The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 20, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world
ZealousZionist    11/21/2003 6:33:26 PM
With all due respect to the supporters of the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard and LeClerc, the finest tank in the world today is the Merkava Mk 4. Not only does it have one of the most sophisticated fire control systems out there (that even allows the tankers to bring down a helo with the main gun system), but its modular armour system provides the best defence out there, including against top attack ATGMs.

Compare the flanks of the Abrams, Challenger, Leo2 and LeClerc to the Merkava Mk4. During the mid 1990s a couple of Merkava Mk 2 were destroyed in Lebanon by Spandrel ATGMs that hit the side of the turret. The Israelis learned from this and upgraded their late model Mk 3 and Mk 4 Merkavas with a new armour package that renders the flanks of the tank impervious to ATGMS.

Also, note the fact that the turret roof of the Mk 4 has been heavily up armoured to protect against top attack ATGMS like the TOW-2b. The Israelis did away with the loader's hatch, and the only opening on the turret top is now the commander's cupola, which has been substantially reinforced.

It's simple really, Jewish ingenuity combined with the fact that Israel has the most extensive combat experience of any nation equal the finest MBT in existance today
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
WDDavenport    Zealous Zionist believes too much of the local hype   11/22/2003 9:51:57 PM
[The Merkava's 60mm mortar is not stabalized and cannot be fired on the move.] True. [ It is used when the Merkava is used as a base of fire while other units advance against the enemy. It has a range of roughly 3,000 meters.] In other words, Merkava tanks have to act as their own mortar or arty fire support units because the Israeli army/IDF is weak in indirect fire support. I don't see how making the Merkavas double up as both tanks and mortar fire support is an overall advantage in warfighting capability compared to an army that has both tanks and indirect fire support. By the way, don't some of the newer Rooskie ATGM's advertise a range fo 4,000 meters or so? [It is true that the IDF has traditionally had a relatively weak artillery arm, especially when compared to the Arab armies that operate on the basis of Russian doctrine. A Russian style Syrian brigade, for example, has its own integral artillery battalion, usually of D-30 122mm howitzers.] Yes, and American, British, or German doctrine specifies more artillery than the Israeli army uses. This is nothing to brag about for Israel. [The Israelis traditionally compensated for their weak arty arm with airpower, given that the IAF is certainly the best airforce in the region, and arguably in the world. ] Arguably, the IAF is not the best air force in the world. The IAF does have the world's best aircraft, all paid for by the US taxpayer. [Yet, in recent years the Israeli army has done a lot to upgrade its artillery arm, acquiring many more M-109 Palladins and MLRS systems.] Good. [The integration of the 60mm mortar into the Merkava had less to do with a lack of artillery, and more to do with a desire to give maneouver units an integral indirect fire capability of their own. ] No, that is Israeli excuse-making for its lack of sufficient artillery and mortar fire support. [In order to carry 8 infantrymen, the Merkava must remove all its maingun ammunition except its 12 ready rounds. Thus, if a platoon of tanks were designated to serve in the infantry-carrying role (in MOUT, for example) it would have to be accompanied by another platoon with a full complement of ammo in case serious trouble were encountered. ] In other words, the Merkava cannot do both the MBT's job and the ICV's job very well at the same time. To use a Merkava to carry a small eight man infantry squad, ammunition has to be unloaded from the Merkava. This is NOT an advantage to brag about. [But, isn't that the nature of combined arms ops?] No, the nature of proper combined arms teams is to have a balanced mixture of tanks, artillery, and mechanized infantry riding in an armored vehicle optimized for the Infantry Carrier Vehicle role. Using the Merkava as a main battle tank, an infantry carrier, and a mortar carrier -- maybe trying to do all three roles at the same tiem -- is nothing to boast about. Trying to make one vehicle do all three roles is a perversion of the combined arms concept, adn this perversion would fail if the IDF had to fight someone besides A-rubs. [Makes sense to me ] You're not as smart as you you are, Mr. Zealous Zionist. Maybe the IDF is and always has been overrated. The IDF has been blessed with incompetent main force opponents.
 
