NationStates Jolt Archive

Quoted from here: http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=52&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Originally from: http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000137768&fid=942

Merkava tank production
to stop within four years.

The IDF has decided that the Merkava tank production line will be shut down within four years. "Globes" reports that the decision to stop production of the tank, one of the most expensive projects in the history of Israel's military industries and the pride of the army, was made shortly before the outbreak of the war in Lebanon. Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.

During the fighting in Lebanon, the Merkava tanks sustained serious damage from antitank rockets fired by Hizbullah militants. The tank, which has been boasted as having the best protection in the world, and which was designed for classic tank on tank battles, was not impervious to the rockets. 500 rockets were fired at Israeli tanks, 47 Merkava tanks were hit (two more were hit by roadside bombs) and 33 IDF soldiers were killed.

Senior officials both inside and out of the military are critical of the tank's function in the war and of its economic necessity over the years. They question whether Israel should continue to invest in tanks as the central ground forces player. Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.

The prestigious project, which began in 1969 as an idea by Major General Israel Tal and has continued ever since, has cost about $7.5 billion dollars according to an IDF assessment while Ministry of Finance officials estimate its cost closer to $10 billion. Thousands of workers across the country are employed in production of the tank and its systems, and are liable to be hurt by the cessation of the project.

Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.

Haha, silly Israelis.

The tank is a mayor player on the modern battlefield. It wil stay that way for quite some time. However it wil not take back the dominance it had during World War 2.

This illustrates that only that even Advanced Armour is not impurivus to Anti-Tank weaponary. Well used however, it can be a formideble asset to any Natons defence. But as stated, invenstmentcosts are quite high!

Okay a Merkava takes at least 3 to 4 people right?

47 destroyed 33 dead.
I guess it is true, the Merkava is designed for crew survival.

AFAIK, 5 Merkavas were knocked out during the Lebanon War, and 45 others damaged to various degrees.

Okay a Merkava takes at least 3 to 4 people right?

47 destroyed 33 dead.
I guess it is true, the Merkava is designed for crew survival.

Exactly. This from am illustrated directory of tanks that I have:

"Being a small country with much less manpower than their larger neighbours, the Israelis cannot afford losses.... They gave armour protection their top priority in all future MBT [Main Battle Tank] designs, with firepower as the second priority and mobility third...."

Another interesting thing I noticed was in the last paragraph on the Merkava:

"[Currently] a new MBT is under development. This, it is believed, will be armed with a 140mm smoothbore gun"

This book was published in 2000, so that rumor may not be valid anymore, but still, this could point to what is next up in Israeli tank design, with much greater firepower than previous models (the Merkava has only a 105mm gun)

tanks like the Israeli Merkava and Abrams are only effective against armies that can only afford to use obsolete equipment...any army that deploys the latest technology of anti-tank missles can neutralize the best tanks at a very low cost.

tanks like the Israeli Merkava and Abrams are only effective against armies that can only afford to use obsolete equipment...any army that deploys the latest technology of anti-tank missles can neutralize the best tanks at a very low cost.

Fallujah and The Gulf War both resoundingly disprove this theory.

Fallujah and The Gulf War both resoundingly disprove this theory.

Yeah I actually agree. I think it is more a problem with Israeli inability in building tanks up to the standard of US tanks, or the crews of the tanks are not quite as adept as their US counterparts.

Simply seen if used correctly tanks are devastating, if not well,.....

Yeah I actually agree. I think it is more a problem with Israeli inability in building tanks up to the standard of US tanks, or the crews of the tanks are not quite as adept as their US counterparts.

Simply seen if used correctly tanks are devastating, if not well,.....

They just can't be used by themselves. They absolutely have to be used in conjunction w/ infantry who are trained in operating w/ tanks if you are in an urban environment. So far, the U.S. military is the only military who has perfected this art.

Fallujah and The Gulf War both resoundingly disprove this theory.Iraqi army was hardly a first rate army... 20 to 30 yrs difference in quality? Going to war with a third rate power wthat lacks air support isn't a realistic test of US armour.

I have close relative who commands a squad of tanks who always claimed it was the safest place on the modern battlefield, his father a high ranking tech expert with NATO always laughed at that claim("you'll last a few minutes longer son").
If Hezzbola can aquire technology stop Merk's just what could a well armed army do.

Two fish in a tank. One says to the other "how do you drive this thing?"

Thank you, thank you. Available now for births, weddings and other parties.

Iraqi army was hardly a first rate army... 20 to 30 yrs difference in quality? Going to war with a third rate power wthat lacks air support isn't a realistic test of US armour.
It's true that we pretty much won the entire gulf war from the war but when the two tanks faced off against each other the abrams performed excellently. Those tanks were not 20yrs off of abrams but were relatively modern russian tanks.


If Hezzbola can aquire technology stop Merk's just what could a well armed army do.
First off, they didn't really stop the israelis, they just killed a couple of them. The only reason that those tanks were destroyed was b/c they didn't use properly trained infantry w/ the tanks.

It's true that we pretty much won the entire gulf war from the war but when the two tanks faced off against each other the abrams performed excellently. Those tanks were not 20yrs off of abrams but were relatively modern russian tanks.


First off, they didn't really stop the israelis, they just killed a couple of them. The only reason that those tanks were destroyed was b/c they didn't use properly trained infantry w/ the tanks."relatively modern russian tanks"-that doesn't tell me very much. Russians/Soviets usually didn't sell their best stuff with all the bells and whistles. and tank vs tank isn't the question, it's the value of tanks vs modern anti-tank missles.

Israeli's I think may object to you referring to them being improperly trained, warfare in urban enviroments is something they've been doing for quite some time and you claim the US has one battle in a city and you're the best??

[QUOTE=Free Sex and Beer;11776241] Russians/Soviets usually didn't sell their best stuff with all the bells and whistles. [QUOTE]
What do you base that off of?

[QUOTE=Free Sex and Beer;11776241]Israeli's I think may object to you referring to them being improperly trained, warfare in urban enviroments is something they've been doing for quite some time and you claim the US has one battle in a city and you're the best??[QUOTE]

The concept of using tanks effectively in an urban AO is an extremely new concept. The tactics forged by the U.S. were developed at the Marine Corps War Fighters Lab. The israelis did not train their troops in our methods and therefor took unnecesary losses.

"relatively modern russian tanks"-that doesn't tell me very much. Russians/Soviets usually didn't sell their best stuff with all the bells and whistles. and tank vs tank isn't the question, it's the value of tanks vs modern anti-tank missles.
Nah, under the Soviet Union the Russians pretty much gave away the best military hardware they could produce to Syria, little Soviet stooge that it was.

[QUOTE=Free Sex and Beer;11776241] Russians/Soviets usually didn't sell their best stuff with all the bells and whistles. [QUOTE]
What do you base that off of?

[QUOTE=Free Sex and Beer;11776241]Israeli's I think may object to you referring to them being improperly trained, warfare in urban enviroments is something they've been doing for quite some time and you claim the US has one battle in a city and you're the best??[QUOTE]

The concept of using tanks effectively in an urban AO is an extremely new concept. The tactics forged by the U.S. were developed at the Marine Corps War Fighters Lab. The israelis did not train their troops in our methods and therefor took unnecesary losses.

as I stated earlier my relative was a high ranking NATO technical, weapons systems and spy type I've no reason not to believe what he told me, Russians tend not to sell their best technology to unreliable third rate powers.

Israeli vs US tactics-did the US face the same quality of ati-tank missles the Israeli's? I don't know. I do know the Israeli's weren't pleased the Hezzbola had aquired them and it certianly changed the arena the Merks had to operate in. I'm sure if the Abrams faced a portable missle that could take it out, it would affect the way it is used would it not?

and I should add, an Iraqi tank facing an Abram's would be severly handicapped not having air cover, something the Abrams crews did not have to worry about. To compare Abrams vs any other tank it would have to be a fair comparison, Iraq isn't an equal playing field. An Abrams vs the latest Russian tank with equal airpower backing them would fair (unlikely ever to happen)...and both would likely be taken out by some foot soldier with an inexpensive missle....

Israeli vs US tactics-did the US face the same quality of ati-tank missles the Israeli's? I don't know. I do know the Israeli's weren't pleased the Hezzbola had aquired them and it certianly changed the arena the Merks had to operate in. I'm sure if the Abrams faced a portable missle that could take it out, it would affect the way it is used would it not?

Iraqis do have anti-tank weapons that are capable of disabling an abrams. However, we don't just send our tanks forward to find the enemy like all other militaries do. We send the infantry first who clear all buildings in an area. When they encounter a building w/ enemies they get out of said building, call in the tanks and blow up the building. This way the tank is always going through already cleared terrain and the infantry doesn't have to clear a building w/ enemies in it.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l158/comradecaptan/destroyed_abrams.jpg
rathering disapointing seeing such an expensive piece of hardware destroyed by such a cheap missle. Also theres apparently 500 M1 tanks that have yet to be repaired from mechanical failures and battlefield damages.

Iraqis do have anti-tank weapons that are capable of disabling an abrams. However, we don't just send our tanks forward to find the enemy like all other militaries do. We send the infantry first who clear all buildings in an area. When they encounter a building w/ enemies they get out of said building, call in the tanks and blow up the building. This way the tank is always going through already cleared terrain and the infantry doesn't have to clear a building w/ enemies in it.hmmm....I don't think that's new, I thought it was common knowledge sinse WW2 that tanks need infantry protection to survive

Free Sex and Beer is correct, they found that out in the hedges of Normandy and the Vineyards of Italy.

and I should add, an Iraqi tank facing an Abram's would be severly handicapped not having air cover, something the Abrams crews did not have to worry about. To compare Abrams vs any other tank it would have to be a fair comparison, Iraq isn't an equal playing field. An Abrams vs the latest Russian tank with equal airpower backing them would fair (unlikely ever to happen)...and both would likely be taken out by some foot soldier with an inexpensive missle....

Don't forget the fact that NATO anti-tank aircraft are far superior to Russian anti-Tank aircraft, just by virtue of doctrine and style of combat. The A-10 and AH-64 are designed to kill advancing Soviet tanks, while the Soviet aircraft are designed to support advancing tanks.

Don't forget the fact that NATO anti-tank aircraft are far superior to Russian anti-Tank aircraft, just by virtue of doctrine and style of combat. The A-10 and AH-64 are designed to kill advancing Soviet tanks, while the Soviet aircraft are designed to support advancing tanks.

does it matter?...if two prize fighters are squaring off in the ring and one of them has the added concern of someone hanging above him on rope swinging a bat at his head, that he can do nothing about...who would win that fight, is it a fair test of who is the better fighter?

Good thing the Israelis are learning. MBTs aren't going to win the sort of conflicts the IDF has to fight.

Another example: The Bundeswehr has decided to reduce its stock of more than 2000 Leopard 2 tanks...to 350.

did some research...the Iraqi t72's are a 30yr old design, and they were the "export" model not the best the soviets had, T72's were not even the best Soviet tank, T64's T80 and 90 series were all better...so bragging that the Abrams can defeat a 30yr tank design that has no air support and then claim it is the best in the world is misguided....5 Abrams were lost in tank vs tank battles in GW1, but insurgents have destroyed 80 so far with inexpensive low tech weapons...

Noooooooooooooo! Merkava tanks were so damn good! I can't believe they are stopping production! :( I liked their desing, their technology and overall performance at worst conditions... I wonder what Israel will do now, perhaps design and produce a new and lot cheaper tank model, in larger numbers.

I wonder how English Chobam armor would fare against same rockets, if anyone comes by a video pls message me I would like to see.

About Gulf War, the America was against nearly blind old man with tanks buried in sand. Let's not forget those same old guys managed to take down AH 64 Apache's with old Lee-Enfield rifles :p
I guess no one heard Russia's comments on claims that they have supported Lebanon with advanced anti tank weapons? Russia said no, ''we can't risk Israel capture those weapons, we didn't supply them ( with new models ;) )''. Russians always give junk to those they support like America does and did under names like Marshall aid. Clearing depots and getting rid of scrapping costs, all the while giving their enemies a good headache :D

Yeah I actually agree. I think it is more a problem with Israeli inability in building tanks up to the standard of US tanks, or the crews of the tanks are not quite as adept as their US counterparts.

Simply seen if used correctly tanks are devastating, if not well,..... It was because they didn't have support in Lebanon, you hear how disorganized the advance was. These days Tanks without infantry support to distract the Anti Tank soldiers are sitting ducks.