The tanks are designed differently to fight in different environments.

The Merkava is designed more to be deployed in urban areas where tanks and infantry have to work closely together.

The Abrams is a battlefield superiority weapon designed to win against numerically superior enemy in the open terrain of Germany's Fulda Gap. Turns out it's also handy in the desert.

The Abrams has a jet exhaust. It will cook soldiers trying to hide behind it without a special vent to throw the exhaust up. The older M-60 tanks were better for troop support. They were diesel powered like the Merkava. They even had a handset in the back that troops could use to communicate with the tank crew.

The Merkava has a front mounted engine, freeing up space at the back for infantry. One thing they don't tell you is that the Merkava has to dump 50 of it's 60 rounds of ammo for those 8 infantry soldiers. The Merkava was also designed specifically for Israel, where urban combat is the norm.

About the Abrams' exhaust. While it's about 1000 degrees coming off the turbine, at 5 feet it's about 150 degrees so infantry have no trouble standing close to it. Not like you want too anyway, tanks are bullet magnets.

Originally posted by Kozzy
While it's about 1000 degrees coming off the turbine, at 5 feet it's about 150 degrees so infantry have no trouble standing close to it. Not like you want too anyway, tanks are bullet magnets.

Yeah but the thing is the tank is cover. Five feet looks like a long distance when you out in open. Of course tankers wouldn't understand. In the second half of the movie 'Full Metal Jacket' when they assault Hue City you can see what I described about the M-60 helping infantry. Also in urban areas infantry keep the tanks from getting hamstrung by AT stuff.

Abrams tank is basically a land shark that eats other armor. That thing is a killer, but not ideal for close support for troops. Bradley is for working with infantry.

Thing is, you won't see infantry and tanks that close even in an urban enviroment. Infantry try to stay away from tanks because they attract rocket and missile fire, so it's better to just seek cover elsewhere. Infantry don't have to be that close to a tank to supress AT teams either. I agree the Abrams is more ideal for fighting other armor in the open, but with the new MPAT round it gives a nice bunker busting punch.

I thought the Merk was designed in the late 1970s after the experiences of the 1973 October war? THe goal was to develope a tank for the 24 hr battlefield in places like the Golan. I gather that when tested against the Abrams the Merk had better mobility on the Golan Heights due to better suspension? The fact that they have also been able to adapt the design to excell in urban combat is a plus and reflects very well on the tanks design.

Merk is a very survivable tank. Israelis figured crew survivability was paramount in tank design. Experienced crews are harder to develop than the tanks they operate.

Kozzy I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

The Merkava can carry 60 120mm rounds, more then any other tank. If it wants to carry infantry it has to start dumping them. A Merkava won't usually carry 8 infantry, probably 6 at most, if any at all. So ammo isn't a problem at all.

Crew survivability was the Merkava's first design point, it's probably the best protected tank in the world.

I don't think the Abrams and Merkava were ever tested against each other, especially not on the Golan. The Israelis were never interested in the Abrams.