Posted on 08/27/2006 9:32:50 PM PDT by Flavius
Commander: Not many tanks harmed during war
Commander of 401 Armored Corps Brigade, Colonel Moti Kidor: 'During war hundreds of antitank missiles fired, 18 damaged'
Hanan Greenberg Published: 08.28.06, 00:07
As the war continued in the north, more and more tanks were damaged. Many voices were heard in the past declaring the Merkava MK 4 model as "the safest in the world," but it turned out that many of these tanks were damaged by Hizbullah antitank missiles, causing the IDF a significant number of losses.
Colonel Moti Kidor, Commander of the 401 Armored Corps Brigade, however, says that "those who ask these questions simply don't understand the field, and unfortunately these include senior IDF officers. When you look at the full picture, one understands that during the war hundreds of antitank missiles were fired, and in total 18 tanks were damaged. Of those, missiles penetrated only five or six. To my sorrow, eight soldiers were killed in these incidents."
He added: "Like every tank in the past and in the future, the Merkava MK 4 is vulnerable. It's basically like asking why a chopper fell. If you strike it, it falls. I don't think there is any surprise here, and whoever is surprised simply doesn't understand. It's true that eight soldiers were killed in tanks, and that every soldier is a world in himself, but in relation to the number of missiles fired at us – it's not a lot."
In total dozens of Armored Corps soldiers were hurt and dozens of tanks hit, all from the Merkava MK 2, 3, and 4, some from tanks sent from the war reserves store unit shortly before entering in Lebanon. Among those injured were many reserves.
"Only a small number of tanks were seriously damaged, most of them have already been returned to units after the recovery," said a senior IDF officer.
"The Armored Corpse played in this war, like in previous war of the State of Israel, a central role in the fighting, and absorbed many casualties. We'll have to take away lessons from this to be ready for the next war," the source added.
Merkava Mk4s are better at MOUT (city fighting) than an M1A2 without the TUSK upgrade, but on a one on one fight, the Merkava would get slaughtered by a US M1A2. The Egyptians and Saudis have some export-model M1A2s, but they don't have the depleted uranium armor that our US ones do.
As for the tank hierarchy:
1: US M1A2 Abrams.
2: Three way tie: Challenger 2, Leopard 2 (improved), LeClerk 2. The Challenger 2 is a near contemporaray of the Abrams and is supposedly the most heavily armored Western tank - the problem is that unlike the M1A2, a shot from another Challenger's main gun can disable or destroy it, whereas, the M1A2 (with a better gun) cannot be destroyed (in fact, may not even be damaged) by a hit from another M1A2's main gun. The Leopard 2 Improved and LeClerc 2 are similar in terms of specs on paper to the Challenger 2, but have not been combat tested.
3: Merkava Mk.4 - smaller, lighter, and faster than the M1A2, but the gun has been cut down for urban use which decreases range and accuracy. Even though it's a clean-sheet design, it owes much inspiration to the US M60-series of tanks as well as to the M1. Best tank in the world for close quarters urban fighting, but as a specialist design, tends to be a bit compromised. Still better than anything their neighbors have overall.
BUMP!
A little off-topic, but does anyone know how the Type 90 (the *Japanese* Type 90, not the ChiCom tank of the same name) measures up compared to most western MBT's?
M1A2 Video from the lead tank company April 6, 2003 Baghdad:
Bump!
"on a one on one fight, the Merkava would get slaughtered by a US M1A2"
Really? Granted, what I've read on the subject is a couple years old, but I would've pegged the Merkava (older version) as doing substantially better than being slaughtered by the M1 (I honestly don't know what upgrades have been done to the M1A2 vs. the M1 (or M1A1 for that matter)). The way I've read things, the Merkava was designed with survivability as it's primary priority whereas the M1 was a more 'balanced' design.
Anyways, it also kinda matters who gets the first shot and where. If a Merkava got a rear (or side) shot on the M1A2, chances are it's out of the fight, that's just the way things are. The same goes for the Merkava. Also, IIRC, the Merkava has its engine in the front to give additional protection.
Exactly the wrong typo for this subject.
Merkavas do have a laminated-type armor, but it's by no means comparable to Chobham plate (what the Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams use) and lightyears behind the depleted uranium plate that the M1A2 uses. Merkavas use an interlocking series of steel-nickel laminate plate that *will not* stop an APFSDS 120mm from an Abrams. The non-depleted-uranium-plate Chobham armor of a Challenger 2 won't stop a 120mm APFSDS round from another Challenger 2 or Abrams - so the steel-nickel laminate would be easy pickings for the M1A2.
The Merkava's tech is essentially that of the M60A5 extended out with modern design and equipment.
As for a rear or side shot - during the first Gulf War, an Abrams became disabled (think it got stuck) and it had to be abandoned. Two other Abrams came up, took the crew off, and then started pounding it with 120mm fire from point blank range in vulnerable aspects (rear/side hits). Nothing happened. They eventually managed to get the internal ammo load to go off through repeated hits to the same point, but the blowoff plates protected the core. The tank was later recovered, repaired, and put back in service within a week. A Merkava isn't able to deal with that sort of punishment from one round, let alone the dozen or so that these Abrams were inflicting.
The Merkava was designed for survivability (with the available technology) in the urban warfare environment that Israel faces, not the battalion-strength slugging matches that the Abrams was envisioned as having to face. Remember also that the Israelis do not *have* Chobham armor tech (and unless they figure it out themselves, they're not going to be getting it anytime soon) and as such, have to deal with less effective armor that weighs more, and that limits what they're able to do.
Bottom line - the front glacis of the Merkava is *not* proof against the 120mm APFSDS, and there's tank shot traps (bad for the tank that has them) on the underside of that turret.
It's considered to be roughly equivalent to the unimproved Leopard 2, or the original LeClerc. It's got Chobham-like ceramic-composite armor and the same 120mm Rheinmetall gun as we mount on the M1A1 and later (with the same rounds), but only the front armor is proof against another 120mm. The side is only proof against 35mm AP.
The tradeoff for the weaker armor is that the tank is significantly lighter, considerably faster than almost all Western MBTs, and it's smaller - which can be an advantage. They are not intended for straight-up slugging matches, but maneuver warfare and hit and run tactics. (Which makes sense, since there aren't vast plains in Japan like there are in the US and Europe, so any defense would have to take that into account. This tank was designed to defend Japan against T-72s.)
That RPG team at the end got a nasty surprise.
"Yes, the Abrams *does* have a coaxial gun, and yes, both main and coaxial can depress more than the 2-5 degrees of your T-72s. Surprise!"
I sometimes wonder what effect multiple hits in extended combat would do to the armour characteristics. Consider the German Tiger tank from WW-II. It's frontal armour was essentially invulnerable to the non-firefly variants of the US Sherman tank. However, to what extent did multiple hits from Shermans work harden and otherwise change the metals properties such that the next round which might have been defeated on "fresh" armour was able to penetrate?
Come on now. That's way too complicated for a liberal to understand.
Armored Corpse?
and it's always nice to have tanks to protect infantry...
I guess that's why they put them together like they do.....hahahahahaha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.