells, RPG or Sagger ATGM.
The Egyptian had boatloads of RPGs and Sagger and for once, Arab infantry didn't run at the sight of IDF tanks. In fact, IDF tanks feared the Egyptian infantry more than the Egyptian tanks - which they continued to destroy with ease.
After a battle, the battlefield would be crissed-crossed by many KILOMETERS of wires expended by the firing of wire-guided Sagger ATGMs.
The lightly armoured vehicles simply didn't survive getting hit. One soldier with one RPG round can kill 10 Israelis riding in a M113. The numbers just weren't right. Something had to be done about APCs to make sure they do the job they were supposed to do in the first place - protecting infantry.
On the reverse, most of the MBTs could survive a hit. More than 60% of MBT's hit were able to be repaired and brought back into service. In total more than half the tanks crews survived in MBT's that were hit.
All these theory about being small, light and fast to avoid being hit is just...theory.
A tank can only be so small, and a tank can never outrun a RPG round especially in a tight urabn area.
That is why today, the IDF armour is unique in that they have no light tanks in their inventory. The lightest tank they have is the M113 and they are trying all kinds of innovative ways to uparmour it. -
you can have big tank, small tank, heavy armor, light armor in whatever configuration but you can't stop a foot soldier from wanting to dig a big bobby trap hole in the ground or from wanting to shoot his RPG into your tank.
so wats the point to operate tanks if they are magnets for bobby traps and anti tank rpg on the battlefield
yes heavy tanks and other battlefield systems can cause a lot of damage but I've yet to see any high tech army winning any wars yet.
The early CCP(Chinese communist party) against americans in korea
The vietnamese against french then against americans then against more modern CCP
The vastly superior iraqi against iranians
The russians against the backward afgani
The russians against Chechnya
Dun talk abt the cowardly taliban and iraq in the recent wars.
All these things tell us that the foot soldier is the most powerful adversary on the battlefield because they can think. The tank? ... ony know how to move forward then backward then fire but it cannot think. -
Aff, i strongly agree tat tanks must be ALWAYS supported by infantry. Any1 play mechwarrior dark age will tell u even e best mech can be destroyed by power armour if they dun have their own infantry support, it may be a game but e logic is e same
