well obviously, since they replaced frontline M113s with the namer in service
if it had failed they would have pulled them out of service years ago and replaced them
I'm not the OP, I just think it's pretty silly that an argument is >Better than the vehicle that's as old as my dad
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
it was meant to be better than the vehicle it replaced, which it succeeded in
if it was a failure, it would have been cancelled and they keep using legacy equipment or its just cancelled without replacement and they just use whatever they can find
its a perfectly logical argumentation, it cant be a failure if it succeeded in replacing the older model
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Would this indicate that the SKS and M14 were massive, unrelenting successes.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
the M14 was a success
the M16 which replaced it was, in turn, also a success
a failure would be the G43 which was made in such small amount and proved so finnicky that it was unable to replace a late 1800s era rifle
Eh? It's doing well, compare it with all the destroyed BMPs we have seen in Ukraine
>AFV without infantry support
Oh right, the meme about not surrounding your tanks with meatbags, it's stupid, you are comparing russian tanks, which as people have pointed out never had survivability high in the to-do list with israeli tanks, which were specifically designed for a situation such as these, you can spam all you want Hamas fotage but it won't change the fact these vehicles have been qorking as intended and IDF is closing the pincer around Gaza.
I don't think it failed at all, he israelis are probably using them along the coast were they do use vatnik tier tactics of sending armored vehicles without infantry (due to the amount of towers for snipers).
They do give these naval support and artillery support, but i would not be suprised if there are serious tanks and namer losses since the goal there is to prevent infantry loses in a retarded infantry push in front of towers.
how many losses constitute "serious" losses in your book?
to the best of my knowledge not even a dozen Israeli AFVs of all types have been knocked out by HAMAS
A few days ago my post got deleted for saying that there's no way an rpg-7 could take out a namer. It turned out Hamas actually was using only the rpg-7 against the namer and they were failing to take it out. I can't help but lol at that.
Israel has only experience in bombing shit. Police work, and tiktoks from conscripts. not a lot of combined Arms experience and testing. This should not be surprise
Trying to sanitise every area room by room before sending tanks in is a great way to take a ton of casualties to booby traps and guys in rooms with rusty AKs and hand grenades.
Tanks and air power are the main advantage that the IDF has over militants in Gaza, the IDF can actually much better afford a few dozen damaged AFVs than a few hundred dead soldiers.
So far the strategy seems to working remarkably well.
and it still its job in that instance
the crew were unharmed, the APU ate the damage
and it shouldn't be that hard to repair either
t. have seen the vehicle
But Palestinians have managed to shoot at it. Even though we have no aftermath footage that means it's shit since any military vehicle that is ever damaged in combat is a 100% irredeemable failure. I am 6 years old.
Going up against a force backed by Allah's will.
its literally better than riding around in an M113 or BTR
Wow like Literally?
well obviously, since they replaced frontline M113s with the namer in service
if it had failed they would have pulled them out of service years ago and replaced them
>A vehicle made in the 2000s is more effective than one made in the 1950s
what do you think it was meant to replace?
The vehicle made in the 1950s
yeah, so it clearly didnt fail considering it has continued to phase out legacy vehicles
I'm not the OP, I just think it's pretty silly that an argument is
>Better than the vehicle that's as old as my dad
it was meant to be better than the vehicle it replaced, which it succeeded in
if it was a failure, it would have been cancelled and they keep using legacy equipment or its just cancelled without replacement and they just use whatever they can find
its a perfectly logical argumentation, it cant be a failure if it succeeded in replacing the older model
Would this indicate that the SKS and M14 were massive, unrelenting successes.
the M14 was a success
the M16 which replaced it was, in turn, also a success
a failure would be the G43 which was made in such small amount and proved so finnicky that it was unable to replace a late 1800s era rifle
Fail?
Its doing well. Perfect for the desert
Eh? It's doing well, compare it with all the destroyed BMPs we have seen in Ukraine
>AFV without infantry support
Oh right, the meme about not surrounding your tanks with meatbags, it's stupid, you are comparing russian tanks, which as people have pointed out never had survivability high in the to-do list with israeli tanks, which were specifically designed for a situation such as these, you can spam all you want Hamas fotage but it won't change the fact these vehicles have been qorking as intended and IDF is closing the pincer around Gaza.
I don't think it failed at all, he israelis are probably using them along the coast were they do use vatnik tier tactics of sending armored vehicles without infantry (due to the amount of towers for snipers).
They do give these naval support and artillery support, but i would not be suprised if there are serious tanks and namer losses since the goal there is to prevent infantry loses in a retarded infantry push in front of towers.
>Fail
>serious tanks and namer losses
Which stage of grief is denial?
how many losses constitute "serious" losses in your book?
to the best of my knowledge not even a dozen Israeli AFVs of all types have been knocked out by HAMAS
A few days ago my post got deleted for saying that there's no way an rpg-7 could take out a namer. It turned out Hamas actually was using only the rpg-7 against the namer and they were failing to take it out. I can't help but lol at that.
>post got deleted for saying that there's no way an rpg-7 could take out a namer.
whats the rule against this?
Israel has only experience in bombing shit. Police work, and tiktoks from conscripts. not a lot of combined Arms experience and testing. This should not be surprise
Trying to sanitise every area room by room before sending tanks in is a great way to take a ton of casualties to booby traps and guys in rooms with rusty AKs and hand grenades.
Tanks and air power are the main advantage that the IDF has over militants in Gaza, the IDF can actually much better afford a few dozen damaged AFVs than a few hundred dead soldiers.
So far the strategy seems to working remarkably well.
There's a grand total of 1 (one) video that shows a guaranteed damage. The one where it gets hit in the rear
and it still its job in that instance
the crew were unharmed, the APU ate the damage
and it shouldn't be that hard to repair either
t. have seen the vehicle
but they seem to be doing just fine
But Palestinians have managed to shoot at it. Even though we have no aftermath footage that means it's shit since any military vehicle that is ever damaged in combat is a 100% irredeemable failure. I am 6 years old.
they lose like 30 namers
israelis are resorting to monke-tier tank wave tactics