It’s a couple days late, but in case you missed it, Gen. Israel Tal who helped design what many believe is the world’s best tank, died a couple days ago in Rehovot, Israel.
Born in 1924, he held a series of important posts in the course of an illustrious military career, leaving the army as deputy chief of staff.
He is considered one of the best five armored commanders in history, alongside U.S. Gen. George S. Patton, Gen. Creighton Abrams, German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and Israeli Maj. Gen. Moshe Peled, according to the Armor Museum at Fort Knox, where he is commemorated.
Tal oversaw the design of the Merkava tank — Hebrew for “chariot” — which is widely seen as one of the best of its time. The tank was created to ensure the safety of its crew by placing the engine at the front, allowing crew and medics to enter and exit from behind, even under fire.
The tank was also developed for Israeli terrain, particularly specializing in long-range fire, according to the Armor Museum. The Merkava tank entered combat in the 1980s.
The Merkava is an amazing tank, no matter how you slice it, and the fact that it was designed by a tank driving hero of the ’67 Suez war and the ’73 Yom Kippur war is a testiment to the idea that gear should be designed from the ground up “by the warfighter.”
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
In a partial refutation of the "designed from the ground by the warfighter", look at Kelly Johnson. I don't think he served in any wars, but he contributed greatly to the Cold War arsenal of freedom. However, stuff like the A-10 had serious input from the warfighters.
I suppose he dies happy, knowing that Israel is comparatively safe from its enemies, compared to the 40's and 50's.
I guess that's all some people can do is try to hit talking points to distract from the story. Pity they have such self loathing they can't see any good in themselves or anyone else. No need to always just detract from things.
Don't read too much into it. Perhaps the better rule would be "when you can have a tank designed by one of the 5 greatest armored commanders in history, go for it".
Montgomery was a far better tank commander than Peled.
I think Monty's strengths were more as an army/theater commander. Though brilliant at times, he had too many flaws to be in any top 5 list.
Miles Dempsey would probably be the top Brit for this list.
I think I'm going to love this thread. 5 best armor Generals and no Guderian, no Model listed yet. Let's get this on guys! FIGHT! :-D
I was a bit shocked by that list as well. No Guderian!? Come on, the Germans invented combined-arms mobile warfare of which the Panzer was a centric piece. Germany's problem was they could not produce enough armored fighting vehicles to carry infantry so as to maintain a concentration of forces after the breakthrough at the "schwerpunkt".
Ironic that this weakness in doctrine and design was overcome by a Jew who designed a tank that could carry an infantry squad.
I also find it interesting that the article says the Merkava was designed for long-range fire as the first two variants only carried a 105mm (RO L7) design gun. I guess they realized, like the US Army, bigger is better for anti-armour and moved to the 120mm in the III and IV versions.
Interesting vehicle nonetheless.
They used the L7 gun in the Merkava, which was the standard with the Leopard tank (and many others). Not for range, probably out of cost-effectiveness. It's not a bad gun…
Surprised the armor museum didn't comment on the 60mm mortar, which is probably the more interesting feature…
No history expert but am likewise shocked by the omission of Guderian from this 5 best list. I guess von Manstein doesn't make the list because the armies he commanded were primarily infantry, although they included as much armor as the Germans had at the time.
I, too, am shocked at the ommission of Guderian-he literally wrote the book on Armored Warfare Tactics. I'm not shocked at the inclusion of 2 Israelis on the list: their tank forces have, dare I say, routinely routed superior (by number) Arab armies, often attacking on multiple fronts.
And you're an "EXPERT"? How and why, other than your own delusions? What makes you an expert on the matter?
Montgomery was a supercilious clown
Bob, I don't think the Israeli's would have approved a german in the list even though at least one should have been.
the last time i checked `the desert fox` aka Rommel was German , and in the list.
Rommel is the most famous, but Rommel, Model and Guderian can be more or less considered to be there as a block under the one name….
You're not going to have multiple Nazis for much the same reason you will have multiple Israelis.
As noted, it doesn't really matter. The point, as Brian said, is "when you can have a tank designed by one of the greatest armored commanders in history – however you number them – go for it".
The man designed a damn good lump of steel.
Pick one purpose, and one terrain to fight in, and build a fairly simple basic chassic unashamedly optimized for that. Which is exactly what the M-88, 0.5" HMG, F-15 and A-10 – and the Merkava – did, and guess what – despite more upgrades and updates than you can shake a pointy stick at, they're still here – and a lot of people would (justifiably)rather have them updated than anything new.
Give the baiting a rest David
This is BS. The top 5 include 2 israelis? They've only fought for a total of what, 1month of real tank warfare? And they're better than all the other tank commanders in WW1 and WW2? You've got to be kidding me! Another total bias list.
Thor, Different kind of wars and different tactics. WW1 the tanks were crap and only used as mobile pillboxes. They could only be driven a max of 5 miles before all of the bearings had to be replaced and the french tanks were easily peirced by rifle fire. As far as WW2 goes tanks were mostly used by the allies as infantry support vehicles and few besideds patton and rommel understood how to use them as a weapon onto itself. In the 67 and 73 wars it was conducted under ideal conditions for a tank war. Israel took on most of the arab world and was faced by overwhelming numbers of arab tanks and they out meneavered and out fought them. In the 67 war Israel was using old WW2 sherman tankes that had been modified to mount 105mm canons. They had to cut out the rear of the turret to give the breah recoil room!
i thought the Merkava started of as a backwards centurion tank
Centurion has engine in rear and the pilot partly reclined. They do share common tracks though, and the IDF has used the Centurion before..
i just found this , looks like they used it as a demo prototypes for the merkava http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/IL_Armor_…
The Merkava may well be a good tank for Israel, but the original versions are underpowered and the original 105mm gun had no real hitting power, so it's a good thing they never had to fight a tank on tank over long ranges with this vehicle. It was and remains a decent tank for a specific purpose but is nowhere near as good at all purpose as a Leopard II, Challenger or Abrams.
SB
Steve, in Yom Kippur the Israelis were using and M-60s, which were armed with a 105mm gun to the Soviet T-62s with 115s (and that assumes a uniform armored force on both sides, the real force probably had some M-48s and T-55s, etc).
The lesson the IDF learned was that their tanks were doing alright against the enemy tanks when on the defense and using superior gunnery. To them, surviviability was probably more important than hitting the enemy first, especially in an ATGM environment where an ATGM can outrange the gun.
Yom Kippur War was 40 years ago. Might as well have been WWII for all the advances in tank design and technology. The M60 and T62 were practically WWII generational tanks for that matter. The Israelis always new that training and gunnery were crucial and they've always been good at it.
To state though, that a Merkava is an amazing tank and one of the finest of it's time, is true, in that the time was 20 years ago. Abrams was far superior then and now. Ditto Leopard and Challenger. The US, German and UK designs had better maneuverability, better armor, better guns and generally better electronics, though that's an area the Israeli's have always excelled at, so maybe a draw.
My point is you take the Merkava out of Israel and make it fight in a different environment, such as some of the long range engagements of fast moving forces that occurred in Kuwait in '91, as example, and you start to see that it's only just a mediocre tank for the current generation.
SB
How is Von Manstien not on that list? He was perhaps the greatest operation lever commander of the Second world War.
woops
*operational level
Yes, Operational Level and Staff Officer, sure you've got a debate there. But the list is strictly Armor Commanders, meaning Officers from the Armor/Cavalry Community, not Infantry dudes who happen to have Armor units in their Division. It would at first seem bias that Israelis have two on the list, until you consider the fact that besides America, Germany, and Israel, no other country has made USEFUL groundbreaking tactical doctrine in Armored Warfare. Both the Russians and British used their Tanks primarily as Infantry support in WWI and WWII. The British even spent most of WWII purposely designing their Tanks around Infantry needs.
and he dared question an order…..from an temporary power tripping pol.
How is infantry support not useful?
Infantry support as in "The tanks directly supported the infantry and were designed to have a top speed of 10mph" Both the Matilda and Valentine were purposely designed with "walking" speed.
Merkava is more limited mobile "pillbox" than tank
Which is what it was designed to do. British and American tanks have historically gone for priorities of armour, gun and manouvrability in that order (where German ones are gun, armour, manouvrability, and Russian and French are manouvrability, gun, armour).
The Merkava started out as a concept based on an already none-to-nippy Centurion, and then the designers were told to make it survivable above all else. Range and speed are kind of irrelevant in a defensive ground war, so a pillbox is perfectly acceptible.
Naff all use if you're the Soviet 1st Guards and want to roll all the way across western Europe before the Americans arrive, and naff all use if you're the Americans wanting to fight a war of manouvre across half of Iraq, but perfectly fine for the Israelis.
this is a good tank how would it compair to an abrams which is faster and has a harder hitting 120mm round ?
Scott: The 105's were in Merkava 1. New Merkavas have the 120mm's…
Abrams is faster due to its one mile per seven gallons gas turbine engine. Given speed for the Merkava is ~40 mph, but I presume that's a governed speed and not a hard-and-fast speed limit. In the end it's who-sights-who first, who has the favorable terrain, moreso than hardware. The Israelis fought Six Days and Yom Kippur with older, appropriately upgraded WW2 hardware against a similar mixture of new Soviet hardware and older Soviet equipment…
What good does speed do you when you trying to advance through hills, mountains or urban areas? The Merkava is perfectly suitable for the IDF considering the terrain they are most likely to encounter. The IDF Centurion, M48 Pattons and Super Shermans did fine against Arab armies equipped with faster T-62s.
Besides, it's not like the hostile nations around them even have armored units capable of being employed in maneuver warfare.
Scott,
This tank was designed to fight in the urban area's and not open country tank on tank warefare. Because it also sports a mortar system and can carry infantry soldiers its also the worlds only tank that is capable of conducting patroling operations independently (without supporting vehicles and infantry)
Apples and oranges, they're both fruit, but…The Abrams was designed to execute a doctrine (first time we did that too, historically we'd build a 'better' tank and kludge the doctrine to make it fit.) Merkava was designed to a different doctrine, different arrangement of trade-offs, not necessarily comparable in isolation. The Soviets I expect built to budget, ie, what's the best tank we can afford to build 50,000 of and get marginally trained 2yr conscripts to use without killing too many of themselves off?
Merkava in many ways echoes the Abrams in some respects. Both maximize survivability, but the Merkava is somewhat more versatile with the rear compartment, whereas the Abrams uses the gas turbine engine for better speed. In the Merkava's defense they might be close in strategic mobility, as the Merkava may have better fuel economy, and thus require less of a logistical tail and have less fuel stops. I don't know how America intended to address the fuel issue after a few days of fighting the Fulda Gap, when any fuel convoys are likely to have been chewed to bits, and any fuel dumps were likely to be smoking holes in the ground.
Additionally the Merk is diesel whereas the Abrams is…JP-8 I think? Maybe it runs on diesel too, but the rest of the American military uses diesel.
Last I knew JP-8 was the fuel of choice for all army ground vehicles, the 'one fuel forward' concept.
Excellent video
Not sure where I got one in seven, but a revised search does show the .33 mpg gallon figure is accepted elsewhere in the literature.
I've always wondered about the indirect fire 60mm on the Merkava. What exactly are they using it for? Indirect fire with HE? Laying smoke or marking targets far away?
All of the above you mentioned, also illuminating rounds (IR and visible).
The Israelis are fond of the mortar because it saves cannon ammunition. That, combined with a ridiculously amount of 105 or 120mm rounds, apparently helps them conserve ammunition in extended missions…..
I love the Merkava! Israel knew they couldn't keep up in man power and training speed being surronded by Arab countries, so putting the power-planr in front for added protection( & easy maintenance) to the crew was great. Then the added bonus that it leaves room for infantry – wow! It figures it was a common tanker/Grunt to design it. Pound for pound the best armored vehicle ever!
The Discover Chan removed the video. :(
Montgomery was a Infantry man and used his tanks like plows. Although committed to a combined arms philosophy his actual use of his tanks was not exceptional. The tanker beret that he often wore was given to him by some of his troops in Africa. He was not a trained tanker.
Oh…Heinz Guderian was the innovator in tactics while Rommel was the strategic thinker.These guys introduced modern maneuver type tank warfare but many others had written on the subject but were not given the resources to carry it out as the Germans were.