Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

WinsettZ RE:Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world 11/21/2003 7:45:38 PM

What are it's MOUT capabilities? The IDF will be fighting in urban areas from here on it (Palestinian territories). Can it take RPGs from the top, or in the engines? If it runs over a IED hidden in debris, will it be neutralized? What crew survival provisions are in place? I know the Merkavas have been pretty strong in this regard, but do they have belly plates to protect the bottom of tanks from this re-emerging threat of IEDs (more or less, road-side bombs.) We know the Palis can get explosives: they already have giant artillery rockets. The tank should be designed for what it expects to encounter. While ATGMs are expected if the IDF goes back into Beiruit, has to defend against Arab enemies or is on the attack: is there a chance their immediate enemy uses them? What systems and weapons does the Merkava have as a response to their *immediate* enemies, not just former or projected ones?

Quote Reply

Scorpene RE:Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world 11/21/2003 7:46:19 PM

Other Western MBTs can bring down helos; the main gun and the APFDS round are quite capable of this in the M-1, Leopard, Challenger, and all; this has been a tanker contingency tactic for some years. The M-1 was going to carry an MPAT munition with a proximity fuze for this purpose before the program was bumped. The Merkava series are good tanks. However, the other Western MBTs are quite good as well, as well as proven. Armor packages on the M-1 and other tanks can also be changed, although there is a bit more work involved. Adding armor on the turret top is only a partial solution to defeating top-attack munitions; most of the armor is still needed on the turret front and glacis; and like it or not, it is heavy. I doubt that the Merkava is "better" in this category than the Abrams-- the Abrams is about as well armored as a tank can get without digging into it's mobility unacceptably. If the Merkava is the "best" tank in the world, I believe it is because of the crew, despite the obvious advantages of the weapon system.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world 11/21/2003 8:09:29 PM

The Merkava is designed to be a defensive tank, and in that role is is probably unmatched. The M1 is offensive, and very good at that. Its speed allows it a tactical flexibility not enjoyed by many other tanks. To say one tank is the best also neglects the most important part of the thank: crew. They are the ones who make the difference between a good tank and the best tank.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world 11/21/2003 8:10:18 PM

IIRC, the Merkava also has a built in mortar, something defensive in nature.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world 11/21/2003 9:51:02 PM

There is an internal mortar. I'm not aware of any other MBT with one. I think it's essentially true that the Merkava is designed with more of a defensive role in mind than the typical MBT. OTOH, it has a notably slower top speed than any other modern MBT. Yes, it was designed with the specific circumstances of Israel in mind. Urban combat and battles in defensive positions, hull down, such as a war start scenario on Golan. The rear hatch allows evacuation and resupply under fire, easily, from a hull down position. The internal mortar provides an indirect fire weapon for suppression of infantry. This is a notable weakness of tanks, since the beginning, and especially important in one of those war start scenrios, where a defending force may have to face extreme odds in the beginning, such as in 1973. I disagree with Winsett, however, about future engagments. It's seriously risky to assume all future wars will be in built up areas, fighting Palestinians. The need to do so is a clear design requirement. However, the need to fight in the open, as happened in 1956, 1967, 1973 is no less a design requirement.

Quote Reply

ZealousZionist Response to Questions 11/21/2003 9:58:07 PM

Clarification - the reference to the MErkava V in this thread was a typo... the current version being manufactured is the Merkava IV, while the mark V is still in development. So take everything I said and apply it to the Merkava Mk IV. The attempt to differentiate between a "Defensive" and "Offensive" tank is really a distinction without a difference. Even tanks in a defensive role need the ability to manoeuver. Using tanks in the pillbox role is a recipe for quick destruction. Moreover, the 60mm mortar on the Merkava is just as much an offensive as a defensive weapon. The mortar provides the tank with an infantry suppression capability beyond the range of its coax, and at a far cheaper cost than using the main gun for that task. Moreover, the mortar allows a Merkava unit to hit enemy troops that are in defilade because of the high trajectory fire of the 60mm. The Merkava is the only tank in the world to have such an integral mortar system. As far as MOUT goes, the Merkava is more effective than other tanks because of its ability to serve as an infantry carrier in a pinch. If one removes the non-ready ammo, then the tank can accomodate 8 infantrymen in an environment that is much more heavily armoured, and thus much safer than the average APC/IFV. The key to a successful offensive MOUT operation lies in the practice of combined arms tactics, and the MErkava's infantry carrying ability gives it a decided edge.

Quote Reply

marnedog RE:Response to Questions 11/22/2003 6:10:36 AM

If you were looking for an effective (and cheaper) AP system why not simply use a beehive round? Adding another weapons system doesn't sound like a 'cheaper' alernative. Can you fire the mortar on the move? If so how accurate can that be? If you must fire stationary then by your own admittance "Using tanks in the pillbox role is a recipe for quick destruction". I am impressed with the ability to carry troops - Infantry love anything with the ability to protect them more. Does the lack of the additional ammo degrade the mission capabilities? There's got to be a few tradeoffs.

Quote Reply

god of war RE:60mm mortar 11/22/2003 7:08:24 AM

I think that the need for the 60mm mortar partially comes from the isralis lack of artillary. Their arab enemies have much more artillary. But that is on paper and we do not know in what condition the pieces are in... :)

Quote Reply

bsl RE:60mm mortar 11/22/2003 6:25:55 PM

Not a lack of artillery, in the large sense. A variety of potential engagment scenarios in which a tank or tanks might be short of artillery, or infantry support, or, just generally badly outnumbered by attackers including infantry. Again, review how the '73 War began for examples.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Response to Questions 11/22/2003 6:29:07 PM

The point of the mortar is less general antipersonnel, then antipersonnel in ambush. The mgs are fine for antipersonnel use when you can see the enemy infantry. It's when they're down in foxholes, or behind barriers, in defilade. This is the unique capability. Also, they're *not* superAPCs. They don't have the internal space. When they're crewed, they don't have big empty space for infantry. If you wanted an MBT cum APC, you'd wind up with a beast two or three times the size of any MBT.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT