I think the concept really works best with the Namer, the newest APC conversion from old Merkavas. With the power train mounted up front you get enhanced crew protection from frontal attacks while leaving a spacious compartment out back for the infantry. It also allows you to incorporate a large door to quickly dismount the troops.

 

I don't think the idea works as well with tanks using conventional rear-mounted powertrains like the M1, Challenger, Leopard, etc. They would need major redesigns and then the cost effectiveness question rears its ugly head.

 

Kudos to my Israeli friends for developing arguably the best MBT and now APC in the world.

Maybe there is a reason for using rebuild tanks as APC's.

The first real armored personnel carriers (as opposed to lightly-armored open-topped vehicles like the M3 halftrack and the universal carrier) were the "kangaroos" improvised by the British and the Canadians in 1944-45 by removing the 105mm howitzers from M7 howitzer motor carriages (creating "defrocked Priests") and converting Canadian "Ram" tanks (which were never suitable for front-line use) by removing their too-small turrets with their too-small guns.

 

So  converted tanks have been the basis for true APCs since...well, forever.

 

--

I seem to remember there were APC "conversions" of the early British WW1 tanks, after they realised the need to take infantry with them. Not very sucessful as the engine fumes made them too ill to fight when dismounted.

They then produced another design with a sealed off engine compartment, and standing room for about 30 troops, and even the ability for about half of them to fire their rifles from under armour - close to a IFV really. It arrived too late to see service, and somehow the idea was lost again.

Amazing how many "new" ideas are not really new at all.

 

In my younger years I was trained on several types of wire guided antitank missiles, and other means of disabling and destroying armored vehicles and tanks of various types, but mostly the russian T-xx's. If the hez deployed significant number of ATGMs, even if they were of the first generation type, they should have had better success. Perhaps they didn't invest in proper training, including live fire, which lead to disappointing (to them) results. I'm afraid next time around they will have adjusted that shortcoming.

This only accounts for the 23 out of ~120 Israeli deaths during the conflict that took place inside armor vehicles.

 

News accounts at the time indicated that the majority of the antitank missiles being launched were being used as long range antipersonnel weapons.  Are there any reports on that practice?