M1A2 vs Merkava MK4

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, in context, there is a re-invigoration of infantry and tank tactics for urban warfare in contrast to the cold war era. And the Americans and Israelis are obviously experts and leaders in the field having conducted recent operations in urban areas.

As indicated by OPSSG, I'd also add that the Russians learnt very quickly how to adapt their tank and support tactics after the "almost" debacle of the 1st Chechyan War.

There seems to be a misconception that tanks are passe, and that is far from the truth.

similarly, there was also a long held view that tanks were unsuitable for jungle warfare - that was proved incorrect by australian army centurions during the Vietnam War.

in short, tactics continually evolve.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I also said Merkava was build to cater Israel need. However the terain that Israel facing more and more also faced by everyone else. Cleary current environment show more and more scenarios where MBT has to faced urban and close combat warfares. The contemporary clasic design of M1 and Chalangers show their survivebility thus neglected the need to mimic Merkava design. In sense if the Merkava design show superiority on clasic MBT design on the area of urban and close warfare...I'm sure somewhere in the western world or even eastern world already come out with products which mimic Merkava design.

again I'm not saying Merkava was a failed design. It's a good design that cater for the purpose it was build for. However the design do not show that it has the significant advantages compared to clasic MBT design in the area where (according to the builders) should show the superiority from other design...which are urban and close range warfare environment.

Your comments contradict each other, The Merkava 4 is a legacy of all the tank experience that the israelis have acquired, its designed for their conditions - its irrelevant to them whether other countries mimic the design philosophy. The Israelis have a highly mobile military where they seek to inflict the maximum violence and tactical force upon their enemies with the minimum casualty levels as they cannot afford a war of attrition. men are more valuable than equipment.

the design philosophy is also a legacy of doctrine and tactical development - again, the relevance of the Merkava4 can't be seen in isolation of their requirements - not what others do.

M1Ann's and Challengers were not designed to the same baseline requirements, their tactical employment was based on different doctrine and philosophy.

again, read the 2006 Lebanon outcome and they are very clinical in why things didn't work as expected. In fact the tank design is and was successful, it as a regional command failure that was the issue

you just can't look at technologies and platforms and try to draw relative associations and merit to other countries as their tactical and strategic circumstances are different.

 

[Ananda]

@Ananda, honestly there are some parts of your posts in this thread that I totally don't understand and I would not have bothered to reply to new forum members like Xeon_Laura (as he has not even bothered to post an intro about himself).

Your comments contradict each other, The Merkava 4 is a legacy of all the tank experience that the israelis have acquired, its designed for their conditions - its irrelevant to them whether other countries mimic the design philosophy. The Israelis have a highly mobile military where they seek to inflict the maximum violence and tactical force upon their enemies with the minimum casualty levels as they cannot afford a war of attrition. men are more valuable than equipmen

@Opsg & @gf, thanks for your repply, and trully it enriched my understanding on evolution of Tank Warfare.

Sorry if my pervious comments still unclear on some issue..I'm trying to concept it better.

What I'm getting at that I understand the basic philosophy of the Israeli designer when building Merkava. I understand also that the main thinking was the protections of the crew and the soldiers it was carried while in the same tim eprovide the best possible fire power.
In those area I think Merkava was excellent and rightly put as one ofthe best MBT in the world, especially so with the Mk4.

However since this thread was discussing the comparisson with M1A2, all I'm getting was in all around aspects, the M1A2 still hold advantages over Merkava even with the latest Mk4.
Based on several publications even from the builder, the Merkava design do sacrifices some performances especially by putting the engine in front change the center of gravity of the vehicles and sacrifies some aspects like the area of quick accelerations for instances.
However the Isreaeli willing to accept that since it provide room for better crew protections and also few infantry which will be very well protected during high urban warfare environment.

The urban and close range warfare environments facing M1 and Challanger on Iraq show that even on that particullar conditions the classic design still show the same capabilities of crew protections as Merkava did in South Lebanon. While in the same time Merkava also facing same limitations on the close range and urban warfare as the M1 and Challanger did.

In short I don't see the Merkava design show significant advantages on the area that the builders hoped it has compared to the classic design like M1 and Challanger.
But again it does not mean Merkava did not work as the designer hope so, I think it suit well with the Israel need and philosophy especially facing urban and close range guerilla environments.
PS: I know the topic of this vs that is sometimes so silly, since a lot of factor sometime being generelised.

 

[gf0012-aust]

However since this thread was discussing the comparisson with M1A2, all I'm getting was in all around aspects, the M1A2 still hold advantages over Merkava even with the latest Mk4.

Not for the Israelis it doesn't. again, read their report of how the tanks had to deal with hezbollah when they were unable to get CAS in theatre.

Based on several publications even from the builder, the Merkava design do sacrifices some performances especially by putting the engine in front change the center of gravity of the vehicles and sacrifies some aspects like the area of quick accelerations for instances.

their principle performance criteria is protection and survivability - speed is not relevant to them in the same way that it was exercised in parts of Desert Storm.

However the Isreaeli willing to accept that since it provide room for better crew protections and also few infantry which will be very well protected during high urban warfare environment.

which means its highly relevant to their doctrine as thats what defined its development

The urban and close range warfare environments facing M1 and Challanger on Iraq show that even on that particullar conditions the classic design still show the same capabilities of crew protections as Merkava did in South Lebanon.

how? when did M1's or Challengers face repeated co-ordinated Kornet 14 attacks? again, the utility of all three tanks has been proved in the way that they were employed, the chally and abrams have not been employed in the same roles as the Merkavas and vice versa. The only thing in common with all is that they are all MBT's

While in the same time Merkava also facing same limitations on the close range and urban wafare as the M1 and Challanger did.

again, I can't see any clear similarities in their employment.

In short I don't see the Merkava design show significant advantages on the area that the builders hoped it has compared to the classic design like M1 and Challanger.

again, read the 2006 assessment and then tell me where in any campaign or mission over the last 15 years where there is something to compare it to?

But again it does not mean Merkava did not work as the designer hope so, I think it suit well with the Israel need and philosophy especially facing urban and close range guerilla environments.

But it worked exactly as they had hoped. Where again, has any other MBT been employed with active armour and survived multiple modern 2 stage AT weapons? The only one to do so is the Merk4. Note that the older Merkava 3's sans Trophy were less than lucky in comparison

 

[Xeon_Laura]

If this true, than the Israel Debacles in South Lebanon show that much less sophisticated enemy can cripple Merkava without much salvo needed.

Don't get me wrong, Merkava is a good MBT, and I know the Mk4 already put some lessons fromn south lebanon. However if we stick on the topic and put M1A2 as comparissons, then the result of M1 during Urban warfare in Iraq show the advantages of M1 still hold compared to other MBT on it's relative comparisson. This an area where Merkava supposedly show superiority compared to M1.

I know the design supposdely only cater Israel need and maximize crew protections. However if the design really show considerable advantageous, then everybodey else will coppied it. As it stands now, nobody else using this design except Isarel on latest MBT.

In short, the design show merits, but however it does't proved to be decisive in the area where Merkava should hold advantages.

==>You cant compare the threat faced by M1 in iraq and Merkava in lebanon. In Iraq the insurgents operate in a small groups and most of their tactics are IED and rarely they fire anti tank weapons and that too 1 or 2 shots. But in case of lebanon war the whole place was a well planned booby trapped tunnel network where the enemy just pops out of a whole which was just a patch of grass land fires 1 or 2 anti tank missiles and in the similar way few of his groups attack from different place simultaneously. And those Merkavas which got damaged are from the lower versions.I have seen a video of merkava taking 6 hits in the same spot in the side of the tank and still good to go,
In Iraq they basically place artillery Rounds as IEDs.But in Lebanon these guys place Hundreds of kilos of Explosives on the path to blow a Merkava and that too only damages a Merkava and does not destroy it.

 

[SteelTiger 177]

Both the Abrams and the Merkava are very good tanks.Both have seen considerable action in the Middle East.I hope that some elements of the Merkava should be incorporated into future tank and IFV designs such as having the crew enter in the rear of the and not just climbing over the tank whcih has been the norm for entering a tank.This makes the crews trying to get in velnurable to sniper attacks.Antoher I've learned that IMI has developed a missle defense and interception system currently in use on the Merkava 4 are any plans for system to be incorporated into upgrades for the Abrams mbt ,Bradley (both the IFV and CFV),the Stryker,MRAP,and 113 fovs as well as new vehicles such as the Army's new ICV under developement as well as the Marines planned MPC and AFV systems?