Quote    Reply

ZealousZionist    Response to WDDavenport   11/24/2003 9:15:30 PM
While I can overlook Davenport's hostile attitude, his lackluster grammar is less forgiveable. Yet, one can't help wondering why a simple discussion of the merits of the Merkava brings out such personal invective animus. But, to the substance of his posts. I've admitted that the Israeli army was traditionally weak in indirect fire support. This is a shortcoming that has been substantially rectified in recent years. As far as the IAF goes, I would definitely contend that the Israeli Air Force is the world's finest. Israeli pilot training is substantially more rigorous, with a much higher washout rate, than pilot training in the US, UK and other nations. It is generally accepted, even in the US military that, pilot for pilot, the Israelis are a cut above. Case in point the only air to air training exercise in recent years to be conducted by the IAF and US Navy 6th fleet pilots resulted in a 14 to 1 kill ratio in favour of the Israelis. This was reported in a US Air Force magazine in 1999. In fact, the lopsided results were so embarassing that all joint training since then has been conducted with combined US/Israel teams fighting each other. Certainly the US has capabilities that the IAF lacks, such as long range strategic bombardment. But, pound for pound the IAF is the finest tactical air force in the world, bar none. There's no reason why tank units shouldn't have an integral indirect fire capability to complement direct and indirect support arty units to the rear. It allows tanks to hit targets that are impervious to high velocity main gun fire (units dug in on a reverse slope, for example). It isn't a zero sum proposition, but a mutually reinforcing one. Moreover, in a fight with a competent opponent who has sophisticated anti-satellite and electronic warfare capabilities, one might not always be able to keep in contact with one's designated direct support arty unit. So, why not have a little pocket arty on hand? Couldn't hurt. In regard to the limited ammunition carried by Merkavot (Hebrew plural) in the infantry carrying role, on a high intensity battlefield I'd much rather be in a Merkava than a Bradley or any other IFV any day. The only thing that will allow mechanized infantry to advance with tanks relatively freely in a high intensity fight is a vehicle that is as heavily armoured as a tank. This is why the IDF has begun to convert captured T-55s/62s, as well as old centurions, into heavy APCS. They take off the turret, uparmour the hull with modern composite armour, and there you have it, the world's only APC that is as heavily armoured as the tank component of the mechanized task force. For all the sophisticated weaponry of the Bradley, when push comes to shove there's no getting around the fact that it still has the same sort of aluminum armour as the old 113. I wouldn't want to be riding around in one of those in the middle of a serious armoured battle. And, as for me being taken in by the hype, I speak from personal experience as an IDF officer with substantial bouts of combat duty under my belt. So, if anyone here is a Walter Mitty wannabe, I'm not it.
 
Quote    Reply

TownHall    TALD ,DELILAH, POPEYE ,Harpy ,Arrow ,Green Pine ....   11/25/2003 7:38:17 AM
The Israeli Air Force and the Israeli Defense Industries The Israeli Defense Industries share close and mutual relations with the Israeli Air Force. The Israeli Defense Industries? involvement and understanding of the IAF?s operational requirements, grants the IAF all weather, front and deep target destruction capabilities while successfully integrating IDF ground forces. The IAF operates on first class weaponry belonging to the elite of the world market: advanced intelligence UAVs to collect visual information, their most distinctive advantage is experience. Each UAV developed by the Israeli industries plays, in one way or another, an active role in the IAF. The ?TALD? and ?DELILAH? decoys compel the enemy to waste its air defense resources; the ?POPEYE? significantly improves the ability to destroy static quality targets, the special refueling technologies provide the IAF with long range operational capability while the ARM systems allow swift destruction of radar and other means of transmission. The ?Harpy?, long-distance motion detectors, all weather SAR pods and the ?Lightning?, are only the tip of the iceberg when mentioning Israeli systems complimenting the world market. All these are the direct result of the cooperation between the IAF and the industries. The climax of this cooperation is, without a doubt, the Israeli ?Arrow? project ? The most advanced system in the world to intercept ballistic missiles. The system is currently deployed in several operational batteries in the IAF, designed to deal with multiple missiles fired simultaneously from different areas. The system?s radar, ?Green Pine?, can identify and track missiles from launch to the area of impact. This ability has proven itself reliable more than once. usatoday.com : U.S. military employs Israeli technology in Iraq war the U.S. military is permeated by technology developed in Israel ? from the Army's Hunter drones to the targeting systems on the U.S. Marines' Harrier jets to the fuel tanks on its F-15 fighters. It would be hard to find a modern military that manages without technology developed by the Jewish state's feisty industry U.S. Air Force ? at ground targets. The precision-guided Popeyes were designed by Rafael, a company partially owned by the government of Israel. Israeli-designed Hunter unmanned aerial vehicles are in the service of the U.S. Army, and its cousin, the Pioneer, is being used by the U.S. Marines to scout Iraqi defenses. Both originated in the design labs of Israel Aircraft Industries, the country's largest private company. The Hunter dropped anti-tank munitions in recent U.S. tests, and could be used alongside the Air Force's armed Predator missile-firing drone in a ground attack role. Some of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicles are guided by on-board computers supplied by a subsidiary of Israel's Elbit Systems, Shapir said. U.S. troops riding in the Bradleys might also be protected by armor from Rafael, said Lova Drori, Rafael's director of international marketing. Rafael is also the designer of the Litening Targeting Pods used to fire precision weapons from the Marines' AV-8B Harrier jet, as well as F-15s and F-16s flown by the Air Force Reserves and Army National Guard, Drori said. Israel also makes or designs multiple rocket launchers, mortars, and laser target designators for the Army's Comanche helicopter and other components, Shapir said
 
