I was disappointed when Israel made it’s last incursion into Lebanon to punish the Iranian backed Hezbollah. I can recall several Merkva tanks being knocked out by hand held anti tank weapons.
What surprised me was I had read that the Merkva is built for survival of the crew at the expense of maneuverability. It has very heavy armor. I am not knowledgeable on tanks but I wonder if they have the Chobam armor?
Maybe they are waiting for a more advanced model?
To a certain degree, the same can be said about the Abrams. Read, "King Of The Killing Zone". It's an older book now, but it's all about the development of the Abrams, and discusses in some detail the sacrifices that were made to enhance crew survivability.
Its a good tank....most western tanks favor crew survivabilty, to include the M-1. I think this shut down is more about money. And, tank production is not like car production - at some point, the Army has enough tanks...they can’t buy them forever.
The Merkava achieves an incremental increase in crew protection by placing the engine & transmission up front in the tank hull behind the armor of the front glacis. If a tank round were to penetrate the frontal armor, then the mass of the engine takes the brunt of the impact and theoretically the crew survives.
I think the problem is that man-portable AT weapons usually impact on the sides & rear. The armor is thinner there and of course the engine placement has no benefit.
As for “Chobham Armor”, I don’t know if the Merkava IV makes use of that technology.