I know the Israelis lost a few Merkavas in Lebenon. What I'm wondering is how many they lost and what was the cause of the losses and what was the judgement of the Israeli high command of their performance. The Merkava had been considered one of the best protected tanks in the world. I would assume that the tanks lost were most likely due to well placed IEDs or anti-tank missiles fired at close ranges.
Performance of the Merkava in Lebenon
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
The turning point in the war between Hezbollah and Israel since July 12th has certainly, been Hezbollah’s anti tank missiles. The supposedly, fourth generation of Israeli most advanced tank ‘Merkava’, has since Israel began its ground offensive on July 19th, been significantly, deactivated.
By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.
According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.
This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.
Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.
Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.
By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.
According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.
This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.
Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.
Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.
Where did you get 100destroyed /pierced merkava?chaos said:The turning point in the war between Hezbollah and Israel since July 12th has certainly, been Hezbollah’s anti tank missiles. The supposedly, fourth generation of Israeli most advanced tank ‘Merkava’, has since Israel began its ground offensive on July 19th, been significantly, deactivated.
By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.
According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.
This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.
Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.
Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.
it is little bit unrealistic.
Hezbollah has used along side with Milan and Metis-E -- Kornet (from Iran who has licence production) and Rpg-29.
Well this has been discussed in numerous forums. IMHO basic problem for tanks is terrain in southern Lebanon. Thanks to terrain Israeli tanks lack mobility, and IDF was using standard routes that are familiar to anybody who knows terrain… Basically Hezbollah had perfect ambush opportunity; they prepared for this for long enough, they had/have modern anti-tank missiles, they know terrain and they are using it to there advantage…
If you know terrain, know enemy routes and know tank weaknesses you can for example target tank in the valleys from higher terrain thus hitting weaker armored top side of tank instead of Merkavas more then well armored front side… IDF reports claim that majority of losses was from ATGM attack to the top of the turret, where the tank commander was usually exposed. Tank commander was usually killed in such attacks and crew was injured…
Also if we look at fact that Hezbollah had/has quite considerable ATGM stockpile and all advantages that terrain offers them I would think that they would score much better against IDF armor…
Few hit tanks, mostly mission kills (if tank is hit and damaged that doesn’t mean that it is destroyed) and we are already hearing story’s about Merkava flews, severe damage to IDF armor etc. I personally don’t see any other modern MBT that would fare better in given conditions…
If you know terrain, know enemy routes and know tank weaknesses you can for example target tank in the valleys from higher terrain thus hitting weaker armored top side of tank instead of Merkavas more then well armored front side… IDF reports claim that majority of losses was from ATGM attack to the top of the turret, where the tank commander was usually exposed. Tank commander was usually killed in such attacks and crew was injured…
Also if we look at fact that Hezbollah had/has quite considerable ATGM stockpile and all advantages that terrain offers them I would think that they would score much better against IDF armor…
Few hit tanks, mostly mission kills (if tank is hit and damaged that doesn’t mean that it is destroyed) and we are already hearing story’s about Merkava flews, severe damage to IDF armor etc. I personally don’t see any other modern MBT that would fare better in given conditions…
Marc Aurel
New Member
The Merkava tanks are pretty special, as they have the engine in the front part of the tank. This way, it gives more protection to the crew but makes the vehicle itself more likely to be stopped by a hit. Makes sense for such a relatively small army, where u don´t have as many trained tank crews tha the US, for example. The Merkava 4 even has space in the rear compartment for some infantry, what makes them unique in the world. As i have read in some sources, the Merkava also trades a lot of speed for additional armor. Maybe this is the reason it was so slow in difficult terrain, that the ATGM-gunners had better chances for hitting and immobilze them. The speed of a tank is an important factor, maybe the israelis underestimated its importance.
The Israelis now think about adding actice kill systems for missile defence on their tanks, which would surely tip the balance back in the their favour. I wonder if there is any system able to penetrate such a system. Maybe hypersonic missiles?!
The Israelis now think about adding actice kill systems for missile defence on their tanks, which would surely tip the balance back in the their favour. I wonder if there is any system able to penetrate such a system. Maybe hypersonic missiles?!
Im not sure about that. If you se Russian-Afgan war T-55 tanks equiped with Drozd-1 APS had 80 percent success rate against ATGM and rpg like weapons. Raphael produces Throopy APS and im not quite understand why did they instal it on Merkava tanks.isthvan said:Well this has been discussed in numerous forums. IMHO basic problem for tanks is terrain in southern Lebanon. Thanks to terrain Israeli tanks lack mobility, and IDF was using standard routes that are familiar to anybody who knows terrain… Basically Hezbollah had perfect ambush opportunity; they prepared for this for long enough, they had/have modern anti-tank missiles, they know terrain and they are using it to there advantage…
If you know terrain, know enemy routes and know tank weaknesses you can for example target tank in the valleys from higher terrain thus hitting weaker armored top side of tank instead of Merkavas more then well armored front side… IDF reports claim that majority of losses was from ATGM attack to the top of the turret, where the tank commander was usually exposed. Tank commander was usually killed in such attacks and crew was injured…
Also if we look at fact that Hezbollah had/has quite considerable ATGM stockpile and all advantages that terrain offers them I would think that they would score much better against IDF armor…
Few hit tanks, mostly mission kills (if tank is hit and damaged that doesn’t mean that it is destroyed) and we are already hearing story’s about Merkava flews, severe damage to IDF armor etc. I personally don’t see any other modern MBT that would fare better in given conditions…
I sean some movies about it and it seems to be effective even aginst multiple ATGM.
Besides I did not see any ground suport planes ( I sow some of the movies during fighting), you can not yust send in tanks and light up a cigare expecting total victory.
Good to see fellow countryman on such forum/ Where are you from?
As usual in such discussions, the answer to "how did X tank do" depends on what you mean. Are you asking about tanks being mission-killed, or totally destroyed? Are you asking about tankers surviving when their tanks did not? Remember that the Merkava was designed with crew protection being paramount. In the early marks, this was at the expense of some mobility, but anyone who saw the marketing video for Merkava 4 running over really rough terrain can see that the latest version has no problems with speed, agility, and overall mobility. Which brings up another salient point: there are large differences between the versions of Merkava. While there are AFAIK no more Mk 1s in service (they were brought up to Mk 2 standard some years ago), there are still quite a few Mk 2s, especially in the reserve units. They didn't fare so well, and I believe (though I have no firm numbers to back this up yet) they made up the bulk of knocked-out tanks. The Mk 3s and Mk 4s did better, but they were penetrated on occasion, too. It's hard to say with certainty how many were lost, because I think the IDF have not made an official number known. Many were immobilized and returned to service; some were not. It may be some time, if ever, before we know for sure the details about tank casualties, but it's a fair assumption that Hezbollah was smart enough to attack from the flanks and rear rather than head-on. Media reports of "tanks destroyed" are obviously suspect at best, since most reporters consider anything with tracks a tank. From what I've heard, the IDF was pretty satisfied with the Merkava's overall performance. It protected its troops pretty well, which is one of the main considerations the IDF has. It's still considered (or at least it should be) one of the best-protected tanks in the world. You can't armor ever inch against everything, and I don't know that any other tank would have fared better in the same situation.
There are many thinks that did not work in favor of the Merks.
- There was not enough artillery available at the beginning.
- Many IDF tankers critiziced that they had not enough infantry support (I never liked that the IDF have no IFVs).
- The tanks were often send in small numbers (2-4 tanks) for raids. Those small packs are much more vulnerable to ambushes.
- Many ATGMs in service with Hiszbollah.
- Many tunnel systems, fortified positions, hidden bunkers/fire positions, supply depots and modern recon/radio equipment.
- Not enough intelligence and recon support for IDF.
- Many Mrk. II at the beginning of the operation.
- Some regular units with officers who had been in the Lebanon in the past never walked into Lebanon. Instead reservists were used.
With all this I also don't think that other tanks would have proceeded much better.
- There was not enough artillery available at the beginning.
- Many IDF tankers critiziced that they had not enough infantry support (I never liked that the IDF have no IFVs).
- The tanks were often send in small numbers (2-4 tanks) for raids. Those small packs are much more vulnerable to ambushes.
- Many ATGMs in service with Hiszbollah.
- Many tunnel systems, fortified positions, hidden bunkers/fire positions, supply depots and modern recon/radio equipment.
- Not enough intelligence and recon support for IDF.
- Many Mrk. II at the beginning of the operation.
- Some regular units with officers who had been in the Lebanon in the past never walked into Lebanon. Instead reservists were used.
With all this I also don't think that other tanks would have proceeded much better.
Israel has always hidden the extent of its losses, there reports of many merkavas being destroyed in 1982
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml
Also, waylander you say that the IDF lacks IFVs, however they have many heavily armoured apcs, surely these could have been used to transport infantry?
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml
Also, waylander you say that the IDF lacks IFVs, however they have many heavily armoured apcs, surely these could have been used to transport infantry?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
Also, waylander you say that the IDF lacks IFVs, however they have many heavily armoured apcs, surely these could have been used to transport infantry?[/QUOTE]
Israel does lack a true modern IFV. They don't have something equivient to the Bradley, Warrior, Dardo, Pizarro, CV-90, or BMP-3. What they do have is the Achzarit which is a converted T-54/55 and the Puma which is a converted Centurion tank. exact specs seem to be hard to come by, but both appear to be slow and lack firepower as well as the sophisitication of western IFVs. However in the near future Israel will be recieving the Stryker.
Israel does lack a true modern IFV. They don't have something equivient to the Bradley, Warrior, Dardo, Pizarro, CV-90, or BMP-3. What they do have is the Achzarit which is a converted T-54/55 and the Puma which is a converted Centurion tank. exact specs seem to be hard to come by, but both appear to be slow and lack firepower as well as the sophisitication of western IFVs. However in the near future Israel will be recieving the Stryker.
You don't hear much good about the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The crews seem rather unsatisfied and i heard people call it a "death trap" and "coffin on wheels" and stuff like that.fylr71 said:However in the near future Israel will be recieving the Stryker.
I don't know what the specific problem is, (besides that i heard that crews are adding additional armour plates in their free time and there are even private organisations in the USA collecting money to buy extra armour for the Humvee and especially the Stryker), but considering that the Israelis will use it in pretty much the same terrain and under the same conditions as the US Army in Iraq, they might reconsider their order, given the bad publicity and advertisement.
Are the Strykers in use in Afghanistan too and if yes, how are they doing there?
edit:
The bad things i heard about the Stryker came mostly from chatting with soldiers and ex-soldiers and from a few tv reports on Iraq.
I only found one source i could link here now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html?sub=AR
Last edited:
very good analysisWaylander said:There are many thinks that did not work in favor of the Merks.
- There was not enough artillery available at the beginning.
- Many IDF tankers critiziced that they had not enough infantry support (I never liked that the IDF have no IFVs).
- The tanks were often send in small numbers (2-4 tanks) for raids. Those small packs are much more vulnerable to ambushes.
- Many ATGMs in service with Hiszbollah.
- Many tunnel systems, fortified positions, hidden bunkers/fire positions, supply depots and modern recon/radio equipment.
- Not enough intelligence and recon support for IDF.
- Many Mrk. II at the beginning of the operation.
- Some regular units with officers who had been in the Lebanon in the past never walked into Lebanon. Instead reservists were used.
With all this I also don't think that other tanks would have proceeded much better.
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
What is frightening me is that we in France are going to receive a so-called IFV, the VBCI (although armed with a very controversed one man 25mm turret), with a design close to the Stryker, and by reading the article given in your links, it clearly demonstrate that a wheeled vehicle cannot fulfill to a large array of missions that modern urban warfare requires.You don't hear much good about the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The crews seem rather unsatisfied and i heard people call it a "death trap" and "coffin on wheels" and stuff like that.
I don't know what the specific problem is, (besides that i heard that crews are adding additional armour plates in their free time and there are even private organisations in the USA collecting money to buy extra armour for the Humvee and especially the Stryker), but considering that the Israelis will use it in pretty much the same terrain and under the same conditions as the US Army in Iraq, they might reconsider their order, given the bad publicity and advertisement.
Finally it is more costly to operate a wheeled vehicle if you have to change tires "nine times a day" (I quote) !!
It does not happen with a tracked vehicle!
I will not be surprised if during our engagment in Lebanon, we will be forced to replace our brand new VBCI (if deployed) by the older AMX-10 ...
The APCs and HAPCs of the IDF are not able to substitute a true IFV like the mentioned Bradley, CV-90, Puma, etc.
They lack firepower and mobility. They are not able follow modern tanks so they slow down the whole group. They also lack firepower. With the biggest weapon on them being a 12.7mm MG they are not able to produce the same amount of pure firepower and do not have the same range than 25mm-40mm weapons.
But this is needed the most against well protected ATGM fire positions.
I am also not sure if they have the same recon capabilities like modern IFVs with their stabilized gun optics.
And I would not bet on them being better protected than a Puma for example.
And is the IDF infantry able to fight while being onboard?
All these things make the (H)APCs look not very good for working together with tanks.
They may be good (And cheap enough) for transporting infantry into urbanized areas like in Gaza with its low intense conflicts and than fall back to let the infantry do their job but they are not nearly near to the capabilities a modern IFV gives you for combined arms operations.
They lack firepower and mobility. They are not able follow modern tanks so they slow down the whole group. They also lack firepower. With the biggest weapon on them being a 12.7mm MG they are not able to produce the same amount of pure firepower and do not have the same range than 25mm-40mm weapons.
But this is needed the most against well protected ATGM fire positions.
I am also not sure if they have the same recon capabilities like modern IFVs with their stabilized gun optics.
And I would not bet on them being better protected than a Puma for example.
And is the IDF infantry able to fight while being onboard?
All these things make the (H)APCs look not very good for working together with tanks.
They may be good (And cheap enough) for transporting infantry into urbanized areas like in Gaza with its low intense conflicts and than fall back to let the infantry do their job but they are not nearly near to the capabilities a modern IFV gives you for combined arms operations.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
I will not be surprised if during our engagment in Lebanon, we will be forced to replace our brand new VBCI (if deployed) by the older AMX-10 ...[/QUOTE]
My guess is that the VBCI as well as the wheeled Vextra will augment a tracked IFV. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about French politics but perhaps the French could get involved with the German Puma project. As the French consider and are considered to have a first rate military it is likely that they will pursue a tracked IFV considering all other major military powers possess that. Also, a lot of European powers are in the process of or have completed the procurment of new modern tracked IFVs (Spain, Austria, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands)
My guess is that the VBCI as well as the wheeled Vextra will augment a tracked IFV. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about French politics but perhaps the French could get involved with the German Puma project. As the French consider and are considered to have a first rate military it is likely that they will pursue a tracked IFV considering all other major military powers possess that. Also, a lot of European powers are in the process of or have completed the procurment of new modern tracked IFVs (Spain, Austria, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands)
how did they get European anti-armor weaponschaos said:The turning point in the war between Hezbollah and Israel since July 12th has certainly, been Hezbollah’s anti tank missiles. The supposedly, fourth generation of Israeli most advanced tank ‘Merkava’, has since Israel began its ground offensive on July 19th, been significantly, deactivated.
By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.
According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.
This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.
Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.
Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.