Quote    Reply

t    60 MM Mortar...doctrinal clues   11/25/2003 10:30:11 AM
It's my impression that the IDF has always tended toward purer tank tactics due to their unique local geography & traditional neglect for APC's/IFV's. The Israelis are presently redressing this shortcoming. Modified T-55's will give the IDF the best protected APC's for their heavy infantry. I'm guessing that the 60MM mortar in the Merk is a vestige of some tanker's wishlist. Poor guy probably got caught in the Negev in '73 without any meaningful infantry support. That 'poor LT' is probably a Major General in charge of their Armor School today. And he thinks a mortar is a good idea if you don't have SP arty or your air support is tied-up chasing away MiGs.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:60mm mortar -- BSL   11/25/2003 6:55:31 PM
Back up, guys. You're getting this one wrong. You need to focus on two, specific issues: 1)The general history of armor since introduction. There are MANY instances of a tank, or a tank platoon, finding itself in a tactical situation without artillery or mortar support, or without infantry along. This ISN'T a problem with doctrine, at all. It's simply a reflection of real world tactical developments on real battlefields. The matter of combined arms doctrine is real, but a separate issue. What I'm talking about is the many, many situations where a tank is cut off, or when a platoon stops for the night, and happens to be without infantry, or if the battalion artillery is along, but has higher priorities for fire missions and can't be spared to support the poor suckers over yonder. Or, the day started with a platoon of infantry along, but their M-2s got blown to hell and the tanks are alone. 2)There is a particular history to Israel's wars and a particular set of likely engagment scenarios for future battles. The way the 1973 War started on the Golan is not open to debate. It's history. The fact is that there were a LOT of instances of small units having to hold out for a day, or two or three, till the IDF could mobilize and move in force. Sorry. This has nothing to do with combined arms, or adequate arty, or anything of the sort. It's a function of the strategic environment, of a very small country surrounded by much larger enemies, which has to maintain a huge military establishment, but can only do so on the basis of a reserve based force. You just can't come up with an alternative in which it is unreasonable to anticipate tactical situations such as those of 1973 recurring. For that matter, it takes time to call in fire missions, and for the artillery to respond. Seconds mean something in battle. The time saved by being able to respond with an organic indirect fire capability rather than phoning home can be the difference between life and death. THIS is why an indirect fire option organic to each tank is worth investing in. (Although, frankly, this is not a terribly expensive item, and could EASILY be added to almost any MBT design. And, frankly, the first time it's utility is proven in battle, and widely reported, the option will become very popular among tankers the world over.) I wonder, too, about the level of skepticism over the whole idea which has been expressed. Check the StratPage AFV page. Apparently, whatever else is true about the Merkava design, some folk around here are impressed by it's firepower, generally. You'll note they rate that, specific capability in the Merkava 4 HIGHER than in the M-1, Leopard, or Challenger. A small mortar is not a big issue in a tank design. It doesn't take up much more room than a MG, and no one complains about wasting space on MGs.
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:Response to WDDavenport   11/25/2003 7:01:46 PM
Actually, as a matter of cost effectiveness, I'd be much more interested in converting those old, captured MBTs to heavy APCs than messing about with Merkavas. I can see some specific instances in which it might make some sense to offload ammunition. Still, on the whole, you wouldn't want to limit the use of MBTs in the kind of situations where a superheavy APC would be needed. It would be precisely those instances when fire is heaviest that you'd want MBTs free to engage the enemy. OTOH, if you have enough room in those old Soviet hulls to hold a squad, and can make provision for them to enter and exit the vehicle easily (i.e. the rear door, a la Merkava or APC, rather than a narrow hatchway), then there's reason to invest in a significant number of conversions. No one else has heavy APCs, at all, as far as I know.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Response to WDDavenport   11/26/2003 9:00:04 AM
The big problem with converting conventional tank hull to the APC role is that they all have the engies in the back so rear doors are out. Unless you can put egress doors at the front, then exiting out of the top where the turret used to be is the only option. You then have your infantry horribly exposed 8 ft off the ground and they then have to get off the top while carrying a full combat load. Broken ankles anyone?
 
Quote    Reply

aceofw    RE:Response to WDDavenport   11/26/2003 11:33:58 AM
It's may be a big problem, but it's already done: link
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Response to WDDavenport   11/26/2003 11:41:04 AM
If I'm not mistaken, the Israelis used a new powerpack which allowed putting a rear access tunnel on the conversions.
 
Quote    Reply

WDDavenport    Achzarit looks like a stupid stinker   11/26/2003 5:58:11 PM
That little tunnel-like contrivance on the right rear of the Ach-Charz-it is the mech infantry squad's main pathway in and out of the vehcile? That is stupid. Israeli brainpower isn't what it used to be if the IDF has spent time, effort, and US taxpayer's money to concoct that stinker. [ RE:Response to WDDavenport 11/26/2003 11:33:59 AM [It's may be a big problem, but it's already done: link ]
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:WDDavenport's unparalleled eloquence   11/26/2003 6:28:42 PM
It won't be easy to "pile out" of that particular APC without using top-hatches if that rear exit is the only one, and it being so small. With Bradley/M113s multiple persons can pile out quickly, as the vehicle is going to be a target in the milliseconds afterwards. Even so, the concept of converting tanks has merit. The Russians converted old T-55s to APCs. The only problem is that they're a bit slow, which doesn't mean much in the streets of Gronzy where every tank is moving at a crawl to hunt for enemies.
 
Quote    Reply

SYSOP1    To ZealousZionist from SysOps   11/26/2003 6:32:16 PM
It appears that you are too zealous in your response to the 5:58 PM post of WDDavenport's critique of the Achzarit. We have read his post, and don't see any evidence of anti-Semitic language or intent in the nature of his post. He has critisized Israeli design efforts, and acknowleges past successes. We have therefore deleted your post. SysOps - please watch your accusations. We are more Zealous in our deletions that you are in your posts. You may want to reconsider reposting, without the vitriolic language.
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    Merkava the Best? Debatable....   11/26/2003 6:43:44 PM
I would like to reiterate the point that Israel develops stuff for Israel - that is, the Merkava is the result of Israeli experience and development, to be used in and around Israel. The Merkava is a superb tank. Make no mistake. But the Best? Dunno. Everyone has an opinion on the best tank, and the debate will probably never see and end. The Merkava isn't really exportable, it was designed to suit Israeli needs, and that it does. At most, the Israelis can export concepts, which they do with great effect. As for Israeli experience in Armour, It is safe to say they are unequaled.
 
Quote    Reply

ZealousZionist    RE:To ZealousZionist from SysOps   11/26/2003 6:56:20 PM
So let me get this straight - WDDavenport can accuse Israelis of being stupid and of diminished brainpower, and that's fine. But, when I respond with an observation that the vitriol that characterizes his attacks against things Israeli reeks of anti-semitism, you take umbrage and excise my post. Very curious. Very curious indeed. The simple fact of the matter is that in current political discourse pure anti-semitism often cloaks itself in the guise of anti-Zionism. Go back and peruse Davenport's posts. Take not in particular of his particularly vitriolic attitude towards Israel. Methinks that his hostile comments go well beyond reasoned criticism of Israel and into the realm of something less respectable and more malign. If it waddles like an duck.....
 
Quote    Reply

ZealousZionist    In re the Israeli Air Force, quod erat demonstrandum   11/26/2003 6:57:15 PM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 09/22/2003 6:18 AM PDT Israeli air force pilots handily beat their German counterparts in "dogfights" in the first ever air force exercise between the two countries, an Israeli military official said Monday. The Israeli F-15 pilots, aided by special technology that Israel does not share or sell to other countries, beat the Germans flying Mig-29 Fulcrums by more than 100 "hits," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the past, Israel has beaten American air force pilots by similar margins, the officials added. Both the German MiG 29 Fulcrum and the Israeli Eagle have a helmet-mounted sight that is the envy of the Americans, and the Israeli Elbit DASH system on the F-15 is regarded as probably the best in the world. Israel purchases U.S. warplanes without battle technology, installing its own locally made systems into the aircraft. The Boeing F-15I is largely based on the American F-15E Strike Eagle, as a consequence of which it too has the APG-70 radar, albeit a slightly constrained export version. However, the Israelis have installed a lot of hardware and software systems of their own, including highly effective electronic warfare (EW) equipment. With the highly agile Python 4 missile, they can even fire around corners. The exercise was conducted over the past two weeks in the skies of Sardinia in Italy. Israel's air force has held exercises with the United States and Turkey recently.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy