Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[Kidd]

The difference between an "assault gun" and a "tank" is debatable anyway

Which would a Stridsvagn 103 be?

[ANS Kamas P81]

Typically an assault gun, though that's not what the Swedes called it.  They said it's a tank, so presto, it's a tank.

It's like trying to call modern warships battleships or cruisers or destroyers or frigates; it's an old classification system (that works just fine) but design and build paradigms changed dramatically.

[Ruger]

by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank.  The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back.  Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.

Of course, not all modern MBT's have the engine in the back...reference the Merkava...

Ruger

[Sharpnel]

That's because the Israelis needed/wanted to put a squad of infantry in the back

[Sabelkatten]

AFAIK it was about survivability. The infantry capability only came about because somebody realized the entry door in the back was large enough to pass a soldier, and there was enough space inside for a couple of grunts.

[HobbesHurlbut]

As I understand it that's more true for the Whippet than the FT-17. For one, the FT-17 didn't have the ability to cross a full-width trench.

https://youtu.be/WC0fK9OaS3E
the Tail on the back is for that reason, Wereling. It help the FT-17 to cross trenches.

[marauder648]

Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive, sure its a mobility kill but when you've only got a limited number of tankers, they are harder to replace than a tank itself.

[Matti]

Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive, sure its a mobility kill but when you've only got a limited number of tankers, they are harder to replace than a tank itself.

I have read Israel has mission killed enemy tanks with 40 mm autocannons of Duster SPAAG: enemy crews panicked and jumped out of the tanks as 40 mm knocked on armour. I make a guess Israel has got vast reserve of tanks to replace losses, even if many of those aren't Israel's own Merkavas.

[marauder648]

Not really vast reserves and thats kind of the reason for the Merkava's big focus on survivability.  The tank crews are hard to replace, very skilled professionals who have had a lot of money invested in them.  If they loose a tank but the crew survives, its not a major loss. The tank can be replaced far quicker than a competent crew.

[Matti]

Not really vast reserves and thats kind of the reason for the Merkava's big focus on survivability.

Huh? So what has Israel done with captured & salvaged enemy tanks? Smelted them to build Merkavas?

[I am Belch II]

The S-Tank, I've  always called it a Armored Fighting Vehicle. Its not a tank...its a mobile gun. Its like a Hetzer or a Stug.

[Van Gogh]

Huh? So what has Israel done with captured & salvaged enemy tanks? Smelted them to build Merkavas?

They re-gunned them and distributed them to armored brigades. See Tirdan -5 and Tirdan-6, apparently not bad tanks in the 70's and early 80's.

by modern parlance the St Charmond could be called an assault gun, but that term didn't exist back in 1916 so it was a tank.  The FT-17 though was really the great grandfather of all modern tanks as it got the layout correct, with a driver in the front and a turret in the middle with an engine at the back.  Whilst the Mark I's got the ball rolling the FT-17 is the real genesis of modern tank layout.

At the beginning tanks were 'males' or 'females' depending on the main armement (machinegun or canon ?). Classification changed when engineers discovered the concept of 'coaxial machinegun'  ;)
Classification again changed with the apparition of the MBT. Perhaps it is time to change again and let go old names?

[PsihoKekec]

Before Merkavas went into full production they kept number of modernized captured tanks in reserve. Afterwards the T-62 were scrapped while some T-55 were converted to Ahzarit heavy APC.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Also it's not like the Israelis have only a few crews and a bunch of tanks for them to jump out of and run back to get in and drive to the front.  They mobilize all they can handle, Merkavas or Sabras or whatever; the point the Israelis consider is that their total population is less than 9 million and individual lives are very important culturally.  So like the Americans, they do a lot to protect their troops, tankers or infantry or whatever.  The idea of protecting the crew comes from that point of view, not "they can come back in a new tank" or anything.

[Sabelkatten]

The S-Tank, I've  always called it a Armored Fighting Vehicle. Its not a tank...its a mobile gun. Its like a Hetzer or a Stug.

They were used as normal MBTs. Remember, it's a pretty old design. Up until the 80's firing on the run was still pretty much "spray and pray", so the 103 was only marginally slower than competing tanks when it came to successfully engaging targets. And its low profile meant that had a good chance of spotting (and thus engaging) the enemy first.

Of course once the really modern tanks with modern stabilization became common it was dead in a maneuver fight, and its 105mm gun was too light in a world of 120mm and 125mm guns anyway.

[lrose]

Aye with the Merkava it was more about survivability, you put the engine and the power pack between anything sharp and very fast moving or explosive and it might help the tank survive,

By placing the engine in the front they could add the rear hatch which was intended to be used as a escape hatch so they could bail out from a disabled tank with out being exposed to enemy fire.

Also the space used to carry troops is normally used to carry ammo for the main gun. Carrying troops greatly reduces the amount of ammo.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Having that rear hatch would make loading a LOT faster than typical up-and-over through the turret hatches.  Save a few minutes (and some fatigue) per each tank crew, it adds up over a battalion or brigade.

[truetanker]

Wished the Merkava was in the game of Merc:2000 and Twilight:2000...

Wonder what it's game stats would have been...

TT

[I am Belch II]

Wished the Merkava was in the game of Merc:2000 and Twilight:2000...

Wonder what it's game stats would have been...

TT

Big gun like the M1A1 with more armor and maybe that 60mm motor.
I thought  the Merkava have the ability to carry passengers like up to 4??

[Wereling]

Big gun like the M1A1 with more armor and maybe that 60mm motor.
I thought  the Merkava have the ability to carry passengers like up to 4??

As many as 6 according to Wikipedia.

[grimlock1]

according to what i've found (which i'll admit is probably highly speculative even on the better sites) it would probably be part of the NII Stali Upper Hemisphere Protection Complex, which includes the two vertical and two horizontal steerable box launchers. apparently they are a "soft kill" system according to what little has been released. presumably smoke/chaff/flare/how-ever-you-do-it.
supposedly the larger tubes at the base of the turret are hard kill APS mounts, but there is some debate whether that is true (could just be smoke tubes and russia is hyping them up otherwise to make the vehicle seem more advanced)

nextbigfuture had this diagram made up.. grain of salt for a lot of it, i'm sure.


and the APC model:

Met sensor?  Meteorological sensor?

[I am Belch II]

Marian Hegemony light armor cav.

[Fat Guy]

[kato]

Met sensor?  Meteorological sensor?

Yes. To be exact it's a crosswind sensor for the ballistic computer. Pretty much standard in any tank since the mid 70s, basically introduced globally in parallel to laser rangefinders on tanks.

[marauder648]

There's a huge series of military gifs of all types here

https://imgur.com/user/hw97karbine

[DoctorMonkey]

Just been to a branch of the Royal Armouries museum at Fort Nelson just outside Portsmouth


Here's a link to the photos on Facebook (no, you don't need a Facebook account to look at them)


https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156790903125874&type=1&l=37851e3263

[lrose]

Having that rear hatch would make loading a LOT faster than typical up-and-over through the turret hatches.  Save a few minutes (and some fatigue) per each tank crew, it adds up over a battalion or brigade.

From what I understand the biggest advantage is that it only takes two crewmen to load the ammo allowing the other crewmen to work on other tasks.

[grimlock1]

Also it's not like the Israelis have only a few crews and a bunch of tanks for them to jump out of and run back to get in and drive to the front.  They mobilize all they can handle, Merkavas or Sabras or whatever; the point the Israelis consider is that their total population is less than 9 million and individual lives are very important culturally.  So like the Americans, they do a lot to protect their troops, tankers or infantry or whatever.  The idea of protecting the crew comes from that point of view, not "they can come back in a new tank" or anything.

Isn't the crew compartment on the Merkova also free of oils and greases to reduce the risk of fire?  As I ask the question, I have to wonder how you could do that and still keep things sliding properly... Graphite or silicone base lubricants?

[DoctorMonkey]

Isn't the crew compartment on the Merkova also free of oils and greases to reduce the risk of fire?  As I ask the question, I have to wonder how you could do that and still keep things sliding properly... Graphite or silicone base lubricants?

Fairly sure silicon based (silicone is the stuff in breast implants) and am certain graphite would burn


I would guess they avoid having pipework for things like flammable hydraulics able to spray into the crew areas

[Istal_Devalis]

Tank destroyer. Assault guns are meant to engage fortifications and dug in positions in direct support of Infantry. The S-Tank is meant as an Anti-tank unit.