we lost 4 m1a1's during the war???  this is a first.  i thought we didn't loose ANY.  i heard of the LAV getting blasted by friendly fire (ah64) - but this is a first!

any more info to back this up?

steve

I am no expert on this, so besr with me. I have
read a lot of books on WWII, from both sides,
and the German's suffered most from lack of fuel, air support, "jabo's," and the reliance
on slave labor.  I believe that if they had gone on the "total war" concept much earlier,
they might have prolonged the war.  Lots of
petty buorocracy (sp) hampered the war effort,
until Speer helped a little, in 1944, much too
late. What does this all mean?  It means that given freedom to do what was right, Porche could
have developed a superior tank than what was made.  The Tiger, as it was, could shoot it out
with ANY tank, given equal ground. Just my thoughts.  Thanks for reading, John

Favourite MBT-Tiger I revolutionary at the tiem of it's release, manned by top notch crews, with a wildly powerful gun, very accurate gun system, and very well armored. The downfalls of it-hand built, not very mobile-ever, not mechanically relaible, and too bulky to be transported effeciently.

Tiger II was a mobile (very limited "mobile") strongpoint and not really a tank, ideal for static defense a disaster on offense.

Greatest Tank- Sorry, but it may be the Leopard 2A4. Close to horsepower of the Abrams, but a diesel engine with better range. The fire control and main gun from the Leopard were put on the Abrams. The original Abrams (M1) had 105mm guns. (I was in FRG 3-ID we had them, my Brigade CO was Col. Creighton Abrams III, guess who had a tank named after his father?) Then the Germans came out with the 120mm Leaopard, can you say retrofit?(M1A1).

WWII- Russain tanks numerous and cheap. Main guns often ineffective. Very poor accuracy, and range-may really have been miute of barn door accurate at battle ranges. Present day versions are about the same, of course I don't think the T-80's, T-92's(?) were in that crazy iraqi's aresenal. All Russian tanks are air droppable though.

And while I'm at it we seem to have taken alot of our current armor from Germany. They have a IFV like the Bradley, the Marder. It has a 20mm main gun in (I think) a remote control turret. It has firing ports like the Bradley, and a remote control 7.62 mg mounted over the rear door. The 7.62 is mounted on the deck and teamed up with a video camera for remote controlled firing, checking the are before inf. unloading.

They also have a Gepard air defense panzer (anyone remember the Sgt. York?) Twin 35 mm guns and radar in the turret mounted on the Marder frame. Sgt York was supposed to be 1 or 2 40 mm guns/radar in a turret mounted on an M48 or M60 chassis....Coincidence???

The most interesting tank I remember is the Israeli Mikerva (sp??) It is an IFV/MBT in one. the back has an infantry compartment, (with AC and a water cooler (c'mon they are in the desert)). The driver has a chair that can slide back to the inf. compartment, on a rail. The engine is in front, for better crew protection, but any frontal penetration makes the tank junk. The main gun is a 105 mm in a skinny turret. The gun crew, commamnder, and gunner, actually are mostly down in the tank (kinda like a Bradley but lower) and also have access to the inf. comapartment. Don't know how many the have, but the sound similair in technology to the M60A3 fire control systems and are costly.

No, just the book I mentioned.  But it seems credible.  The author gives the names of the crew of the first two tanks (D24 commanded by SFC Steede and B23 by Sgt. Rhett), and devotes a page or two to each encounter.  I think the author must have talked to the crews to get the details he presents.

The description of the hits to the two C company tanks was much more cursory.

Note that, although the tanks were put out of action, that does not necessarily mean "destroyed."  They may have been repairable, allowing the Army to say with a straight face that it did not lose any tanks in the war.  Quite a few broke down, as is always the case with tracks, some were put out of action by mines, the Air Force bombed a few, and, apparently, at least four were knocked out by the Iraqis.

Looking over the book again, it does say that "T-72 kinetic-energy long-rod penetrators simply struck the frontal armor of several American M1A1s, who thereupon slewed their turrets around and destroyed the Iraqi tanks that had fired upon them."  (p. 255).  Kind of like the poor guys in WWII with their M4s fighting Tigers.

Anyway, the book is worth reading.  I was under the false impression that the Air Force wiped out the Iraqis, but they still had plenty of intact armored units left when the land war started.

Look I don't want to sound waspish, but no shit the Flakpanzer Gephard looks a lot like the Sgt York.  They both have tracks and guns that stick up in the air.  So what?!  If you want to shoot at aircraft, you have to have a gun mount with decent elevation and a radar system. And that's where the similarity probably ends because the Sgt York was such a rat turd, that even rigged test firings didn't make the system look good.  

Along that line, maybe the Sgt. York was directly inspired by the Wirbelwind series?  Not likely.  

The Soviet ZSU quad 23 mm looks to be much the same format. COINCIDENCE?? :)  It was said of Sgt York, that the Americans copied the Soviets, only they replaced an inexpensive, ineffective system with a very expensive ineffective system.  

I think that we have stolen a bunch of stuff from the Germans, but then von Moltke and all his cronies emulated our lead of moving concentrations of troops with railways during the War of Northern Agression.  Really, I don't think that the connection was all that tough to make.  And the Germans were some of the first to use Hiram Maxim's devlish device.  If you are a moderately smart general, you will recognize the general precept that tradition is important, but that technology can overturn existing doctrine on its head.  

I don't think that any one culture has a monopoly on effective organized murder of other people.  We're all damn good and too clever at killing.  

And again, there are a number of reasonably clever lads who have figured out that smaller munitions will very nicely breach the top or bottom armor of the heaviest behemoths.  That's what Strix was for.  And I imagine that the MLRS has missles designed for taking out tanks from the top.  

And Again, Tiger I, Tiger II, JSIII-- None of them are worth squat in a spread out offensive campaign because they are immobile behemoths.  Few of them are going to do very well against any aircraft armed with 37mm cannon or rockets.  Ask yourselves this:  How do you feel in your valiant 68 ton Rosinante of the best Kruppstahl, when you know that a droning swarm of Schturmoviks are going to throw  a concentration of rockets at you?  

It's the same old paradigm.  You work with what you have and try to take advantage of the enemy's weaknesses.  

wow! this post is getting better with age! - good point on the gepard / york comparo - but how come their's works and our's doesn't.  i saw something in 60 mins that the york was a total bust.....

so there were four m1a1's knocked out!  gee, ten years later and some of the white wash flakes of (kinda like the 'disease' some of the guys came back with, what was it called?)

anyway if we are talking modern mbt's - i'm in with no ar- leopard 2a4 / or a2'S'.  that sucker rocks in my book.  (and i noticed he also chose my fav. for ww2 armour the pzkwf VI tiger I, brings tears to my eyes....) and ustalina - your 'prose' at the end of your post is tooo f*ing funny, though only being a semi-simplton - i only got about half of it!  ah well - more to read up on!

steve

I suspect that the American military realized that automatic cannon are restricted to visual engagements, and that the unpleasant things with whirling blades sometimes like to hang out behind a hill and fire their missiles "over the top."  Guns don't shoot around corners, except for that modified StG 44.  

This deviant behavior is best countered by some sort of guided anti-aircraft missile.  

Also, when a ground system like the Gephard turns on radar to target an aircraft, life is likely to become very exciting and very short if there is anything like an anti-radiation missile around.  The Iraquis have occasionally found this out while trying to engage Coalition... er British and US aircraft patrolling the No -Fly Zone.  

My point was the Gepard an the Sgt. York were very similair in concept, down to the fact both used existing chassis to mount the ADA turret.

I'm sure that if 1 Gepard turns on the radar it might get exciting, but it's no different for our Chapparals, Hawks, etc. The Gepard was/is for close ADA for armor/troop convoys. It would be part of an intergrated system. And there would probably be IR missiles big and small waiting for the wild weasel to try and shoot a HARM etc...

I was just pointing out that we used and refined systems used in there armored vehicles. I really didn't think I would rile anyone.....Ustilina


NO-AR-:)   (well got me an M4gery.[;)])

Yup-- I shouldn't have gotten testy, 'specially as it sounds like you've got a lot of interesting experience with the armor.  

Point taken

Just a note on the Tiger 1's.

The Russians consistantly noted one of the Tigers' strong points was superior optics.  If you can see them first, coupled with a gun that can take anything within 1500 yards,...

Another was the quality of crews.  Very experienced and proven tankers of a couple years combat time were chosen to crew these vehicles.  Michael Wittman was a high scoring panzer ace in stugs before he went to the Tiger training school. This is not like the US situation in France where we ran out of tankers, rounded up infantrymen, and gave them a new tank to get their butts shot off.

Car and Driver magazine recently test-drove the M1A1 Abrahms Main Battle Tank.  The link is [url]http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2001/May/200105_feature_tank.xml[/url]

My favorite quote from the report:



EXCELLENT![8D]

[sniper]

Actually the newest mark of the Merkava has a 120mm made by IMI IIRC. Gotta upgrade to punch through the newer soviet armor.

Since Mr. Pogo mentioned Tiger Ace Michael Wittmann, does anyone know the real story behind his demise (Wittmann, not Pogo)?  One account I read claims his tank was destroyed by an aerial bomb through the engine deck.  A more recent account states that he was taken out by a British Sherman Firefly mounting the 17 pounder cannon.  Yet another story says he was hit on three sides by 6 Shermans (least plausible).

Recent allegations of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

There seems to be a real conflict on how Wittman met his demise.  Part of the problem is that he was fighting in a borrowed tank at the time.

Another problem was that the Germans had bigger issues to deal with in the fall of 1944.  I got an inkling of this when reading an article on Panzerfausts in Russia.  The counted tally of enemy armor knocked out by panzerfausts was pretty small, but there were a lot of destroyed enemy tanks the Germans knew about, but did not have a known cause of destruction.  The sucessful German panzerfaust shooter did not often survive the engagement....

The book "Tiger Ace" makes a persausive case that his tank was destroyed by Fireflys in a village.  Evidence this was Wittman was pieced together much later.

The other possibility was that his tank was blown up by Allied Jabo's.

I wouldn't rate a Tiger as the best, simply because their own crews hated them. The Tigers were referred to as "furniture vans" for their lack of manueverability and speed, both of which are CRITICAL to the lifespan of the crew. Also, when a Tiger broke down, the only thing that could tow it was another Tiger. This had a tendency to draw fire like shit draws flies. I would say that one of the best tanks, taking into account the time period, would be a later model Panther. Good armor, better reliability than the earlier models, wide tracks for soft terrain, good optics & rangefinding equipment, good commo (Russian Army had very little in the way of inter-tank radios), good speed, and a gun that would out-range anything it met, except for the guns in the T34/85 & the Firefly (maybe).

If you liked the Panther Ausf F, you'd have loved it with the Schmalturm  mounting the 88 Kw.K L/71mm gun. It never got past development stage.  

in reading the 'tiger fiebel' - it takes two hours and at least 6 oil level checks before the pzkfw VI could "go on march".  not sure what the starting discipline was for a panther.  i read the tiger crews loved thier tanks (early on!) as it was known as 'life insurance policy'.

 in tigers in combat vol 2 (?) there was a story about a panther that was guarding a bridge head somewhere in the east. i think this is how the story went -  several soviet tanks showed up and were promptly knocked out by the solo panther, then  more showed up the panther was now low on ammo. and as the panther was reversing the throttle cable broke!  then a crew memeber had to get outside, lift up the engine cover and manually operate the cable so as to allow the panther to escape!!  talk about a hard day at the office!

true, had the schmalturm panther seen production it would of been quite formidable.  actually, had the war dragged into 1946 things might of been quite different.

aside from the small turret panther, the jadgpanther was a great concept in too small numbers (220? built?)  this i think is the grandfather to the swedish 's' tank.

as far as the tragic demise of whittman - from the pic i have seen of the destroyed borrowed tank - the destruction of the tank surely indicates an air delivered rocket.

steve

Wishful thinking?  How is that?  He almost had his butt shot off on many, many occasions.  There is not a lot of difference between pressing a tactical advantage and a death ride.  Read "Tiger Ace."  The author has a bad case of hero worship, though.

