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.
dang it!
Haha aside, a squad can ride inside in an air-conditioned environment (with tank crew personal airconditioning preferences), and a squad on top with a "speed" air-conditioning. A Merk is a winner, it is not a blitzkrieg Abrams-Challenger combo - there is no Prokhorowka tank clash with about 600 german armor against about 800 russian armor on a plain, shooting it out in the earnest of earnest ever imaginable. Some sources even say that burning machines on both sides drove into the water and escaping crews had it out hand-to-hand. The only scenario, remotely close to it may be a shootout with egyptians, in which an Abrams will be put against a Merk. Add in jewish air jocks. Jews are silly (pardon for possibly offending anyone) in a loveable way of it, but learn quick.
Sorry, at least one M1 has done so. Like the Merkavas, it didn't survive, but half the crew survived - which you can't say about the Merks - one Mk 2 Merk was completely destroyed with the loss of the entire crew when it rolled over a Hez IED, estimated at only 50kg. There was at least one other Merk destroyed by a Hez IED, with no reports of survivors (but no confirmed deaths, either). So, the Merk is by no means immune to IEDs.
The Egyptian and Saudi Abrams do have reactive armor packs and the full-up digital fire controls, but they don't have the depleted uranium plate that put US M1A2s head and shoulder above any other tank in the world.
The export model M1 is roughly equivalent to, well, a Leopard 2 or Challenger 2, maybe slightly inferior. The skill of the Israeli crews would more than make up the difference between Egypt's M1's and the Merkava Mk.4's.
The armor is significantly less advanced.
No, the armor technology on the Merkava is significantly inferior to the Abrams. The Abrams can actually withstand its own anti-armor systems, as has been proven in friendly fire incidents, and is largely impervious to other tanks. So in a tank battle between Merkavas and modern Abrams, we would expect the Merkavas to have a hard time putting the hurt on an Abrams, but the Abrams can definitely do serious damage to a Merkava.
Merk2 production stopped about 1989, it is an honest, but obsolete living machine. I'd want to see what a 50kg charge might do to an Abrams.
So, the Merk is by no means immune to IEDs.
What is? It's a question of pounds.
The underside of the hull is identical between the Mk2 and Mk4.
In October 2003, an Abrams rolled over a *150kg* IED created by teaming a Russian anti-tank mine with additional explosives. Two crewmen died, but two survived.
Clinton tried to wrestle Barak into abandonning Merk 4 in favor of Abrams. At least on that one Barak held the ground. Jews are tricky, who knows what armor Merk4 sports inside the shell.
Well, that one's easy to answer - there's no anti-spalling liner in a Merkava hull (unlike the Abrams).
The Merkava's construction is *not* classified.
I'd appreciate it to be guided in the right direction about the stuff.
What's interesting and different about the Merkava than other MBTs is that it carries eight soldiers in the back. The engine is up front and so it is also a troop carrier.
At the rear center is a clamshell door for them to load and unload. It hardly looks possible but they do ride back there.
http://www.janes.com/defence/ among many others, including FAS, globalsecurity, etc, etc.
For that matter, SIBAT in Israel is offering the unaltered Merkava 3 for export.
Merkavas are far *cheaper* than Abrams tanks are and are better city fighters overall than the non TUSK-equipped Abrams.
I'm on a Mac and can see them just fine. What OS and Quicktime version are you running?
I'm just kind of wondering where the JDSF would need tanks. Neither China or Russia have the amphibious capability to actually invade, which would leave Korea or Taiwan as the only places they'd be of much use. But given the memories of Japanese domination of those two peoples, I'd be surprised if Taipei or Seoul(or any other country in the Far East that remembers WW2) would even allow them to give direct military aid. So, unless Japan changes its consitution and joins NATO, there's nowhere for them to go as far as I can tell.
I'm brand new to macs from a Windows pc and I'm not liking some of the features as far as video capture from the web and some of the other viewing of video.
I've upgraded to QT pro but can't run wmv files and I'm just a newbie with Macs. I love that everything I hook up just works and my MacBook Pro is absent a lot of the spy-ware/virus threats, it's a mixed bag but otherwise I'm liking it.
Because during the 70s, when the Type 90 was being planned, it wasn't at *all* certain that Russia didn't have the sealift capability. And the Japanese have given the Chinese plenty of reasons over the past few centuries to want to get some of their own back.
From the "what a difference a decade makes" file, "Worst tactical/strategic position" category:
1976: NATO Commander, Europe, with the hordes of the Warsaw Pact about to overrun you with waves of T-72 tanks that you have no hope of stopping with your M-60 tanks.
1986: Warsaw Pact Commander, Europe, when trying to invade Western Europe, because the Abrams tanks on the NATO side will slaughter your T-72s from beyond the range that you can reply.
That video reminds me of a question I should have asked in 2003.
On this mission or another similar I saw(this was a TV video) of a tanker shooting a gun from the turret.
It was similar to a .50MMG but the ammo looked like 12ga. shotgun shells. What I could see of them.
Anyway the gun kept jamming. The tanker was geting really disgusted.
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.