Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 155

Thread: U.S. Army To Test Israeli, Swedish Tanks in New Mexico

  1. #31
    Senior Member IDF_TANKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    The world's 6th most dangerous country.
    Age
    36
    Posts
    13,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Herman the II View Post
    No Puma for testing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Herman the II View Post
    The German one, new IFV by KMW and Rheinmetall.
    BTW. from the article:

    Other options the Army is considering include the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle. The Army wanted to bring the Puma to White Sands Missile Range this spring, but it did not work out in time, DiMarco said.

  2. #32
    On Belay... Climb on Climber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires in body, the beautiful and green Sharon in my heart
    Age
    46
    Posts
    11,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackWarder View Post
    I agree that the Namer don't have a lot of chances in this but some of your fixation about its lack of turret is misplaced, there are variants of Namer with a turret, with various weapon payloads without effecting the core abilities of the vehicles, on'y reason the IDF don't buy those is due to budget issues.

    I think the main issue with the Namer is it's weight, can't be airlifted efficiently.

    Warder
    Its no the lack of a turret, I know they can put a lot of stuff over it, But why doing it on IDF namers? they will be used as IFV? no.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackWarder View Post
    It is a budgetary issue for the IDF, it will cost money to train the crews and man the IFV not to mention to overhaul the training programs on so many level, many Armor officers would love to have an IFV in their attached infantry formations. Doctrine is influenced by a lot of things, one of them is budgetary concerns., that does not mean that the Namer don't have a turreted variant because it does it's just that the IDF choose not to buy it atm.

    Warder
    Everything is budgetary, our military history is all compromise between what we need and what we can. That is the doctrine.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    1,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackWarder View Post
    It is a budgetary issue for the IDF, it will cost money to train the crews and man the IFV not to mention to overhaul the training programs on so many level, many Armor officers would love to have an IFV in their attached infantry formations. Doctrine is influenced by a lot of things, one of them is budgetary concerns., that does not mean that the Namer don't have a turreted variant because it does it's just that the IDF choose not to buy it atm.

    Warder
    Its not only money.Lets say IDF have money,you want to take ppl in infantry and train them as dedicated crew for Namer,while they still need to be trained as infantry?You don't see there problems other then budgetary?
    Or you want to reduce number of dismount in every Namer,in case crew not trained as infantry?So to increase number of vehicles etc.Or what?And if you want to do this,where from do you get this ppl,why don't you want to give them tank instead of Namer.
    You know there are some things you can't buy even if you have money,simply not worth it.And i even didn't started about logistic and operational stuff.Do tankers really want turret on Namer?Infantry they want.
    In the end yes it will be nice heaving turret at least on some of Namer in service,it's always nice heaving something vs not heaving,but is it worth allocating any money at all?

  4. #34
    Senior Member deathil93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Zionist Empire
    Posts
    1,884

    Default

    Interesting stuff, tho I doubt the Namer has any chance of getting adopted, even tho it's partially produced in the US and A.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackWarder View Post
    It is a budgetary issue for the IDF, it will cost money to train the crews and man the IFV not to mention to overhaul the training programs on so many level, many Armor officers would love to have an IFV in their attached infantry formations. Doctrine is influenced by a lot of things, one of them is budgetary concerns., that does not mean that the Namer don't have a turreted variant because it does it's just that the IDF choose not to buy it atm.

    Warder
    Well, the Merkava is used nicely to farry troops around while giving heavy fire support at the same time, ofc it's no IFV but it's good.

  5. #35
    Member Dankster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    805

    Default

    In any case, I'm definately looking forward to seeing whatever final design the next US IFV will be.

  6. #36
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    2,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellfish View Post
    I'd rather be giving M1s to Turkey so they can invade Syria without our help.
    Their tanks are better than Syria's even without M1A1/2s..

  7. #37
    Senior Member camerashy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    在中国大陆,播种异议。
    Posts
    1,528

    Default

    Lets check out their small arms while we're at it.

    Besides looking amazing, does anyone have any opinions on the AK5?
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  8. #38
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,762

    Default

    ^ wtf? [*******#ffffff]...........[/color]

  9. #39
    Banned User Laworkerbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California Über Alles
    Age
    45
    Posts
    43,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camerashy View Post
    Lets check out their small arms while we're at it.

    Besides looking amazing, does anyone have any opinions on the AK5?
    Yeah, you better have a teammate with a real rifle capable of engaging something past 200 meters.

  10. #40
    Senior Member camerashy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    在中国大陆,播种异议。
    Posts
    1,528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    Yeah, you better have a teammate with a real rifle capable of engaging something past 200 meters.
    SBRs are all the rage

  11. #41
    Senior Member JRT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Arctic Circle
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camerashy View Post
    Lets check out their small arms while we're at it.

    Besides looking amazing, does anyone have any opinions on the AK5?
    I liked it, but I only have experience of one day at the shooting range with it.

    Didn't like the Ak4 at all.

  12. #42
    Senior Member Fisker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laworkerbee View Post
    Yeah, you better have a teammate with a real rifle capable of engaging something past 200 meters.
    http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-c8iur-rifle.htm

    Someone with the new C8 (or Danish M/10):


  13. #43
    Senior Member Leaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camerashy View Post
    Lets check out their small arms while we're at it.

    Besides looking amazing, does anyone have any opinions on the AK5?
    The AK5D is a funny rifle. You can't fire blanks with it and you can't fire at anything above 300 meters (250 accurately). It's just for Rangers and Urban Infantry and ****

  14. #44
    Senior Member IDF_TANKER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    The world's 6th most dangerous country.
    Age
    36
    Posts
    13,072

    Default



    Seriously, rifles?

  15. #45
    Senior Member Fisker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IDF_TANKER View Post


    Seriously, rifles?
    Well, tankers can't do all the work. Although one tanker seems to be made of something else: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...er-fire’

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •