1844.
1845.
1846.
1847.
1848.
1849.
1850.
1851.
1852.
1853.
1854.
Hosted by Darren Baker
IDF Light/Heavy Metal
GTDeath13
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 - 03:07 AM UTC
Had to share these, M48 and M48A1 in IDF service:
1844.
1845.
1846.
1847.
1848.
1849.
1850.
1851.
1852.
1853.
1854.
1844.
1845.
1846.
1847.
1848.
1849.
1850.
1851.
1852.
1853.
1854.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 - 03:40 AM UTC
Thanks, Nikos! Could you please just number the pictures according to the sequence?
GTDeath13
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 - 05:54 AM UTC
Numbering done. The first three photos are of a former Jordanian vehicle, check the steel tracks.
1849, 1850 and 1851 were taken during the war of attrition
1849, 1850 and 1851 were taken during the war of attrition
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 09, 2020 - 12:19 AM UTC
Thanks, Nikos. Added to index.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 - 12:46 AM UTC
The first Namer prototypes were converted from decommissioned Merkava Mk.1 hulls:
1855.
1856.
The production series however, are being built on Mk.4 chassis with Mk.3 powertrains.
1857.
1858.
1859.
1860.
1861.
1862.
1863.
On evaluation in the US:
1864.
1865.
1866.
1867.
1855.
1856.
The production series however, are being built on Mk.4 chassis with Mk.3 powertrains.
1857.
1858.
1859.
1860.
1861.
1862.
1863.
On evaluation in the US:
1864.
1865.
1866.
1867.
Tank1812
Joined: April 29, 2014
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 886 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2020 - 12:56 AM UTC
1827.
Is this the IDF version of car boot for tracks?
Is this the IDF version of car boot for tracks?
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, January 17, 2020 - 03:54 AM UTC
The first large-scale deployment of Namers was during operation 'Protective Edge' in 2014.
1868.
1869.
1870.
1871.
1872.
1868.
1869.
1870.
1871.
1872.
sherb
Joined: August 25, 2004
KitMaker: 752 posts
Armorama: 378 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 - 11:33 AM UTC
I have such a love hate relationship with this thread. Well, more like I love it, my wallet hates it—lots of great subjects to model.
Anyway, in photo 1837, the M577 appears to have a stowage basket attached to the front of the hull. I’ve only ever seen that on an M113. Any more photos of this rarity?
Did the IDF ever use the external fuel tanks on the M577? I’ve seen that configuration on Canadian M577s.
Thanks for posting these!
Anyway, in photo 1837, the M577 appears to have a stowage basket attached to the front of the hull. I’ve only ever seen that on an M113. Any more photos of this rarity?
Did the IDF ever use the external fuel tanks on the M577? I’ve seen that configuration on Canadian M577s.
Thanks for posting these!
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 - 09:15 PM UTC
New photos added to previous Namer posts.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 - 09:20 PM UTC
Quoted Text
in photo 1837, the M577 appears to have a stowage basket attached to the front of the hull. I’ve only ever seen that on an M113. Any more photos of this rarity?
Well spotted, Sherb. None of the Mugafs I have in my collection seem to have the front storage rack.
Quoted Text
Did the IDF ever use the external fuel tanks on the M577? I’ve seen that configuration on Canadian M577s.
Not according to my photos.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 - 09:46 PM UTC
1873.
1874.
1875.
1876.
1874.
1875.
1876.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Saturday, February 01, 2020 - 08:28 PM UTC
1877.
1878.
1879.
1880.
1881.
1882.
1883.
1884.
1885.
1886.
1887.
1888.
1878.
1879.
1880.
1881.
1882.
1883.
1884.
1885.
1886.
1887.
1888.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 22, 2020 - 09:49 PM UTC
1889.
1890.
1891.
1892.
1893.
1894.
1895.
1896.
1890.
1891.
1892.
1893.
1894.
1895.
1896.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 22, 2020 - 10:00 PM UTC
Trophy equipped examples:
1897.
1898.
1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.
1903.