Sherman Fireflys had a gun that was nearly as good as the 75mm KWK 43 in the Panther.

As far as Western Allies go, the 6 pounder destroyed more heavy German armor than any other gun.  

All it takes is a lucky shot.  Sgt. York could have been killed by a "floater" fired from 3 miles away, and Wittman could have been killed by a lucky 45 mm AT gun or T-70.  In short, start reading books and stop watching movies like Rambo.

I gotta agree with Pogo.  There are no supermen, and even the most competent, intelligent, ruthless and physically able person is going to run into bad luck over time.  You run over a big enough mine, or into random salvos and it doesn't matter if your name is Wittmann, Hartmann, Malin or Beurling.  Everybody's got a number with Death, regardless of ability.  You can't cheat forever.  

Dick Bong seems a good example-- 40 air victories in the Pacific, and a quick death as a test pilot.  

Sorry, Duffypoo.  It was not meant to be a flame.  

Your last post seemed incomplete and had the ring of a terrible naivety.  I had to say something, and I regret it sounded too harsh. I just looked back over your posts on this topic and saw you had had a clue as to what you were talking about.  

It is my impression that Wittman's fame is a much later thing.  He was well covered as a war hero in wartime Germany, but was only known among Allied countries much later.  Books dealing with Villers-Bocage written just after the war mention only a single "MK VI" tank, whereas later ones seem to dive into the Wittman thing in greater detail.  The Brits did not seem to have much of an axe to grind against this unknown.  For all the Brits know, he was killed when his tank was stopped by AT gunfire right after Villers-Bocage.  

The next war will be interesting to see how everyone's favorite the M1A does.
I predict w/o air support, this tank is very vulnerable. Copters with AGM's can hit the weakest part.
I predict the next big war will prove MBT's to be obsolete. The new trend will go back to mobility and high powered guns over excessive armor.
Of course I wouldn't want to be a crew member of such a vehicle.

In the next war, I would assume the M1 does well too.  All things considered, I would like to be in one in a tank vs. tank conflict.

I don't think that US troops will enter combat with less than air supremacy.  This will allow the whole arsenal to operate as it should - AWACS, JSTARS (or whatever they call it), attack helicopters, etc.  

In this case, hauling a 70 ton MBT around the globe when time is short is a luxury we may not have.  The Army's planned adoption of that 8 wheeled tank makes some sense.  These vehicles should be just as mobile as tanks with a longer range, less maintenance, etc.  The south African armored cars did well enough vs. tanks in the 1970's(?).  

If you can put 3 or so of them on a C5, you can build up a credible force in a weekend instead of the agonizingly long Desert Sheild buildup.    

I have seen the future of fast heavy transport, and it is WIG.  Well, maybe, if you don't mind a higher percentage of in-transport crashes.

Check out the site
http://www.se-technology.com/wig/

From there, go to the "All Listed WIGs" tab, and click on "L" Then look at the marvel that is the Soviet Lun, and see a new paradigm in lunacy.

Maybe if we built a big enough WIG you could get two or three of your M1 Abrams on board.  I think 1500 tons was the upper end in size.  

Anyhoo, I agree with Duff and everyone else on the idea that Wheeled vehicles can't go toe to toe with MBTs.  But there are plenty of opportunities for a high mobility critter with a big punch, as long as during manoever you aren't excessively exposed to 120mm fire!  

I respectfully disagree with the opinion that heavy tanks are a key to future ground conflict.  At the same time, I very well could be WRONG.  


As far as the SADF taking on tanks with wheeled vehicles with the Rooikat or Rooivalk or Rooi-something, I wonder if it wasn't in large part due to superior training, tactics and firecontrol.  Also, their opponents weren't probably equipped with state of the art equipment?  

Pogo, you got details about what the opponents of the South Africans were as far as training and discipline?  They also have their upgraded Centurion, don't they?  Complete with bathtub

Duff,

I think the times have changed.  We are not dealing with battlefields that are restricted to visual engagments. Technology is changing.   Look at what Northrop Grumman just rolled out-- an unmanned and mostly autonomous combat aircraft.  The French are doing the same.  

Admittedly, robotic aircraft can never occupy the ground, but I think that we are looking at a fundamental shift that does not favor large signature, high acquisition and maintenance cost vehicles.  We are entering an age of smart munitions, and excellent sensors, and if these smart systems prove serviceable in combat conditions, those Lycoming turbines are going to be very big targets.  


If I were a medieval fighter in the best armor of the day, I would not be pleased to go into combat knowing that a group of English archers with a 100 lb bows and  35 inch javelin-like arrows were lurking in the area.  Much less a windlass-cocked crossbow.  I'm gonna get hammered long before I can use my advantage in shock power.  Times change-- we all know that.

I think that tanks are big targets.  Ha ha, now I'll probably wind up staring down the barrel of a 120 mm wondering what the hell it was that I was babbling about!  :)

back in the early 80's when i was a msIII in army rotc at ucla- we had a visit from a gung ho higher up.  he told us combat survival stats for the various branches of the combat arms.  infantry, armour, aviation etc.  bear in mind this was still nato vs. warsaw pact all out war.  if i remember correctly, the survival rates were all less than 30 minutes!!!  it was at this point that i started to have second thoughts!!!

steve

I think there are times and places for both heavy and light forces.  Obviously, you don't want to have the 1st Armd div fighting in jungles or in mountains.  On other hand, in an area like Saudi or Central Europe, you don't want to fighting massed tank divisions with wheeled tanks and light infantry.  There has been talk about tanks being obsolete forever, but that day never seems to arrive.

The same goes for the panacea of air power.  Somehow it is going to make ground forces obsolete.  They said it in World II, they said it in Vietnam, they said it in the Gulf.  And they were wrong.  There were many Iraqi armored units that had plenty of tracks left.  And you can not attack all of those tanks with light infantry.  The heavy divisions were necessary.

After WWI, there were studies done and the US had a policy of emphasizing light forces because conflicts were more likely to be unconventional or in distant lands where strategic mobility was paramount.  Sound familiar?  We keep on making this mistake.  When we finally figured out we were going to have to fight WWII, we again ended up with a tank that emphasized tactical mobility over firepower and protection.  You guys know the results.

That is what is so great about the M1A1:  no comprimises.  It has the best mobility, the best firepower and the best protection.  The only drawback is the logistics tail required.

I guess I doubt the effectiveness of these "medium" units with wheeled tanks and the like; neither heavy or light, they are not going to be effective in either role.

But what the hell do I know?  Maybe helicopters, ATGM, and airpower will finally make the MBT obsolete.  But I don't think we should bet all of our marbles on it, because it has been said before.

Any new scenarios for the US Army are probably going to be rapid deployment. I am sure the "bloody infantry" would rather have a under armoured wheeled vehicle over waiting months for the M1A's to arrive by ship.
"Remember Somalia"
It will be interesting to see what supersedes the M1A.

All I really remember of the South African armored car battles was the mindset of the crews.  They proved they could fight a hard fight, but going up against tanks was suicide.  In the end, they made out pretty well.

If I remember right, they were just T-34's but manned by Cubans.  Nothing special, and their training was probably the same as Soviet soldiers planning on rushing NATO in Germany.

It was the mindset of armored cars vs. tanks.  Sorta like the Polish cavalry vs German tank story.  The equipment was up to the task, but the mentality was not.  

The US military will never field any WIG craft because the Navy and the Air Force won't be able to agree on who would get them. [(:)]

Would like to see a WIG type plane landing on an aircraft carrier. An emergency of some sort and the guys are trying to save the  5000 GAZILLION DOLLAR plane.

That's why we need to give the Coast Guard total imperium over all Wigs.  Wig pilots could be known as "wiggers."  

Think of the panache, the elan, the corps d'espirit.  The thrill of catastrophic turbine failure due to "foreign object ingestion."

Despite all the potential disasters, I would love the bejesus out of a ride on one of those things.  

Try to name a good English tank. The best they had was USGI Lend Lease.
Same goes for the French.
The Pershing was the best American tank in WWII. It would have been interesting to see if they could have beat Russian MBT's. I am guessing they would have been pounded w/o JABO's.
U.S. strategy and combined arms would be better, but Russians would have more experience and more tanks.

For some impressive photos of M1's in the field, as well as WW2 and other armor, check out this site:

[url]http://www.armorinaction.com/[/url]


Of particular interest to me was the re-enactment of the Battle of The Bulge, which I believe was done on the 50th anniv. in 1994, go here:
[url]http://www.armorinaction.com/P8.html[/url]

Uh-- Gewehr-- during the German invasion of France, the Char bis tank dwarfed anything the germans had at the time.  Sure, the French didn't develop any tanks after that, but that was because they were a bunch of handbag-toting Vichy sympathizers for about four years.

Quote from the US Army Ordinance Museum:

"It was considered the best Allied tank in 1940 because of its cast steel hull and turret, high-velocity gun and standard-equipment radio. Its main drawback was that the commander also had to serve as gunner and radio operator. The 190 HP engine permitted a road speed of 23 MPH for the tank and crew of three. After the fall of France, these tanks were still in defensive use by the Germans on D-day in 1944. The Museum specimin was recovered from Germany's Hillerslieben Proving Ground. "


Granted, I don't normally consider French as industrial geniuses, but they have some winners.  

Give the Brits credit-- They were the only nation that had the balls and luck to resist the Germans.  They spent their last gold reserves to procure US arms.  They were an island nation without natural resources.

I have to say that I have all the respect in the World for the Brits, and if we were shipping them serviceable Shermans, why should they have concerned themselves with developing state of the art tanks?  

Those boys bled themselves white not buckling to the Germans, and we were lucky that they were there.   In 1946, the Brits came out with the Centurion, which can be considered a classic design.  

Brits produced the Lancaster, and the Spit, and later the TSR (ha ha ha ha ha they made a big mistake when they thought the F-111 was gonna pan out.)  

uh guys?  what's a WIG?  

and ustalina - "handbag toting vichy symphathizers" oh my GOD you're killing me!! too funny.

the centurion was a great design- definately a step up from the cromwell (and wasn't there a comet also???) the isaeli's used the centurions right up to the late 70's a believe with great effectiveness against the t-52s.  again training, moral and will took the day here.

dead eye - great site - thanks for the link, more LNPT.

here is another ignorant question.  during the gulf war - the 'V' symbols were used to mark the coalition armour.  i know the israelis also used this in the 73 war - and i think the germans did too in ww2.  can anybody shed light on origination of this symbol and translations?

tanks!
steve (sorry)

I think the magic recipe was balls, luck and a few miles of water. [NI]

Steve-- do a search on "ekranoplane" or "wing in ground" or "Caspian Sea Monster" or type in

http://www.se-technology.com/wig/

The biggest listed was the KS series.  Pretty interesting, but one wonders why they haven't been more widely adopted. There must be problems.    

A couple of points:
One, the original 120mm gun on the Challenger was the same gun that was on the British Chieftan. Good Brtish made  gun, but not a Rheinmetal.
Two, the USMC started their conversion to the M1A1 in the early 90's. They should be fully converted, active duty, by now.
Three, originally, and this is sketchy info, the armor on a Leapord II was spaced armor not chobam. I don't know if later versions of the Leapord upgraded or not.
Four, I think the 10 to 1 ratio on the eastern front included older Russian tanks. It is my understanding the T-34 (76mm) and the T-34(85mm) did a lot better. I've read that closer to the end of the war the Russians even had superior tactics. Which makes sense if you think about it. The experienced Germans were almost all killed, while the experienced Russians were still around.

OK finally read the WHOLE THING. Outstanding thread.

My favorites, as if anyone cares, are the T-34/85mm, Centurion, M1A1/2, and the Merkava.

A couple of things about the Merkava, it has a 60mm mortar and replaceable armor plates. Sweet, IMHO. The Merkava is definitely an uniquely Isreali solution to an Isreali problem. I did a google search on it, many results were very informative. Unfortuneatley, I didn't keep the links.

RE: the M4 Sherman, I think its main problem was that it didn't have a powerful enough gun. I think the M4 with the German 75mm long gun would have been a winning combination for a medium tank.

Four M1A1's were knocked out, not bad considering the number of Iraqi tanks destroyed. And if they were all returned to service, even better! I was most impressed with the tank fight at the Kuwaiti International Airport. The USMC with M60's vs. Iraqi's with T-62's and T-55's was a very unique battle.

M1A2 is the best tank yet, as far as for hunting down and killing other tanks and surviving on the battlefield.

The Merkava is cool too, not having its engine up front is the M1's biggest design fault.  The Best tank would have the Merkavas hull shape and the M1's armor, weapons, and running gear.

Merkavas with US standard electronics would have been a better choice than M1's for the USMC, it is a much better tank for the infantry support role than the M1 is thanks to its rear hatch.

The Merkava is an interesting design, for what little I know of it.

As I understand it, the huge rear doors was a result of a quick load ammo palletization thing to return the tank back to combat FAST.  Those tank battles on the Golan heights and the Sinai desert had tank "losses" at critical times due to the need for tanks to withdraw and rearm.  Sorta like the short turnaround times and procedures for the IAF Skyhawks.

Does anyone know of the replenshing times for fuel and ammo for the Merkava vs. the M1 and Soviet designs?  

Another question/observation:  The very experienced tankers on the Eastern front tended to load every nook and cranny of their tank with 8mm belts.  The stated combat load was a joke.  Even Patton replied the best way to improve American tanks was to add more machineguns.  Tankers tended to shred every little shrub that could hide an AT gun and look for metal strikes, and blast those with a main gun round.  

It seems this philosophy is long gone.  Machineguns on the M1 look like an afterthought, and the book which describes the development of the M1 states the loader's MG is a morale booster used to shoot at jets.  

Is the heavy use of MG fire really obsolete?  

The Bradleys are "supposed" to provide the MG and cannon fire to suppress AT weapons/infantry.

Anybody remember that article where Christian Phalangists were taking on Syrian armor with Milan and TOW missles?  The Milan crews were basically stalking the tanks on foot. If I were a tank commander facing those ATGM crews, I sure wouldn't mind have an M2 or Dashika on top of the turret.  But guess what, I am not :)

If the chances of fighting in confined areas are nil, then maybe flexibly mounted heavy machine guns are not all that useful.  It seems to me, however, that situations where tanks are ambushed will continue to occur.  

I bet that if we ever do have to fight in any situations where thin skinned anti tank forces are present, our tankers would be very grateful to have a flexible machine gun that they can rapidly bring to bear on a target, especially if it is elevated or depressed from the level of the tank.

Anybody know if tanks can effectively survey all aspects of its environment with all hatches battened?  My guess is: they can't. Yet.

As for the Merkava, I think it is cool, but the Israelis don't have a lot of land to patrol, unless they lanced back into the Sinai.  To me the Merkava is the modern equivalent of the Tiger II, and if it is mechanically reliable, I LIKE IT.