Friday, August 22, 2014

IDF wants more Namer APCs and Trophy protection systems

Thanks for the link Jonathan!

via Janes.
Senior army officials hope that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will acquire better-protected armoured vehicles and more active protection systems (APS) such as Rafael's Trophy.
Their comments came after seven members of the elite Golani Brigade were killed by an rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attack on their M113 armoured personnel carrier (APC) during Operation 'Protective Edge' against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.
Senior officers say they want far more Namer APCs, which have superior armour, to replace the thousands of M113s they currently have. They also say they want to equip more vehicles with the Trophy APS, which they credit with defending Merkava Mk 4 tanks against more than a dozen anti-tank missile strikes carried out by militants during Operation 'Protective Edge'.
"We want many more Namer APCs for the infantry," a senior army source said. "If we had more Namers and more defences, we would have fewer casualties from missile strikes such as the one that occurred on the M113.
"There were arguments beforehand about why we needed the Namer and Merkava Mk 4. I think after Operation 'Protective Edge', these questions will shrink away," the source added.
"In Lebanon too, these vehicles can bring extraordinary firepower and capabilities. They are very advanced, have excellent armour defences, flexibility, and detection and precision abilities. There are no armoured vehicles like them in the world," he said.
The acquisition of large numbers of new armoured vehicles and the installation of APS would significantly strengthen Israel's ground manoeuvre capability, the source argued. "This creates a ground offensive that cannot be stopped anywhere, and this is what Israel needs.

The IDF is reawakening to the need to have powerful armored forces...armored forces that are NOT neglected in favor of airpower.

A military campaign tends to focus the mind doesn't it?  Theory goes out the window and reality takes center stage. 


  1. I am currently reading "Marine Under Armor" and one of the things that strikes me that all services have the same trend of under-valuing heavy armor and over valuing "lightness." This goes back all the way to the interwar years. However, once a conflict breaks out the troops on the ground end up crying for additional armor that the Services are reluctant to give. One of the decisive weapons in the Pacific campaign was using M4 Sherman tanks firing HE 75mm fire. M1A1's proved themselves not just in open desert warfare during OIF1 but during the "thunder runs" and the Operation Phantom Fury, operating in cities.

    What has been proven decisive in conflict since WWII is mechanized forces or if in confined spaces, tank infantry teams working in concert with Air and artillery as additional enablers. But there is no replacing decent APCs to transport your infantry and the instant, on-call, precision firepower of tank main gun.

    1. time to dust off my copy and give it a re-read. totally agree with your assessment. have you noticed that the MPC/ACV/AAV upgrade has disappeared from the news? even the JLTV isn't being talked about.

    2. "Lightness" as in a squad making its primary movement in a fast flying vehicle that costs as much for one as whole company's worth of armour costs; before the squad has to make its second movement on foot carrying great weights.

  2. An interesting outcome of The World Tank Biathlon 2014.

    PLA tank comes 8th in World Tank Biathlon in Russia

    The People's Liberation Type 96A main battle tank ranked number eight during the first round of the 2014 World Tank Biathlon individual race, which took place at a landfill in Alabino, near Moscow, according to Moscow-based news agency RIA Novosti on Aug. 5.

    Not the best but we like it, says PLA general of Type 96A tank

    Liu Degang, the vice president of the Academy of Armored Force Engineering in Beijing told the state-run Global Times on July 22 that although China is unable to build the best main battle tanks in the world, the nation's tanks are the most suited to the People's Liberation Army.

    Tanks need more power, experts say
    09:35, August 18, 2014

    Lieutenant Hou Peng, who took part in the biathlon, said the Type-96A performed well in shooting contests, hitting every target.

    "However, the tanks used by the Russian team have a 1,130-horsepower engine that is 300 horsepower more powerful than ours, so their tanks run faster," he told China Central Television.

    Chinese engineers are well-aware that the engine's relative lack of power poses a severe problem for the PLA's tank regiments, according to Wang Hongguang, former deputy commander of the Nanjing Military Command, who oversaw the development of the Type-96A.

    "The power of the Type-96A's engine is constrained by a host of factors such as its materials, structure and several key parts," he told Global Times.


    Chinese Type-96A MBT struggled against Russian T-72. Seems that Chinese tanks are still decades behind the western counterparts, so the US need not worry the Chinese armors.

    1. The vast majority of Chinese tanks are in 40 ton class like the Type 96 due to poorly built road, bridges, and rail conditions of China.

      China has a handful of 50 ton class tanks like Type 98/99, but they have a problem deploying them due to road and bridge conditions.

    2. Most of contenders in that contest use given by Russia T-72B models... when the Russian crew used T-72B2M model. Faster, more powerful, the more advance model. Fair Play Made in Russia.

    3. Shas

      That doesn't apply to the Chinese because the Chinese brought their own tanks. Participating countries are free to bring their own tanks.

      That outcome made China's neighbors rethink the PLA ground force in battle scenarios, maybe it isn't so hard to take out the PLA armor force after all.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. The key to success on the modern battlefield is still the same as practiced by Guderian and Rommel and Patton and the Israeli Army in 1956, 1967, 1973 (after initial unsupported failed frontal attacks). Fire and Maneuver!
    I contend that fast and highly maneuverable lightly armoreded and APS protected personnel (Infantry) carriers, like the IMI CombatGuard supported by the 120 mm mortar on the HUMMER (the Elbit Spear) could be effective in encircling maneuvers through the narrow streets of Gaza instead of a frontal assault with Merkava and Namer along the well defended and booby trapped main roads - or in concert with the frontal assault. I recollect reading about the fear generated by Strikers among the Iraqis, appearing suddenly and quietly from unexpected directions, causing surprise.
    This would cause Hamas to loose its balance and break its resistance.
    Merkava and Namer do have their place in Built up areas, but it's a slow grind and more or less expected.

    1. You know that is my thoughts exactly, by lightly armoured I mean 20-30 tonne vehicles with 35mm+ cannons on them, but I suppose in the context of fighting Hamas in Gazza, a force which does not really poses opposing vehicles with large cannons it doesn't really matter as long as the vehicles provide 360Degree protection against 14mm rounds.

      And 120mm, vehicle mounted mortars are very versitile and capable when deployed at the level you are talking about not just against infantry but also vehicles with DPICM. There are many good options, Nemo/AMOS, SRAMS Artillery (for crew operated), the wiesel artillery, america has one that is not so good also.

      Hell if you wanted to be really ballsy you could use Utility vehicles with APS and Miniguns or LSVs (which can be armoured to provide some protection against 7mm rounds in addition to the IFVs.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.