This is a discussion on M1A3 Abrams Upgrade? within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Within the last 20 years or so the US was mainly fighting in theatres the Merkava was specifically designed for, ...
Within the last 20 years or so the US was mainly fighting in theatres the Merkava was specifically designed for, whereas these theatres were only one of many possible ones for the Abrams, resulting in trade offs for the latter.
What about keeping the M1A2 as the standard tank (since it is not contested by opponents due to lack of high tech opponents), and replacing a small number of them with tanks designed for the conflicts for which the US actually deploys and uses tanks.
Somehow reminds me of the possible doctrine shift from F22 to cost efficient, prop engined ground attack aircraft, though not as extreme.
EDIT:
@ Waylander: Sure its a trade off, but as you said, its versatility. You could do eg a 34 ammo + 4 troops combo or a very crowded 46 + 4 combo, and occasionally its done. My favorite is the 10 + 10 combo in the desert, that sounds like fun.
Last edited by Locarnus; August 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 PM.
tank.jpg would this work.
looks like a good idea to me. Its what Ive been talking about this whole time. Not exactly what I mean but its the best I could find.
I give you the mortar which is an interesting weapon for an MBT and seems to work fine for the Iarelis.
But the troop compartment is one of these half-myths that keeps looking like it would enable the Merkava to carry its own mech infantry .
One may very well carry a couple of soldiers in certain situations but this significantly reduces the ammo carried by a Merk. Other situations were this is usefull are for example ammo replenishment in fighting positions without the need to expose the crew and evacuation of casualties under heavy fire.
Nevertheless the compartment and backdoor of the Merkavas adds to their versatility but is far from making them a jack of all trades as every different usage of this capability comes with important trade-offs.
As far as I can tell based on the literature and some common sense smell testing, the reasons for the Merkava’s back door are:
1. It permits the crew to board the tank without having exposing themselves to small arms and artillery fire by climbing on the tank to enter through the turret.
2. Easier to replenish ammunition than handing up to the turret and through the hatch. Also safer when under fire.
3. By discarding or expending part of the main gun ammunition load enough space can be freed up to permit the crew of another knocked out tank to be rescued and shelter on board while the tank withdraws to a safe area to unload them. There is some question as to how restricted the Merkava’s combat capabilities are this ‘pregnant’ condition.
The mortar is another piece that may have an interesting rational. Some sources claim that the principle use is for clear upper story rooms during combat in built up areas where the main gun cannot elevate enough to be used. I would bet that they have, or are developing, a round for clearing rooftops too.
@Locarnus
That wouldn't make sense to me. The Abrams are already paid for. They are perfectly able to perform all the tasks one expects of them. A Merkava for example wouldn't have faired any better in Iraq.
What is needed are urban combat packages and new ammunition.
Tue upgrades were adressed by the TUSK I&II packages. Such packages are a cheap and fast way to add more urban combat capabilities. And one can use the tanks which may already be in theater and have fought the conventional phase of the war.
What puzzles me is the neglect of modern ammunition by the US. Billions of Dollars went into ways of enhancing the USA's unconventional warfare capabilities.
But the only new 120mm ammo they came up with is the canister. Although this is a good round a modern, programmable HE is a must. Defenitely much better than the glorified HEAT they use now (MPAT). There are several good rounds available. APAM from Israel or DM12 from Germany for example. PELE is also interesting for minimizing collateral damage. The Danes seem to like it in A-stan.
The ammo situation is one of the big misterys of US procurement...
As far as I can tell based on the literature and some common sense smell testing, the reasons for the Merkava’s back door are:
1. It permits the crew to board the tank without having exposing themselves to small arms and artillery fire by climbing on the tank to enter through the turret.
2. Easier to replenish ammunition than handing up to the turret and through the hatch. Also safer when under fire.
3. By discarding or expending part of the main gun ammunition load enough space can be freed up to permit the crew of another knocked out tank to be rescued and shelter on board while the tank withdraws to a safe area to unload them. There is some question as to how restricted the Merkava’s combat capabilities are this ‘pregnant’ condition.
