I think some great points have been made from all around, but the points I agree with most are turf and training. It’s like surviving in the wild when you get lost or stranded. Some untrained or unmotivated people have died in the wild even when they had all the necessary things available to them, while some survivors have lived even when they didn’t have anything. I think the same principle applies to this situation. A truly green, untrained, and inexperienced Merkava crew versus a well-trained, veteran crew of T-62 tankers need to watch themselves, most especially if they are not fighting in Israel where the tank itself was designed to fight.
It all comes down to conditions, variables, tanker skill, enemy skill, training, element of surprise, and a little bit of luck, but I think the general idea is that the Merkava is not a tank you want to mess with unless you absolutely have to. Even with that said, I think the Merkava is not indestructible like many people say it is, it would just require the right tankers and the right situation to take it down.
This reminds me of the infamous “AK47 v. M16” debate, to me it all depends on which fighter (or group of tankers) can use their weapon more effectively, regardless of age or capability. Great question though, I just hope our NATO tanks don’t contend with each other but work WITH each other so we don’t have to find out the answer to this question.
[dto:] I agree. A lot of it has to do with training and intelligence (i.e. surprise). Of course it’s all a mute point to all armour as soon as the A-10’s show up on station.
It seems to me too that in 1982 both the Syrian and Israeli armored forces took a severe flogging from helicopters armed with HOT and TOW missiles, from ground forces armed with similar, and from RPGs.
Tanks support infantry in the battlefield, correct? Their primary mission isn’t to go fight other tanks.
It all depends upon terrain. But no, it was found that the best thing to fight and destroy a tank is another tank. Tanks as supporting only went out the window in WW2. Lebanon was good defensive terrain with lots of choke points, single roads, etc. Great place for infantry and 'copters to stage Anti armor ambushes. In the Sinai or Golan, where tanks can exploit their stand off range, infantry can be supporting the armor by cleaning up various AT systems by the other side. And of course you have Air and Arty to work in to the equation. In the end, it is a combined arms team in most battlefields with the dominant and supporting arms dictated by the mission. Yes we grunts like to think all the rest of the military is there to support us as we stand or take a piece of ground, but the reality is everybody has chance to be the star player.
Ancient doctrine that got both the US and Britian (they got it even worse) in trouble in WW2.
Tanks look for and kill other tanks. The Main Battle Tank is our only offensive-capable (able to destroy another tank while on the move) anti-tank platform. All missile launching platforms must halt to deploy their launcher and stay stationary while the missile tracks the target.
TOW gunner’s got a DIP mission (die in place). As soon as he fires at a tank, the backblast attracks the attention of the other tanks in that platoon or company. He may kill the one targeted tank, but most likely the volley of tank rounds impacting on his position cause him to miss.
Rob, as usual you post caught my eye! Reason why? I’ve been reading a book published in 1948 titled “The German Generals Talk”. They almost quote your post! And they tell you why.
You are totally correct on guns versus missiles, but not concerning the TOW (or any missile system) as a DIP weapon. Employing TOWS, DRAGONS, MILAN, JAVELIN, etc, requires skill and stealth in employment. The open desert is not a good place for missile launchers for the reasons you stated, but throw in terrain, vegetation, buildings, etc., and you can give missile teams flank shots and kill zones that restrict the tanks maneuverability. It is training and tactical skill that make a weapon system a long-term success.
And reference someone else’s comment on M16 versus AK47. I’ll take the M16 every time, there is a reason those that carry the AK47 use the “spray and pray” method of firing…the sights suck!
Just the thoughts of a light infantryman turned tanker.