I always thought this type of howitzer with Auto loader like Archer with its strategic mobility was a better option than tracked for any country with long distances to cover. On the Australian army thread this view was howled down but the IAF clearly disagree and look to be replacing their tracked guns with gun on a truck. Israel's new generation SIGMA 155mm/52 calibre self-propelled howitzer - Defence ViewModel of Ro'em (brand name Sigma) prepared for an exhibition:
Notice the gun is still the L52, however the platform is built for a larger gun that could be mounted in the future (the L52 is an old standard already).
Israeli Army News & Discussion
- Thread starter Big_Zucchini
- Start date
mrrosenthal
Member
There was an article about IDFs move towards wheels from tracks in regards to the Eitan because most of the country has highways and getting form one place to another quickly is more important and more common of a scenario than off-road tracked requirements.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #43
As much as it is a matter of strategic mobility, it is also a matter of economy. Israel needs to increase the number of modern AFVs it has but cannot really afford that. Otherwise it would buy more than triple the number of Namers it has today.
What the IDF is missing is units that inherently need to be wheeled or at least very light. They are riding on M113s and are missing out on capabilities.
Light infantry units excel in non-kinetic effects that will be necessary to support others.
What the IDF is missing is units that inherently need to be wheeled or at least very light. They are riding on M113s and are missing out on capabilities.
Light infantry units excel in non-kinetic effects that will be necessary to support others.
In your opinion; given the type of threats the IDF is expected to face in the coming decade; does it really need additional Namers?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #45
Even with APS existing on every somewhat heavy combat vehicle in the IDF, it would still rather send Namers somewhere dangerous than Eitans. That's just the reality for now.
Yes, it would love to have more Namers. But the budget says more Eitans, and by the end of this decade, more of a new type of vehicle that will most likely eventually start replacing the Namer as well, once all M113s are removed from combat or combat support roles.
Zucchini,
A couple of questions if you don't mind.
1. What units were/are equipped with Achzarit and do we know how many entered service?
2. Is there any open source material on how the army organises its armour; how many tanks in a troop/section and how many in a squadron/platoon?
3. Do you recall the IDF in the 1990's issuing a directive which forbad personnel from using cell phones whilst on duty? Due to security reasons. I remember reading this somewhere.
The direction the army is taking with regards to its SPH requirements is interesting. Going for a wheeled based platform was something - to me at least - totally unexpected.
A couple of questions if you don't mind.
1. What units were/are equipped with Achzarit and do we know how many entered service?
2. Is there any open source material on how the army organises its armour; how many tanks in a troop/section and how many in a squadron/platoon?
3. Do you recall the IDF in the 1990's issuing a directive which forbad personnel from using cell phones whilst on duty? Due to security reasons. I remember reading this somewhere.
The direction the army is taking with regards to its SPH requirements is interesting. Going for a wheeled based platform was something - to me at least - totally unexpected.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #47
1. Achzarit, Nagmachon, and Nakpadon were all regional command-oriented vehicles, and some still are. The Achzarit and Nakpadon were first given to the northern command, which then allocated it to both the regional brigades (territorials, not maneuvering, just there to secure the area) and rotating infantry brigades.
After an event in 2004 when an M113 was destroyed around Gaza, it was decided these deployments would be shared with the southern command in charge of Gaza.
The Nagmachon is allocated to units rotating in the West Bank, although all above mentioned could be seen at times in all these regions.
Today it is said the reserve Alexandroni brigade (2nd inf brigade) uses most of the available Achzarit.
Since the most common infantry units in the north are the Golani and Givati, they were the most frequent users of the Achzarit until they moved on to the Namer.
The Namer has also been switched between units some time ago. Don't know if still is.
The IDF has 6 active and 13 reserve infantry brigades. Of the 6 active, 2 are very light and therefore have no IFVs, 2 are using Namers, and 2 are set to receive Eitans.
2. Usually 3 tank battalions per brigade, unknown amount of companies in a battalion, unknown amount of platoons in a company, and 2 tanks per platoon.
The unknowns are very dynamic as they change in peacetime quite frequently, and in wartime the brigades and battalions don't exist, as ad-hoc battlegroups are formed, tailored to their mission.
For example an infantry company may request only one tank for the mission so the other tank in a platoon joins to make a 3-tank platoon somewhere else.
The most up to date structure I could find is:
1 brigade -> 3 battalions -> 3 companies -> ??? platoons -> 2 tanks.
I know that each company has 11 so that must mean 4 platoons for a total of 8, plus 3 tanks as HQ.
This means that without battalion and brigade level HQ, there are 99 tanks in a brigade. I've heard somewhere a figure of 111 tanks per brigade.
Should be noted it takes roughly 3 years to rearm a brigade with new tanks, and the production rate is claimed to be ~30 tanks a year albeit the exact number is likely classified.
3. I don't remember such thing. Today every soldier carries his phone with him. The IDF does take SIGINT very seriously so I assume their presence where critical is minimized, but I do not know the directives for combat units.
Thank you. That was very informative and helpful.
That explains footage of it in the West Bank many years ago.
The remaining 2 light ones are only equipped with M-113s?
Would I be right in assuming that it would be rare occurrence to have a single MBT temporarily attached to an infantry unit as MBTs ideally at minimum should always b deployed in pairs?
