Given our massive military budget, would it be too difficult to work out a tank/APC hybrid somewhat similar to the Merkava 3 (with a smaller gun and reactive armor thrown in as desired)? From what I’ve read about Bradleys, they seem pretty obsolete.
Well, they do have the Stryker. Whether that is an acceptable vehicle or not is up for debate.
Two Words–Powered Armor.
You’ll see…
Paladud, I don’t know where you are getting your information about the Bradley being obsolete. The only problem I have seen mentioned in technical/military discussions is that they are designed for battlefield use and are therefore “overqualified” for much of the sort of use they are presently getting in Iraq (convoy guard, street patrols, etc.). The Iraq problem is not that the Bradley is obsolete, but that they are front line combat vehicles, and the second line units, such as supply troops, don’t have any, and are using unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles such as Humvees instead. The Stryker is partly seen as a cheaper alternative for this type of use which doesn’t require the heavier armour and armament of the Bradley. If you want more details, there are a number of threads on this and related topics on the Discussion Group board at the AFV News site.
The Merkava is not actually a tank/APC hybrid, but a tank specifically designed to meet the Israeli needs for the kind of fighting they have experienced in the rough terrain of the Golan Heights and in urban combat. It has a rear door and space for carrieng people, but this is intended to allow the crew to escape from a disabled tank without having to climb out the top hatches where they are exposed to enemy fire, or to allow safe transport for crew members from another tank. There is not enough room for carrying infantry and their equipment.
The Israelis have rebuilt obsolete tanks as heavy APCs, but this is specifically for the type of urban combat that is happening in the occupied territories, where they need to protect against very powerful IED (improvised explosive device) roadside bombs and mines, and against close range ambushes by RPGs in urban streets. The normal method for handling this sort of thing is to shoot up potential ambush spots before you get close to them. This worked fine in WW2 urban battles, and would also have worked in a potential WW3 scenario, but is not exactly practicable in Gaza or the West Bank.
While the US could build the same sort of thing, so far they have not really had a use for them (not even in Iraq, so far, anyway), and they are of limited use outside of urban combat and are almost as heavy as a tank, which makes them even harder to transport than the Bradley (another reason why the US is buying Strykers).
Ok, let’s clear a few things up.
The Bradley is unfit for city fighting - it’s bulkier and less maneuvrable than an Hummer, and is very vulnerable to RPG hits. On top of that, the 25mm cannon is probably not as useful as a 50 caliber MG in an urban environment.
I know that Merkava is a main battle tank. I also realize perfectly well that there is no need for a substitute for the Abrams - but a heavily armored troop carrier/support tank could easily serve the Bradley’s purpose both on open terrain and within a city.
As for the Stryker, I’ve heard that it is a flaming piece of crap. Guess I have some reading to do on that one.
Bookkeeper, some corrections:
The Merkava (any Mark) is indeed primarily an MBT, although I’ve never liked the rather patronizing “specifically designed for our kind of fighting” tag - couldn’t you say the same thing about the M-1? The Merkava is slightly slower and slightly better protected than its counterparts, that’s all. I’m no tanker, so I couldn’t say if it was better or worse than the Abrams of Leopard classes, but I’d be willing to bet that the differences between then are mainly cosmetic.
Anyway, the Merkava can, in fact, carry up to 6 infantrymen, very uncomfortably, if you are willing to take out 2/3 of the tank’s ammo. I understand that it’s used quite often to transport small teams short distances in as much safety as they’re likely to get.
As for tank-based APCs, you have two basic types of beasts. The first are the Centurian-based vehicles such as the Nagmachon, Nagmashot or Puma, which were indeed designed for urbean and other low-intensity warfare. They’re heavily armored, often with a pillbox-like construction on top, and the only way to access them is through hatches on the top, making them useless in full scale battle. The other type is the Achzarit, which is based on the T-55 and much more heavily romodded, with 14 tons of armor added, engine replaced and rear hatch added. Although it is also used in urban warfare, its primary purpose is as a front-line battle system, designed to carry the infantry escort for armored divisions, much like the Bradley is for the U.S. In any case, it’s unique, as no military in the world has such a heavily armored infantry vehicle.
From what I understand, the Bradley is too lightly armored (not much more than an M-113, in fact), carries too few troops and has too much weaponry, which makes it more vulnerable to enemy fire.
The Bradley is a fine vehicle for the scenario it was designed for, a large-scale open battlefield war against an equal superpower. Its protection is equivalent or superior to many of its IFV counterparts around the world, and it packs more firepower than almost all of them. Far from being useless, the autocannon was designed with a very high maximum elevation for some fantasy-land antiaircraft purpose and while that may have been a waste of money on a battlefield, it’s a handy trait for urban fighting. It is also enormously more powerful than a 0.50 HMG, make no mistake. The real problem with the Bradley comes in its price tag and in its troop-carrying capacity. It’s too expensive to equip everybody with and to casually throw into high-risk scenarios, and while it might haul enough troops to get the job done in the Fulda Gap, and there are plenty of people who think it doesn’t even do that, it certainly doesn’t cut it for urban fighting, where the desired force ratio is more heavily skewed towards infantry.
As far as I’ve seen, the Stryker gets its criticism only because it is what it’s supposed to be, a light, cheap vehicle, and that classification comes with inescapable tradeoffs. Any and every vehicle lighter than a main battle tank is going to be “very vulnerable to RPG hits”. Even MBTs become vulnerable to them in urban situations, as their weaker areas become much easier to hit due to the close terrain and, at worst, increased elevation. The simple fact is that RPGs and their ilk are powerful weapons at close range, and the armor level required to give reliable protection against them is simply prohibitive if you want a cheap, airliftable vehicle. Expecting a universal troop carrier/fighting vehicle to be immune to RPGs is like expecting a diplomat’s bulletproof vest to be immune to heavy rifle rounds. It’s not going to happen, there are higher priorities involved.
