Re: IDF Namer APC
Posted: 2010-06-10 21:23
Even easier target for bombcar and brdm-2 AT-missile can't miss that.
lol, namer = tiger in hebrew xDD funny how similar it is.axel99i wrote:do you all know that´s " NAMER " is the word for " LEOPARD " in german..!?))
With that logic its north worth using a tank because its easy to hit with a TOW etc.Teh0 wrote:Even easier target for bombcar and brdm-2 AT-missile can't miss that.
I think those areas house things like air-conditioner and heat sinks... and they're a bit small for a person, if you consider that they are armored.dtacs wrote:Does the area I've highlighted in red (bits poking out) house space for one or more infantryman (see hatches above them), or are supplies/electronics stored there?
[image snipped]
Ughh tracked vehicles = horrible for mech infTim270 wrote:With that logic its north worth using a tank because its easy to hit with a TOW etc.
As much fun as the m113 can be, the exposed gunner ultimately makes it very hard to provide fire support with in PR. This is why the Namer is going to be a lot more for fun for Mech inf![]()
Fast and agile are normally needed because vehicles supporting infantry are lightly armoured. surely the need to be fast and agile (tho tanks in PR are not that bad) when you are heavily armoured is redundant.dtacs wrote:Ughh tracked vehicles = horrible for mech inf??:
Not fast or agile enough.
Dont need anything fast, just need something that is going to put down a lot of firepower to cover/support the inf.dtacs wrote:Ughh tracked vehicles = horrible for mech inf??:
Not fast or agile enough.
I'm talking from a purely 'we have to cap them out to win' aspect of speed and maneuverability.Tim270 wrote:Dont need anything fast, just need something that is going to put down a lot of firepower to cover/support the inf.
It won't replace it. It will work along side it.alec89 wrote:This looks good, I hope it will replace m113.![]()