The mortar is another piece that may have an interesting rational. Some sources claim that the principle use is for clear upper story rooms during combat in built up areas where the main gun cannot elevate enough to be used. I would bet that they have, or are developing, a round for clearing rooftops too.
Good post, these are some of the lessons learned from past conflicts, people tend to focus on the rear hull use for ground pounders due to lower level skirmishes that have been fought pretty much during Merkava introduction; Given a pure defensive posture this tank by far is the one I would rather be in versus some of the other models currently serving.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
@Locarnus
That wouldn't make sense to me. The Abrams are already paid for. They are perfectly able to perform all the tasks one expects of them. A Merkava for example wouldn't have faired any better in Iraq.
What is needed are urban combat packages and new ammunition.
Tue upgrades were adressed by the TUSK I&II packages. Such packages are a cheap and fast way to add more urban combat capabilities. And one can use the tanks which may already be in theater and have fought the conventional phase of the war.
What puzzles me is the neglect of modern ammunition by the US. Billions of Dollars went into ways of enhancing the USA's unconventional warfare capabilities.
But the only new 120mm ammo they came up with is the canister. Although this is a good round a modern, programmable HE is a must. Defenitely much better than the glorified HEAT they use now (MPAT). There are several good rounds available. APAM from Israel or DM12 from Germany for example. PELE is also interesting for minimizing collateral damage. The Danes seem to like it in A-stan.
The ammo situation is one of the big misterys of US procurement...
Some of the reasons Waylander for lack of newer specialized maingun projectiles has alot to do to other assets available for field commanders, also the new fighting concept that we were all hell bent on wasting billions of dollars on did not help. But given these facts we do have projects that we are working on, if unsuccessful then we know that we can procure technology advancements from another country which seems to be the norm as of late due to the global economic crisis.
Also being part of NATO and having compatible guns help also during times of possible war, in the event that we need say a projectile from Germany it would not be hard to add ballistic solution information to our fcs computers, they are designed for this type of situation.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
I know that usually a US commander has more options available than commanders of other nations. But after years of high and low intensity fighting in Iraq including tanks one would have thought that the small summ needed for a new HE gets invested. From the comments I have read from tankers who served in Iraq I got the impression that they would have welcomed a decent HE to supplement the HEAT/MPAT rounds.
As far as I can tell based on the literature and some common sense smell testing, the reasons for the Merkava’s back door are:
1. It permits the crew to board the tank without having exposing themselves to small arms and artillery fire by climbing on the tank to enter through the turret.
2. Easier to replenish ammunition than handing up to the turret and through the hatch. Also safer when under fire.
3. By discarding or expending part of the main gun ammunition load enough space can be freed up to permit the crew of another knocked out tank to be rescued and shelter on board while the tank withdraws to a safe area to unload them. There is some question as to how restricted the Merkava’s combat capabilities are this ‘pregnant’ condition.
The mortar is another piece that may have an interesting rational. Some sources claim that the principle use is for clear upper story rooms during combat in built up areas where the main gun cannot elevate enough to be used. I would bet that they have, or are developing, a round for clearing rooftops too.
@3: That is a drastic understatement of the versatile Merkava design.
It would be better described as:
3a) Emergency shelter (as you said, but not only for knocked out vehicles but also for normal ground troops, especially in urban environment).
3b) Troop transport for up to 10 ground troops (It is a myth that this capability is a myth! This is an integral part of its design, not some nice side effect).
3c) Ambulance and medevac (The standard complement of a "tankbulance" is a medical team of 3, there is space for 2 to 3 stretchers and some nice medical equipment).
The troop transport is not a primary design capability, but the Merkava is used as a troop transport not only troop evac (eg in 2006 Lebanon).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
@Locarnus
That wouldn't make sense to me. The Abrams are already paid for. They are perfectly able to perform all the tasks one expects of them. A Merkava for example wouldn't have faired any better in Iraq.
What is needed are urban combat packages and new ammunition.
Tue upgrades were adressed by the TUSK I&II packages. Such packages are a cheap and fast way to add more urban combat capabilities. And one can use the tanks which may already be in theater and have fought the conventional phase of the war.
I think it would be worth it for the US to go for a small number of Merkavas. They are considerably better suited for Urban environment and rough terrain, because those are the specific theatres they were designed for (eg the abrams is clearly designed to "face" the enemy, whereas the merkava puts much more emphasis on 360 or 270 defence for urban environment). Also the lower fuel consumption and especially the versatile rear area (troop transport, tankbulance, emergency evac aso).
There is a reason why Merkava addon developments slowly filter through to Abrams (eg Droid, Thor).
But in which situation has the Abrams suffered from any drawbacks of it's design compared to the Merkava? A M1A1 with TUSK is ok for urban environments. Even without these add-on it performed very good. Just have a look at the Thunder Runs and at Falluhja.
Mobility has never been a problem of the Abrams in recent conflicts.
The room in the back is nice to have but hardly decisive. Especially when one considers that the Abrams represent sunk costs and the US has Bradleys available.
A new Merkava Mk.IV costs a fortune to buy and operate in comparison (it would need a completely new log chain). Not to forget that the crew in the Abrams is still better protected in case of an ammo hit. The Blow Out panels offer more safety than the fireproof containers of the Merkava.
@3: That is a drastic understatement of the versatile Merkava design.
It would be better described as:
3a) Emergency shelter (as you said, but not only for knocked out vehicles but also for normal ground troops, especially in urban environment).
3b) Troop transport for up to 10 ground troops (It is a myth that this capability is a myth! This is an integral part of its design, not some nice side effect).
3c) Ambulance and medevac (The standard complement of a "tankbulance" is a medical team of 3, there is space for 2 to 3 stretchers and some nice medical equipment).
The troop transport is not a primary design capability, but the Merkava is used as a troop transport not only troop evac (eg in 2006 Lebanon)..
You are thinking of the Namer heavy IFV and the Tankbulance. They use the Merkava chassis, but are not Merkava tanks.
It would be like saying the M-48 Patton tank has an 8" gun, because they built the M-110 using the same chassis.
I know that usually a US commander has more options available than commanders of other nations. But after years of high and low intensity fighting in Iraq including tanks one would have thought that the small summ needed for a new HE gets invested. From the comments I have read from tankers who served in Iraq I got the impression that they would have welcomed a decent HE to supplement the HEAT/MPAT rounds.
Yes we do need a good general purpose round, but when did DOD ever bother to field anything in a timely fashion, it took us how long to field our multi purpose heat round, this projectile was being talked about at Todd Hall back in the mid 80's and we finally got it fully fielded by the mid 90's.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
But in which situation has the Abrams suffered from any drawbacks of it's design compared to the Merkava? A M1A1 with TUSK is ok for urban environments. Even without these add-on it performed very good. Just have a look at the Thunder Runs and at Falluhja.
Mobility has never been a problem of the Abrams in recent conflicts.
The room in the back is nice to have but hardly decisive. Especially when one considers that the Abrams represent sunk costs and the US has Bradleys available.
A new Merkava Mk.IV costs a fortune to buy and operate in comparison (it would need a completely new log chain). Not to forget that the crew in the Abrams is still better protected in case of an ammo hit. The Blow Out panels offer more safety than the fireproof containers of the Merkava.
The problem with finding drawbacks of a weapon system is, that the field is often narrowed down by perception. You could say that the Abrams has no problems with the terrain, just because it is not used in the terrain it would have problems in. Like no one with a normal car complains about its capabilities in rough terrain, since no one would use it in rough terrain from the beginning.
I m not saying that the Abrams is inferior to the Merkava per se, just in some specific environments like urban and Golan like terrain.
And the versatile Merkava rear compartment (and the mortar and so on) offer (in combination) a significant advantage, let alone the Droid system (but afaik that is also tested on abrams).