Alessan, I didn’t want to get into the business of removing the ammo from the back and using the Merkava to haul troops because it is not often done and is also not really designed to do this as a standard practice. As I understand it, this is a convenient expedient use of a design feature included for other reasons. As for the “designed for Israeli needs”, this is not intended to disparge it, but merely to recognize that Israeli requirements differ from German requirments which differ from US requirements, etc. The Merkava is certainly the best protected and possibly the best armed MBT today, and, while not the fastest, can probably outmanuever any competing tank in rough terrain like the Golan Heights.
The current version of the Bradley is protected against 30mm fire with the add-on armour (normally installed), while the most recent version of the M113 is only protected against 14.5mm with add-on armour (provision included but not actually installed). You may be thinking of the Stryker, which is protected against small arms fire and shell fragments, about the same as the basic M113. Anecdotal reports from Iraq indicate that neither the Bradley or the Stryker has suffered much from enemy attacks, but this may be due mostly to the average attackers’ incompetance and reluctance to close to effective range for their weapons.
Paladud, I can’t agree that the Bradley is “unfit for city fighting”. While it has problems with city fighting, most armoured vehicles do, which is why close co-operation with infantry is a tactical requirement for urban fighting. Note that the current US Army plans are to replace the 50 cal. MG with a 25mm weapon, which is seen as a more useful size. (Although I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the Ma Deuce yet!).
Granted. You should bear in mind, however, that in the IDF, the distance between “convenient expedient use of a design feature” and "doctrine is often pretty small. Israeli officers and soldiers tend to see the original usage of any piece of equiptment as a recommendation, at best. Consider the FN-MAG 7.62mm machine gun. It was originally designed for use as a defensive weapon, to be shot lying down from a bypod or tripod. Well, I was taught to use it as an assault weapon, firing on the run with the stock in my armpit and my left hand gripping the left bipod leg. I even wrapped the bipod with some heavy rope to get a better grip, because it certainly wasn’t designed for that kind of use.
My point is, there’s very little appreciation of “doing things by the book” in the IDF. In fact, I don’t think the IDF even has a “book”. At best, they have a loose collection of Post-Its. And people I know tell me that the Merkavah is used as a battle taxi all the time nowadays, especially in the hotter locations.
A noble sentiment.
M2 Bradley
6.5 meters long
3.6 meters wide
2.5 meters tall
M998 Humvee
4.6 meters
2.5 meters
1.9 meters
Not a huge difference. Not to mention, the tracked Bradley can turn ‘on itself’, whereas the Humvee cannot. Not to say the Humvee is a terrible vehicle, it is not. They are two different designs, once as a general-purpose transport, the other as a Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
Quantify ‘very vulnerable’. To date, no incident of an RPG striking a Bradley has resulted in a catastrophic failure, that is, no secondary explosions and no total incapacitation of the crew. Further, why would a 25mm cannon be less effective than a 12.7mm machine gun? What do you base that rather sweeping statement on? I have to guess that you base it on jack-sh!t. The M242 is a fine weapon, capable of firing a variety of effective munitions. It has excellent elevation and declination, (not that it will need to fire ‘up’), and the Bradley also has a coaxial 7.62mm MG. Fine firepower, especially when combined with the TOW launcher, which has seen use a ‘bunker buster’.
And how will we get it to the city in a timely manner? If an uber-APC were designed to your specifications, how much more than the current ~30 tons will it weigh? Don’t forget, the American Army must be mobile. No 100 ton Maus supertanks for us, thank you.
Yep. It has suprised even its critics (I was among them). Crews love 'em, they are light, easy to maintain, and suprisingly tough.
Until you demonstrate a based on facts need to replace the much-maligned but excellent performing Bradley, I gotta disagree with your entire premise. Methinks the Bradley is a damned fine vehicle, and experience has demonstrated that.
FWIW, and from my understanding, the rear doors on the Merkava were originally designed to facilitate rapid reloads, as the Israeli tankers were burning ammo at an alarming rate in '73. (With good reason, mind you.) Every minute counts in a country that small, so anything that could speed up the process of moving dozens of heavy shells into tank is a good thing. (Probably.)
Not to mention, the Merkava has some other features you won’t find on other tanks: Front mounted engine, which enhances crew survivability, a 60mm mortar, massive ammo bins, and other little tweaks.
And Alessan, it’s shouldn’t (always) be considered an insult when people say, “Their style of warfare” or whatnot. Israel knows exactly where their next large tanks battles will be, and they designed a tank around that knowledge, with huge ammo supply and top-notch crew survivability at the top of the list. Nothing wrong with that. Now what about the rumours of IDF help in tracking down Iraqi militants in Iraq? Huh? 
And my amazing prediction of the day: The M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley represent the last tracked tank and IFV that America will ever design and produce for her own army. The FCV is looking like a wheeled design, now that the Stryker has shown the way.
Can’t forget, we gotta get our combat to where its going to be used, and the lighter, the better…
Thanks for the clarification, Alessan. As an interested amateur with little personal military experience, it’s always nice to get info straight from the horse’s mouth. Actual practice by soldiers in the field frequently changes or ignores the “book” doctrine, and I would expect the Israeli soldier to be even freer than most in doing so.
Yep Israel is notorious for adapting and modifying just about everything in their military arsenal.
Will the US be able to do the same ?
Brutus, points well taken. Thanks for the enlightenment.