Originally Posted by SHERMAN

I think our dear friend Elad is just exited as he is a new recruit to the IDF and just started operating tanks. On the other hand, your understanding of the Merkava is extremely poor, as is your understanding of IDF operational theory, based on what you wrote.
Merkava was never built as a MOUT vehicle, it is built as a world class MBT. The "dismount carrying" feature is not really a major issue in the Merkavas design, and is simply a bonus to having a front mounted engine. The Merkava was built with the same enemies in mind as any other western tank, the russian T series. If you doubt this please ask away about features on the M1 or Leopard and their existance on the Merkava, I will be happy to reply as long as I dont have to break the law to do so.

Oh wow. I can completely understand the new recruit mentality, as most of our guys get excited when they see an M1 for the first time as well, but once again there is no frame of reference. I do not recall commenting on IDF operational theory at all, so to what are you referring to? I'm actually complementing a feature on the Merk in that is is more useful than our tanks in an urban role. In a standard tank platoon (US) you have 4 M1 tanks. All crew positions are manned by tankers. In an urban patrolling environment like in Iraq, you need to bring medics and interpreters along... where do they ride? As a consequence, we end up bring wheeled vehicles or Brads along with us. Not exactly an effective usage of a tank platoon in an urban environment. With the Merk, you do not have to worry about that issue because you have the space to accomodate it. I did not say that this was an IDF tactic, but merely that I thought it was more suited to an urban fight than the M1 or the Leo. Starting with the Merk Mark II, emphasis was placed on urban warfare so I'm not sure what you are talking about. The "bonus" of having a front mounted engine is still a bonus is it not? Are you trying to tell me that infantry under small arms fire or trying to evac a casualty have NEVER sought refuge in a merk tank? Try doing that with an M1 and you won't be too pleased at the results. I keep rereading my post for references to IDF operational theory, and I'm not seeing it. Saying that it was designed to fight the same enemies of the west (t-series russian tanks), and then claiming it's on par with the only two tanks I quoted (NOT t-series russian tanks) is a little ridiculous. The only thing I said was that a 65 ton tank has less armor than a 72 ton tank, and that point still stands. All I said was that it has less armor than an M1, is a great tank, can house dismounts, is good in an urban fight, and that I wouldn't compare it to the M1. I thus complimented a strong point of it, while mentioning what I feel is a weak point. I never said it was a dedicated MOUT vehicle, but it seems to be better designed for it than the M1 and Leo... am I to assume this was an accident? Google Merkava and urban and an absurd amount of references pop up.

According to Defense-Update "modifications installed on Merkava Mk4 are preparing the tank to operate in urban environment of the Low Intensity Conflict. "

Globalsecurity states "Tank soldiers have long admired Merkava's rear entrance and exit, recognizing that it would allow them to mount and dismount unobserved by the enemy and would provide an excellent alternative escape route. The Merkava can also carry a small Infantry squad internally under complete armored protection. "

There's a ton more, but I can't fit even a fraction. In closing, if you asked tankers what the best tank for the urban fight is, many of them would say Merkava. If you asked them what the best tank for a one on one showdown in the open is, I'm sure the M1 and Leo would be picked first. If I missed some secret special IDF operational theory in my assesment, I really could care less. If you think the Merkava is a world beating MBT, that's your problem. Bias is a terrible thing. Employing an MBT doesn't have to be reinventing the wheel. I guess I was wrong to highlight the main difference in the Merk design that seperates it from ALL other MBTs.

Oh, I agree Sherman. The difference in fire control systems between modern tanks is tit for tat.

And as I pointed out, countries tend to develop tanks that fit their unique needs. Israel is a prime example.

I don't expect to see a whole lot of Israeli tanks having to deal with heavy snow, ect.

Oh wow. I can completely understand the new recruit mentality, as most of our guys get excited when they see an M1 for the first time as well, but once again there is no frame of reference. I do not recall commenting on IDF operational theory at all, so to what are you referring to? I'm actually complementing a feature on the Merk in that is is more useful than our tanks in an urban role. In a standard tank platoon (US) you have 4 M1 tanks. All crew positions are manned by tankers. In an urban patrolling environment like in Iraq, you need to bring medics and interpreters along... where do they ride? As a consequence, we end up bring wheeled vehicles or Brads along with us. Not exactly an effective usage of a tank platoon in an urban environment. With the Merk, you do not have to worry about that issue because you have the space to accomodate it. I did not say that this was an IDF tactic, but merely that I thought it was more suited to an urban fight than the M1 or the Leo. Starting with the Merk Mark II, emphasis was placed on urban warfare so I'm not sure what you are talking about. The "bonus" of having a front mounted engine is still a bonus is it not? Are you trying to tell me that infantry under small arms fire or trying to evac a casualty have NEVER sought refuge in a merk tank? Try doing that with an M1 and you won't be too pleased at the results. I keep rereading my post for references to IDF operational theory, and I'm not seeing it. Saying that it was designed to fight the same enemies of the west (t-series russian tanks), and then claiming it's on par with the only two tanks I quoted (NOT t-series russian tanks) is a little ridiculous. The only thing I said was that a 65 ton tank has less armor than a 72 ton tank, and that point still stands. All I said was that it has less armor than an M1, is a great tank, can house dismounts, is good in an urban fight, and that I wouldn't compare it to the M1. I thus complimented a strong point of it, while mentioning what I feel is a weak point. I never said it was a dedicated MOUT vehicle, but it seems to be better designed for it than the M1 and Leo... am I to assume this was an accident? Google Merkava and urban and an absurd amount of references pop up.
According to Defense-Update "modifications installed on Merkava Mk4 are preparing the tank to operate in urban environment of the Low Intensity Conflict. "
Globalsecurity states "Tank soldiers have long admired Merkava's rear entrance and exit, recognizing that it would allow them to mount and dismount unobserved by the enemy and would provide an excellent alternative escape route. The Merkava can also carry a small Infantry squad internally under complete armored protection. "
There's a ton more, but I can't fit even a fraction. In closing, if you asked tankers what the best tank for the urban fight is, many of them would say Merkava. If you asked them what the best tank for a one on one showdown in the open is, I'm sure the M1 and Leo would be picked first. If I missed some secret special IDF operational theory in my assesment, I really could care less. If you think the Merkava is a world beating MBT, that's your problem. Bias is a terrible thing. Employing an MBT doesn't have to be reinventing the wheel. I guess I was wrong to highlight the main difference in the Merk design that seperates it from ALL other MBTs.

First, I apologize if I seemed agressive in my reply.

Second let me try and explain my post:

1) I am not biassed towards the Merkava, certinly not the Mk 4(I am a Merkava 2 commander). I do not think its "the best tank in the world", and I base it on seeing Merkavas with their ups and downs.

2)Having said that, the Merkava was not built to fght in urban terrain. It was and is built to fight a major armored clash with the Syrian army in the Golan heights. The tanks role in official IDF doctorine is to destroy enemy tanks, be the main direct fire and manuver element in ATFs, and not as you would propose be a infantry taxi. The rear corridor, as we call it, is mainly meant to allow quick dismount and mounting of the crew. Infantry is carried there only for demonstrations or when there are no heavy IFVs avilable and the M113 is simply not protected enough for the mission.

3)We do make very varried use of the rear corridor. usually not for dismounts though. What we do is we remove the ammunition from either side of the corridor, including the ammo storage units. We than place a medical team of 2 or 3 men there. This is than used as a "tankbulance" to evacuate the wounded safely from other tanks. We park the tankbulance back to back to the tank with wounded personnel in it and the move from one tank to the other is much safer than other methods.

Some of the other things I can comment on, sorry but I have to watch what i write.

I do not think that any of you are even qualified to speculate Merkava capabilities in regards to armor protection and FCS, Merkava will get up and boogie at a high rate of speed for offensive engagements just as fast as any M1 or LEO series tanks, they offer some of the best armor protection technology that is currently available to a point that they are assisting other countries in their programs, including the U.S. I would also state that Merkava is better suited to handle urbanized warfare better than any other tank currently fielded and still be able to fight a high speed offensive enagagement, no other tank can state that claim. Ammunition technology is world class with many countries utilizing IDF projectiles and these rounds will get the job done if called upon to do so. if I had to fight the IDF in their terrian setting I would be very worried, they can fight you armor wise anyway that you decide to dish out your poison, defense or offense. And I know that my IDF friends realize that all that open space inside of Merkava series tanks was initially designed for additional ammunition, logistics and timing will be a major issue trying to defend such a small country, and if called upon to fight the mother of all battles this is what they will go back to, big bullet storage.

No problem Sherman, I only mentioned it in the first place because that compartment definately is unique amongst MBTs. As for Palerider, I didn't know there was some special qualification that I needed to be able to speculate about tanks on the internet. I may not have the first hand knowledge to say something about the Merkava with absolute certainty, but if you are implying that speculation requires 100% sure knowledge... well, then it wouldn't be speculation at all. The vast majority of posts on the forum are based on some form of speculation. When you said "I would also state that Merkava is better suited to handle urbanized warfare better than any other tank currently fielded and still be able to fight a high speed offensive enagagement, no other tank can state that claim." I would speculate that appears to be accurate, but I'm not really sure.

I think that to give an actual opinion on which is best, I would have to operate all of them for some time. To give a complete opinion I would have to know alot of things which just arnt avilable in open sources. However speculation is the base to discussion here, and as long as it is based on some sort of logic and data I think its fine.

Originally Posted by 19kilo30K4

No problem Sherman, I only mentioned it in the first place because that compartment definately is unique amongst MBTs. As for Palerider, I didn't know there was some special qualification that I needed to be able to speculate about tanks on the internet. I may not have the first hand knowledge to say something about the Merkava with absolute certainty, but if you are implying that speculation requires 100% sure knowledge... well, then it wouldn't be speculation at all. The vast majority of posts on the forum are based on some form of speculation. When you said "I would also state that Merkava is better suited to handle urbanized warfare better than any other tank currently fielded and still be able to fight a high speed offensive enagagement, no other tank can state that claim." I would speculate that appears to be accurate, but I'm not really sure.

I stand corrected, the word speculation was a poor choice to use.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

I think that to give an actual opinion on which is best, I would have to operate all of them for some time. To give a complete opinion I would have to know alot of things which just arnt avilable in open sources. However speculation is the base to discussion here, and as long as it is based on some sort of logic and data I think its fine.

I entirely agree.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

I think that to give an actual opinion on which is best, I would have to operate all of them for some time. To give a complete opinion I would have to know alot of things which just arnt avilable in open sources. However speculation is the base to discussion here, and as long as it is based on some sort of logic and data I think its fine.

And that is some of the speculation problem with this forum, there is no logic or reason but down right BS as to what some of the folks post on some of these threads, and no, that comment is not directed at 19k30K4 nor you. I came to this site because of a invite from Rock45 and I really do not fit in here so I will give this site and myself the courtesy of no longer contributing here. Please have administration or yourself close down my UserCP please.

That really is too bad. I really enjoyed reading your posts about tanks and armored vehicles.