But that’s all I could find after a brief search on that vehicle. (I can’t read Hebrew that well.)
Anyone know more about it? It “must” (usually) be a spin-off from a different development project and war fighting assessment, both of which have the Namer in the mix.
What’s the US thinking and experience on tracked vs. wheeled APC in the Mideast battles?
I don’t think you will find a definitive answer. Treads are better off road, can carry more weight, and can pivot in place. Tires are faster on roads, don’t damage roads, are vastly easier to replace and maintain. Furthermore, a Stryker can have a tire destroyed and keep rolling, but if the M113 loses a track it is a mobility kill.
The thing about the wheels vs track argument is that it is not just about the mode of locomotion. Wheeled vehicles like the Stryker sit higher than their M113 counterparts, which allows them to have a greater distance from a roadside mine or IED. The added height also allows for a V-shaped hull design for improved blast resistance. Using wheels simplifies maintenance and transportation, and lowers the cost of production. For example, in Iraq I drove an MRAP that used something like 80% of the parts from an LMTV, which makes production costs lower and vastly simplifies transportation and maintenance.
It is hard to look at one part on the vehicle and say, “This one thing makes it good/bad.” You have to look at the entire package, from design to manufacture to deployment, to include what type of conflict you are fighting and what type of environment it is operating in.
FWIW, the Stryker has been widely praised while the Army has ceased to purchase any new M113s.
A particular strength of tracked vehicles is the ability to cross trenches and similar barriers. In an asymmetric warfare environment, where one seldom if ever faces prepared defensive positions, that ability may be less valued by planners than some of the advantages of wheeled vehicles described above.
Best as I can tell, it’s basically a Merkava tank with the turret removed and the treads replaced with wheels. It seems to have less firepower than the Stryker, but with heavier armor, which fits the IDF’s preference for “battle taxis” over infantry fighting vehicles.
No totally relevant to the OP but when the Northern Ireland troubles kicked-off in the late 1960s the British Army actually took older obsolete wheeled APCs out of retirement and used them, rather than the tracked APCs that were the latest equipment at the time.
This was for political reasons, as the government did not want to be seen to be “sending the tanks into Northern Ireland” (especially as this occurred around the same time as the Soviet Union sent tanks into its rebellious client states in Eastern Europe).
Tracked machines can also ruin civil infrastructure such as roads, bridges, pedestrian hardstands in very short order. If you are in a position where you want to save the infrastructure (I. E. The British in north Ireland), or some civil support within your own country as I see in the US sometimes, the wheeled version makes a lot of sense
On the outside (i.e., armor design) but if it has powered drive to all 8 wheels the internals are more automotive and less armament than a similar-sized tank. Perhaps the lack of a turret helps accommodate the drive train differences.