Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
From what I could see, it looks like they've either fabricated from scratch based on the Mk4 (as per the website seems to indicate), or stripped it back to bare bones before rebuilding. If the latter, then there's absolutely no requirement for them to replace the same armour panels, and in fact with the obvious layout changes, it wouldn't make any sense. My guess is a whole new armour "skin" was produced, possibly thinner and lighter to improve the vehicle's performance - you generally don't need tank armour on an APC.
And Targan, welcome to the 2,000+ post club.  |
A few years back I got a chance through a old friend to play around a Mk4 Merk and a Namer, and the impression I got was that it is indeed all that. When they built the Namer (And oh, by the way, the Israeli's are going heavy on them - to the point where they are having the Lima Army Tank Plant here in Ohio build 300 of them for them last I read) the requirement was laid on that when all was said and done, that the protection would, at a *minimum* equal or improve on that of the Mk4. Since they don't need a turret, and its weight to go along, it comes out be even more agile than the Merk: And don't be fooled, put a Merk and an Abrams in a average rough field environment, the Abrams will look like a old Mk4 Rhomboid compared to the Mk4 Merkava.
For reference, the photo's in ArmySGT's post are of the Namer, not the Achzarit, and the Achzarit, depending on the model, can mount up to three Remote Weapons Stations. However, as he pointed out, you won't see more than one, perhaps two, ever mounted. On the later production models, there is only the fittings for one, though they can be upgraded at the unit level for a second in a day or so worth of work. The downfall of the T55/62 based Achzarit is the rear ramp: Way too confined, and it slows down debussing. Hence the choice was made to go with the Namer.
ArmySGT's comments (Be it a repost of someone else's or his) is spot on. That was the point made to me when I was over there poking about. The Tanks provide a base of fire, while the infantry pushed up to the point of attack (Usually a village) to debuss inside it. After all, tanks don't live long and fruitful lives in built up areas. They always felt that while IFV's made decent combat vehicles for a scouting role, they made horrid vehicles for attacking positions that had any amount of preparation. After all, even a Bradley or Marder could not stand up to point blank defensive fire from ATGM's and AT Rockets - leaving the infantry inside to cover the last 100 or so yards out in the open. Honestly, I never though about it like this, but when I did, and played it out on the sand tables, it started making perfect sense.