Jump to content

Israeli Afvs


Mighty_Zuk

Recommended Posts

Posting this here instead of starting a new thread, are infantry that are a part of armored formations train differently than infantry that are not organic(?) to an armored formation?

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 522
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Rick said:

Posting this here instead of starting a new thread, are infantry that are a part of armored formations train differently than infantry that are not organic(?) to an armored formation?

Thank you.

Every soldier goes through rifleman training that comes in tiers. Combat units require a tier suitable to their tasks. Artillerymen and tank crews are combat, but don't do much as regular infantry, so they receive a low tier of training. Dedicated infantry receive a higher tier, and officers have higher tiers as well.

Armored infantry, as well as regular infantry, share the same 4 months of basic rifleman training, and do 4 months of specialized training which will be different for both. At the end of their full training, armored infantry are qualified for "rifleman 05" standard, and regular infantry are "rifleman 07". This indicates that armored infantry receive more specialized training in support tasks, while regular infantry receive deeper training in classical infantry roles.

Higher number indicates higher proficiency in classic infantry skills and is separate from additional corps-related training that usually occurs afterward.

Armored infantry are a niche that has been altered frequently in the last few years so there isn't much concrete, up-to-date information available unless you find someone mid-service to ask about this. Generally they do recon, direct fire, employ mortars, and assist tanks in any way they can. They have light and heavy mobility, e.g. HMMWVs and APCs respectively.

 

Being non-combat, there's little I can offer in terms of accuracy and depth. I recommend following on Twitter 2 users:

@plovejet

@loxlikelox

 

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In other news, and yes the journalist at hand is shit tier but it sounds reasonable - the IDF is apparently looking to buy large quantities of M61 Vulcans to mount on APCs, to be tasked with C-UAS.

M61 seems not wise . it is too heavy, and not as controllable as a conventional 20mm gun. US is going for 30mm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

M61 seems not wise . it is too heavy, and not as controllable as a conventional 20mm gun. US is going for 30mm. 

Idea is to get something into service quickly. I assume the fine tuning can be done later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lucklucky said:

M61 seems not wise . it is too heavy, and not as controllable as a conventional 20mm gun. US is going for 30mm. 

What do you mean? The Army used the M163 VADS for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What happened all the pre Merkava and indeed early Merkava mbt taken on of service in the last decade or so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WRW said:

What happened all the pre Merkava and indeed early Merkava mbt taken on of service in the last decade or so?

pre-Merkava you mean Magach (M48/M60) and Centurions?

They were withdrawn many years ago. Some probably scrapped for metal, some used as target practice, and probably a few M60 kept in good condition for a supply of spare parts for the small M88 and AVLB fleets (although at least the M88 is probably in the process of replacement).

Early Merkavas, particularly Mark 1, were withdrawn as well, and likely not kept in good condition. Merkava 3 is still in service and none can be spared at the moment.

Merkava 2 is the odd one. It was withdrawn even from reserve and was put up for export, along with some Merkava 3, but the war led to that plan being cancelled, and I have recently seen some being transported between bases, in a frequency that leads me to believe they're not used for target practice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WRW said:

What happened all the pre Merkava and indeed early Merkava mbt taken on of service in the last decade or so?

Sho't (Centurion), Magach (M48/M60), Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 are withdrawn from service, some are scrapped, rest are just empty hull, like @Mighty_Zuk said, used as targets or training aids for ARV crews. Of course perhaps Merkava Mk2's might be refurbished and returned in to service within current change of situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Damian said:

Sho't (Centurion), Magach (M48/M60), Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 are withdrawn from service, some are scrapped, rest are just empty hull, like @Mighty_Zuk said, used as targets or training aids for ARV crews. Of course perhaps Merkava Mk2's might be refurbished and returned in to service within current change of situation.

The fact Israel was mulling the sale of Merkava 2 tanks means at least that they're in working order, which is reasonable considering they were just now withdrawn from service. 

AFVs like the Ofek (C2) and Pereg (maintenance) are both built on Merkava 3 chassis but at least the Ofek was tested for several years on a Merkava 2 chassis, meaning they could easily be used for similar purposes to replace "frontline" M113s. 

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Might be wiser to keep what you haven't scrapped yet, no matter the condition.

One might say that's a universally good idea but not so much for Israel. Due to how short Israel's wars are (in Gaza the intense part ended months ago), it wouldn't make sense to invest in strategic reserves outside the existing reserve combat units. 

The only reason why old tanks are being restored is because the IDF realized it needs greater capacity to deploy units in Gaza in a fashion similar to the J&S (aka West Bank), meaning a permanent increase in the IDF's size. In any proper war, such equipment would be restored too late to make an effect, so might as well just sell it off and buy something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

One might say that's a universally good idea but not so much for Israel. Due to how short Israel's wars are (in Gaza the intense part ended months ago), it wouldn't make sense to invest in strategic reserves outside the existing reserve combat units. 

The only reason why old tanks are being restored is because the IDF realized it needs greater capacity to deploy units in Gaza in a fashion similar to the J&S (aka West Bank), meaning a permanent increase in the IDF's size. In any proper war, such equipment would be restored too late to make an effect, so might as well just sell it off and buy something new.

I was thinking more along the lines of converting them to something else if the need arises during peacetime (or indeed an operation like the current one). I assume that Merkava/Namer production line is pretty much 'booked' and it's not possible to substantially increase the number of hulls produced on a short notice. 

And yes, I know that up until now Israel's wars have been rather short, but do you have a guarantee that it will always stay that way?

One last thing is what I thought about in the context of my country - 'damn, it sure would've been nice if we kept those several hundred T-55AM Meridas in storage and started slowly refurbishing them (maybe with some upgrades) for the Ukrainians after the war broke out'. It's not what I would have said even a few years ago, but seeing as the other side rolls out actual T-54s (not even Bs or As, just T-54) in what has become a war of attrition...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...