1904.
1897.
1898.
1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.
1903.
1904.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 04:06 AM UTC
1905.
1906.
1907.
1908.
1909.
1910.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
1906.
1907.
1908.
1909.
1910.
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
HermannB
Joined: October 14, 2008
KitMaker: 4,099 posts
Armorama: 4,067 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 04:11 AM UTC
With so many references of the Namer floating around I wonder why no major plastic company makes it. Every company that has a Merkava Mk. IV, it could be easy.
GTDeath13
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 04:38 AM UTC
Quoted Text
With so many references of the Namer floating around I wonder why no major plastic company makes it. Every company that has a Merkava Mk. IV, it could be easy.
Are you certain that it is a Mk4 hull?
pmontero
Joined: September 05, 2016
KitMaker: 29 posts
Armorama: 18 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 05:46 AM UTC
I have read that they have used Mk.I hulls.
GTDeath13
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 05:52 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I have read that they have used Mk.I hulls.
The prototypes were MkI hulls.
The hull really looks like a Mk4 but the wheel spacing is a bit different judging by photos and the front glacis angles look as if it is a Mk3.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2020 - 06:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI have read that they have used Mk.I hulls.
The prototypes were MkI hulls.
The hull really looks like a Mk4 but the wheel spacing is a bit different judging by photos and the front glacis angles look as if it is a Mk3.
Correct. The hull of production series Namers is indeed based on that of the Mk.4, but the power train and the entire running gear (including the tracks) are identical to those of the Mk.3.
Marsh
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 05:36 AM UTC
Hi Israel,
You are not entirely correct on this. Some of the early Namers that are in service, were built on the Merkava 3 chassis, not that of the Merkava 4. The intention was to introduce a batch of vehicles as soon as possible. They are the ones you can see with Merkava 3 suspension and tracks. The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.
If you have access to Robert Manasherab's book Israeli Wild and Cruel Cats Volume 5 on the Namer, there is a discussion on this and some nice photos of the two variants in service together.
You are not entirely correct on this. Some of the early Namers that are in service, were built on the Merkava 3 chassis, not that of the Merkava 4. The intention was to introduce a batch of vehicles as soon as possible. They are the ones you can see with Merkava 3 suspension and tracks. The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.
If you have access to Robert Manasherab's book Israeli Wild and Cruel Cats Volume 5 on the Namer, there is a discussion on this and some nice photos of the two variants in service together.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 05:55 AM UTC
Thanks for your input, Marsh.
But the Mk.3 power train, right?
Quoted Text
The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.
But the Mk.3 power train, right?
GTDeath13
Joined: June 12, 2015
KitMaker: 921 posts
Armorama: 919 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 05:57 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Israel,
You are not entirely correct on this. Some of the early Namers that are in service, were built on the Merkava 3 chassis, not that of the Merkava 4. The intention was to introduce a batch of vehicles as soon as possible. They are the ones you can see with Merkava 3 suspension and tracks. The majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.
If you have access to Robert Manasherab's book Israeli Wild and Cruel Cats Volume 5 on the Namer, there is a discussion on this and some nice photos of the two variants in service together.
That is some very valuable info. MAny thanks.
Edit: Looking at the photos above I think that the Mk3 chassis vehicles have a split cover at the foremost part of the engine deck (diagonal split hatches) while the Mk4 chassis vehicles have one single piece cover on the foremost part of the engine deck. Plus the front hull geometry difference and wheel spacing.
HDSC2D
Joined: March 12, 2013
KitMaker: 170 posts
Armorama: 141 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:12 AM UTC
Interesting the cupola appears to be the Chrysler one but with all the .50 cal fittings removed.
Marsh
Joined: May 30, 2003
KitMaker: 5 posts
Armorama: 5 posts
Posted: Saturday, March 28, 2020 - 06:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks for your input, Marsh.Quoted TextThe majority of Namers are built on the Merkava 4 chassis and have the Merk 4 running gear, suspension etc.
But the Mk.3 power train, right?
Yep!
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.