2 tanks per platoon? The Israeli army must be the only army with 2 tank platoons.
What other combat assets would be organic to an armoured brigade? A battalion's worth of arty and a mechanised company?
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #49
It was considered that 2 tanks are not flexible enough and unprotected but very mobile. 4 tanks are very flexible and protected but insufficiently mobile. And 3 is the solid middle ground. That's what the IDF had for a long time.
But tech advancements enabled formations to change, and now it seems 2-tank platoons are now sufficiently protected (possibly due to APS). I assume this structure has only been adopted in units with modern tanks.
My sense is that the objection is to having a gun on the back of a truck that requires a large crew operating unprotected.
Regards,
Massive
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #51
That is indeed quite a problematic solution, albeit in the IDF our current solution is no less dangerous. In wartime, you'll see M109s firing from static positions, backdoor open, and a large stack of ammo right behind every howitzer. This is not something that can pack up in a minute and leave, nor is it a force that can survive a shell that falls even some tens of meters away.
You can argue that Hamas and Hezbollah don't have counter-battery tech, but that should not excuse our troops from being so careless because it is with 95% certainty I say if a peer threat emerges, they'll only switch tactics after the first disaster.
I saw a pic of this taken in 1982. The Dutch did the same with their Panzerhaubitzes in Afghanistan. I've long wondered whether it was due to inadequacies with the A/C or ventilation system. No idea how true this is but someone mentioned here years ago that the IDF lost a M-109 because enemy fire hit a pile of ammo and fuzes which were stacked up behind the vehicle.
mrrosenthal
Member
If you watch 1973 Yom Kippur War videos, in the Golan, static unprotected artillery fired from behind , and tanks and infantry were up front. Can some explain to me why putting it on a truck is now a negative?
This is pretty much how it's been for centuries for artillery not firing directly sighted.
The issue is the speed at which the enemy can return counter battery fire, which radar, computers and faster communications has reduced to minutes. Shoot and scoot is the way to survive, and protecting the crew a necessity for those near run things.
oldsig
Unprotected? The crew of the Archer is under armour.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #57
I think this discussion needs to be more specific, as some trucks give protection, and some don't. The Caesar, Atmos, Brutus, are examples of trucks that do not provide armor. The Sigma and Archer, are examples of trucks that do.
The next point would be how survivable are trucks versus tracked vehicles to artillery fire. Well, if the enemy was firing dumb rounds, this would have been a factor. With guided munitions, it is less so. The difference would be between around ten meters to several tens of meters in protection capability, in favor of tracked vehicles.
The next point would be how survivable are trucks versus tracked vehicles to artillery fire. Well, if the enemy was firing dumb rounds, this would have been a factor. With guided munitions, it is less so. The difference would be between around ten meters to several tens of meters in protection capability, in favor of tracked vehicles.
I believe he was referring to systems which offer no protection for the crew.
Yes the old way was the crew were exposed but with the Signa the Israelis are deploying and the archer the crew are protected on the truck and it’s an auto loader on the turret. They crew don’t need to exit the vehicle and pack up time s about the same and road speeds are faster and transport range is longer.
My argument is the truck could be used fior additional ammo and fuel.
Using a very simplified logistics model….
1 crew and vehicle to shoot and 1 crew and truck for logistics.
vs
1 crew and vehicle to shoot
1 crew and truck for logistics- poss more for tracked vehicles higher fuel use.
1 crew and loader to get the SPH to the zone and back
mrrosenthal
Member
There are 4 variables, Tracked, Wheeled, Unarmored , Armored.
If as you say, shoot and scoot is a critical element in todays battlefied, it would seem to me that unarmored, automatic artillery is superior.
Not a perfect example, but in a RTS(starcraft) video game, when you have expensive units , you can only have a few. And if you can mass enough of a certain time of unit, you can wipe your opponent. Considering artillery is not the elite machine, nor are the men manning artillery the elite men, it seems cost ineffective to spend more on upgrading this.
It would be better to have 50 unarmored mobile guns , then 30 armored guns. It also isn't fair to say ,"just get 50 armored guns"
If look at azerbaijian Armenian war, the difference maker, were the drones and missiles. The elite units/technology/men should be spent countering this threat.
It would make more sense to put an aerial drone on on the mobile unarmored artillery.
Thats my opinion
What is the IDF's assesment of the use of guns in regards to Tracked, Wheeled, Unarmored , Armored?
If as you say, shoot and scoot is a critical element in todays battlefied, it would seem to me that unarmored, automatic artillery is superior.
Not a perfect example, but in a RTS(starcraft) video game, when you have expensive units , you can only have a few. And if you can mass enough of a certain time of unit, you can wipe your opponent. Considering artillery is not the elite machine, nor are the men manning artillery the elite men, it seems cost ineffective to spend more on upgrading this.
It would be better to have 50 unarmored mobile guns , then 30 armored guns. It also isn't fair to say ,"just get 50 armored guns"
If look at azerbaijian Armenian war, the difference maker, were the drones and missiles. The elite units/technology/men should be spent countering this threat.
It would make more sense to put an aerial drone on on the mobile unarmored artillery.
Thats my opinion
What is the IDF's assesment of the use of guns in regards to Tracked, Wheeled, Unarmored , Armored?
Last edited by a moderator: