Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world

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

Horsesoldier RE:60mm mortar -- BSL 11/26/2003 7:18:59 PM

>>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.<< If your doctrine features a wildly unbalanced force structure from a combined-arms perspective, as the IDF opted for during a good chunk of its history, then you rather set yourself up for such situations, yes? Much like my earlier comments about Israel's lack of artillery not reflecting a general tactical/operational truism, the same holds true for the rest of the combined arms team. For a large piece of its history, Israel was remarkably tank-centric. Thus its tanks often found themselves without supporting arms. This worked, in part because IDF troops performed superbly, even when saddled with an ill-conceived doctrine, and in part because their Arab opponents performed dismally. Of course, I'm willing to believe that in the face of a more capable opponent, the IDF would have adapted rapidly (as they did on those occasions when the tactical situation forced a correction of their peacetime organization). Whether they would have first had to test the notion that Israel cannot afford to lose a single war is a matter of conjecture. >>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.<< Having your tank stopped and your loader dithering about with a 60mm mortar when he should be keeping the 120mm in the fight or maintaining security with his LMG can also be a matter of life and death. A competent crew can fight a tank's weapons systems while the TC calls indirect fire from a moving vehicle. A competent artillery battery or mortar platoon can get steel on target very rapidly. The whole system works well, provided everyone in the loop knows what they are doing and if the requisite pieces are present.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Achzarit looks like a stupid stinker 11/26/2003 7:31:30 PM

I'd actually be inclined to say the Achzarit, like the Merkava, is an excellent design for Israeli needs. It's a pretty innovative use of an otherwise obsolete AFV. It's armor is ideal for casualty reduction -- manpower being a perennial critical issue for the IDF -- and is a plus for it as much (if not more so) in a low-intensity conflict where the odd ATGM or RPG is the threat as in a high-intensity operation. It's heavy and relatively slow, but Israel is small and has never dwelt overlong on a requirement to air-deploy their AFVs. I'm not entirely sold on Zealous Zionists comments though. On a battle field, an Achzarit or something like it might be my first choice for a vehicle to be aboard if I am going to get hit, but on the other hand, if I'm in a Bradley, I've got the capability to kill the enemy first, either with organic weapons systems or using my optics and radios to bring indirect fire or CAS onto the target.

Quote Reply

ZealousZionist Horsesoldier 11/27/2003 4:43:49 AM

Ah, but there's the rub. With a Bradley, the TOW system will always tempt the vehicle commander to overstep and try to take on a force of MBTs. And, with the flimsy aluminum Bradley armour, that wouldn't work out too well. Far better to keep your infantry in vehicles that, while very well protected, won't give them the delusion that they can play tanker in their own right. That's what the tanks and specialized ATGM vehicles of the combined arms force are for. Less confusion that way.

Quote Reply

ZealousZionist RE:Horsesoldier 11/27/2003 4:49:53 AM

Moreover, the Achzarit is equipped with radios and is entirely capable of calling in CAS or arty, if need be. The IDF has specialized air and arty firesupport teams down to the battalion level, and all NCOs and officers are also trained in fire direction techniques. So, with all due respect to the Bradley, I'd still opt for the Achzarit, which isn't that slow, by the way. You are correct in saying that it isn't air transportable, but neither is the Bradley. Isn't that precisely why the US Army has developed the STryker?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Horsesoldier 11/27/2003 6:59:10 AM

>>Ah, but there's the rub. With a Bradley, the TOW system will always tempt the vehicle commander to overstep and try to take on a force of MBTs. And, with the flimsy aluminum Bradley armour, that wouldn't work out too well.<< As a former Bradley crewman, I can tell you there isn't a rub there. No crew I was ever a part of ever had any pretensions of being able to go toe-to-toe on an evern basis with an MBT within the effective range of its gun tube. However, the TOW-2 allows Bradley to kill out to 3750 meters, which gives you about two kilometers of free fire against the sort of vehicles and gunnery skills employed by, say, Iraq (or, say, Syria). I prefer weapons systems where you give troops capability and rely on their intelligence to use them properly, rather than deny them a capability because they might be foolish and use it. Bradley armor is only "flimsy" in relation to an MBT, and only "aluminum" in the earliest versions no longer in service except in some reserve units (-A2 version and since add steel applique). The latest versions are adequately armored to survive hits by the sort of weapons carried by other light armored vehicles (up to 30mm fire), and also are very survivable against RPG fire. Certainly it is not as well armored as the Achzarit, but it is by no means a death trap. >>Moreover, the Achzarit is equipped with radios and is entirely capable of calling in CAS or arty, if need be. The IDF has specialized air and arty firesupport teams down to the battalion level, and all NCOs and officers are also trained in fire direction techniques.<< Sorry, I may have worded that poorly -- of course the Achzarit has radios. My point was that, unless I am mistaken, the Achzarit does not have anything comparable to the Bradley's day or night optics, especially the latter capability (on the latest -A3 version all three crewmen have their own thermal sights, gunner and commander both using GEN II FLIRs). It's not that the Achzarit can't direct fire on a target, it's that the Achzarit cannot acquire targets as well as the Bradley.

Quote Reply

WDDavenport Were some IDF regular tank brigades still using M-60's as of 2002? 11/27/2003 9:15:32 AM

Why haven't the Israelis ever produced an APC/IFV version of the Merkava tank? This is something I have wondered about. Back in the 1980's, I believe that the IDF was talking about building an IFV version of the Merkava. This vehicle would create more interior space by use of smaller main armament and smaller diameter turret, smilar to a Bradley or Warrior or Marder or CV-90 or whatever. In addition, an IFV Merkava would have a wider rear hatch/ramp. The present hatch in the center rear of the Merkava is narrow and has fuel tanks on either side of the hatch. Those two boxy structures to the right and left of the Merkava's rear hatch -- they're fuel tanks. A Merkava built for the IFV role would have its fuel tanks relocated elsewhere. So why are there no dedicated IFV Merkavas? One plausible reason why is that Israel can produce only small quantities of Merkavas, and all available production is allocated to MBT Merkava's. I suspect that there are not in total all that many Merkava I's, II's, III's amd IV's. Can one of our Isralei correspondents please tell us how many Merkavas there are, or is this extra top secret IDF info.? Why do I suspect that there are not that many Merkav's in existence? Read this, dated July, 2002: "... Merkava Mk4 Unveiled The new generation of the Merkava tank will be unveiled tomorrow June 24 by the Israel Defense Forces and Ministry of Defense. The new tank, a fourth generation of the Israeli tank, is currently in production, and is expected to enter operational status with a regular tank brigade, replacing older M-60 (Magach) tanks currently in service. ..." The lean, mean, and mighty IDF as of 2002 still had funky old M-60's in service "with a regular tank brigade," presumably meaning a year 2002 active duty tank brigade? Chesuz K. Rist, M-60 tanks are not top class equipment for the year 2002. Conclusion: Israel does not have a large number of Merkavas and is unable to produce a large number of same. The IDF is making do the best it can with used car lots full of M-60's, British Centurions, M-113's, and captured Soviet stuff. Some of the old Roosky tanks have been converted into crude APC "battle taxis" by loping the turret off, very similar to what the Canadian army did in 1944 with Shermans. Updated: July 9, 2002 Merkava Mk4 Unveiled The new generation of the Merkava tank will be unveiled tomorrow June 24 by the Israel Defense Forces and Ministry of Defense. The new tank, a fourth generation of the Israeli tank, is currently in production, and is expected to enter operational status with a regular tank brigade, replacing older M-60 (Magach) tanks currently in service. Merkava 4 implements a new protection concept which uses modular armour, augmented with active, passive or reactive modules, to suite threat and operational requirements. Its 120mm gun is also modified to sustain higher pressures, resulting in improved range and penetration performance. The development of the Merkava contributed extensive knowhow and systems to other tank upgrading programs, and was an essential consideration in the Turkish government selection of the IMI proposal, to upgrade close to 1,000 M-60 tanks to the Sabra II configuration. Some 200 domestic and foreign subcontractors and suppliers are participating in the Merkava Mk4 program. link

Quote Reply

WDDavenport -A3 Bradley is better armored than A-char-zit/T-55 sans turret 11/27/2003 9:35:41 AM

[ Certainly it is not as well armored as the Achzarit, but it is by no means a death trap.] A late model Bradley IFV, which weighs well over 25 tons combat loaded, is probably better armored than a T-55 with its turret knocked off -- excuse me, I meant a hi-tek Achzarit APC. How do I know? Doing a quick Google sarch, one finds that the combat loaded weight for a T-55 with turret and 100 mm gun is 20-22 tons. This doesn't leave all that much weight for T-55 hull armor thicker than the Bradley's hull protection. In addition, the 1950's vintage armor technology of the T-55's hull has gotta be simple homogeneous steel. Israeli zealots, please tell me if I'm wrong about the Achzarit's armor compostition. Otherwise, I conclude that the A-charz-it's hull is more vulnerable to RPG's and to 35 or 30 mm autocannon than is an -A3 Bradley's. -- I await a zealous reply

Quote Reply

WDDavenport T55 and M2A3 Weight corrections -- my mistakes 11/27/2003 10:14:33 AM

Weight corrections: The federation of American Scientists web site specfies the weight of the T54/T55 series tank to be 40.5 metric tons, and the M2A3 Bradley's weight to be 67,000 pounds combat loaded with a crew of nine. Remove the turret, 100 mm gun, and main gun ammo from a T55, and it may weigh less than an M2A3, implying that the the T55's hull armor has not much more, if any more, mass than the Bradley's hull. T54/T55 Series Tanks LIMITATIONS: The T-55 is most effective against light to medium armor vehicles. The basic ammunition load for the main gun is 43 rounds. External fuel cells make the tank very vulnerable, as does its thin armor protection. The T-55 has a limited ability to depress the main gun, hindering the tank?s fires in defilade from high ground. In addition the gunner?s primary sight is slaved to the main gun, which does not allow the gunner to acquire targets in a hull-down posture. ... Combat Weight (mt) 40.5 Chassis Length Overall (m) 6.20 Height Overall (m) 2.32 Width Overall (m) 3.60 Ground Pressure (kg/cm 2 ) 0.89 link //////////////////////////////////////////////// link Basis of Issue Plan - BOIP A. DESCRIPTION: BRADLEY INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE (M2A3): A FULL TRACKED TRANSPORT AND FIGHTING VEHICLE (IFV). PROVIDES CROSS-COUNTRY MOBILITY, VEHICULAR MOUNTED FIREPOWER, COMMUNICATIONS,AND PROTECTION TO THE MECHANIZED INFANTRY SQUAD WHEN MOUNTED AND OVERWATCH WHEN DISMOUNTED. THE IFV EMPLOYES A TWO-MAN WEAPON STATION EQUIPPED WITH A 25MM GUN, ENTERNALLY POWERED, M242, AS PRIMARY ARMAMENT. WEIGHT: 67,000 LBS (COMBAT LOADED) CREW: 9 (3 DIRECT OPERATORS) (6 INDIRECT OPERATORS). LENGTH: 21.5 FT POWER TRAIN: 600 HP HEIGHT: 9.92 FT RANGE: 260 MI WIDTH: 10.5 FT ROAD SPEED: 38 MPH MAIN ARMAMENT: 25 MM CANNON SWIM SPEED: 4 MPH SECONDARY ARMAMENT: TOW, 7.62 COAXIAL MACHINE GUN

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:-A3 Bradley is better armored than A-char-zit/T-55 sans turret 11/27/2003 10:21:13 AM

>>Israeli zealots, please tell me if I'm wrong about the Achzarit's armor compostition. Otherwise, I conclude that the A-charz-it's hull is more vulnerable to RPG's and to 35 or 30 mm autocannon than is an -A3 Bradley's.<< I'm by no means an Israeli zealot, but I would recommend reading the posts that have been made about the Achzarit, or even reading something elsewhere about the design, rather than attempting some faulty "T-55 minus turret" math to "prove" some equally dodgy. I'm pretty certain that Zealous Zionist pointed out that the Achzarit consists of the T-55 chassis with additional armor. If he did not, the barest and most minimal research on the design would have clarified this point for you. To quote from one site concerning the issue: "The vehicle [Achzarit] has a combat loaded weight of 44 tons compared to the 36 tons of a T-54/T-55 MBT and while the T-55 turret has been removed from the Achzarit, most of the difference in weight between the present Achzarit 44 tons and the 27 tons of the T-55 hull is accounted for by the additional armour protection for improved battlefield survivability." I'd point out that the site which described the difference in weight was the first hit on a google search for "Achzarit." As an additional note, I have absolutely no idea where you found a claim that a T-55 combat loaded weighs 20-22 tons, but that information is erroneous. The T-55 weighs anywhere from 36-40 tons, combat loaded, depending on version. That's another bit of information that can be found in the first couple of hits on a google search for "t-55 main battle tank" . . .

Quote Reply

ZealousZionist RE:Were some IDF regular tank brigades still using M-60's as of 2002? 11/27/2003 12:14:33 PM

Yep, there was one regular brigade still using the Magach 7 (a version of the M-60 with highly upgraded optics, fire control and armour). This is because only about 50 MErkavot are manufactured a year. That's about a battalion and a half's worth.

Quote Reply

aceofw RE:Israel tanks 11/28/2003 3:19:24 AM

Just as good as they are now, but they may only be manufactured in a rate of 40 each year.

Quote Reply

WinsettZ RE:Israel tanks 11/28/2003 9:46:58 AM

I expected the IDF to use mainly Sabras (upgraded M60s). Sabras also have the internal mortar. In Lebanon, didn't the IDF have some converted Chieftains, or were they Centurions? Either might be better off then a...T-55. But the Soviets are using T-55s for their BTR-T. It seems the amount of Merkavas isn't being tracked, or the amount is being held in secret. We know production rates but not amount. "At the beginning of the Lebanon war in 1982 the IDF had some 200 Merkava mk.1 tanks. Overall, according to most sources, only 250 tanks of the first model were built (although some mention the number 330). In September of 1983, the first Mk.2 rolled off the production line, IDF's frontline units first received them in February '84. Only a year and one month later, in October '84, a new Mk.2B model already entered production. But in December 1984 the budget was drastically cut and military spending seriously reduced. Accordingly, the rate of production of Merkavas slowed down as well. Another problem was that the major overhaul of tanks that were damaged in the Lebanon war, or simply used up their motor resources, was done at the same factory where they were assembled up until 1988, when a new repair facility was finally opened. All these factors and the changes from Mk.1 to Mk.2 to Mk.2B have contributed to a low production rate throughout the 80-s, with only about 550-600 Mk.2/2B ever built. Some sources, without mentioning the number of Mk.2/2B built, state that in 1989/90 (when Mk.2 was already about to be replaced by Mk.3) the IDF had some 600 to 800 Merkava tanks, including both Mk.1 and Mk.2/2B. In April 1990 the first 14 Merkava mk.3 were produced. But starting from the summer of 1990, because of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the production was stopped, and all efforts immediately redirected to repair of older equipment. The serial production of Merkava mk.3 was restarted almost a year later, in the beginning of 1991. Merkava mk.3B replaced Mk.3 in 1994, but lasted for only two years - already in 1996 the production of Merkava mk.3B BAZ began. Since 1999, the BAZ was also fitted with a new independent commander's panoramic sight, but the upgrade was too minor to warrant a new designation. Later in the same year production of Merkava mk.3B BAZ dor Dalet began, and older mk.3 and mk.2B were modernized with the new armor pack The first official mention of Merkava mk.4 appeared in October of 1999 in IDF's Maarahot magazine which announced that "several" (later in May 2000 the JIDR magazine wrote that there were 3 prototypes) Mk.4 prototypes have already accumulated over 10.000 km each in various tests. In December of 2001, Israeli newspapers stated that the first Mk.4 have begun their field trials with the IDF, and on June 28th 2002 Merkava mk.4 was officially commissioned into service. Overall the total number of all Merkava tanks produced as of 2001 is estimated at 1280 tanks, although as opposed to most other sources, according to Jane's Defense Weekly, the IDF operates about 1,050 Merkava mk.2/2B and 700 Merkava mk.3/3B/BAZ tanks. Assuming the more widespread number of 1280 tanks is the correct one, we see that during the last decade (1990-2000, taking into account the stopping of production in 1990/91), some 480 to 680 Merkava mk.3 tanks were built, meaning a rate of production of about 50 tanks per year. Although the capability is there to produce no less then 120 machines a year, the funding most likely isn't." [Source link

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Merkava the Best? Debatable.... 11/28/2003 10:15:59 PM

"Merkava is the result of Israeli experience and development, to be used in and around Israel" Exactly.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:In re the Israeli Air Force, quod erat demonstrandum 11/28/2003 10:27:12 PM

The matter of helmet mounted sights in high performance jets is not simple. A few years ago, I was a fly on the wall at a discussion of adapting this technology from attack helicopters to fighters among several American fighter pilots, active and retired, including a couple of senior training pilots, one air force, one navy. I had thought the technology was a brilliant idea. What I heard, was universal skepticism, based on an issue which hadn't occured to me. High performance fighters pull high gee-loads in ACM. As many as ten gees. This is a serious issue when it comes to adding weight to a pilot's head. Virtually every other part of the body - everything save the hands, really - is supported by the seat. But, the head has to be free to move around; a matter of maintaining situational awareness. One extra pound, at G, becomes ten pounds at ten Gees. Even a fairly light helmet, with the new weight from various sighting aids, can be a serious problem. A three pound helmet becomes thirty pounds at maximum G-load. And, you can pull Gees very quickly in manuevering, which means you not only have a heavy weight straining your neck, but the "new" weight can be loaded so fast that it's as if you received a blow. A blow from a twenty or thirty pound weight on your head can do serious damage to your neck. And, so, it appears that experienced pilots have some concerns about anything which adds to the weight they have to carry above their necks. Cargo aircraft rarely pull Gees. Attack helicopters can't pull heavy Gees. Fighters are different.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:60mm mortar -- BSL 11/28/2003 10:44:18 PM

Horsesoldier, You're missing the point. I don't dispute any of your comments about combined arms doctrine, etc.. No argument. But, the more important issue is the one you don't even mention, which is the particular strategic environment in which Israel exists. I suggest, again, you do some reading about the way the '73 War began. This is a sort of situation which could easily occur, again, and I'm suggesting that the Israeli designers have obviously reached the same conclusion. There is just no answer for this sort of problem in jiggling the composition of forces. Not when the reality of the situation on the ground, because of factors totally outside the control of the military, means that a war may begin with small units facing much, much larger attacking forces. So what if you have more organic artillery and mortar support, when you're a company facing attack by a regiment? First thing the attackers do is take out your battalion's artillery. Now what do you? They're attacking in what they feel is overwhelming force. They have enough to target all your heavy artillery, and, since the war-start lines are very well known, they probably have it registered before they open fire. What survives has calls for many more fire missions than it can supply, a function of the disparity in numbers. What do you do? Neither is it really wise to totally rely on air supportto fill the mission, since there have been instances when it was unavailable, tasked to higher priority missions, or, as in the '73 War, especially on the Egyptian front, the Red force comes up with unexpectedly effective air defense resources. As long as you can put that mortar in without having to sacrifice the rest of the usual equipment, you're adding a useful increment of capability which addresses a real issue for the people who use that equipment.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us