Prev: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces? Next: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

From: Tony Wilkinson <twilko@o...>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:14:01 +1000
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Gday All,

Take a look at the Namer   
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carrie
rs/namera/Namera.htm

Its hulls is higher than that of the standard tank but lower overall. 
Past the Stryker pics are some interior shots but I'm not sure if some 
aren't CGI. Still it looks to carry an 8 man squad even if there looks 
to be less space than the old M113's.

Interestingly it seems,  I can't read Hebrew, that the chassis is built 
up from semi modular units. (Right at the bottom of the page) It's like 
you build a tank or APC chassis and then fix the armour to it. You could

use the same method for SPG's or engineering vehicles choosing at that 
point how much armour to fit. Israeli's being Israeli's with no bridge 
problems and relatively short distances to travel will armour them to 
the hilt.

Just something to think about.

Tony.

Ryan GIll wrote:
> Re infantry carried as part of a tank force....
>
> If you look at the armoured cav use in vietnam or british recce units
in wwii, you'll see examples of platoons/troops with infantry as one of
the several weapons of the platoon in question. I can see a cav doctrine
that integrates the apc and the tank in one vehicle and has every
vehicle able to engage heavy targets with the heavy armament and
dismount infantry to do infantry type things.
>
> However there are times when your tanks must do one thing and your
infantry another. If that requires that your infantry move over ground
the tanks can't cover and its a long way, you may have problems with
that. 
>
> That's not to say I haven't designed some super heavy vehicles with
infantry space. I haven't worked out that system much.
>
> I thinkl the main problem is goingto come with vehicle ergonomics
though. Infantry want a large high volume so they're not stuffed in a
can like soviet bmps. Combat kit on a grunt takes up room. So do thei
heavy weapons and other parts. A large and high compartment doesn't work
well for the back of a tank.
>
> The merkava works only as a way to carry a very small squad and that
cuts into their ammo supply for the main gun. If you want infantry very
close with your armor, stick them in heavy apcs and use some light
weapons on those. Like an overhead weapon station with an atgm. Add some
extra mgs if you want it more urban combat capable. 
>
> -

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


Prev: Re: [GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces? Next: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?