I agree with the sunk costs and especially the new logistic chain, however when only merkavas are deployed in a long term or small theatre (abrams only for the short time mass invasion), only the base logistics would be additional, and there would also be a positive impact on theatre logisitics (eg due to the lower fuel consumption). And the bradley offers hardly comparable protection, eg for command post/tankbulance/troop transport when compared to a merkava.
And given the overall spending of the US the costs for 100 merkava would hardly be a decisive argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents
You are thinking of the Namer heavy IFV and the Tankbulance. They use the Merkava chassis, but are not Merkava tanks.
It would be like saying the M-48 Patton tank has an 8" gun, because they built the M-110 using the same chassis.
No, not the Namer, a Merkava which temporarily trades ammo containers for troops (up to a maximum of 4 crew, 10 rounds ammo (afaik) and 10 additional ground troops) or a command post or air or uav control post or whatever fits in. And the Tankbulance is what it says, a Merkava III or IV (yes, with turret) where the rear compartment is permanently converted to be a medical station.
But your argumentation to buys some Merkavas is based on the idea that it has several advantages.
I get were you are coming from but saying that the Abrams has mobility disadvantages is just not proved by real world experiences. So far the Abrams has not shown any limitations.
That the Merkava IV might prove to be better for the Golan is unimportant as the Golan is not a major operational area for the US Army whereas the IDF has to plan accordingly to their terrain.
I highly doubt that the Merkava Mk.IV has a much better mobility compared to the Abrams if at all. The running gear of the Merkava might offer some advantages but I bet they are not decisive.
As for urban areas. Yes, the Merk IV seems to perform rather well in them but a M1A2SEP with TUSK II is not what I would call unsuited for the usual support role it is employed in.
I already mentioned the situations where Abrams without TUSK kits faired fairly well. I just can't see the decisive advantage a Merkava Mk.IV offers.
I might be tempted to count the versatility offered by the room in the back as such a decisive advantage but the US is currently accelerating the development of the GCV. This beast should be able to fill all the roles mentioned with very good protection, less trade-off and defenitely better ergonomics for the guys in the back. Till then the Bradley is ok.
It comes down to wether the additional costs (and a new supply chain, training and procurement costs for a MBT are not cheap) are worth the additional advantages a second MBT offers.
I say no. The Abrams is the iron fist of the US Army HBCTs. This is the main role it is going to fill. In this role the Merkava offers no advantages which are not negated by the advantages of the Abrams.
There will, like in Iraq, be situations were it is used in a support role for urban combat. Is this situation really worth the costs or isn't a TUSK like package in combination with the other available US Army assets good enough?
And add-on systems like the Droid cannot be an argument either as they can be fitted to any vehicle.
Don't get me wrong. I really like the Merkava Mk.IV and I think that alot of thought went into it. Some of it's unique design features are very good and I think they should be part of other new designs as well.
Nevertheless it is no wonder machine. A M1A2 SEP Abrams, Leopard IIA7, Challenger IIE or Leclerc T10/11 plays in the same league.
The advantages are IMO just not big enough to justify another MBT with basically the same characteristics.
Yes we do need a good general purpose round, but when did DOD ever bother to field anything in a timely fashion, it took us how long to field our multi purpose heat round, this projectile was being talked about at Todd Hall back in the mid 80's and we finally got it fully fielded by the mid 90's.
The lack of such a round was painfully evident in Korea in the early - mid 90s. 2nd ID had the last 2 regular army M1 IP Battalions, kept in service primarily because of the lack of an HE 120mm round. We carried 105mm APRES, HEP and WP rounds in our go-to-war load out (something like 4, 4, and 2). We finally converted to the M1A1 in 1995, and while it was nice to get shiny new tanks (with that new tank smell), we missed the flexibility the 105mm gave us (not to mention having 52 instead of 40 main gun rounds and a bigger coax box).
The M8 AGS was intended to fill the gap in the infantry support role (and leave the M1s to killin' other tanks).
I remember in 96-97 everyone in my BN was waiting for the chance to volunteer for Airborne school to try and get into the first AGS BN when it was stood up with the 82nd but we all know how that went..... thanks Mr. Clinton for ruining my dreams of being an Airborne Tanker
