The myth of Israeli merkava tanks

Oh dear , the poor Merkava is being targeted by mere RPG-29S( big deal).
If you want to compare who has the bigger barrel* when it comes to tanks then I suggest we look at how the ChallyII and the Abrams have faired in 3 years of constant daily conflict against forces much larger than the meger Hezbollah units in Lebonan. Chally II has seen lots of combat and in one episode received over 70 rpg hits with no ill effect. The ChallyII is unquestionably the most protected tank ever built with RHA over 1.3 meters in frontal arcs. The M1-A1 known by the nickname of EL Cohones is illustrative of the toughness of this series of tanks. This tank became disabled during the Thunder Run in Baghdad and was shot with the 120mm main gun of another M1A1. The tank was still intact after this hit and so the air force was called in to hit the tank. This tank was hit with two Maverick AGMs and yet was still intact. I think the M1-A1 and A2 series are the second best protected tanks ever built. The Merkavas are producing many more casualties relatively speaking against a much weaker foe. Israel just isn't as tough as it used to be.

*keep it clean folks

[edit on 11-8-2006 by dbates]

Has the M1 Been under fire by modern AT weapons used by trained Special Forces?
Because thats what Hezbollah is (military wise) SF Brigade of the Iranian Army and this assesment was made by Jane's Intelligence.
Nothing in Iraqi insurgency compares to Hezbollah, skill and equipment wise.

Thunder run to baghdad was a different story, you were faced with Regular military, with poor morale and leadership... no big victory in my opinion...

You are Right The British Challeger 2s of the Royal Scotts dragoon and the Abrams series are the best because they are protected by thick Chobham Armor pluss some Depleted Uranium On the Front. Has Anyone withness the battle of 73 Easting in Desert Storm. The Shells of T-72 were flying off the Abrams tanks and in Desrt Storm the Iraqi Republican guard unleahed Spandrels and at14s, Hj8s and kornets upon the Us and British armor but they suffered no total kills, only mobility kills.
DU and Tungsten armor are equipped on the Abrams and Challengers an they provide the ultimate Protection which the MErkava 3 and 4 lack

In Iraq US Forces are subjected to heavier and worser combat conditions than the israelis, Abrams being hit by AT-14s which had dual shaped charge warheads but no apparent damage was dealt.

if you read the record The US destoryed tanks if they are disabled or they dismantle them to avoid the threat of capture.

The merkava 3s and 4s are poorly armored and the British Challenger 2 remains the best armored tank in the world

Originally posted by Gembelindo
The Shells of T-72 were flying off the Abrams tanks and in Desrt Storm the Iraqi Republican guard unleahed Spandrels and at14s, Hj8s and kornets upon the Us and British armor but they suffered no total kills, only mobility kills.
DU and Tungsten armor are equipped on the Abrams and Challengers an they provide the ultimate Protection which the MErkava 3 and 4 lack

In Iraq US Forces are subjected to heavier and worser combat conditions than the israelis, Abrams being hit by AT-14s which had dual shaped charge warheads but no apparent damage was dealt.

There has never been any proof that a Kornet has actually ever been used in Iraq i thaught it was only a rumour.

Also i don't think that there has ever been any Chinese HJ-8 systems in Iraq ever unless you have any further information on this.

My bad.. I did not Mean to add the Chinese HJ-8 into the Equation.
Anyways lets move on. There was a story where a suicide bomber detonated his 10lbs Explosive upon contact of the Abrams Rear. The Explosion damaged the Tank but did not Destroy it, The only injuries sutained was by a single crew member who was hit by pices of Shrapnel but not Losses were accounted for.
It is this kid of Protection that the Merkava 3 and 4 Lack. The Abrams Weighs Roughly 70 tons and carries more Armor But they can travel faster than The Merkavas. So if the Merkava was equipped with a Bit more armor and a Bigger engine To Compensate, the Merkava would Be a King on the Battlefield Like The Abrams is.
The American tank brigades in Iraq were exposed to a more volatile landscape where Suicide Bombers and Rooftop Rpg attacks happen on a daily basis and dont forget Friendly Fire, An Abrams tank and its crew survived a direct hit by a Hellfire launched by an American Apache.
The Abrams is an example of battle tested tanks that Tank makers can take example from. Merkava Is lame No Du armor and Thin Turruet Armor

dude,a 10lbs charge won't damage the Merchava whatsoever.
but a 300-200 KG of explosives under the tank will.
it will also destroy every other modern tank ...

Iran produces the ( close to ) lates russian ATRs. That is the difference between Iraq and Lebanon. Hizballah ,wich is a highly diciplined fighting force, has probably used some of their rocket-launches to draw the IDF into an ambush- Individually these rockets dont do much damage in Israel, so they would be better as this kind of trap. The trap must have worked a few times. Now Israel will not easily fall for that again and will fire untill tomorrow. ( at least ).

And when irontyrant claims that the insurgents in Iraq are a stronger force he is ofcourse mistaken.

Just the idea that US and britain run around "driving" these expensive weapons is spurious. They are hidden away in their barracks, or well protected by amassed infantry.
The merkava has gone into another type of combat against a foe that has been well rested and prepared for 6 years. Iraq was starved for years and the sunnis and shiites bombing eachother cant compare to the Hizbollah. No matter wether the muslems started fighting spontaneously, or it was initialized by western sabotage against mosques and markets.

reply to post by iqonx


TextEarly in the Ground war two M-1A1 were destroyed by "Russian Anti-Tank" Missles which hit the tank in the back. Crews survived. Also during the ground war a M-1 flipping over on bridge and crew and tank were loss. Also a M-1A1 was destoyed by land mines set up one on top of another(?) The Challenger 2 has had engine problems in the desert of Iraq but no losses. Other than US UK do not know if other coalition members have brought other tanks to the war or how they have faired. Love to see the US buy at least 100 Challenger 2 and add 1500 HP Turbine Engine.

Originally posted by torresm1
reply to post by iqonx

 

TextEarly in the Ground war two M-1A1 were destroyed by "Russian Anti-Tank" Missles which hit the tank in the back. Crews survived. Also during the ground war a M-1 flipping over on bridge and crew and tank were loss. Also a M-1A1 was destoyed by land mines set up one on top of another(?) The Challenger 2 has had engine problems in the desert of Iraq but no losses. Other than US UK do not know if other coalition members have brought other tanks to the war or how they have faired. Love to see the US buy at least 100 Challenger 2 and add 1500 HP Turbine Engine.

CR2 has never had engine problems...Although there was a problem in the 03 invasion of powdered sand being sucking into the engine. This was resolved by adding skirts down the side of the tank. Turbine engines are also expensive to run and repair...
CR2's engine can also be re-mapped to produce in excess of 2000bhp at the obvious cost of increased maintainance and fuel consumption.
The only good thing about a turbine is that they are stealthly and have a smoother acceleration.