Talk:Namer

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Merkava#Digital battlefield management system|digital battlefield management system]] The anchor (#Digital battlefield management system) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Merkava#Merkava Mark IV|Merkava Mark IV]] The anchor (#Merkava Mark IV) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Manufactured in the U.S.?

"General Dynamics Land Systems will build the first US-made heavy infantry fighting vehicles (HIFVs) after its selection in October as preferred bidder for Israel's Namer contract."- http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr101215_2_n.shtml

It isn't that surprising since the Sabra as well as the Magach are manufactured by General Dynamics but still.- Lostend (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. Magach and Sabra are upgrades for older (decades old) US tanks which were made in the USA, but they don't produce any Sabra or Magach in the USA. --Tim.vogt (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic(I'll admit I was wrong in saying the Magach and Sabra were manufactured in the USA but all M60's were produced by General Dynamics. Technically the M60 is still in production as it's variants such as the M88 Recovery Vehicle remain in production and M60T (Sabra) use factory reconditioned hulls sent back to the plant for maintenance. All the major components of the tank (hull, turret, transmission) remain in production to some degree due to the regular use of M60's in combat globally as well as the M60 2000 which is still being offered by the corporation to foreign governments as both an upgrade as well as new production runs. The last delivery of M60's to Israel was in 1986 and Israel maintains roughly a 1000 M-60's in reserve with a couple hundred rotating out deployments or activations due to obvious security reasons in the region. Both the Sabra and the Magach use the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer manufactured by General Dynamics for the M1A1 Abrams as well as fire control subsystems. IMI assembles the system with it's products (IMI 120mm gun, Ceramic Armour inserts, Tracks) but General Dynamics produces the core systems, power packs, as well as replacement components (turrets, transmissions, hulls) for damaged tanks.Lostend (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

The entry says 60 tonnes weight. The Merkava Mk1 tank on which it's based was 63 tonnes, and even the Mk IV is only 65t - with the turret on, and everything. The math doesn't make sense. I've seen other sources that put the Namer's weight at at closer to 45t, which seems a bit light but is within the ream of possibility. Can anyone find a more definitive source, that we can explicitly cite? Joe Katzman (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thoughts, but Namer was officially presented to the general public with a signboard on which anyone could read "60 tonnes". Maybe it has additional armor on mk4 hull... Flayer (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps removing the turret and adding fully equiped infantry men and covering the turret hole is a zero sum game more or less. there is no point making it lighter than the tanks its supposed to fight alongside. also the Israelis might not want to give detailed information. 86.33.176.49 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namer vs. Stryker, 30mm issue

Page 60 [1]. Flayer (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Namer" pronounced?

For those of us who don't speak Hebrew, I think that would be useful info to include in the page. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pronounced "Nammer". Flayer (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In latin phonetics that would be Na-Mer For an american speaker that could be described as the combination of the words: "Num","Heir" (With a silent H on the Heir) (talk) 10:21, 06 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

APC or IFV

According to the first sentence on this page, the "Namer, the word "a contraction of "Nagmash" (APC) and "Merkava"", is an Israeli heavily armoured heavyweight infantry fighting vehicle based on the Israeli Merkava Mark IV tank". That is wrong. The Namer is an APC, the armament is not enough to consider it an IFV. According to military-today.com it is a heavy APC. --Tim.vogt (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to defense-update.com and also according to www.army-technology.com it is an IFV. By the way, "Nagmash" in Hebrew refers to both APC and IFV. Flayer (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between an IFV and an APC is the armament. While an IFV can engage other armoured vehicles, an APC can't effectively, they carry their weapons only for self-defence. The Namer doesn't carry the required armament, the first IFV, the SPz Lang HS.30 carried stronger armament, a 20 mm autocannon (the 40 mm grenade launchers aren't considered the proper main armament for IFVs). The Namer is somehow comparable with the GTK Boxer - heavier protected than other vehicles, but only armed with MGs or grenade launchers. Your first link to Defense-update.com shows a Namer with an autocannon (caliber: 30 mm), this could be called a IFV. If you would link to the army-technology page of the Namer instead of linking to the picture pager, you would see that they call it APC and IFV at the same time. There is no difference in Hebrew between APC and IFV (at least in the term "Nagmash"), so does the IDF make a tactical difference between these types of armoured vehicles? --Tim.vogt (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of SPIKE on a RCWS would certainly make the namer an IFV. This appears to be the armament suite of future namers. I suggest renaming it an IFV as soon as evidence of SPIKE deployment emerges. Irondome (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move poll

This can be moved to Namer since it is the primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsus-army-ndv-assessments
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Namer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Namer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705084632/http://www.armyrecognition.com/israel_israeli_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/namer_armoured_vehicle_infantry_personnel_carrier_israeli_army_israel_pictures_technical_data_sheet.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/israel_israeli_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/namer_armoured_vehicle_infantry_personnel_carrier_israeli_army_israel_pictures_technical_data_sheet.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on recent action

I haven't seen a mention in mainstream media yet, but on Xwitter it has been announced that a Namer was destroyed in Northern Gaza within the last couple of days by an anti-tank missile or RPGs, killing 10 IDF members. The Al-Qassam Brigades have released video of it. You can find the video on @sentdefender among other channels. Xwitter has been doing a better job reporting on this conflict than "reliable sources" so far. 70.108.1.24 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check FORBES. BeingObjective (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic/Puffery flavored claims.

There are a few not NPOV claims in the article - they are quotes from a legitimate source - but using them in this manner really makes the whole article hyperbolic - it may well be the BEST and MOST ARMORED - but the quotes are coming from the IMD and IDF - there is plenty of data supporting the claim within the text - adding these 'WOW' claims - does not really add a lot of NPOV encyclopedic value - my IMHO anyhow - cheers. BeingObjective (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top speed?

Why is the top speed listed as 50mph when the flickr source clearly says it to be 60 km/h? Any other source anywhere doesn't seem to indicate the speed to be 50 mph. JonttuMuokkaSivuja (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inquire what the fuck are you talking about? 62.148.119.16 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, no need to be so mean :( JonttuMuokkaSivuja (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]